RDRF RESPONSE
TO:RDRF RESPONSE
TO:The Road Danger Reduction Forum (RDRF) is a local government road safety organisation whose membership includes 26 local authorities. The RDRF welcomes attempts to make the system of Road Traffic Penalties more efficient and capable of acting as a deterrent and corrective to behaviour that endangers the safety of road users.
1. We support the principle that higher penalties for various driving offences, if backed up by appropriate levels of enforcement, can lead to an increase in the general level of safety of drivers. (Para 1.3) and welcome it's publication.
2. We believe that driver re-training can play a useful role in reducing danger on the road. However, we are concerned that unless this is widespread, rather than for a small minority of drivers who may have simply been an unlucky sample of those who could have been convicted, the effects will be lower than could be aimed for. We are also concerned that an emphasis on training of offenders can lead to the impression that motoring offences are not "real crimes".
3. We are concerned that the Home Office and DETR believe that:" Some 95% of motorists…get through the year without committing an endorsable offence. This goes a long way in showing how the average motorist does have a generally responsible attitude towards safety on our roads" (Paragraph 1.4). It is well documented that the average motorist regularly behaves in ways which infringe the Highway Code, and which could be seen as unlawful, criminally negligent or law breaking in ways which may constitute careless or dangerous driving. The majority of motorists regularly break laws with regard to speed, with other rule or law-breaking acts committed billions of times annually. A lack of awareness of this indicates just how far the Government is from properly assessing the extent of lawless behaviour on our roads. Infringement of the law is different from being apprehended for infringement of the law.
4. We are saddened that there has not been a comprehensive assessment of road traffic law (Paragraph 3.1) as has been suggested by many of us concerned with road safety.
5. We welcome the statements which indicate that most traffic offences are committed by the majority of drivers. (Para 8.2)
6. Most of all, we believe that without appropriate resources, even the small minority of the worst offenders will be largely unaffected by changes in the suggested possible changes. The principal problem with road traffic law is that there is only a minimal chance of it being enforced: in such circumstances the perception of apprehension, which is the basis for deterring potential offenders, will be too low for the law to work properly to ensure safe roads for all.
7. We concerned that much of the change suggested appears to be driven by supposed resource implications. We believe that this should not be a dominant consideration, and that anyway significantly increased enforcement of the law and increased levels of sentencing will bring far greater resource benefits from reductions in Road Traffic Accidents and elsewhere.
We believe that the ability to travel without the fear of being hurt or killed by another's actions is a requirement of a civilised society. This cannot always be achieved by engineering the road environment or vehicles on it, or by properly training everybody to use the roads in the correct manner. Therefore the relevant laws must be enforced, with the primary deterrent of disqualification likely to be effective if penalties are sufficient and it is known that there is a significant risk of apprehension. Finally, the victims of others' irresponsibility and their families must know that the offenders responsible are to be properly accountable under law.
The proposals made in the document can, with appropriate resources, make a small step in that direction, which should be extended as soon as possible.
For further advice contact: Ken Spence (City of York Council) 01904 551331, Mike Baugh (Bath and North East Somerset Council) 01225 394254, Robert Davis 020 8451 1309, Cathy McKenzie 020 7502 0406.
1. Totting up should be up to no more than 12 points, with increased points for offences.
2. Retraining should not result in fewer overall disqualification days, as disqualification chances should be increased by heavier penalties and higher chances of being caught. Any reduction in disqualification days should come from better driving standards. Disqualification should be costed in terms of benefits in reduced congestion, danger to other road users and accident reduction.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed, although six years should apply for the points system generally.
5. Agreed
6. We are concerned that the cost of £44million should be seen as a problem. If necessary these costs could be more than recouped by increasing levels of fines to a deterrent level and monies received from the sale of confiscated vehicles - although revenue collection is not the reason for these measures to be pursued. Community service should not be seen as an alternative to custodial sentences where appropriate.
7. Agreed. This should be employed on a significant scale. We are les certain about employing this for short periods of time.
8. Agreed. The definition of "dangerous" should be amended to allow for deaths by what is now regarded as careless driving where so-called vulnerable road users are involved (See ELF report above).
9. Agreed. We are uncertain how this might occur given the virtually non-existent possibility of being caught for offences where drugs - whether prescribed, proprietary or illegal - are concerned.
10. and 11. We are concerned that many in society only take motoring offences seriously where theft of property is involved. Otherwise agreed.
12. We are broadly sympathetic to this. However, it must not impede or detract high level enforcement for existing levels. The same applies to Proposal 13.
14. AND 15 and 16. We are opposed to bringing the chances of imprisonment for this key offence down to an average of 45 days in prison. Higher chances of being caught and more heavily sentenced would reduce this kind of behaviour, reduce RTAs to a lower social and economic cost, and be required anyway for a civilised society.
17. The level and extent of sentencing of careless drivers - the most common and most important offence- should be increased, with higher levels of fines paying for any additional costs, with costs outweighed anyway by reduced RTAs. If necessary these costs could be more than recouped by increasing levels of fines to a deterrent level and monies received from the sale of confiscated vehicles - although revenue collection is not the reason for these measures to be pursued. We believe in the use of higher levels of penalties, including Fixed Penalty Notices, with higher chances of apprehension and conviction for offenders.
18. We reiterate the points made above about resource implications. We believe speeding should be addressed as suggested in the publication "Killing Speed" (2001) by the Slower Speeds Initiative.
22. Agreed. This can be a particularly useful change.
Chapter 1.
The RDRF has already published a response to the Government's Road Safety Strategy.
The comments in Paragraph 1.4. are noted above. Apart from the well-known and frequently published figures on the high proportion of motorists who regularly break the law on speed, we give just two examples of the extent of rule and law breaking.
1. Every year British drivers submit over 4 million insurance claims. While not all relate to the consequences of road crashes, it should be remembered that about one million motorists are not insured, that numerous collisions do not result in insurance claims anyway, and that actual collisions are only the "iceberg tip" of the total amount of rule and law breaking driver behaviour.
In 1996 Autoglass published a survey of the extent of rule breaking behaviour by British motorists, based on 22 factors associated with road collisions specified by the Transport Research Laboratory ("Causes of Road Traffic Accidents 1992 -95") . Despite being by no means inclusive of all types of bad driver behaviour, and being based on driver self-reporting, it found that an average British driver committed no less than 50 "blunders" per week. Even taking this conservative estimate, we have a total of some 60 - 70 billion blunders per year, allowing for drivers of some 24 million cars and similar vehicles on the road. This implies that no more than one in 30 - 40 thousand "blunders" will result in an endorsement, let alone a more severe penalty. This means that only (at most) some 0.03% of behaviours which can be considered as offences involve the law being enforced.
CHAPTER 2.
We agree that "..the structure of road traffic penalties…has a part to play by signalling what is dangerous.." (Para. 2.1)
We are less sure about the idea that training is "equally important" (Para. 2.2). While re-training of motorists is necessary, it should not be restricted to that minority who happens to have been stopped and charged by the police. At present the London Driver Improvement Programme (LDIP) run by London Borough of Barnet retrains some 0.1% of London's drivers annually. This is far short of the proportion that requires re-training.
Furthermore, wherever re-training is an option rather than endorsement or banning, there is an inevitable suggestion that it is a "soft option". This is recognised insofar as programmes such as the LDIP do not take offenders who have seriously hurt or killed - yet these outcomes are often not any reflection of the relative seriousness of the poor quality of the driver behaviour.
In short, we believe in removal of any possibility of a perception that training is a "soft option", proper training for all motorists and more widespread and severe penalisation of dangerous drivers in order to reflect the severity of the behaviour.
We believe that a cultural change is required. Indeed, we thoroughly support the idea that "we must start to change any perception that those (speeding, or driving while uninsured or unlicensed) are mere regulatory offences short of the aims we should have"., although many motorists have always taken responsible stands on these issues. Where the change has to take place is with regard to offences which are less serious, such as everyday carelessness.
CHAPTER 3
Para 3.1. It is a matter of regret that the opportunity has not been taken for a more thorough revision of road traffic law and enforcement. The failures of the North Report have been debated since its publication. The author of this response gave verbal and written evidence to the North Committee and finds that many of the matters raised then have still not been resolved.
Para 3.5 states: "Changes to penalties and other sanctions do not, in themselves, have an immediate and directly measurable effect on road accidents"., We repeat that a widespread cultural change is required to facilitate appropriate measures - whether through engineering vehicles and the road environment, education and training, and law enforcement and sentencing. Nevertheless, it can be the case that a perception of the likelihood of the law being enforced with deterrent penalties can have major benefits. It is widely recognised that the introduction of breath testing for alcohol and associated legislation had a significant impact on casualty figures, albeit for a limited period of time.
CHAPTER 6
We see this Chapter as indicating some of the central difficulties presented to us in the Consultation Paper.
For example, Para 6.2. states that: "There needs to be scope for a different response to a lapse by a driver with a good record, compared with one whose past behaviour suggests that he has little respect for the law or the safety of other road users." This is in many ways a sensible sentiment, but the precise implications of it are unclear and need to be considered.
The "good record" may simply be a reflection of the low level of enforcement and prosecution prevalent. The "past behaviour….safety of other road users" driver may simply be one of the most extreme bad drivers who can be used as a "lightning conductor" to divert attention away from the "normal" drivers who commit the vast majority of bad driving behaviours.
In addition, the absence of convictions, whether through lack of apprehension by the police or not, can lead to an awareness that the first offence(s) will not be taken seriously because of the absence of a record of convictions.
Para 6.3 states "We are particularly concerned to deal with the problem of those who drive at speeds some way above the relevant legal speed limits." This problem can not only be dealt with effectively by high level enforcement, but we believe would receive widespread public support. Yet we should also say that evidence presented by the Slower Speeds Initiative suggests that there is a case for reducing speed limits across the board (thus leading to a re-definition of what is meant by the term "speeding").
Even without such necessary changes, it is still the case that most of the behaviour which endangers other road users because of excessive and inappropriate speed is not that of those of a minority "some way above" the speed limit. However, the absence of a more precise definition of "some" does make it difficult to be more specific.
CHAPTER 7
Para 7.1 We are concerned that the Government is waiting for the results of TRL research. It is already known that the chances of being prosecuted for an offence with the potential to kill or seriously hurt other road users is very small, and that the possibilities of prosecution for one of the more serious offences even smaller. The Government should be considering recommendations such as those of the Environmental Law Foundation "Options for civilizing road traffic", Environmental Law Foundation Report, 1998. This report refers to examples of practice in Europe, including the legal status of different classes of road user. The issue of creating offences of strict liability for collisions where pedestrians or cyclists are hurt or killed is suggested on the basis of the high propensity of motorists to endanger others.
In Para 7.2 we are concerned that undue attention is given to the abilities of offenders to pay fines. All offenders will have had access to a vehicle which is likely to have a value in the order of fines, and can in most cases sell it to pay fines. Imprisonment for non-payment of fines should be as much of a possibility as it is for other offences involving fining.
CHAPTER 8
Para. 8.1 refers to the connection between extreme offending and other forms of criminal activity. Obviously the worst 5% or so of motorists, as with any other group of potential offenders, will pose particular problems and should be dealt with accordingly. Nevertheless, highlighting this particularly bad minority can act as a "lightning conductor" to divert attention away from the vast majority of actual and potential offenders.
This is recognised in Para 8.2 ("the overwhelming majority of traffic offences are committed…people"). However, it should emphasise that these people are otherwise "basically law abiding people". In addition, we are concerned that the offending of such people is downgraded by use of the familiar phrase "a moment's carelessness". In the experience of road safety professionals, such supposed moments are in fact part of general carelessness, which is only referred to as a "moment" after collisions occur. Such "moments", along with tiredness and impatience should be seen as anti-social acts requiring effective law enforcement and deterrent sentencing.
We agree with Para 8.3
Para 8.5 correctly stresses disqualification as the key penalty. We fully support this. We are concerned that disabled drivers are to be seen as somehow exempt from their responsibilities. We have an Equal Opportunities approach to people with disabilities, which suggests that transport policy should be amended to provide such people with alternatives to motoring. Those disabled people who fail in their responsibilities must be treated like everybody else - we believe that full rights are only achieved with fulfilling responsibilities.
We fully support the first sentence of Paragraph 8.6.
CHAPTER 9
9.2b. We are in favour of making the totting up procedure more efficient, and to leave motorists with no doubt that an initial offence will leave them with little margin for error in the future. However, it seems that increasing the number of points required for disqualification could easily have the opposite effect. If anything, it should be reduced.
9.2 f and g Agreed
9.2 h. It could be the case that many motorists would see short-term disqualification as a minor problem, which can be dealt with by continuing to drive over that period with little risk of being apprehended.
9.2 i. We agree that the period of six years suggested should be extended to a lifetime, or longer than six years. In fact we believe that there is good reason for the totting up process to be extended from 3 to 6 years, as many motorists are aware that there is a substantial chance that their points will never be totted up to lead to disqualification because of the minuscule chances of being caught for an offence.
9.2 j Agreed.
9.2k. Community sentences should be used only for minor offences, with custodial sentences being more widely available for the more serious ones.
9.2 l. We are very sympathetic to forfeiture and confiscation of vehicles, particularly for repeat offenders and in order to deal with cases where those disqualified continue to drive. Costs of such operations can be recuperated from selling such vehicles. This does of course make temporary forfeiture as suggested in 9.2 m) less attractive to us.
Resource implications (Chapter 9 Proposals): We are very concerned at the way resource implications are treated, for the following reasons:-
1. It is unusual for the criminal law and it's enforcement to be discussed elsewhere in terms of supposed resource implications in this manner. The law should be enforced first and foremost, with appropriate deterrent sentencing, irrespective of resource implications..
2. If resource implications are considered, it should be remembered that conventional cost benefit analyses applied to road safety show that substantial costs are incurred from Road Traffic Accidents (normally in the region of some £12 billion per annum in Britain). Spending vastly greater sums on enforcement would involve an overall reduction of costs to society.
3. If, in specific cases, there are costs incurred to the community which are considered excessive, the level of fines and scale of other penalties such as confiscation and selling of vehicles can be increased to reduce such costs to the community.
4. None of the resource implications below allow for the possibility that heavier penalties and their perception should reduce the chances of offending and associated costs (see for example Proposal 2)
5. Finally, the millions of pounds referred to in each proposal should be seen not just against the costs of RTAs they are supposed to reduce,em but in the context of the billions of pounds allocated by the Government to spending on transport, such as the Ten Year Transport Plan of the current government to spend an average of £18 billion per annum on transport.
Our approach to Proposals:
1. Totting up should be up to no more than 12 points, with increased points for offences.
2. Retraining should not result in fewer disqualification days, as disqualification chances should be increased by heavier penalties and higher chances of being caught. Any reduction in disqualification days should come from better driving standards. Disqualification should be costed in terms of benefits in reduced congestion, danger to other road users and accident reduction.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed, although six years should apply for the points system generally.
5. Agreed
6. We are concerned that the cost of £44million should be seen as a problem. If necessary these costs could be more than recouped by increasing levels of fines to a deterrent level and monies received from the sale of confiscated vehicles - although revenue collection is not the reason for these measures to be pursued.
7. Agreed. This should be employed on a significant scale.
CHAPTER 10
Proposals:
8. Agreed. The definition of "dangerous" should be amended to allow for deaths by what is now regarded as careless driving where so-called vulnerable road users are involved (See ELF report above).
9. Agreed. We are uncertain how this might occur given the virtually non-existent possibility of being caught for offences where drugs - whether prescribed, proprietary or illegal - are concerned.
10. and 11. We are concerned that offences are only taken seriously where theft of property is involved. Otherwise agreed.
Paragraphs 10.14, 15 and 16. We repeat the point about virtually non-existent chances of being caught for driving under the influence of drugs.
Proposal 12. We are broadly sympathetic to this.
Paragraph 10.21 suggests that "courts already use their existing powers" for the offence of driving while disqualified. In fact, bearing in mind the small chances of getting caught, an average penalty of only a few months inside prison and most offenders not being sentenced immediately to custodial sentences, suggests that it is not taken seriously enough. If disqualification is to be the key offence, it must be taken more seriously.
R.D. 8th March 2001