|
Home
Speed News
Speeding Survey
Camera Misuse
Govt Consultation
Geodesy Review
Valentine One
Links
Forum
|
|
|
|
From what you've read elsewhere you may have got the
impression that the Home Office's current consultation document proposes a
new draconian regime where all motorists will take to the roads in fear.
We've spent some time analysing the document and whilst we believe some
sections are misguided, it's not time to throw away the car keys just yet.
Most of the document is concerned with providing greater
ranges of penalties for the courts to inflict on motorists convicted of
offences and particularly with dealing with repeat offenders. Whilst the
majority of readers of this site have points on their licence for
speeding, few of us would condone the actions of joyriders, drunk drivers,
car ringers, uninsured drivers, drugged drivers etc. On the
contrary, all too many people have attended court for speeding offences
and walked away in disgust, having received fines and penalties similar
to, or in excess of those dished out to the unsavoury characters convicted
for the more dangerous and distasteful motoring crimes.
The contents of the Home Office proposal - speeding
legislation exempted - go some way to addressing the lack of power of the
courts in dealing with these offences. So what are the proposals?
| 1 |
Changing the 'totting up' system.
In order to give the courts more flexibility when dishing out
penalty points, it's suggested that the current limit of 12 points
be extended to 20. Courts could then exercise more discretion when
applying points to licences.
The minimum tariff for a 'low-level' offence would be 5 points
though, still only requiring four low level offences to be
committed before receiving a totting up ban. |
|
| 2 |
Retraining
A driver acquiring 10 points under the new system would be
offered the opportunity to 'retrain' and hence have five points
deducted from their total.
The training would be undertaken at the driver's own expense
however, deterring some people. |
|
| 3 |
Totting up disqualification as a fixed Penalty
It should be possible for offenders to choose to accept a
fixed penalty even where to do so would bring their penalty points
up to or beyond totting up level. In that event offenders would
automatically be awarded, in addition to the fixed penalty, a six
month disqualification with no need to attend court.
A reduction of 20% in the period of disqualification could be
earned by successful attendance at a driver retraining and
improvement programme.
This automatic banning is estimated to save 35,000 court
hearings saving £7m a year.
Once again the issue of voluntary retraining is raised. Could
the £7m saving not be used to provide the compulsory
training/testing? |
|
| 4 |
Long life points
It's proposed that someone committing offences within three
years of serving a ban of more than 56 days would receive long
life points. These would stay on the licence for six years instead
of three. |
|
| 5 |
Requalifying after disqualification
Drivers disqualified for a substantial amount of time would be
required to retake their driving test. |
|
| 6 |
Decoupled Community Penalties
Use of Community Service Orders has been suggested where the
option of a jail sentence is not available. It would cost an
estimated £44.1 million to administer however. |
|
| 7 |
Forfeiture of Vehicles
The proposal outlines a view that permanent forfeiture of a
vehicle should be made easier and should be contracted out to
third party companies rather than involving the police. |
|
| 8 |
Causing Death by Dangerous Driving
Disqualification to be for a minimum of three years (or,
possibly, for life). Disqualification to be for life (possibly
reviewed after a substantial period of time, 10 years for example)
where the defendant had previously committed an offence of
dangerous driving, or causing death by dangerous driving, or
causing death by aggravated vehicle taking, or causing death by
careless driving while under the influence of drink or
drugs. |
|
| 9 |
Causing death by careless driving while under
the influence of drink or drugs
No change in the powers of imprisonment, but disqualification to
be for a minimum of three years (or, possibly, for life).
Disqualification to be for life where the defendant had previously
committed a similar offence. |
|
| 10 |
Causing Death by Aggravated Vehicle Taking
Maximum penalty to be increased to ten years in prison.
Minimum ban to be three years. Disqualification to be for life if
a similar offence has been committed previously. |
|
| 11 |
Dangerous Driving and Aggravated Vehicle Taking
Maximum term of imprisonment to be increased to five years.
Minimum ban three years. Lifetime disqualification for repeat
offenders. |
|
| 12 |
A new penalty for a 'Higher Level of Alchohol'
This proposal calls for a longer minimum ban to be applied to
drivers who get totally plastered then try to drive. |
|
| 13 |
Repeat Drink Drivers
A second drink-driving convinction within ten years would
result in a ban of longer than the three years currently
implements. An extended retest would also be required. |
|
| 14 |
Driving while Disqualified
A wider range of community penalties to be available in
addition to the existing option of six months imprisonment.
Permanent or temporary forfeiture of the vehicle. A minimum
two-year disqualification for a second offence within 10 years
(which would always trigger a retest requirement.) |
|
| 15 |
Driving without a licence
In addition to existing penalties, Community Service Orders
should be made available particularly in order to punish people
who shouldn't be driving anyway (under age etc.)
Penalties would also be available against those who permitted the
offence to take place (e.g. friend/relative letting unlicenced
driver use their car.) |
|
| 16 |
Driving While Uninsured
In addition to existing penalties, Community Service and
vehicle forfeiture should be options to the courts. |
|
| 17 |
Careless or inconsiderate Driving
Changes are suggested to the penalties available to the courts for
dealing with this offence although they're not well defined.
Forcing a retest and further training is key, as is the option of
community service. 15 points would automatically be slapped on
your licence if found guilty of a second offence of careless
driving within five years. |
|
| 18 |
Speeding
"Breaking the speed limit is by far the most common
motoring offence, accounting for around one million cases per
year. The DETR Speed Review 5 indicates that speed is a factor in
one third of all collisions". This is a commonly disputed
claim with many groups claiming that the figure of a third might
be an exaggeration of up to tenfold.
The review document calls for a two tier approach to punishment
of speeding offences with extreme cases being dealt with more
severely and possibly incurring charges of dangerous driving
instead. |
|
Stage 1
A second stage to be implemented at a later date would
impose even more severe penalties. Stage 2
It begs the question what the penalties for exceeding
the second tier limits would be!?
| 19 |
Document Fraud
Greater powers should be made available to deal with people
forging documents, ringing cars etc. |
|
| 20 |
Using vehicles in dangerous or overloaded condition
Community Service should be an optional penalty and penalties
should be more severe for repeat offenders with a mandatory
disqualification. |
|
| 21 |
Bus Lanes
Local authorities should be able to issue fixed penalties for
bus lane offences with the same powers as the police. |
|
| 22 |
Fixed Penalties
All offences for which fixed penalties are available should carry
the same minimum penalties if tried in court. This is a measure
designed to save 123,000 court hearings as people accept that the
minimum penalties will be incurred if found guilty in court. Not
convinced of this one! |
|
Not a massively contentious range of proposals except for the second
stage speeding penalties. Whilst difficult to argue with in isolation -
after all a speed limit is the legal limit, like it or not - it does
continue to reinforce the 'anti-speed' message in isolation from other
factors.
Penalising motorists for traveling too fast is not the best tool
available if reducing casualty rates is the ultimate goal. Providing
better training for all drivers is an option, although a costly one.
Changing road layouts, improving sight lines, improving road surfaces are
better methods of reducing accidents than simply erecting cameras,
although of course once again this costs.
So what can we do? Well it's no good throwing our hands up in horror
each time legislation is proposed that affects the motorist. Attacking
this legislation in its entirety will do little to address the fundamental
misconceptions about road safety that continue to be paraded around the
media.
We have a duty as enthusiasts, to promote more constructive debate
about the wider aspects of road safety and driver education. If we
continue to be seen as obsessed with speed enforcement alone, then we
merely contribute to the misconception that speed is the ultimate culprit.
Unless we promote wider debate, we might all be driving 2CV's in ten years
from now.
The full consultation document can be found here
(PDF file)
|