|
|
|
LEARN AND LIVE’S RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION PAPER
Learn a Learn and Live was started as the result of tragedy and its core supporters have all suffered bereavement as a result of road accidents, but we are still conscious of the fact that as drivers ourselves, we are all prone to error.
For this reason, Learn and Live has concentrated on training and restrictions at the outset of the driving process rather than on increasing penalties "after the event", a strategy which has not proved to be particularly successful so far.
We are therefore anxious to distinguish between incidents that are the result of "normal" or reasonable behaviour and those that result from intimidating and aggressive behaviour and/or blatant and persistent disregard for the safety of others.
Another point of concern is that the general public considers driving a motor vehicle a right, rather than a privilege.
We agree that disqualification is the most effective penalty and deterrent and the mandatory lifetime removal of that privilege in response to repeated or blatant abuse should be used much more widely as the ultimate deterrent.
Much of the rationale behind our training strategy is to instil in the new and especially the young driver, the responsibility and privilege of using a car on the roads and that this should not be seen as a cheap, easy or casual means of getting around.
We feel obliged to point out that the claim on Page 1 "that some 95 per cent of motorists, get through the year without committing an endorsable offence" may well be false. There will surely be many more offenders who did not happen to be caught.
Where photographic evidence is used, we understand that drivers could be charged and convicted for speeding or failing to observe a traffic sign, but the fact that they might be uninsured or untaxed escapes detection.
Our response follows the order of the paper itself.
To provide greater flexibility to the courts in awarding points related to the seriousness of the offence, and also for purposes connected with a new structure of fixed penalty speeding offences, penalty points and endorsements on licences should be revalued.
· The idea of increasing the range of penalty points has merit ONLY if the intervening values are sensibly used. The current crude criteria do not reflect the varying degree of seriousness of offences under different conditions. There is definitely scope here to allow magistrates some personal discretion and to acknowledge the increasing seriousness of speeding etc. under more hazardous external conditions such as fog, ice, traffic volume etc.
Those receiving an endorsement or penalty points which take their points total up to or beyond 10 points should ideally be offered automatically the opportunity to attend, at their own expense, a driver retraining and improvement programme. Successful completion of the course would earn remission of 5 points. Those disqualified for a period of over 56 days up to and including 12 months should be automatically offered the same with a remission of 20% of the period of disqualification. 13
· Strongly supported. We prefer the course be compulsory, otherwise that the courts be recommended and encouraged to offer the courses to those accruing 10 penalty points.
Offenders can 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.
· Supported, provided there is no chance that they would have received a longer period of disqualification had they gone to court.
For a period of three years after resuming driving following disqualification far more than 56 days, any fresh penalty points or endorsements awarded as a result of further offences or fixed penalties would remain on the licence for six years, not three.
· Supported.
A driver sentenced to disqualification for a substantial period of time should be required, as an automatic consequence of not being allowed to drive for such a period, to requalify. (As to the appropriate period of disqualification- see below).
· Supported.
Community sentences such as community service orders, involving service particularly relevant to driving and road safety, could be made available for some offences for which imprisonment is not available.
· Absolutely essential but extremely expensive to run properly. We do not feel that it would be appropriate for offenders sentenced to community service, to be working in hospital A&E departments since it would delay essential treatment by the professionals, who are already overworked.
Procedures for permanent forfeiture of vehicles should no longer involve the police, and should be contracted out to vehicle removal companies. A new penalty - temporary forfeiture - should be made available to the courts for certain offences.
·Strongly supported in principle. In addition, the use of temporary forfeiture could be a very useful option. However, how would we ensure that offenders were unable to purchase another cheap car and how would this work for drivers of company cars?
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. Permanent or temporary forfeiture of the vehicle would be available.
·Supported.
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. Permanent or temporary forfeiture of the vehicle would be available.
· The disqualification period should be related to how much alcohol or drugs are in the driver's system. Those who are two or three times over the limit should be disqualified for a minimum of at least five years and forfeiture or disablement of the vehicle should be the norm.
· These high limit offenders may well be termed substance addicts and Learn and Live would urge that any penalty should include some form of recognised medical treatment for this condition.
The maximum term of imprisonment increased to 10 years. 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. Permanent or temporary forfeiture of the vehicle would be available.
· Second offences should always result in disqualification for life.
Maximum term of imprisonment increased to five years for both these offences. Disqualification to be for a minimum of three years. 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. Permanent or temporary forfeiture of the vehicle would be available.
· Second offences should always result in disqualification for life.
The maximum penalty for the new "higher level of alcohol" offence would be the same as for the basic offence. But the minimum period of disqualification applying to the `drive and attempt to drive" offence would be longer than the basic offence. We invite views on the appropriate periods of disqualification. Disqualification would remain at the discretion of the court for the "in charge" offence and the minimum of 12 months would continue to apply for driving or attempting to drive whilst unfit. Permanent or temporary forfeiture of the vehicle would also be available. Offenders convicted o f the new offence would always be required to undertake an extended retest before regaining their licence.
· Mechanical measures such as ignition interlocks should be used for this category of offence in addition to forfeiture and other penalties.
· This new penalty should cover drugs as well as alcohol. Drug abuse leading to accidents is growing but detection is proving a problem; there is no equivalent to the breathalyser yet. As all drug taking is illegal there could never be a "limit" as such but there could still be a "higher level" for drugs as is envisaged for alcohol.
For any second drink-drive offence within 10 years, disqualification, where applicable, should at least remain at the current minimum period of three years but could be increased. We invite views on this issue. The second drink-drive offence within 10 years would also result in a requirement to undertake an extended retest. We propose that two convictions for drink-drive offences within ten years, in which one or both of the offences is a higher level offence or failing to provide a specimen where disqualification is obligatory should attract a minimum period of disqualification in excess of that applying to repeat commission of basic offences (currently three years).
·Mechanical measures such as ignition interlocks should be used for this category of offence in addition to forfeiture and other penalties. It should never be possible for offenders prosecuted for failing to provide a breath test to receive a lighter penalty than they would receive for the drink-driving offence. This travesty of justice must be ended.
·Driver improvement courses should precede extended retesting.
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.)
· All defendants, facing a possible ban, should be required to bring another driver to Court or use public transport
· The idea of having offenders' cars clamped on their own drives should also be considered in appropriate cases.
In addition to existing penalties, "decoupled" community penalties to be available in any case where disqualification is available; and permanent or temporary forfeiture of the vehicle involved in the offence.
· Supported. Decoupled penalties should be recommended.
In addition to existing penalties, "decoupled" community penalties, and permanent or temporary forfeiture of the vehicle, should be available to the courts.
·Supported. Decoupled penalties should be recommended.
Available sentences to include requirement to undergo a driver retraining and improvement programme; "Decoupled" community penalties, and a fine at level 5 in place of level 4. A mandatory minimum award of 15 points for a second offence of careless driving within 5 years, or for a first offence of careless driving if within the preceding 5 years the driver had committed any of the more serious categories o f offence A minimum period of disqualification of whatever length necessary to require an automatic retest for a third or subsequent offence of careless driving within five years.
·Supported.
A new fixed penalty system for speeding offences should provide for two levels of fixed penalty, with a higher level o f points awarded to those exceeding the limit by a wide margin so as to increase the risk to them of losing their licence through totting up.
· We are conscious that, during the twelve-year course of our own campaign, public attitude to the effective training of young and inexperienced drivers has also shifted in a positive matter and we trust that we have in part contributed to this. While we accept that excessive speed for given conditions is always dangerous, we consider that the main thrust of effort and publicity should be aimed at the 30mph limit for the following reasons:
a) This is the limit most frequently abused.
b) The statistics showing the relationship between increasing damage done to pedestrians and increased speed are very compelling. The current publicity regarding these figures is still failing to reach the general public and we must find better ways of forcing home the reality behind these statistics
c) It is in these conditions that the vulnerable roadusers such as children, the elderly and cyclists are dying.
d) Speeding in this band is generally pointless, as drivers normally catch up with faster traffic at the next junction in any case.
e) The logic behind concentration on the 30 zone is more likely to gain support among the general public.
f) Concentration on the anti-social nature of urban speeding may also have a knock on effect on faster limits
· With regard to the examples given in 10.32 Figure 4, Learn and Live considers that it is ludicrous to equate penalties for speeding at 55 in a 30 zone with those for 95 on a motorway. The former should result in immediate disqualification since the likelihood of a serious outcome is so much higher. There is also a vast difference between a motorway in good weather and light traffic and the same motorway in rain, fog or ice. We need to adopt the Continental practice of compulsory reduction in speed limits in adverse weather conditions.
· The values in Figure 5 are an improvement but the differential values are still unlikely to produce the stated objectives of amended legislation i.e. reducing death and injury.
· Considerable thought needs to be given to the degree of seriousness of different speeds under different conditions - the examples given in Figure 4 are more likely to alienate the public rather than gain its support.
Imprisonment of up to six months should be made available to the magistrates' courts for these offences.
· Supported.
·It should be compulsory to display evidence of MOT, insurance and vehicle excise duty on the windscreen to make fraud more difficult, together with the current requirement to produce the full documentation for the Police within a specified period.
"Decoupled" community penalties should be available to enable the courts to deal effectively with particularly serious examples of these offences. Disqualification should be mandatory for second or subsequent offences in this category within three years; and temporary forfeiture should be available.
·Strongly supported.
Local authorities should be enabled to enforce bus lanes as well as the police, by the use of cameras. Local authorities should be empowered to deal with offenders by a fixed penalty notice.
·Supported, particularly with regard to parking. However there should be national consistency in bus lane design and as much as possible in the regulations. There should be more uniformity in periods of operation and more frequent signs detailing these periods. In some towns the latter appear to be few and far between so it can be confusing when driving in an unfamiliar town or city.
All offences amenable to fixed penalty treatment should be made subject to minimum sentences, if f tried in court, both as to points, and to the financial penalty. The minimum penalty should be set at the fixed penalty level.
·Supported
The use of short term disqualifications, even for periods as short as a fortnight or a month, could give a sharp warning to drivers whose behaviour, if it did not change, would be likely to result in a much more serious penalty including a prolonged disqualification.
·Strongly supported. Retesting should be mandatory after 1 year and at the discretion of the court after a shorter period.
For offences involving death, dangerous driving or aggravated vehicle taking, drivers that show a high level of irresponsibility in the commission of offences will always justify a substantial preventative period of disqualification. The review proposes a pattern of minimum disqualifications for the first offence. The question of whether the "special reasons" exception on the basis of which courts may decide not to disqualify in these circumstances should be removed was considered, but there may be implications in terms of the compatibility of such a measure with the European Convention on Human Rights. We would be interested to receive views as to the merits of such a change. Any comments on road traffic penalties that are not explicitly mentioned within this consultation paper, are welcomed.
·Strongly supported and no claims of hardship etc should be allowed.
·Avoiding disqualification is far too common under our present system. It devalues road traffic violations in the eyes of the public and destroys the faith of victims or their families.
Learn and Live is surprised that there is no mention of attempts to professionally assess the personalities of repeat offenders who obviously exhibit anti-social tendencies. The aggressive nature of certain drivers clearly affects their ability to drive safely. We urge that repeated offenders be required to have extended psychological assessment (at their own expense) followed by a psychiatrist's report before regaining their driving licence. This may have both a deterrent value, in addition to keeping them off the roads. Where persistent offenders are on benefit it is probably better for the State to pay as a preventative measure. It could well be cheaper than the cost of fatal crashes.
We recommend taking offenders to a mortuary to see the results of dangerous driving.
Certain types of offences, such as parking in dangerous positions which increases the risk of injury to others, should not be ignored as they are at present. Traffic police or traffic wardens should concentrate on potentially dangerous parking, rather than on catching motorists who overstay their time on a parking meter by a few minutes. Examples include delivery vans parked on the zebra crossing and police walking past vehicles parked outside banks at a set of traffic lights.
Whilst acknowledging that there are multiple factors involved, we are of the opinion that it is mainly the shift in public attitude to drinking and driving, achieved by campaign and publicity allied to legislation, that has resulted in the improved statistics (although nothing appears to influence the persistent offender).
We would urge that proactive, self-enforcing proposals be adopted wherever possible to facilitate enforcement and make any new legislation more effective.
While Learn and Live has little argument with the bulk this report, we think it is a pointless exercise unless the Crown Prosecution Service, the Courts and the Police are willing and able to put the proposals into practice. We see offenders avoiding prosecution or receiving risible sentences on a daily basis. There is no point in increasing maximum prison sentences when courts are under pressure not to hand out the current maximums and the prisons are already over-crowded. Unless there is real commitment and the necessary funding is provided, it is just turning road traffic offences into a farce.
We are also very concerned that political expediency will once again rule and any legislation will be lost because of elections, or delayed, allowing more people to die on our roads.
Measures to improve driver training and reduce exposure to risk are much more likely to achieve our aim of cutting the death toll on our roads.
|
|
 |
|