Brake claims that a new survey it has published today (21 March) shows there is “overwhelming public support” for tougher charges and penalties for drivers who kill and injure.
The charity says this would “provide desperately needed justice for victim families, and deter risky driving”.
In the survey of 1,000 drivers, four out of five respondents (82%) said they think sentences should be higher for “drivers who kill”. The majority also think drivers who cause death while drink or drug driving (85%), speeding (66%) or on their phone (64%) should get five years or more in prison. And 95% of respondents said penalties should be tougher for “killer drivers who flee the scene”.
Brake says that currently only six out of 10 people (62%) convicted of killing someone through risky driving are jailed, and only 9% are sentenced to five years or more in prison.
Brake is calling for “bold action” including revising charges for causing death and serious injury, so drivers are not “let off” on a lesser careless driving charges.
The charity is also calling for much stiffer penalties for hit and run and disqualified drivers who cause death, and stronger sentencing guidelines for judges so maximum sentences are handed out in the most serious cases.
Brake is urging members of the public to write to their MP in support of its Crackdown campaign.
Julie Townsend, deputy chief executive, Brake, said: "We want the Government to acknowledge how inadequate current charges and penalties are and take action to prevent traumatised families suffering further insult.
“Denying justice to victim families often has a terrible impact on their ability to rebuild and move forward with their lives. Brake bears witness to the consequences for these vulnerable families every day through its support services for bereaved and injured crash victims.
“Our justice system should make clear that risky, illegal behaviour on roads is no accident: it’s selfish, destructive, and unacceptable.
“Our report shows huge public support for this campaign, and in Parliament MPs are mobilising for action across the political parties.
“We’re calling for the Government to listen to the bereaved families courageously speaking up on this issue, and seize the opportunity to fix this long-running issue."
Hugh
I think it would depend on the type of 30 limit. In some 30 limits, it would be deliberate and reckless to drive above 20. Some 30 limits are on dual carriageways in non residential areas where even highly cautious drivers would drive naturally and safely at 50. A fixed number in a circle cannot possibly define some magical threshold of safety with the varying characteristics and circumstances (even minute to minute) along a road.
Promoting the idea of responsible and observant driving would surely reduce KSIs by far more than the 0.5% of “speeding” drivers – particularly as the kind of speeding that results in the worst situations will be likely to have other more serious factors such as racing, road rage, drink, showing off, etc, which limits and a NIP landing on the doormat days later are hardly likely to solve.
Dave Taylor, Guildford
0
Idris:
Referring to the news story, I think there’s a distinction between drivers/riders who habitually knowingly, deliberately and recklessly, flout the law and common ‘safety’ sense on the roads and those who don’t, but who nevertheless may unintentionally, infrequently make a mistake.
Take, for example, someone doing 47mph in a 30mph zone – I would say that was a deliberate and reckless act and not a ‘mistake’.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh.
Speeding is in most cases a conscious decision but not infrequently arises through error – being mistaken about the limit on an unfamiliar road, not noticing that the limit has changed on a long-familiar road, being distracted by something else happening etc.
Furthermore, risk is present in everything everyone does and we all adjust our behaviour, consciously or unconciously, to achieve the balance we consider acceptable. See “Risky Business” by Dr. John Adams. There is no doubt whatever that 30m+ drivers consider the (tiny) risk they take every time they venture onto the roads, on foot or in a vehicle, is an acceptable one.
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
A good point from Doug that we should only look at prosecutions AFTER we have fully analysed and learnt from every accident or incident. The rush to punish means that investigations are only interested in finding out who at the sharp end was most at fault and so any lessons that can be learnt are sidelined and lost forever.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
It’s not ‘acceptable’, because speeding is a conscious and therefore avoidable act by those involved, just as much as all the other reckless behaviour on the roads which leads to the KSIs.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I disagree with Hugh. I feel that 0.5% of speeding drivers causing a KSI in their lifetime is an acceptable risk. 200,000 drivers with a lifetime’s driving of say 60 years, that is 7 a year, I don’t find that unacceptable.
Bobbio Chiswell Green
0
Let’s start with the basics in place, more trained roads policing officers enforcing the existing legislation will reduce the ‘bad’ drivers and poorly maintained vehicles. The risk of getting caught will increase and directly affect the reckless element along with the drink drivers. In my experience many of the fatals involve criminality such as drink or drugs, with speeding being an additional causation factor. Many drivers involved in such collisions are the disqualified, uninsured or unlicensed. This includes single vehicle accidents.
Olly, Lancs
0
From Dave’s statistic we can infer that 0.5% of speeding drivers (by my reckoning about 200,000 out of 38 million driving license holders) will cause a KSI in their lifetime – which, I’m sure we’d all agree, is unacceptable.
Rather than wait till the 0.5% become the “killer drivers”, we need to pre-empt this with more enforcement – sooner not later.
(Apologies to Eric – perhaps he was right after all to introduce speed cameras into this thread)
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
The evidence does seem to support Duncan’s argument. For example, over 99.5% of drivers will never cause a fatal or serious injury while speeding in their entire lifetime. Ref 5 here:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile_refs.htm
If you wanted an example of leading questions, Brake’s survey might serve well. Q1 sets the tone and it may seem surprising they found anyone, let alone 18%, to disagree. As an example of how the survey may not represent public opinion, imagine performing the survey again but add these 2 questions first:
Q1 Have you ever made a mistake or committed an offence while driving?
Q2 Although you may try your best to be safe, can you guarantee never to injury anyone while driving?
Then ask all the original questions. I suspect the results could be significantly different, and if all the questions were rewritten so that they didn’t lead the respondent, different again.
Dave Finney, Slough
0
As far as I can see, as the name suggests, Brake have been mostly about “driving slowly”. What we see here seems to be a step in the right direction. Telling drivers they must not jump a red light, even when it might be in the middle of the night and there clearly is not another vehicle for miles around, or not to hold a mobile phone, when operating it “legally” in a cradle or any other distraction drivers experience might be just as or more dangerous, or telling them they must not exceed a 30 limit, whether it happens to be an out of town dual carriageway originally designed with a 60 or 70 limit, or a busy narrow street with parked cars and kids playing, might be ineffective in gaining the respect and attention of drivers.
But tell them that if they kill someone they will be punished severely is something that makes sense and no one can argue with. And if this led to enforcement activities being better targeted at dangerous driving, rather than the most easily detected and profitable “offences”, all the better.
Dave Taylor, Guildford
0
Once again, I am astonished – this time that a majority of comments do not think that those who install cameras that lead directly to fatal accidents should even be prosecuted, let alone jailed. Are they not aware that these people owe a duty of care to road users, and are bound by the Health and Safety Act?
Brake says “drivers who cause death while…speeding” is sadly typical of Brake’s flawed and naive analysis. Is that opinion qualified in any way whether speeding was a contributory factor? e.g. if an accident caused by something else entirely (drink, drugs falling asleep etc) happened at just over the limit rather than just under it, the difference in speed making no difference at all to the accident, that this alone should add years to the prison sentence?
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
0
Surveys are all very well, so let’s have one on the increase in pressure experienced by ordinary people who happen to have to drive to conduct their ever-increasingly onerous duties as they try to negotiate the red tape and the endless controls, rules and regulations modern government imposes. Some of the stress, rush, expectation and pressure of modern life is responsible for accidents and it’s time this was scientifically studied. As a society we must stop taking the easy option and blaming the immediate and obvious target. Every accident has an immediate, an underlying and a root cause and ALL of them should be analysed before we start waving the finger of blame.
Doug Harris Stockton-on-Tees
0
Here in Northern Ireland I was asked to support the “local” BRAKE people. My reply was until they changed their rhetoric and attitude towards motorcyclists – riders of Powered Two Wheelers I said no. http://www.brake.org.uk/info-resources/info-research/road-safety-factsheets/15-facts-a-resources/facts/476-motorcyclists-in-crashes-with-pedestrians-and-cyclists
This and the survey and comments by BRAKE on their call for crackdown on “killer drivers” just makes my mind gloss over and maybe miss something positive they may have to say!
Trevor Baird – Northern Ireland
0
Duncan:
I have to refer you to my last response to Eric. Much as you curiously seeem to be in denial on the failings of people, I can assure you that there are people out there who regularly and knowingly drive or ride recklessly and who will not change their behaviour, and I believe these are the ones Brake and the survey respondents are talking about. The problem is, the punishments come too late i.e. after the damage has been done and no, it won’t bring back the deceased, so the solution is to deal with them before they kill and mame which I think is where we came in on this thread – stringent enforcement.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I think we can all agree that the real baddies do need jailing, if only to protect the general public from their actions, but what campaigns like this do is to attempt to jail the innocent as well and that is completely unacceptable.
Most fatal accidents are not the result of a deliberate act, but instead are the confluence of a number of errors each playing their deadly part in the tragic event. By demanding that everybody that is at the sharp end of any fatal accident should be jailed for their part in the tragedy is to deny the fact that even the most careful and considerate of drivers can be involved in a fatality. There is nothing that anybody can do to bring back someone who has been killed in an accident, but what can be done is to learn from that accident, find out what the errors and failings actually were and determine ways in which they can be prevented from happening again. Learning provides a much longer lasting memorial to the victim than having some poor soul sitting rotting in a cell. I was castigated on this forum for saying that a punishment culture existed in the road safety industry and yet here is the perfect example of what I was saying.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
The headline refers to “killer drivers” Eric. People whose knowing reckless and dangerous actions whilst behind the wheel, have caused a death on the road. The actions referred to are conscious actions, such as driving under the influence, speeding etc as listed in the article, not motorists driving responsibly but who, in your eyes anyway, have miraculously been ’caused’ to crash by a dubious link to an outside influence. Time to let it go.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh:
I made the comment because cameras have been implicated in deaths on the road. Brake are presumably concerned about all deaths on the road.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Eric’s comment seems to have an air of desperation about it. The article isn’t about speed cameras anyway.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Does Brake also agree that where the presence of a speed camera has been a contributory factor to a death (ie the crash would not have occurred had the camera not been there) then the camera authority should be prosecuted along the same lines as they propose here?
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0