Department of Infrastructures Road Safety Initiative, 2011 Part 1

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE Summary of Responses to Consultation Road Traffic and Highways (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill 2011 Part 1 Introduction The Bill, which is in Council's legislative programme for this session, has evolved in part from proposals contained in Department of Infrastructures Road Safety Initiative published in The Bill supports the Department s safety agenda and in summary introduces new driving offences and increases the sanctions for a range of offences; and it addresses issues relating to the management and enforcement of the highway. The Bill proposes amendments to the following Acts and full details can be found in the attached copy of the Bill: The Road Traffic Act 1985 Creation of new driving offences (clauses 4 to 8) Disqualification periods (clause 18) Custodial Sentences (clause 21) Manx Highway Code (clause 11) Seizure, retention and disposal of motor vehicles (clause 12) Powers to stop (clause 17) Qualified Driving Instructors (clause 19) Motor Insurance (clause 20) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1985 Parking (clause 23) Road Closures by Notices not orders (clauses 24, 25 and 35) Placing of traffic signs (clause 28) Authority for emergency signs (clause 29) Disabled persons badges (clause 31) Traffic Wardens (clause 33 and 38) Fixed Penalties (clause 37) The Highways Act 1986 Recover extraordinary costs (clause 40) Highway Improvements (clause 41) Walkways (clause 42) Temporary closures by Notice (clause 43) Cutting of Hedges (clause 44) Acquire Land (clause 45) Execution of works (clause 47) Recovery of payments (clause 48) Maximum Fines (clause 49) Road Works Code (clause 54) 1

2 Miscellaneous knock-on amendments and repeals Petty Sessions and Summary Jurisdiction Act 1927 Civil Service Act 1990 Road Transport Act 2001 Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 2006 Repeals (repeals provisions made redundant by the Bill) Part 2 The Consultation Exercise The Bill has been the subject of a public consultation exercise which ran for six weeks to 14 January The documents were distributed to Government officials by and the papers were listed on the Government website consultation page. Press releases and public notices were issued and various elements of the Bill were highlighted and discussed in the local media and on the Island s radio stations. Part 3 The Responses The Bill has elicited a favourable response. Its principal provisions, namely the creation of new driving offences, have received no objections from Members of Tynwald and only one from a member of the public. Otherwise, only a few reservations have been expressed about individual provisions. These reservations and the Departments resulting actions are detailed as follows: Department of Home Affairs The DHA expressed some concern about the costs of introducing the new driving offences. However, these were subsequently accepted as being a matter of operational prioritisation along with all enforcement matters. DHA also commented about the nature of the new offences however these matters were subsequently resolved at a meeting to clarify matters. The DHA did not agree with a two-tier alcohol limit but supported the lowering of drink-drive limits for all drivers. Their concern was principally operational and related to the need to purchase new equipment to enable two different levels to be enforced. Regarding seizure of vehicles, the DHA welcomed the proposals but noted that it would entail costs regarding the provision and maintenance of secure storage facilities. The DHA suggested that the provision should not be brought in until a self-financing scheme was identified. The Department has responded to this by explaining that the change in primary legislation enables regulations to be drafted and that the development of these will be done jointly with the DHA to enable these concerns to be fully addressed. Douglas Borough Council Douglas Borough Council were concerned about the street lighting provision which effectively gave the Department the power to undertake street lighting on all highways, a power that currently rests solely with local authorities. The Department has experienced difficulty in delivering street lighting improvements as a result and 2

3 the situation is further exacerbated because the Department is explicitly blocked from funding such improvements within existing legislation. Douglas Corporation wanted the provision in the Bill withdrawn completely because they were concerned it would make their work unduly bureaucratic. Others were also concerned about the potential loss of democracy in that the Department could effectively impose lighting works on a Local Authority who would then be liable for future maintenance. Although it is not the Departments intention to make wide or inappropriate use of the powers that would have been given to it in regard to lighting, the Department was minded to re-consider how changes could be made in a way that would be less bureaucratic and better preserve the democratic principle. After investigating several ways of adapting the Bill to address these concerns, it was decided to remove these provisions from the Bill and defer the matter to future legislation. Peel Town Commissioners The Commissioners objected to the provision to allow up to 6 vehicles to park on roads for filming. The Department would however only use this provision where appropriate. The Commissioners objected to the change to allow the Department to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic. The Department has, however, had cases where very significant damage has been done to roads beyond what might normally be expected and which are essentially well beyond the scope of its current budgets to repair, so that it is content to preserve this provision. The Commissioners raised similar concerns about the street lighting powers and were concerned these should only be used for matters of safety. They also raised similar concerns about this matter as Douglas Corporation (see above). General Registry The Chief Registrar raised an issue in that should a driver refuse to provide a specimen after being stopped for suspected drink-driving, then under the proposed new law the driver would only receive the minimum disqualification. He therefore asked if the minimum disqualification for failing to provide a specimen could be at least as long as the minimum disqualification for the highest reading, which would provide a deterrent to prevent this occurring. The Department accepted the logic of this argument and has amended the Bill to make the minimum disqualification, if no specimen provided, five years effectively closing this potential loophole. The Chief Registrar also advised the Department of the recommendations of the Fines Working Group that legislation should be amended to enable the Department to refuse to licence a vehicle or renew a driving licence if an individual had outstanding financial penalties that were motoring specific. The Department accepts this logic and has placed this item on a list for consideration under the next Road Traffic Bill. An Insurance Provider An insurance provider suggested a Pass Plus Certificate or equivalent should be introduced. The Department had a plan to instigate such an arrangement. 3

4 However, this is currently deferred due to lack of funding. The Department will continue to consider ways in which this or a similar proposal can be implemented. Residents Action Group This group raised concerns about the provisions to designate improvement lines and other items. In summary, these concerns requested that the powers be limited and restrained. Whilst a perfectly valid viewpoint, the Department would as a matter of course carry out consultation and the provisions do contain rights for affected individuals to appeal and cater for compensation. Alcohol The majority of those responding on this issue favoured lowering drink-drive limits across the board not just for R-Plate drivers and Provisional license holders as proposed. Mr Quintin Gill, MHK, raised concerns that to target such legislation on R-Plate drivers could be seen to discriminate against younger drivers. The observation was based on the reasonable assumption that most R-Plate drivers are of a younger age. The Department has since undertaken research that counter-intuitively shows that drink/drug driving related incidents in the last ten years on the Island do not have a bias towards young drivers but include representative numbers in the age range 16 to 48 years. The Department also noted a UK report that used research from countries across Europe where young drivers are restricted to a lower alcohol limit. The reduction in deaths due to drink-driving in the lower age group was 11.5%. Given the majority of respondents were in favour of a blanket lowering of limits rather than a targeted lowering, the Department has decided to defer this item for further consideration. The decision to defer rather than to amend is because the Department believes that a blanket lowering would be regarded as a major policy change and it would be proper to fully consult on such a change before proceeding. Therefore the Department is minded to further evaluate this proposal and may bring it forward in a future Road Traffic Bill. CoMin Subsequent to the consultation, CoMin raised concerns about the impact on land owners of the provisions to allow the Department to undertake improvements at entry points to private property that have been made without permission, to improve sight lines and to allow the Department to re-charge land owners for the costs of such work. Although this was a safety led initiative, this item has been withdrawn from the Bill. As part of an island-wide initiative to rationalise parking enforcement under one authority, CoMin has also instructed to the Department to transfer the traffic wardens from DHA to DOI and the Bill has been amended to reflect this change. Other Matters The Department received a request from one respondent for clarification of extraordinary traffic. Effectively these are vehicles that are not suitable for the 4

5 road concerned, being too heavy, too large, etc. 26 respondents raised concerns regarding the drink-driving or R-Plate driver proposals, most of the concerns and the Department s response have been detailed above. 3 respondents commented on the powers of authorised examiners to stop vehicles and one respondent asked how the proposals would specifically affect green lanes. Of the remaining responses received, eight said they were in favour of the proposals and two provided a no comment response. The table below details the main points raised by the respondents. Additional suggestions made by the respondents included increasing the penalties for using a mobile phone whilst driving, defining restrictions on newly qualified drivers such as no passengers under a certain age, a curfew period when the R-Plate driver should not be on the road and restricting the size and type of vehicle until the R- Plate period had been completed. One respondent asked for speed limits to be reviewed and one Local Authority raised concerns regarding the proposal to allow up to six filming vehicles to park on location. A further suggestion was the introduction of legislation that would allow photographic and automatic number plate recognition equipment to be used on the Island. The Department is not in a position at this time to investigate these suggestions for inclusion in this Bill. However, they will be investigated and assessed for possible inclusion in a future Road Traffic Bill. Part 4 Conclusion As a result of the consultation exercise the Department has made revisions to the Bill for the reasons advised above, these changes are: Street-lighting proposals withdrawn Charging to make good non-approved site access has been withdrawn Penalty for refusing a specimen has been increased Drink-driving proposals have been deferred pending possible further consultation Investigate the possibility of not licensing a vehicle or renewing a licence if the individual has outstanding motoring offences recorded The first two items have been withdrawn and the third item has been included in the Bill as introduced into the Keys. The deferred matters will be assessed by the Department and any further actions will be decided at a later date. 5

6 TABLE OF PRIMARY RESPONSES Ref Primary Responses 1 Will the department be liable for damage to vehicles, which have been immobilised? The fine when driving with a mobile phone is inadequate and they should also receive penalty points on licence. Concerned about high accident rate amongst newly qualified drivers. Nothing has been done about it. Newly qualified drivers should have the hours they can drive restricted. 11pm 6am. Newly qualified drivers should be prevented from carrying drivers under 25. Newly qualified drivers should be only allowed to drive low insurance group vehicles. 2 Pass plus certificate introduced Restriction on engine size Course for speeders 3 Opposed to clauses that introduce two of the new offences of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving and causing grievous bodily harm by careless or inconsiderate driving. Increased sentencing powers to provide the discretion to take into account broader circumstances when sentencing. Supports lowering the drink-drive limits but there will costs involved for purchasing the necessary equipment Clause 13, the provision should not be brought into force until a self financing scheme has been identified, with an external contractor, in order that no financial burden falls on the department. Clause 16, no clear problems in the past, why is there a need for significant change. Clause 49, useful to include testing and making good of any road furniture. To assist the Fire Rescue Service the Bill could include a deterrent for motorists parking illegally, when Emergency Services vehicles are denied access. The costs of placing notices in the paper should be looked at. Need to take into account the costs of the driving offences for both the Constabulary and the Attorney General s Chambers. 4 What is extraordinary traffic? 5 If you are a diabetic on insulin you always have an alcohol reading in breath and blood. No alcohol at all when driving. 6 More awareness should be made of the alcohol limits when driving. Ban any drink when driving. 7 14% of drivers are R-plate drivers, 86% aren t! What about the 86%? Alcohol level should be lowered for all fine, 4 year ban for first offence and a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days imprisonment or reduced, minimum of 2000 fine, 7 year ban and requirement for 3 rd time offenders to retake a test as they should be banned for life from driving on public roads. 8 Zone tolerance on drink driving limit. 9 Would it be possible to include an Officer of the Department to become authorised to stop vehicles as well as police officers? Where would vehicles removed from the highways be stored? 10 Provisions for the police to obtain similar powers in the Isle of Man, may lead to errors and Admin nightmare. 11 Painted roundabouts don t make drivers slow down. 12 There is no clear evidence to restrict R-Plate drivers. 6

7 13 Should be zero tolerance to drink driving. Just because someone has been driving longer doesn t mean they are safer to drive under the influence of alcohol. 14 R plates can easily be removed. More difficult to police What about people aged 50+, can they hold their drink better? Alcohol level should be lowered for everyone. 15 Sends out the wrong message to R-Plate drivers. 16 New provisions will allow up to six vehicles to park on roads for filming purposes could cause difficulty for residents in the area concerned. Recovery of expenses due to extraordinary traffic it should be the statutory duty of the department to provide maintenance of the highway within its budget and not retain a right to seek additional costs from third parties. The installation of street lighting should be for reasons of traffic and pedestrian safety only and not for traffic management reasons. A mechanism should be included in this clause for consultation and agreement between the Department and the local authority. If local authority is denied input through consultation with the Department then it should be the responsibility of the department to cover the ongoing costs of providing electricity for such lighting. 17 Improvement Lines seems to be drafted to take account of the interests of the Department rather than individual property. Paragraph 4 of schedule 1B should require the Department to provide a copy of the plan to all affected land owners. It s not satisfactory to expect property owners to attend a specified place within limited times to consider proposals which have an impact on their property. Where Improvement Line is subsequently designated that compensation should be paid to the property owner. Section 16A (4) to the Highway Act 1986, should this not be determined initially by a Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals Act? 18 The drink drive proposals are very dangerous tier system isn t a good idea. How will it be policed? Should be zero tolerance on alcohol Proposal sends out the message that it s ok to drink and drive if you are experienced. People will remove R-Plates from cars so they don t draw attention to themselves. R-Plate drives will be targeted regularly if they make a genuine mistake on the road. 20 Changing the law on drink driving will make no difference to the attitude of drivers who readily and consciously take the risk of drink-driving and breaking the existing laws. 21 Should be more offences endangering life by dangerous driving and endangering life by driving without due care and attention General statement re dangerous driving 22 Power to stop vehicles Who can sit with a learner driver 23 Clause 34 Improvement lines Clause 37 consulting with Local Authority 24 issues relating to Green Lanes: Recovery of expenses Cutting of trees Reinstatement of highways 7

8 Improvement lines for widening highway Cycle paths maps He also refers to several other items which are not part of this Bill 25 Does this Bill has anything to do with maximum weight permitted for vehicles 26 The definition of carless or inconsiderate driving could be better defined 27 Alcohol level should be reduced for all 28 Agrees with proposals but wants Speed limits to be considered 29 Alcohol limit should be reduced for all 30 Supportive, but has query re road closures for entertainment and the consultation/advertising process for closing roads 31 Alcohol levels should be reduced across the board Police should have greater powers to stop Greater powers re drug abuse Greater powers to seize vehicles involved in serious offences Concerned re frequency mountain road is closed Sentencing levels for serious driving offences are too low 32 concerns re Clause 38 - street-lighting 33 No to different alcohol levels No evidence is put forward re new penalties No changes to current regulations re filming 34 Requested clarification of Clause 4 35 Bill proposes extension of authorised insurers but this is not required and would provide additional competition to Manx companies 36 Alcohol limit should be 50mg across the board 37 No to two tiered drink drive levels Should use D-Plates 38 No to two tier alcohol levels 39 No to two tier system Across the board lower level 40 No to different alcohol levels, should be 50mg across the board 41 No to two tier approach re alcohol Should be lowered for all drivers NICE report/study findings should be made available to public 42 Opposed to Clause 38 street-lighting. 43 Ridiculous, can more experienced drivers drink more? 44 No to two-tier Drink Driving Seizure of vehicles Increase in period of bans Regulating driving instructors Penalties Double parking Road closures for filming Recovery of expenses for damage caused by extraordinary traffic 45 No to two-tier drink driving 46 Seizure of vehicles clamping Proposed penalties for driving offences 47 Insurance queries 48 Query with extra costs details supplied by police 8