THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS RoSPA. RESPONSE TO THE DfT CONSULTATION PAPER

Transcription

1 THE ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS RoSPA RESPONSE TO THE DfT CONSULTATION PAPER GRADUATED FIXED PENALTIES FOR SPEEDING OFFENCES DISCUSSION NOTE

2 Graduated Fixed Penalties for Speeding Offences Discussion Note This is the response of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) to the Department for Transport consultation paper : Graduated Fixed Penalties for Speeding Offences Discussion Note. It has been prepared following discussion with RoSPA s National Road Safety Committee. RoSPA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the consultation paper. Introduction In RoSPA s view, there is overwhelming evidence from a substantial body of national and international research which establishes beyond doubt that people who drive or ride too fast for the road and traffic conditions cause, or contribute to, one third of road crashes, resulting in the deaths of over 1,000 people on British roads each year. Inappropriate speed (both exceeding the speed limit and driving within the limit, but too fast for the conditions) magnifies other errors, such as driving too close, driving when fatigued or distracted, momentary carelessness, etc. It multiplies the chances of these causing a crash. Speeding drivers are also more likely to commit other driving violations, such as red-light running and driving too close. Drivers travelling at higher speeds have less time to identify and react to what is happening around them. It takes longer for the vehicle to stop. And the crash will be more severe, causing greater injury to the occupants and any pedestrian or rider hit by the vehicle. Conversely, casualties of all categories will be greatly reduced if speed is reduced, whether or not the speed is determined to be inappropriate or too fast. Although we recognise that drivers sometimes feel frustrated by speed limits that they think are inappropriate, we believe that the current speed management and road safety strategies are based on sound evidence and data. An important strand of the strategy has been the use of safety cameras, which have proven to be very effective at discouraging drivers from breaking the speed limit and detecting those who persist in doing so, thereby significantly reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured at camera sites. Cameras provide an effective deterrent because drivers know that if they exceed the speed limit they will be detected and this will result in a fine and three penalty points. (They are not, of course, a substitute for roads policing officers, but one of the enforcement tools available to the police). RoSPA is deeply concerned that the proposal to reduce the number of penalty points from 3 to 2, and increase the amount by which drivers can exceed the speed limit and still receive the lower penalty will seriously weaken the deterrent effect of cameras and send the wrong message to drivers. Exceeding the speed limit by small amounts is serious and dangerous. We urge the Department for Transport not to proceed with this proposal. 1

3 SPECIFIC COMMENTS Question 1 Do you agree with the Government s view that there is a case for fixed penalties for speeding to be more graduated, with higher penalties for more serious categories of speed and lower penalties for less serious cases? RoSPA does not believe that there is a case for lower penalties for less serious speeding offences, nor do we agree with the definition of less serious speeding. The government s own research establishes that exceeding the speed limit by small amounts, especially in urban areas, is dangerous and a serious road safety problem. Approximately two-thirds of crashes in which people are killed or injured happen on roads with a speed limit of 30 mph or less. At 30 mph, vehicles travel 44 feet (about 3 car lengths) every second. Even in good conditions, the difference in stopping distance between 30 mph and 35 mph is an extra 21 feet, more than 2 car lengths. The stopping distance is even longer in wet conditions. At 35 mph a driver is twice as likely to kill someone as they are at 30 mph. RoSPA, therefore, opposes the proposal to reduce the minimum number of penalty points. However, RoSPA supports higher fixed penalties for cases where the speed limit is exceed by substantial margins. Courts already have the power to give higher fines and more penalty points than the minimum 3 points and 60 fine. Therefore, this part of the proposal simply extends those powers to the fixed penalty system. Question 2 If you do not agree with a graduated system, do you support the present structure of penalties, or would you wish to see an alternative approach? RoSPA supports the present structure of penalties. We would also like to see wider use of re-training and re-testing strategies to help offenders change their driving behaviour so they are less likely to re-offend. In particular, we support the development of Speed Awareness Courses for this very purpose. RoSPA believes there are other measures which could be taken to reduce speeding, and these are discussed below (page 5). 2

4 Question 3 The table below illustrates a possible structure for graduated penalties. Ministers would welcome comments on it, without prejudice to statutory consultation on future proposals, and comments which you may wish to submit on that statutory consultation. Lower penalty - 2 points and 40 fine Standard penalty - 3 points and 60 fine Speed (mph) Speed up to and including (mph) Speed (mph) 20 No lower penalty for Up to and including 31 speeding in 20 mph zone mph Higher Penalty -6 points and 100 fine Speed at or above (mph) 32 In addition to opposing the idea of a lower penalty, RoSPA believes that the figures proposed (which are considerably higher than current ACPO Speed Enforcement Guidelines) are far too high. ACPO s Speed Enforcement Guidelines give minimum speeds for enforcement action based on the formula 10% above the limit plus 2 mph. Therefore, in a 30 mph zone, ACPO Guidelines state that enforcement should commence at 35 mph which means that drivers who do 35 mph or more receive 3 penalty points and a 60 fine (or higher penalties if they are doing 50 mph or more on a 30 mph road). The DfT s proposal would mean that drivers travelling at 39 mph on a 30 mph road - 30% above the limit would receive a lower penalty than drivers currently receive for doing 35 mph on a 30 mph road. This contradicts all of the government s scientific evidence about the effects of speeding and contradicts the clear messages that have been given to the driving public in the excellent Think! Campaign. The DfT s own television advert shows a car hitting a child pedestrian at 35 mph and demonstrates that the vehicle would have stopped before reaching the child if the driver had been doing 30 mph instead of 35 mph. The government s research also produced the widely used data below: Hit by a car at 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed Hit by a car at 30 mph, about half of pedestrians will live. Hit by a car at 20 mph, only 1 out of 10 pedestrian will be killed. Small amounts of speed above the speed limit significantly increases the risk of crashing and significantly increases the severity of the injuries that are caused, especially to the most vulnerable road users children, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. 3

5 If it becomes known that the penalty for driving at up to 39 mph in a 30 zone (50 mph in a 40 zone, 61 mph in a 50 zone, 72 mph in a 60 zone and 83 mph in a 70 zone) has been reduced, drivers will begin to see these speeds as acceptable (and perhaps even semicondoned) behaviour. We are also concerned that setting such figures in legislation would give them an acceptable status and make it more difficult to change them in future. Question 4 It has been suggested that fixed penalties should be higher for repeat speeding offences. Do you have views on this? The purpose of the penalty point system is to give offenders a warning about their driving behaviour and the opportunity to change it before they build up enough points to lose their licence. Increasing the number of points for drivers who persist in speeding, despite already being caught and getting some points on their licence, would hasten the time at which such drivers need to decide to change their behaviour or lose their right to drive. Therefore, RoSPA would support this proposal. Question 5 Should other factors be taken into account, such as the location where speeding occurred or other factors? RoSPA believes that the level of the culpability of the offender should be reflected in the level of penalties, especially where it is predictable that such behaviour is likely to result in a serious accident. The level of penalties should reflect the level of danger created by the offender. Other comments are invited on the Government s proposals for more graduated fixed speeding penalties We need to make it much, much easier for drivers to choose to drive at safe speeds. This requires education, training and publicity, better and more consistent roadside information about the posted speed limits and improving vehicle design so that drivers are more aware of their speed. Speed limit signing is not always consistent, and cars are so comfortable and powerful it is far too easy to creep above the speed limit. 4

6 Speed limits should always be clearly and consistently marked, and this requires greater use of speed limit repeater signs and speed limit road markings, especially in conjunction with cameras. The prohibition against repeater signs in 30 mph zones should be rescinded. Although, it is not feasible to put repeater signs or roundels on the road on all 30 mph roads, Highway Authorities should have the ability to do so. We should not be asking drivers to work out what the speed limit is. Motor manufacturers should consider how they can design cars to give drivers more awareness and better information about their actual speed. Surely the design of the speedometer could be improved. For instance, it should always have 30 mph indicator; it could mark speeds above 70 mph as a danger zone, and manufacturers should consider whether dials are the best format. In the longer term, Intelligent Speed Adaptation perhaps offers the best opportunity for vehicle technology to influence driving behaviour. This technology can either alert the driver to voluntarily reduce their speed, or ultimately to physically prevent the vehicle from exceeding the speed limit, on the particular road. Initial trials have proven successful, although further research is needed to assess whether taking vehicle control away from drivers would have any adverse affects. Driver Education One of the weaknesses of the UK s driver licensing system is that once the driving test has been passed, the driver is licensed, virtually for life, with no requirement and very little incentive to develop his/her driving skills any further. Drivers can voluntarily take further training, such as Pass Plus or courses offered by driver training providers such as RoSPA, but there is little incentive for individual drivers to do so. Only 3% of drivers take any further driving instruction after passing their test. Therefore, there is a need to develop new ways of encouraging drivers to continue to develop their driving skills after the test. RoSPA promotes the idea of taking a regular refresher driving course or assessment we all develop poor driving habits and car technology is constantly changing. A co-ordinated speed management strategy must include education, training and publicity, highway engineering and design, vehicle engineering and enforcement measures. But ultimately, the public as a whole needs to be persuaded that driving at speeds above the posted speed limit or above what is clearly safe for the conditions is not a minor, technical offence that everyone commits, but a serious, dangerous and anti-social activity in which the speeding driver places his/her own convenience above the safety and well-being of other people. RoSPA thanks the Department for Transport for the opportunity to comment on these proposals. We have no objection to the contents of RoSPA s response being reproduced or attributed. 5