Views of the Warrington Cycle Campaign on the Home Office Consultation on Road Traffic Penalties

The Warrington Cycle Campaign has 140 members in the Warrington Area.

General Observations

Before commenting on the individual proposals, we wish to make some general observations about the consultation. There are two means by which better enforcement can be achieved, namely better detection or by greater deterrence through the use of harsher penalties. This consultation only addresses the latter of these, but we find that it disregards the former in manner which is sometimes misleading and contradictory. For example in paragraph 1.4 the document states

"Some 95 percent of motorists, therefore, get through the year without committing an endorsable offence"

There is no evidence that this statement is true. This figure could be due to either good driving behaviour by the majority of motorists, or more probably a very low detection rate of endorsable offences.

The key to deterrence is a much greater rate of detection. A large number of motorists routinely break the speed limit day after day and have never received a single speeding ticket. Yet, with the current points system a serial offender could be caught speeding once a year and not face a disqualification. It is hardly surprising that many regard speeding tickets as a minor irritant - or even a price worth paying - rather than a serious deterrent. For the system to work effectively many more cameras are needed so that drivers who habitually exceed speed limits should face regular prosecution.

Most importantly the risk of detection is also linked to the risk of perceived danger in a motor vehicle, and this link is made by the inconsiderate motorist to create a situation whereby the risk of detection and personal injury are out of all proportion to the risk to the cyclist or pedestrian.

We accept that improving detection is expensive and labour intensive, but we believe that making penalties harsher will only go so far in improving driving standards and it is necessary to improve the detection rates from their present very low values.

Despite these comments we nevertheless broadly welcome the proposals and will make comments on the individual proposals.

We also believe that the most effective deterrent is disqualification from driving and that fines and penalty points at present have little effect on modifying driver behaviour. We would welcome a much greater use of short term disqualification, and we can see no problems with introducing this without the need for the driver to make a court appearance.

There is a great emphasis in the consultation on serious offences. We feel that this goes too far and that more attention needs to be given to more minor offences. We would stress the consequences of a minor offence by a motorist may still be injury to a cyclist.

A quote from the recent OECD report on "Safety of Vulnerable Road Users " is relevant.

"Vulnerable road users can protect themselves, making themselves more visible and acquire theoretical and practical knowledge and skills through education and training. However, they should not be solely responsible for their safety. A balance needs to be struck between vulnerable road users protecting themselves and measures to reduce the risk imposed by motorised traffic. One should not put the onus of protection on the vulnerable road users without any attempt to enforce, for example, lower speeds by the driver."

We feel that the emphasis has been placed too much on the vulnerable road user in recent years and the measures proposed in this consultation will go some way towards redressing the balance.

Detailed Proposals

1 Revaluation of Points.

We agree with this proposal, as it will lead to a quicker route to disqualification through totting up of points.

2 Retraining

We would welcome a greater use of retraining. Could the Home Office explore the possibility of introducing an element of driver interaction with cyclists on the road in any such schemes and in extended retests after disqualification? A motorist is unlikely to encounter a cyclist even on an extended driving test in a situation where he needs to demonstrate an awareness of their need for safety.

It is our view that this could form an important element of these proposals.

3 Totting up disqualification as a fixed penalty

We support this proposal.

4 Long Life points

We support this proposal

5 Requalifying after disqualification

We feel that drivers disqualified for 2 years or longer should have to requalify.

6 Decoupled community penalties

We feel that this measure would be of limited value.

7 Forfeiture of vehicles

Although there are difficulties with this where the driver is not the vehicle owner, we would support greater use of this power by the courts.

8-11 Serious Offences

We take all these together as we agree with all of the proposals. We agree that life bans are appropriate for the most serious offences.

12-13 Alcohol Offences

We agree with these proposals, and have no view as to the appropriate period of disqualification for high level offences and repeat offences.

14 Driving while disqualified

It is doubtful that community penalties would be of much use for this offence, and the added cost of implementing this has not been included in the resource implication of this proposal. (Only the saving in prison cost has been given).

Permanent or temporary forfeiture of the vehicle would help prevent reoffending.

15-16 Licence and insurance offences

We feel that community penalties could be of use in these cases.

17 Careless or inconsiderate driving.

Is not taken seriously enough. Even when it results in death careless drivers often face a trivial fine.

Careless drivers may not be violent or dishonest, but they show a degree of indifference to the safety of others that we would not tolerate from the operator of any other piece of potentially dangerous equipment. In particular we have problems with the start of section 7.1:

"One particular difficulty with traffic offences is that, although the defendant's misbehaviour may not in itself be blameworthy to the same degree as found in other criminal offences, the consequences of the defendant's misbehaviour, while in control of a motor vehicle, may be out of all proportion to his offence. This is a source of distress to the families of victims, and difficulties for the courts, in cases of careless driving where a death has occurred."

The fact that the potential consequences of the careless drivers actions are so serious means that the misbehaviour should be considered highly blameworthy.

We as humans have a duty of care to our fellow man to not endanger them by what we do or do not do. Also the higher the vulnerability of people the higher the duty of care. Therefore, the more vulnerable road users need to be protected more. We feel the main reason people do not get tough with car drivers is because they themselves are car drivers.

Also the careless drivers themselves suffer little personal risk and are protected from the consequences of their actions by their vehicles. When the most you have to fear is the loss of your no claims bonus then you tend to regard risk taking as acceptable, whereas for vulnerable road users it is a matter of life and death.

For these reasons we support the proposed new penalty points proposals, and we would not wish to see this watered down in any way. We regard the risk of disqualification as the most effective deterrent. We fully support the threat of immediate disqualification for a second offence within five years.

We support the other measures proposed here although feel that they are less important that the points revaluation.

18 Speeding Offences

We think that speeding offences are serious and the attitude among a minority of drivers that speeding is "safe" in some circumstances is a dangerous attitude that needs to be addressed. Imposing higher penalties will contribute to this.

We agree with the two levels of fixed penalties and the staged introduction.

While we broadly agree with the proposed speeds in the bands, we feel that the limits should reflect more strongly the likelihood of encountering a vulnerable road user and therefore be weighted more heavily towards the lower speeds. We consider that speeds of 45 mph in a 30 mph area to be a far more serious offence than 85 mph in a 70 mph limit.

19 Fraud

No Comment

20 Dangerous or Overloaded vehicle

No comment

21 Bus Lanes

We support these proposals, as bus lanes are frequently shared with cyclists and there is evidence that misuse by drivers can endanger cyclists. However, we find it difficult to understand why there is no proposal to extend this measure to misuse of cycle lanes by drivers

22 All Offences

No Comment

Home