We need tougher sentences to take deadly drivers off our roads for good

By Alisdair Suttie 18 July 2012

Wednesday 18 July 2012. Fleet Voice Column. If you kill an innocent member of the public for no reason whatsoever other than they happened to be in the wrong place at that moment, you’d expect to go to prison for a very long time. That sentence would be for murder and likely be one of life imprisonment, which carries a minimum tariff of 15 years. However, if you pick a motor car as your weapon choice, the maximum jail term a killer driver faces is 14 years. Bear in mind the 15-year sentence is a minimum suggestion and many murderers will spend the full term behind bars and it’s all the more galling that a dangerous driver who kills is likely to be out again in less than four years. Even if a dangerous driver who kills another is prosecuted for manslaughter, they’re still only likely to face a sentence of around six and half years. Get that charge reduced to causing death by careless of inconsiderate driving and the average sentence plummets to one year and three months. Admittedly, the courts take a much dimmer view of those who cause death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, but the sentence works out on average at less than four and half years.

Slap on the wrist

These sentences are just too lenient, and the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) agrees. Its Chief Executive, Simon Best, says: “We recently discovered the number of prosecutions for motoring offences has fallen. Now it is clear that drivers are also receiving short sentences for some of the most serious driving offences. “Magistrates are handing out fines for drink driving that are less than five per cent of the maximum amount possible, giving the message that drink driving only warrants a slap on the wrist. Only sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime will act as a proper deterrent.” Far from sounding like the rant of a Daily Mail columnist, this is the balanced and sensible appraisal of a motoring group that promotes good driving habits and high standards rather than just blame speeding for every driving ill. Only last week, a prime example of the unfortunate death and subsequent lenient sentence highlighted by the IAM was seen in Cumbria. James Mackenzie was driving his Ford Focus in Workington on 7 March, causing no harm to anyone and simply going about his life. Then, with no warning, Lee Walley crashed his Volkswagen Golf into Mr Mackenzie’s car. Mr Mackenzie later died in hospital as a result of his injuries. Killer driver Walley was found to be under the influence of illegal drugs, yet because he admitted his guilt his sentence was cut from 10 years to six years and eight months. This will likely translate to a sentence of little more than four years. What justice is that for Mr Mackenzie’s family and friends? What example does it set to the community and drivers all across the country, especially those who think it is acceptable to drive while incapable through illegal substances? The sad answer is it does not send any message at all other than it’s not considered very serious by the courts to kill an innocent man in cold blood. Walley should be serving a life sentence for murder.

Cameras

For those who say that our prisons are already full to bursting and sending more people into jail for long terms will only compound the issue, let me ask one question. If it were your husband, brother, son, father, uncle or friend who was killed by another driver’s wantonly reckless behaviour, would you still think a six year sentence was proportional? While the past 20 years has seen a huge increase in the number of so-called ‘safety cameras’, we’ve seen fewer convictions in real terms for drink driving and also for causing death or bodily harm through driving offences. Some may argue this is because speed cameras (let’s just call them what they really are) have helped reduce speeds in danger zones. This is unquestionably the case in some areas and this column would happily see speed cameras outside of every school in the UK. However, cameras that detect one simple facet of a driver’s behaviour and state of mind are ineffectual and help alienate the police from the average motorist. As has been argued before in this column, what we need are more police traffic officers on the roads in highly visible marked cars. We also need more unmarked cars to spot those drivers who are not just speeding but driving in a manner that puts everyone’s lives at risk. As one senior traffic officer recently commented to me: “If you trace the decline in roads policing numbers, you can see a direct correspondence with the number of serious driving offences going down. Only trained officers can spot the danger signs before it develops into something more serious.”

Chaos and carnage

For too long, governments both past and present have claimed to support the police yet undermined it in one of the most visible and crime-deterring areas: our roads. When someone treats their car as a weapon and drives accordingly, we need to have the necessary numbers of police on the road to spot this and deal with it quickly and safely. Just relying on a speed camera is not going to have any effect. When the police catch drivers who kill others on our roads without any apparent thought of the consequences, we need to treat these people exactly as what they are: murders. Then we need our courts to sentence them in a proportionately severe manner. Dishing out driving bans and fines will not address the problem of those who drive in a dangerous, deadly manner. These drivers need to be taken off our roads for good, or for as long as it takes for them to realise the chaos and carnage they have brought to the lives of others. After all, if you can do the time, then why not do the crime? This is especially so when the time is relatively little when compared to the crime. We need tough sentences to back up the hard work the police carry out every day on our roads. By handing down the present lenient sentences, all the courts are doing is giving criminally dangerous drivers a mandate to carry on behaving as if the lives of others counted for next to nothing. Alisdair Suttie

Categories: Fleet news , Fleet Voice , Features

Share this article

Great job – Alphabet is Leeds’ Employer of the Year Petrol is the cheaper option for motorists doing 10k miles a year, claims Which?