When you talk about a punishment that fits the crime, there is probably no better example of this than a driving ban.
So it was no surprise that the issue of the underuse of driving bans as a lever for change came up at the first oral hearing/session of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG) inquiry into Cycling and the Justice System.
As shown in RoadPeace’s analysis of driving bans …
Driving bans given by the courts are rare, and becoming rarer.
Between 2005 and 2015, bans given at court for specific offences declined from over 155,000 to less than 60,000.
Our analysis highlights how seldom bans are used; courts pretty much only give bans when the sentencing guidelines say disqualification is mandatory, e.g. drink driving. And we have publicised how drink driving accounts for the lion’s share of bans.
But it’s worse–guidelines are only guidelines. In some cases, bans aren’t even given when the Sentencing Guidelines say they should be. For instance, Causing Death by Careless Driving is supposed to always come with a minimum one year disqualification, but in 2015 one in five weren’t.
At the APPCG hearing, Lord Taylor asked for the reasons behind the drop in driving bans, and if this was due to regional differences.
So we went back to the data and our analysis. Why the drop in bans?
Three main reasons– and a handful of offences– account for almost all of the drop:
A key reason is the decline in drink driving convictions. Between 2005 and 2015, drink driving disqualifications have halved. This accounts for 36% of the total drop in bans (40% when other drink drive related offences are included).
Our December 2016 briefing on Drink Drive detection has more information on the decrease in drink driving prosecutions and convictions. There is no reason to think that drink driving is on the decrease, just the enforcement of it.
We have also seen a huge drop in bans given for uninsured driving (93% decrease). Some, but not all, will be due to increased compliance, as the MIB has reported that uninsured driving has halved in the past several years.
Uninsured driving accounts for 34% of the drop in bans.
License related bans amounted to another 14% of the total drop in bans. We are not sure but are optimistic that this decrease is also related to increased detection of disqualified drivers.
Even though the numbers prosecuted and convicted at court for speeding increased between 2005 and 2015, disqualifications dropped by 59%. In 2005, 7% of drivers convicted at court for speeding were banned. By 2015, this had dropped to 3%.
This figure is strikingly low: As, the great majority of speeding drivers get FPNs or go on diversionary courses, it is only repeat offenders and those going at the very highest speeds that end up in court. And Sentencing Council guidelines suggest bans for drivers going at these faster speeds. See RoadPeace briefing on speeding.
Disqualifications given for careless driving have also decreased—and they were low to begin with. In 2005, just 9% of drivers convicted at court for careless driving were disqualified, but by 2015, this had dropped to 6%. But this proportion should, if anything, have been on the increase: with diversionary courses becoming available for careless driving, those actually going to court should be increasingly dominated by cases involving greater harm or culpability.
In our recent response to the MoJ’s Driving offences consultation, RoadPeace called for a rethink on driving bans. We want them used much more often, even for short periods. Our traffic police are declining in numbers and traffic law enforcement is increasingly dependent on cameras and the use of diversionary courses. The declining number of drivers actually going to court should not also be facing less onerous sentences. Driving is not a right but a privilege. Short bans are an effective reminder of this for those that make the roads more dangerous for the rest of us.