The speeding penalty system is both disproportionately harsh and unfairly lenient - it needs an overhaul

Summary

The Government and the Department for Transport should completely overhaul the legislation surrounding speeding offences. A framework similar to the one I set out in Table 2 (image below) should be adopted. Different severities of speeding should attract different types of (fixed) penalties, with differing ranges of penalty points, disqualification and maximum fines. Minor speeding offences should not be penalised as harshly as they are now. The more serious speeding offences should carry higher maximum penalties and obligatory disqualification terms. It should be made it clear in law when speeding becomes dangerous driving. Police should be given on-the-spot powers to seize vehicles for the more serious speeding offences to provide a highly effective, immediate deterrent, similar to insurance and driving licence offences.
Table 2:

Introduction

Following up on my post about National Speed Limits being unfit for purpose, this post examines the current speeding penalty system. With excessive or inappropriate speed being a factor in 15% of road traffic collisions resulting in death as well as the unavoidable laws of physics, it goes without speaking that controlling the speed of traffic plays a huge part in improving road safety. To this end, it is desirable that people who do not comply with speed limits are punished, but this punishment must be proportionate and fair to the offence. The current speeding penalty system does not facilitate this; it punishes low-level speeders too harshly in comparison to higher-level speeders, who face punitive punishments all too often.

The Fixed Penalty Notice system is disproportionately harsh on lower-level speeders and unfairly lenient on higher-level speeders

Yes, that's right, you're reading a road safety blog that's trying to persuade you lower-level speeders are punished too harshly. Looking at the Government's page on Speeding penalties, you can immediately see that "the minimum penalty for speeding is a £100 fine and 3 penalty points added to your licence". Let me start by saying this is a false and misleading statement, as one may face a lower fine if the case goes to court. Despite this, seeing as the only available Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for speeding is a £100 fine and 3 penalty points, it is fair to say that this is the most common penalty a speeder may face.

Before continuing further, let me also blow the common myth surrounding speeding leeway out of the window. People commonly believe they can only be prosecuted for speeding if they exceed the speed limit by 10% + 2 MPH or more, based on the NPCC guideline. It is vital to note that this is a guideline. It is not law and you can be prosecuted for speeding for exceeding the speed limit by as little as 1 MPH. People can be and are prosecuted for speeding if they are within the NPCC guideline.

Taking the previous information into account, I will consider various speeding scenario examples. For the purpose of this post, I will disregard any chances of being offered an educational speed awareness course for now, as this is dependent on many factors and policies differ between police force areas. Consider the following scenarios, accurate for the current Fixed Penalty Notice and court prosecution threshold guideline system:

• Speeder A: Caught speeding at 34 MPH in a 30 MPH zone (13% over the limit). Receives an FPN of a £100 fine and 3 penalty points.
• Speeder B: Caught speeding at 46 MPH in a 30 MPH zone (53% over the limit). Receives an FPN of a £100 fine and 3 penalty points.

Consider the difference between speeders A and B. Speeder A is exceeding the limit by 4 MPH, while speeder B is exceeding the limit by 16 MPH, over 5 times as much as speeder A. Common sense, the laws of physics and research all support the fact that hitting a pedestrian at 34 MPH leaves them with a far higher chance of survival than if they are hit at 46 MPH. Why, then, are speeder A and B both penalised in the same way? The fixed penalty does not take into account the fact that speeder A may have accidentally drifted over the limit ever so slightly, while speeder B must have definitely been aware of the fact he was speeding. It also does not take into account the far greater risk and disregard for the law that speeder B shows. To most, this seems both disproportionate and unfair, and that's because it is. Let's consider another example:

• Speeder C: Caught speeding at 74 MPH in a 70 MPH zone (6% over the limit). Receives an FPN of a £100 fine and 3 penalty points.
• Speeder D: Caught speeding at 94 MPH in a 70 MPH zone (34% over the limit). Receives an FPN of a £100 fine and 3 penalty points.
• Speeder E: Caught speeding at 112 MPH in a 70 MPH zone (60% over the limit). Not eligible to receive an FPN, so is reported to court and is allowed to continue the journey without any on-the-spot punishment.

Similarly, consider the difference between speeders C and D. Speeder C is exceeding the limit by 4 MPH, while speeder D is exceeding the limit by 24 MPH, 6 times as much as speeder C. However, yet again they face the same fixed penalty while the severity of their offences is very different. Speeder E is not eligible to receive an on-the-spot FPN so is reported to court. There is no immediate deterrence effect and most court proceedings take 6 months or more to complete.

You may wonder: if I'm going to speed, why not speed just below the threshold for which a fixed penalty notice is appropriate? I'm going to face the same FPN of a £100 fine and 3 penalty points, anyway, so I might as well get a run for my money. With the currently disproportionate and lazy penalty system, I don't blame you.

Sentencing Guidelines for speeding are still too lenient on higher-level speeders and all too often ignored by magistrates

If your speed exceeds the FPN thresholds or you are facing a disqualification for totting up, you may yourself in court for speeding. You may also occasionally find yourself in court if the police officer decides to report you straight to court for an offence that would normally attract a fixed penalty. The fine you face becomes means-tested. It is also based on how much you were exceeding the speed limit by, just like penalty points. The current sentencing guidelines for speeding can be found here and are shown in the following table (Table 1):

This appears to be a considerable improvement from the fixed penalty system described previously - the penalty is now based on the severity of the offence! Let's consider the speeding scenarios from above again. Assuming a weekly income of £440, a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity and the Sentencing Council Fine Calculator, magistrates would likely impose the following penalties:

• Speeder A: Caught speeding at 34 MPH in a 30 MPH zone (13% over the limit). £146 fine, £30 victim surcharge and £85 prosecution costs. 3 penalty points.
• Speeder B: Caught speeding at 46 MPH in a 30 MPH zone (53% over the limit). £293 fine, £30 victim surcharge and £85 prosecution costs. 4-6 penalty points (one may assume 4 penalty points would be given in a straightforward case).
• Speeder C: Caught speeding at 74 MPH in a 70 MPH zone (6% over the limit). £146 fine, £30 victim surcharge and £85 prosecution costs. 3 penalty points.
• Speeder D: Caught speeding at 94 MPH in a 70 MPH zone (34% over the limit). £293 fine, £30 victim surcharge and £85 prosecution costs. 4-6 penalty points (one may assume 4 penalty points would be given in a straightforward case).
• Speeder E: Caught speeding at 112 MPH in a 70 MPH zone (60% over the limit). £440 fine, £44 victim surcharge and £85 prosecution costs. 6 penalty points or disqualification (one may assume a disqualification would be given in a straightforward case).

Now that's more like it! The speeders who are most likely intentionally speeding and are more likely to cause harm should face a higher penalty than the lower-level speeders. Unfortunately, magistrates tend to flout sentencing guidelines by imposing more lenient sentences relatively often. Searching 'court results speeding UK' on Google News gives some useful insight into this. Searching for a case involving 46 MPH in a 30 MPH zone (equivalent to speeder B) yields the following link as the first result (taken from Oxford Mail):

"CONOR KILBANE, 23, of Ardley Road, Bucknell, was convicted of speeding at 46mph in a 30mph zone on the A412, Denham on December 9. Fined £100, must pay a £30 victim surcharge and £85 court costs. Three penalty points."

While the lower fine can be explained by Mr Kilbane having a lower than average weekly income, penalty points are not means-tested. Why did Mr Kilbane receive just 3 penalty points, while he is well within the mid-range of a Band B fine and 4-6 penalty points? The sentencing council's speeding guidelines state that "The starting point applies to all offenders irrespective of plea or previous convictions.", so the lower number of points cannot have been due to an early guilty plea or the fact that this may have been Mr Kilbane's first speeding offence. Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation then confusingly do mention no previous convictions, but this is again irrelevant to the starting point. Good character and/or exemplary conduct clearly does not apply as the offence of speeding has been committed and the likelihood of a genuine emergency having been established is negligible. So, why the lower number of points? I am personally none the wiser, even after having read the sentencing guidelines. The only explanation I can think of is that the magistrates did not personally consider the offence serious and decided to defy the guidelines by imposing 3 penalty points. The fact that this is possible and happens so often is again unfair and disproportionate on lower-level speeders. Mr Kilbane would have faced the same number penalty points had he been speeding at 33 MPH in the 30 MPH zone. And that's not to mention that due to the case going to court, over 6 months had elapsed between the time of the offence and the sentencing date at a far higher cost to the taxpayer than if Mr Kilbane had been dealt with by means of a Fixed Penalty Notice. This only to get the exact same penalty at court (disregarding surcharges and costs which do not depend on the severity of the offence) - a £100 fine and 3 penalty points!

This problem becomes worse for higher level speeding offences. While it is a common myth that doing 100 MPH or more on a motorway will get you banned - a great myth for road safety, of course -, this is all too often not the case. Having waited a long time for a case to go to court, offenders often get away with just a fine and 6 penalty points. Googling for speeding court results again yields plenty of shocking reading material. Just as an example, consider this case, where an Army captain was caught speeding at 130 MPH in a 70 MPH limit. Magistrates decided not to ban him because 'he needed his licence for a six-month tour' in addition to further personal circumstances surrounding his job in the army. Not only are these circumstances not 'exceptional' - most people need their licence to drive to work or for work -, they are also completely outweighed by the shocking speed that the captain drove at - nearly double the limit! Instead, he was fined £781 with £85 costs and a £78 victim surcharge, with 6 penalty points added to his licence. This is an outrageously lenient sentence for a higher level speeding offence.

The solution lies, yet again, in better legislation

The simple fact of the matter is, if the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Schedule 2 did not make an endorsement of a licence with a minimum of 3 penalty points for speeding obligatory, magistrates would probably not even impose points at all for a large volume of the speeding offences they deal with. It goes to show how effective legislation is in setting out penalties for offences. Due to the varied nature of the severity of the current offence of speeding and the way legislation and sentencing works in the UK, I propose a solution that involves the creation of multiple separate speeding offences severity bands in legislation and clearer guidance on when a speeding offence must be charged as dangerous driving in law. I also propose that a statutory fixed leeway of 3 MPH for speeding offences is created to remove the many myths surrounding this and to not unnecessarily penalise drivers who may accidentally stray over the speed limit by a tiny amount, which every driver is guilty of. It also accounts for possible tiny inaccuracies in speed measurement devices, but not in speedometers, which are required by law to be accurate or display a slightly higher speed than is currently being driven, but in no circumstances a lower speed. 

While I do not see myself as a lawmaking expert, I believe this would require amending the Road Traffic Regulation Act with additional sections to create a separate speeding offence for every different band. Each of these offences would have their own set Fixed Penalty, their own minimum number of penalty points and for the more serious cases, an obligatory disqualification period as well as an increased maximum penalty. Not only would the introduction of more Fixed Penalty levels reduce the number of offences having to go through the costly and drawn-out process of going to court, it would also introduce new levels of proportionality and end most needless leniency shown by magistrates. With the changes I am proposing, it would also deliver justice far more quickly than the current court process, where proceedings can easily take over 6 months from the date of the offence to complete. Car seizure powers for police should also be introduced for the more serious offences to provide an immediate deterrent at the roadside, similar to Section 165A seizures for driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence or without insurance.

Presented in a practical table, this would result in the following (Table 2):

This would require either amending section 165A of the Road Traffic Act or the addition of a similar section to the Road Traffic Regulation Act. It would also remove the current offences of speeding and replace them with the new speeding offences specified in the table. As an example, this could be done by amending section 89 and adding section 89A, 89B, 89C etc. Then, these offences would all be added separately to Schedule 2 of the RTOA, which would allow separate penalty points ranges and obligatory disqualification periods to be set for these offences. It would also require either an amendment of Section 2 RTA or the addition of another section that makes clear when speeding becomes dangerous driving. Educational speed awareness courses should be available for first-time offenders committing Level 1 or Level 2 Speeding at the discretion of the police.

Adopting these changes would lead to a lesser penalty for those marginally over the limit, while ensuring the higher-level, more dangerous speeders are punished appropriately. Car seizure powers at the roadside provide an immediate deterrent to the most serious offences, and its effectiveness has been demonstrated by similar practice all over the world and the introduction of our own Section 165A seizure powers. Making the maximum penalty at court dependent on the speed ensures that high-income offenders can be punished appropriately with unlimited fines for the most serious offences, but the maximum penalty still remains proportionate to the offence. The fines also remain means-tested, so those on lower incomes will not experience a difference there. Making clear when speeding becomes dangerous driving also makes charges for such offences much easier to succeed and ensures those that grossly exceed the speed limit face the toughest possible penalties. At the discretion of the court, lower-level speeding offences may still fall into the definition of dangerous driving depending on circumstances other than the speed.

Similar tier-based speeding penalty systems are used in countries all over the world to great success. Australia is a good example of this (penalty levels vary between states), as well as countries all over Europe and America. Lawmakers all over the world have accepted that different levels of speeding should attract different severities of penalties. Here in the UK, lower-level speeders are still being disproportionately punished while more serious, higher harm offences seem to be all too frequently treated with leniency. It is up to the Department for Transport and the Government to change this.

Back to the speeding examples

Let's consider the previously used and some new speeding examples with my newly proposed system as shown in Table 2, assuming the offender is not eligible for a speed awareness course, has a weekly income of £440, entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity and the Sentencing Council Fine Calculator:

• Speeder A: Caught speeding at 34 MPH in a 30 MPH zone (13% over the limit). Receives an FPN of a £60 fine and 2 penalty points.
• Speeder B: Caught speeding at 46 MPH in a 30 MPH zone (53% over the limit). Receives an FPN of a £200 fine and 4 penalty points.
• Speeder C: Caught speeding at 74 MPH in a 70 MPH zone (6% over the limit). Receives an FPN of a £60 fine and 2 penalty points.
• Speeder D: Caught speeding at 94 MPH in a 70 MPH zone (34% over the limit). Receives an FPN of a £300 fine and 6 penalty points.
• Speeder E: Caught speeding at 112 MPH in a 70 MPH zone (60% over the limit). Vehicle seized at the roadside and a court summons issued. Expected sentence: £733 fine, £73 victim surcharge and £85 prosecution costs. Disqualification of 6 months.
• Speeder F: Caught speeding at 92 MPH in a 30 MPH zone (206% over the limit). Vehicle seized at the roadside with an arrest (or possibly a roadside court summons) for dangerous driving.

These examples now seem fair and proportionate to the severity of the offence and reflects that speeding more excessively should be punished more severely, while minor, possibly accidental speeding offences are punished less severely.

Comments, thoughts, praise and criticism are all very welcome and I will happily engage in polite discussion if any interesting points are raised. See you in the next post!