Skip to main content

Stronger penalties needed for texting drivers says IAM

Drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should be given stronger and more consistent penalties, according to road safety charity the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM). An IAM analysis of eleven recent prosecutions involving mobile and smartphone use revealed that the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is four-and-a-half years in prison and a disqualification from driving for seven years. In all of the cases analysed, the convicted drivers were found to have lost the
September 18, 2013 Read time: 2 mins
Drivers convicted of causing death by dangerous driving should be given stronger and more consistent penalties, according to road safety charity the 6187 Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM).

An IAM analysis of eleven recent prosecutions involving mobile and smartphone use revealed that the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is four-and-a-half years in prison and a disqualification from driving for seven years.  In all of the cases analysed, the convicted drivers were found to have lost their concentration due to using their mobile phone.

A British Social Attitudes survey in 2011 found that 90 per cent of respondents disagreed that it was clearly unsafe to talk on a handheld phone while, yet, since 2006, 750,000 fixed penalties have been issued to drivers for this very reason.

According to the US government website for distracted driving, 3,331 people in the US were killed in 2011 in crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 3,267 in 2010. An additional 387,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 416,000 injured in 2010.  Ten per cent of injury crashes in 2011 were reported as distraction-affected crashes.

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “The maximum sentence available to the courts in the UK is fourteen years, so there is still scope for an even stronger road safety message that drivers who kill whilst distracted on their phones will be caught and jailed for a long time.

“The lesson here is obvious: never use your phone while driving. Whether you have a hands free kit or use loudspeaker, it doesn’t matter. Using your phone in any capacity reduces your attention from the task at hand – driving.”

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Should it be end of the road for right-turns on red?
    April 10, 2024
    Banning right-hand turns after stopping for a red light is gaining momentum in the US. But the debate continues about whether it will result in fewer incidents between vehicles and alternative mobility users. David Arminas reports
  • Positive incentives an alternative to road user charging?
    February 1, 2012
    The Netherlands has been looking at incentivising rush-hour avoidance. The intention is to better understand road users' motivations and find alternatives to congestion charging. Something significant needs to happen if we are to adequately address the traffic congestion and other issues caused by the ever-rising numbers of vehicles on our roads. Congestion or distance-based charging is seen as one way of managing demand and raising revenue for improvements to transport infrastructure. However, charging is
  • Vulnerable road users face safety problems
    May 18, 2012
    Concern is growing in Europe over the safety standards for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and powered two wheeler riders. A total of 169,000 pedestrians, cyclists and users of powered two-wheeled vehicles (PTW) have been killed on European roads since 2001; 15,300 of them in 2009. The figures have been published in the new Road Safety Performance Index (PIN) report and reveal a decrease in the number of deaths by 34% for pedestrians and cyclists, and just 18% for PTW riders compared to
  • New South Wales removes speed cameras
    October 3, 2014
    New South Wales Minister for Roads and Freight, Duncan Gay, has announced that speed cameras in ten locations across NSW are to be removed as soon as any safety works such as additional signage, barriers and markings and that work has been finished. Gay said in a statement that the government is keeping to a statement that it made while in opposition, and removing any speed cameras that did not add a proven safety benefit. The 2014 Speed Camera Review of the state’s cameras indicates that early result