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

  • Driver aids make inroads on improving safety
    November 12, 2015
    In-vehicle anti-collision systems continue to evolve and could eliminate some incidents altogether. John Kendall rounds up the current developments. A few weeks ago, I watched a driver reverse a car from a parking bay at right angles to the road, straight into a car driving along the road. The accident happened at walking pace, no-one was hurt and both cars had body panels that regain their shape after a low speed shunt.
  • Houston Police: increase in crashes when red-light safety cameras removed
    November 7, 2014
    A new report shows a 30 per cent increase in fatal traffic collisions and a 117 per cent increase in total traffic crashes at 51 intersections in Houston where red-light safety cameras once stood. New figures from the Houston Police Department released by the National Coalition for Safer Roads (NCSR) show total traffic collisions more than doubled from 4,147 in 2006-2010 when cameras were in use to 8,984 in 2010-2014, when cameras were not in operation. The city ended its red-light safety camera program
  • ATS aids US police to investigate crashes, crimes and more
    September 22, 2016
    Red light, speed and school bus safety cameras are typically used to catch dangerous drivers, but US law enforcement agencies also use the video and still images to investigate an average of 300 criminal and crash incidents a month. American Traffic Solutions (ATS) has responded to more than 20,000 requests for video from 1 January 2011 to 31 May 2016 from police forces in the US, which, when permitted by law, utilised the video and still images to analyse crashes, catch criminals and identify drivers in
  • Monitoring and transparency preserve enforcement's reputation
    July 30, 2012
    What can be done to preserve automated enforcement's reputation in the face of media and public criticism? Here, system manufacturers and suppliers talk about what they think are the most appropriate business models. Recent events in Italy only served to once again to push automated enforcement into the media spotlight. At the heart of the matter were the numerous alleged instances of local authorities and their contract suppliers of enforcement services colluding to illegally shorten amber signal phase tim