- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgRise in number of drivers found guilty of traffic offences
The number of drivers in England and Wales convicted of traffic offences has risen in recent years since hitting a low in 2013, according to analysis of government data by IAM RoadSmart.
The road safety charity says that total convictions for motoring offences rose 19 per cent during the period, and highlighted an alarming 52 per cent jump in dangerous driving convictions.
Over the past decade, there has been a near seven-fold increase in the number of people convicted of ‘failing to supply information as to identity of driver when required.’
In 2016, some 82,029 people were convicted of the offence compared to 12,056 in 2006, which IAM RoadSmart believes “is most likely linked to increased forms of surveillance leading to more requests to confirm the identity of the driver.”
Greater use of electronic surveillance, targeted enforcement and a greater emphasis on roads policing compared to previous years are all cited by IAMRoadSmart as factors that may be behind the rise in convictions.
It said that in two areas – drink-driving and using a handheld mobile phone at the wheel – the number of convictions had fallen, adding that it “believes the dangers of both are finally sinking in.”
There were 39,000 convictions for drink-driving in 2016, down 10 per cent on 2013, while the number of people convicted of using a mobile phone fell from 32,404 in 2011 to 13,847 in 2016.
While IAM RoadSmart says that the latter figures may be explained by a greater awareness among drivers of the danger of using a mobile while driving, evidence from elsewhere suggests otherwise and the fall is most likely explained by a lack of enforcement with a downward trend for more than a decade now, predating the explosion of social media.
> Number of drivers fined for using mobile phone plummets
Last year, a survey carried out for the RAC Foundation suggested that 9 million motorists continue to use mobile phones illegally while driving.
> Up to 9m drivers using mobile phones at wheel, according to RAC
Since the figures cited by IAM RoadSmart only go up to 2016, they also miss the impact of the crackdown by police that accompanied the doubling of penalties for mobile phone use last year, with 6,000 motorists found guilty of the offence in March alone.
> 6,000 drivers fined for mobile phone use in March after penalties double
Neil Greig, IAM RoadSmart director of policy and research, said: “This will be good news indeed for motorists who have been concerned for a long time about the level of convictions for the most dangerous motorists.
“It also shows that the most serious motoring offences are being taken seriously by the courts – even though there is a long way to go an increased certainty of conviction might get some drivers out of the mindset of thinking they can get away with drink or drug driving or using a hand-held mobile phone at the wheel of a car.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Jitensha Oni 6 hours 9 min ago
If it’s the same FOI response I saw ( FOI-0538-2425 ), in Richmond Park (local to me so the one I had a good look at in the FOI tables), from 2019...
- Gbjbanjs 6 hours 17 min ago
As an Irish person, I am embarrassed for this guy and the judge. He is clearly a thug, so do not get where he takes pride in wearing the country...
- ktache 6 hours 23 min ago
I don't think the fine toilet roll holder is made of an old chainset, looks more like the two biggest rings on a carrier from a cassette, my 9...
- Rendel Harris 8 hours 28 min ago
Far be it from me to tell you your business, but if you want to promote your product sneakily on a website without paying for advertising then...
- JMcL_Ireland 10 hours 32 min ago
I absolutely stand by my criticism of Elite (note: I'm not criticising the volunteer marshals). They charge an arm and a leg for these events but...
- Destroyer666 10 hours 45 min ago
There's a lot of good stuff here, but shoe reviews are still lagging on average when comparing to for example bike or tire reviews. Specs relating...
- galibiervelo 11 hours 18 min ago
Loved the Bastion in the flesh but Lemond's bike has the soul. Nice event and met some friends and contacts but like the magazine, it does promote...
- Hirsute 13 hours 28 min ago
All in the article - road tax.
- chrisonabike 14 hours 42 min ago
Ah, but: in UK, if a motorist drives into you (or simply parks in a cycle lane, forcing you out into the path of another motorist) then the council...
Add new comment
12 comments
@Davel - as bad as things are now, they were a LOT worse back in the 1930s:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/history-of-road-safety-and-th...
I know.. crazy wasn't it?
The scale of improvement in 90 years, even in the early adopters, is pretty depressing, though.
Jeez, don't post that ! Some twat from the Daily Mail will post some bullshit about pedestrians and cyclists having gone soft over the years. In my day, we accepted, nay WELCOMED the casualties from being mown down by entitled, selfish cunts in motor vehicles...something something BREXIT.
That last paragraph 'It also shows that the most serious motoring offences are being taken seriously by the courts...' makes no sense whatsoever.
The article/press release is about successful prosecutions (or whatever outcome from being caught offending e.g. Fixed Penalty Notice) which is the remit of police and CPS, supported by camera enforcement teams, councils etc. The courts punish guilty offenders and as we are often seen on this website, these punishments are often derisory. So no, the most serious offences are not being taken seriously.
A study of comparative punishments since 2013 may enlighten us more. No point taking more people to court when the punishments aren't appropriate. I commented on a recent NMotD, the one with the driver close passing and then driving with no hands as he was eating his breakfast, where I reckoned that he was fined £25 more by the courts for the two offences then if he had been dealt with by way of FPN for one offence.
That last paragraph 'It also shows that the most serious motoring offences are being taken seriously by the courts...' makes no sense whatsoever.
The article/press release is about successful prosecutions (or whatever outcome from being caught offending e.g. Fixed Penalty Notice) which is the remit of police and CPS, supported by camera enforcement teams, councils etc. The courts punish guilty offenders and as we are often seen on this website, these punishments are often derisory. So no, the most serious offences are not being taken seriously.
A study of comparative punishments since 2013 may enlighten us more. No point taking more people to court when the punishments aren't appropriate. I commented on a recent NMotD, the one with the driver close passing and then driving with no hands as he was eating his breakfast, where I reckoned that he was fined £25 more by the courts for the two offences then if he had been dealt with by way of FPN for one offence.
This XKCD may be relevant: https://xkcd.com/1990/
Alt-Text: It's probably just me. If driving were as dangerous as it seems, hundreds of people would be dying every day!
driving_cars_2x.png
I know there was jest in there, so this isn't aimed at you, more just an excuse to wheel out a statistic I always find astonishing:
3,500 are killed on the roads, worldwide, PER DAY. 1.3 million per year. I find it insane that *we* have methods of moving us and stuff around, that have the side effect of 3,500 people killed directly (just on the roads) because of it.
---
Another statistic I find insane... WW2, over the 6 years, averaged ten times that. The population of Windsor dead, every single day, for 6 years. Wars... Jesus.
Yet if the UK is anything to go by, with ten times the number of premature deaths from road pollution than actual collisions, the combined premature deaths from road collisions and pollution might be in a similar ballpark.
I understand how people running nations wanting to steal countries and enslave races, and do hideous things to others on industrial scales, should motivate other states to raise armies against them within days.
But I don't really understand how similar volumes of humans dying as by-products of merely one aspect of industry and progress barely raises a comparative shrug, globally.
So if motorists can cause this amount of law breaking, death & destruction; having insurance, driving licences, number plates etc, why do so many of them think cyclists should stoop to their level?
How would we possibly meet our quota?
Blimey, how much worse would those numbers be if there was some proper enforcement?
As the article says, c13k convictions for the whole of 2016 for illegal mobile phone use is a gross underestimate of its actual frequency, given that plod nabbed half that number in a single MONTH the following year when they did the job properly.
That's the problem with crime figures - non-victim crimes will go unreported if there's not enough police to enforce them. Unfortunately, these particular non-victim crimes tend to escalate until there are victims.
Wonder if the deputy mayor for transport is taking note?
Seriously though, if they think people are using their mobiles less whilst driving, they should try standing beside a busy road and just looking at drivers.
Yep. Got the bus to work yesterday. The bus stop is next to traffic signals. It's always fun to count the mobiles as I'm waiting for the bus. I estimate between 80%-90% of drivers have a mobile phone in their hand when they're stopped at the lights.