Lapses, violations, errors and aggressiveness

The cases were categorised further as one of four types of behaviour.

The four categories used were lapse, violation, error and aggressiveness. Table 12 below shows the distribution of these categories through the cases overall.

Table 12: Distribution of categories

Category of offence Number %

Lapse 23 27

Violation 24 29

Error 24 29

Aggressiveness 13 15

Total 84 100

It might be expected that lapses and errors, unless particularly severe, would be charged as Careless Driving. Similarly, one would expect aggressiveness and violations, unless very minor, to be classed as Dangerous Driving. The following table (Table 13) shows the distribution of the categories by the offence the defendant was first charged with.

Table 13: Distribution of categories by original charge Offence first charged with Cause of incident Causing Death by

Dangerous Driving

Dangerous Driving Careless Driving

n=27 % n=24 % n=33 %

Lapse of concentration 7 26 4 17 12 36

Violation of traffic regulation

12 44 11 46 1 3

Error in driving judgement

3 11 1 4 20 61

Aggressiveness 5 19 8 33 -

-Total 27 100 24 100 34 100

The majority of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving and Dangerous Driving charges were caused by violations, followed by

aggressiveness for Dangerous Driving, and lapses for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. Over half of the Careless Driving cases were caused by an error in driving judgement and a third by a lapse in concentration. Further analyses described in the table below (Table 14) show how these categories are distributed by the final verdicts in each case.

Table 14: Distribution of categories by original charge and verdict Offence

-Those cases that did not follow the assumptions made above, i.e. that Dangerous Driving would be made up of violations and

aggressiveness and Careless Driving of lapses and errors, were examined further.

LAPSE IN CONCENTRATION AMONGST DANGEROUS DRIVING OFFENCES

Seven cases classified as a lapse were originally charged as Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. As it might be expected that lapses would be treated as Careless Driving rather than Dangerous Driving the individual cases were examined. Three resulted in Careless Driving convictions (P7, P12 and U20). All three of these cases were the result of a jury decision. One resulted in a Dangerous Driving conviction after the prosecution accepted a plea (U2). Although classified as a lapse the case did involve an HGV travelling at 60mph in patchy fog, so could arguably have been classified as a violation.

Three 'lapses' (P8, P11, and U6) resulted in convictions for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving:

1. In the first one, Case P8, a lorry driver hit a stationary queue of traffic while attempting to use a mobile phone. While this may be described as a lapse in attention while driving, it is argued that attempting to use a mobile phone while driving is a deliberate choice, and therefore a more serious offence. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge. P8 was the only conviction for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving which did not receive a prison sentence.

2. Case P11 involved a lorry driver who had exceeded his work hours and fallen asleep at the wheel, causing a major accident where two people were killed. Strict laws exist to prevent professional drivers working excess hours, and this contributed to the seriousness of this case. The defendant received a penalty of 30 months in prison. He had pleaded guilty to the offence. It is less likely that a private driver would get such a harsh penalty. An example would be Case R15, where a driver fell asleep while driving, and crashed into a brick wall, slightly injuring himself. He was convicted of Careless Driving, and received a penalty of £50 and three points on his driving licence.

3. The final 'lapse' of the three, Case U6, involved a driver, travelling in convoy, who failed to see that a car ahead had stopped, and braked sharply which caused his car to enter the opposite carriageway. A driver in an oncoming vehicle was killed. The prosecution alleged that the driver had used his handbrake to stop, which had caused the car to turn broadside to the line of traffic, and that this was a dangerous and unnecessary manoeuvre. The

evidence showed quite clearly that, whatever the action of the driver in that one instant, it was only one action in an otherwise blame-free piece of driving. A more significant feature of the driving, it could be argued, was the inattention which resulted in the failure to appreciate in time that the cars ahead were braking. In Case P23 (a Careless Driving offence) the driver also failed to see that a car ahead had stopped, and shunted the car ahead into the opposite carriageway, causing the death of a passenger in that vehicle. Both cases involved a lapse of attention, and a fatality, yet in U6 the defendant received 18 months imprisonment and four years disqualification from driving, whereas in P23 the defendant

received a £500 fine and eight penalty points. Case U6 seems to have been treated severely compared to similar offences.

The above cases illustrate that lapses can vary in severity, and that there is some inconsistency in the way in which they are dealt with by the justice system. It is noted that all of the above cases occurred in England and Wales.

ERRORS AMONGST DANGEROUS DRIVING OFFENCES There were three cases originally charged as Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, and one as Dangerous Driving, which were classified as Errors. All four resulted in convictions for Careless Driving.

• In Case R17 the defendant overtook when it was unsafe to do so; the prosecution accepted a plea to the lesser charge

• Case U16 involved both an error and an element of excessive speed

• Case S9 was more complex, involving a number of disputed factors such as inappropriate speed and a dangerous load; it also resulted in four deaths

• Case U12 involved a young driver, aged 18, who lost control whilst driving too fast for the conditions; the prosecution decided to reduce the charge on the morning of the trial In the first three cases there were sufficient other factors to indicate that Dangerous Driving might be the appropriate charge. Case S9 was particularly controversial, as it was suggested by two people

appearing for the prosecution that the prosecutor did not present the evidence sufficiently strongly, or clearly, to convince the jury of the aggravating factors. Case U12 seems to be a classic case of an inexperienced driver overestimating his competence.

VIOLATIONS AMONGST CARELESS DRIVING OFFENCES Only one offence originally charged as Careless Driving had been classed as a violation. In that case, which involved a minor damage-only accident, it had been decided to drop the Careless Driving charge and the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of Failing to Report an Accident. This would be seen by the CPS as the more serious offence.

Amongst those Dangerous Driving charges which resulted in convictions for Careless Driving, six had been classed as violations.

There were two fatal cases. The decision in one, R16, was affected by the reluctance of the family of the deceased to pursue the more

serious charge. In the second case, P28, the jury decided that the defendant was guilty only of the lesser charge, despite being at nearly

twice the speed limit in a town centre. All of the non-fatal cases involved excessive speed.

AGGRESSIVENESS AMONGST CARELESS DRIVING OFFENCES

No cases classed as aggressive were originally charged as Careless Driving. There were five cases, none involving fatalities, which resulted in Careless Driving convictions. Two cases, P26 and U8, were decided by a jury in Crown Court, who found the defendants not guilty of the more serious charge, but guilty of Careless Driving, possibly on the basis of insufficient proof of what took place. In Case P1, the absence of an accident appears to have been a key deciding factor. In S13, there was some doubt about the seriousness of an incident described as 'larking about'. In S10, the prosecution accepted a plea to the lesser charge because a key witness was unavailable.