Will new rules for drivers in England prevent deaths on the road?

Driving is the one activity carried out by three-quarters of adults in England which has a risk of killing or being killed. But society seems to accept the risks associated with car travel.

As transport secretary Heidi Alexander notes, we would never accept four people a day dying in train or plane crashes – yet that is the daily toll on roads in Britain.

This is why the government has announced a series of reforms – including lowering the drink-driving limit in England and requiring regular eye tests for over-70s – aimed at reducing deaths and serious injuries by 65% over the next decade. This is a welcome, if ambitious, target.

Any surviving driver involved in a fatal collision faces investigation and potential prosecution if found to be at fault. But the government’s proposed strategy rejects the idea that drivers alone bear responsibility for road safety. A number of proposals relate to designing roads and vehicles to reduce the chance and impact of collisions.

It also highlights that certain groups – particularly young male drivers are disproportionately involved in crashes, and proposes measures to address these risks.

As someone who researches motoring law, and how it is applied in practice, I argue this is a welcome shift to prevention, rather than punishment. Recent government policy has leaned heavily on punitive responses that attempt to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Over the past three decades, penalties for causing death on the roads have increased significantly. But while longer sentences are deserved in some cases, this approach has done little to punish the underlying offences – dangerous, careless or drink driving – that leads to fatalities.

There are now five specific criminal offences of causing death by driving under the Road Traffic Act 1988. The most serious – causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs – carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, equivalent to manslaughter.

Despite these tougher penalties, bereaved families report dissatisfaction with sentencing, concerned that drivers do not receive the penalty they deserve.

Punishing dangerous driving

Last year, I conducted a study analysing press reports of over 200 sentencing decisions in fatal crashes, mainly from 2024. The final report found that new sentencing guidelines, introduced in 2023, are largely being followed.

The worst cases now receive sentences exceeding the previous maximum of 14 years, aligning with manslaughter sentences. Eight cases resulted in sentences of 15 years or more, with the highest at 19 years.

Sentencing is complex, influenced by numerous factors, including the significant reduction applied when defendants plead guilty. A discount of up to one-third applies to all criminal offences. But given that 70.5% of offenders plead guilty in death-by-driving cases, this has a significant impact.

The maximum penalty under the law is life imprisonment. But the sentencing guidelines do not consider a life sentence appropriate even in the worst cases – those involving extreme speed, alcohol or drugs and multiple aggravating factors. The current guidelines allow judges to take a nuanced approach, with variability in sentencing generally reflecting the unique circumstances of each case.

While drivers who kill on the roads are now generally receiving longer sentences, victims are still being let down in several ways. Many see delays in investigation, the right charge not always being selected for prosecution, some cases being dealt with in a magistrates’ court rather than the Crown Court, and the suspect being able to continue driving up until conviction and again soon after they are released from prison.

Furthermore, harsh sentences are unlikely to deter other deaths. Psychological biases mean drivers rarely believe they will be involved in a fatal crash. Increasing the maximum penalty for such offences appears to be an easy political win without actually addressing the underlying behaviour.

Can the law improve road safety?

If the law is to succeed in deterring deaths on the road, it needs to address drivers’ behaviour before they kill.

Some of the proposals in the road safety strategy correspond with recommendations made in my report, such as the suspension of licences for serious offenders awaiting trial, and measures to support novice drivers. These, however, fall short of the recommendations previously made by the RAC Foundation, a transport policy research charity.

Measures such as lowering the drink-drive limit for all drivers, introducing safeguards for new drivers and suspending licences for those suspected of drink or drug driving are positive steps towards using the law more effectively to reduce road violence.

However, passing new laws aimed at changing driver behaviour will not, on its own, save lives. The enforcement of such legislation depends on effective policing of the roads. As recommended by my report, investment in roads policing and collision investigation is essential.

Fundamentally, we as a society need to take all driving offences seriously, given the ultimate harm they can cause. We need to take a step back and understand that what is sometimes framed as a “war on motorists” is trying to prevent the carnage on our roads.

Sally Kyd received funding from the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety (PACTS). She is a member of the Policy Research Committee of PACTS.