A sorry figure

The latest DVLA figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show police nabbed over 200 17-year-olds who had just passed their driving tests and over 40 children aged 15 and 16—all behind the wheel with drugs in their system.

Six people lost their licences after causing death while driving while intoxicated with substances that included cannabis and cocaine.

Some of those whose offences resulted in the death (of at least one other) received a four-year driving ban as punishment and while DVLA data doesn’t show if courts handed out custodial sentences, few offenders go to prison.

Drivers in their late twenties are the most serious offenders. Age 25 is when most people get disqualified because of driving while intoxicated with drugs.

The middle-aged and elderly didn’t have clean records, either. Courts prosecuted 78 motorists over the age of 60 for failing drugs tests. The eldest to lose their licence was a 74-year-old woman.

Figures show that men offend the most, with 18,175 prosecutions, compared with 1,440 women.

The figures include those prosecuted for driving or being in charge of a vehicle when unfit, driving or attempting to drive with a drug level above the specified limit, and causing death by careless driving.

Driving under the influence of drugs became a recognised criminal offence in 2015. In the 12 months following the law change, a police survey showed that when officers from 26 forces stopped motorists on suspicion of taking drugs and carried out 5,857 roadside drug tests, 3,718 tested positive.

‘Google it’

Campaigners say police miss many other drugged lawbreakers because officers stop and test fewer motorists at the roadside since the number of road policing officers fell by a third in the last 10 years.

David Jamieson, who was once a Transport Minister with responsibility for road safety, now West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner, said:

‘These figures are staggering. The reality is drug driving is a hidden epidemic. A lot of people think they can get away with it because so few police are on the roads and the likelihood of being stopped is really low. What we need is tougher enforcement.’

In August 2018, after smoking cannabis, an 18-year-old smashed his police officer parents’ £35,000 Audi into pedestrians Jason Imi and John Shackley, causing their instant deaths.

Max Coopey, who passed his driving test only two months before the incident, was over the limit for the class B drug cannabis and, although he denied taking it, tests also found codeine in his system.

Courts spared the teenager prison at his trial in January this year and charged him with drug driving rather than death by dangerous or careless driving, which carries a prison sentence of up to 14 years. They ordered him to pay £105 costs, and he received a meagre 100 hours of community service and a 24-month driving ban. Thames Valley Police didn’t consult the Crown Prosecution Service.

Despite having 3.3 micrograms (µg) in his blood when the legal limit is 2µg, Mr Coopey claimed the cannabis hadn’t affected him.

Speaking at his victims’ inquest in July, Coopey said:

‘Just because something is in your blood doesn’t mean you’re under the influence. Google it.’

A spokesman for road safety charity Brake said:

‘These shocking figures reveal just how prevalent drug driving is on our roads. It is vital that both the law and our enforcement ability is effective in catching, punishing and deterring this dangerous behaviour.

‘The Government must prioritise the type-approval of roadside screening devices that can detect all banned drugs and step up roads policing levels to deter offending.

‘We also need to see the law used to its fullest extent with tougher penalties handed out, making clear that drug driving will not be tolerated.’

The weed of crime bears bitter fruit

In England and Wales, it’s illegal to drive if either you’re unfit to do so because you’re under the influence of drugs (illegal or legal) or your blood has certain levels of illegal drugs, even if they haven’t affected your driving.

If the police suspect you’re under the influence of drugs, they can stop you and make you do a ‘field impairment assessment’ (a series of tests, such as asking you to walk in a straight line) or use a roadside drug test to look for cannabis and cocaine.

If they think you’re unfit to drive, they’ll arrest you, take you to a police station, and ask for a blood or urine sample for testing. The police can charge you if your sample tests positive for drugs.

As with drink-driving, if you’re convicted of driving under the influence of drugs, you could get a driving ban of at least 12 months. You also risk receiving an unlimited fine and even up to six months in prison.

A conviction for drug driving will mean a significant increase in the cost of your car insurance, that you have trouble travelling to countries like the United States, and if you drive for work, your employer will know of the conviction on your licence.

You can usually consider a criminal record for a motoring conviction as ‘spent’ after five years but drug driving information stays on your DVLA driving record and driving licence for up to 11 years.

The law differs in Northern Ireland and Scotland introduced a new drug driving law last week.

If you take legal drugs (whether prescription or over-the-counter) and aren’t sure whether you’re safe to drive, talk to your doctor, a healthcare professional, or a pharmacist.

How do you feel about the current drug driving law? What could further reduce driving while under the influence of drugs? Has a police officer ever pulled you over to test you for drugs? Why do you think drug driving is on the increase? Tell us in the comments.

Second biggest cause of rising carbon

With some commentators using this report as an ideal vehicle to urge a ban on all SUVs and 4x4s, it’s important to clarify that despite the headlines, you can’t just make the decision to outlaw these vehicles based on such a report.

The fact that the global share of the SUV market has almost doubled to 39% of all car sales between 2010 – 2018 shows that manufacturers are making a product that the world wants to buy, even bucking the trend of declining car sales of around 2% in 2018; if the market wasn’t there, the manufacturers would stop making them.

Further, the same study shows that the average mass of a vehicle has risen by around ten percent since 2000, which ‘shows the trend for larger vehicles’, but says nothing of all the technology fitted by the manufacturers to improve emissions or safety, as regulations require.

From 2004, average vehicle CO2 emissions have fallen by around 23%, and fuel economy has risen by 29%, the equivalent of 5.6mpg. In the intervening years, fuel economy and CO2 emissions have improved in 11 out of 13 years (to 2016) and new records are constantly being set. Despite piling on the weight, their footprint has never been lighter.

Also, the report claims that CO2 emissions from SUVs alone is higher than shipping and aviation – 700 megatonnes for SUVs, 233 Mt for aviation, and yet some quick research shows that the UK alone produced around 80 Mt of CO2 in 2018, not including any other country.

New car sales

Of course, the fact that they’re the least efficient models typically on sale doesn’t help, but the real problem isn’t so much how much gas they guzzle, but the popularity of them – nearly 40% of all new car sales worldwide in 2018 were SUVs, or nearly 35 million vehicles all told. In Europe and the UK, one-in-three cars sold is an SUV, in America, that figure is closer to one-in-two.

Perhaps part of the responsibility of the popularity could be placed at the doors of the politicians and environmentalists who insist that modern cars should be super-efficient – small, 3-cylinder engines, lightweight body panels, minimal structural reinforcement (replaced with the crash cell), smaller wheels … all in a bid to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) across the range of models offered by the big brands.

In all honesty, until we’re all driving the same electric vehicle, with our other article this week, charging only from sustainable power sources, there will always be one element of the motoring society that’s going to be victimised, penalised or hard done by.

We’ve discussed how the government needs to change the way they tax our usage of our cars, and even when we’re finally all-electric, the motorist won’t escape further taxes – just as we now pay VED, fuel duty, congestion or ULEZ, you can almost guarantee that a new element will be introduced, such as rubber pollution from our tyres, or air pollution from brake dust.

The good news is that once we’ve hit ‘Motoring 2.0’, at least we should (in theory) be treated equally; no more exemptions for the wealthy motorist who can afford the latest in technology, or penalising the poor for having the audacity to run a car that’s a few years old, and in that case, purely paying per mile of usage would be fair, and right.

What do you think to this latest report? Is it just another cheap shot at a specific group of motorists? Perhaps an early warning of impending taxation? Let us know in the comments.  

£1.5 billion scheme

The Government are now looking at how to make that difference more noticeable, and their solution is to add green coloured number plates into the mix.

The scheme is part of a £1.5 billion drive to raise awareness of electric vehicles, and we’re told that along with the green number plates, it will offer numerous other benefits including free or reduced parking, and perhaps the right to travel in bus lanes.

Except … don’t a number of cities already offer that for electric vehicles? Just without the green plates.

It’s admirable that Grant Shapps wants to incentivise buyers of Battery Electric Vehicles, but reducing the grant to help with the purchase of a new EV is just the opposite, as is changing the criteria for getting help to fit a charging system at home.

So what the Transport Secretary is really saying, is “We want to incentivise you to buy green, but in such a way that the incentives are meaningless, and don’t cost us anything; we’re giving you a gimmick.”

Positives and negatives of electric power

To be clear, I’m not anti-electric vehicles, or pro-fossil fuels. I genuinely think we’re witnessing tremendous breakthroughs, the likes of which haven’t really been seen since Karl Benz first strapped an engine to vehicle, but I’m anti gimmicks, especially those that cost us, as motorists, even more in tax.

£1.5 billion to promote “Green number plates are a really positive and exciting way to help everyone recognise the increasing number of electric vehicles on our roads” (Grant Shapps) or “The number of clean vehicles on our roads is increasing but we don’t notice as it’s difficult to tell clean vehicles apart from more polluting ones.”

“Green number plates make these vehicles, and our decision to drive in a more environmentally friendly way, more visible on our roads.” (Elisabeth Costa, senior director at the Behavioural Insights Team).

This is quite literally the UK government beating their chest, ticking some boxes and shouting that they’re doing all they can to promote green travel, whereas the reality is nothing more than a number plate design change.

Campaigners against

While making glib comments about a motoring class system is all well and good, truthfully, there are real concerns from road campaigners that it could ‘foster resentment’ from owners of traditional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) powered cars, particularly those than aren’t in the position to afford a switch to electric.

Nicholas Lyes, head of roads policy at the RAC had this to say: “While the sentiment seems right, there are question marks as to whether drivers would see this as a badge of honour or alternatively it could foster resentment among existing drivers of petrol and diesel vehicles.”

“On the face of it, drivers we’ve questioned don’t seem too impressed – only a fifth think it’s a good idea and the majority said the number plates wouldn’t have the effect of making them any more likely to switch to an electric vehicle.”

The future

Without any doubt, electric vehicles are the future of transportation, and the technology involved gets more cost-efficient with each new model rolled off the production line, but more needs to be done to help those that aren’t financially able to swap.

It’s all very well offering a meagre scrappage scheme to help buyers, but targeting the most needy with two or three thousand pounds is absolutely pointless, it’s just another gimmick that can be trotted out to satisfy the box-tickers – “Yes, we’re doing everything within our power to help people convert to green”. (“The fact that they aren’t converting to green is no concern of ours … we offered them money and everything”).

Are green number plates a gimmick? Should the govt. save the money and actually offer some useful help? Or are they doing the right thing? Let us know in the comments.

Nearly 500 miles

As of April this year, there were 488 miles of smart roadways, with a plan of extending that figure to around 800 miles by 2025. Highways England are keen to point out that there were 77 deaths on traditional motorways in 2018, with just nine on smart roads. The inference being that smart roads really aren’t that dangerous.

With this in mind, Mr O’Sullivan has rejected the calls to put a hold on the extension plans, and to add more emergency lay-bys as he feels that would do very little to improve safety on the smart roadways. Edmund King, president of the AA has a different point of view: “It’s ludicrous to suggest that having more lay-bys won’t improve safety … if drivers have more places to pull off the motorway, that’s going to make the whole thing a lot safer.”

Good reason to stop

King’s assessment is somewhat backed up by O’Sullivan’s own admission that many of the accidents are  caused as a result of motorists stopping inappropriately, such as to check directions or swap phone numbers after a minor bump; surely if there were more refuge areas, drivers wouldn’t take the risk of stopping in a live lane?

Bringing out the argument of a money grab or stealth tax is quite easy, perhaps expected, but the reality is that these motorways are much more cost-efficient to build, and of course allow for an easier monitoring system, which in turn boils down to revenue, than traditional motorways, and even the most pro supporter needs to acknowledge that argument.

Best estimates put traditional motorway building or widening at the cost of around £30m per mile, while a Parliamentary report states that the M42 smart scheme was implemented at a cost of just £9m per mile, and in the days where budget is at least as important as ‘safety’, you can clearly see why it’s the favoured method of adding capacity.

Added to that is the £41m revenue generated from fining drivers for lane infringements or speeding, and smart motorways seem like manna from heaven for the government.

Less driving

As a nation, we’re driving less miles than we’ve ever done; the average car mileage is 17% less than it was in 2002, and it’s thought that a large part of this is due to the nature of driving on our roads – motoring is no longer an enjoyable pastime, it’s not a leisure activity as it once was, and we rarely choose to just ‘head out for a drive’ on a sunny Sunday.

Perhaps it’s the overcrowding on the roads, the lack of courtesy and respect, poor lane discipline or the constant fear of being targeted through the use of non-discretionary cameras, but driving in the UK is on a downward spiral, and that could be the saving grace of the smart motorway.

If, as a nation, we’re turning to our cars for purely perfunctory reasons, only using them as needed rather than as wanted, volume of traffic will be lessened, and there may not be the need to squeeze every last bit of road space from our network.

Of course it could be argued that while we may be driving less, the volume of traffic could still increase thanks to the population increasing, but as autonomous vehicles become common place, their ability to manage traffic interaction and avoid collisions could be key to removing the dangerous element of smart motorways – the human.

Smart charging

It could also be argued that smart motorways are just another minor step towards charging motorists per mile; much of the infrastructure needed is already in place, and with a few tweaks to the software, instead of capturing registrations for rule breaking, it would be just as easy to issue a bill for using the motorway.

Technology has an ever-increasing presence on our roads – noise cameras, ‘safety’ cameras, traffic monitoring, speed limiting … surely we’re getting closer to the day where all vehicles are the same, never travelling above the speed limit, with whisper quiet running? Homogeneous motoring is upon us.

Should smart roads dictate our lives? Will there come a day (in the not too distant future) where we’ll all be driving the same ‘vehicle’? Let us know in the comments.

Photo © Copyright Robin Webster and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.