Road Safety Bill [HL]

In supporting the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on Amendment No. 57, I should like to address Amendment No. 61, also included in this group, on graduated fixed penalties for speeding. The amendment would ensure that the minimum penalty for speeding remained at three points in urban areas where vulnerable road users are most at risk. A range of three to six points would apply in 20 and 30 mph zones elsewhere, and a range of two to six could apply elsewhere. The principle of graduated penalties for speeding is a positive one. However, there are serious flaws with   the proposals circulated in the Government’s discussion document last year. It included a penalty of two points for driving at up to 39 mph in a 30 mph zone. Reducing penalties in those areas sends the wrong message to drivers about the safety and acceptability of exceeding the speed limit by relatively small margins. A lower penalty for exceeding the 30   mph limit would suggest that breaking the speed limit is thought by the Government to be less serious than at present. It undermines much of the progress on speed awareness achieved by the THINK! campaign. Lower penalties for speeding are unlikely to have a positive result in terms of road safety, and at worst may lead to excess speed becoming more prevalent. In particular, a lower penalty for driving at up to 39 miles per hour in a 30 miles per hour zone would be undesirable. For pedestrians struck by a vehicle, the shift from mainly survivable to mainly fatal injuries occurs between 30 and 40 miles per hour. A pedestrian is more than twice as likely to be killed at 40 miles per hour as at 30. The risk to car occupants also rises exponentially between 20 and 40 miles per hour. This   suggests that encouraging compliance with the 30 miles per hour limit is of key importance. A reduced penalty for driving at up to 39 miles per hour undermines this. If a lower penalty comes to apply, consideration should be given to only applying it in speed limits of 40 miles per hour or above, to reflect the increased risks posed by speeding in villages and urban areas. It has been reported in the press that the proposals for lowering the penalty resulted in part from a concern about the economic and political implications of driver disqualification. It should be noted, however, that despite the recent sharp increase in the number of penalty points issued for speeding, the number of drivers disqualified for totting up or for speeding has remained static over the last 10 years. This suggests that the present system may be successful in persuading speeding drivers to change their behaviour. Ministers have previously indicated that the speeds at which different penalties will apply should be determined by regulation after further consultation. Therefore, this is a good moment for the Minister to reassure us that the proposal that goes to consultation will not contain the option of a lower penalty in built-up areas.