Have Motoring Offence Laws Gone Too Far In The Uk?

The legal system as a whole has been developed over many years in order to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights and responsibilities of citizens. In its component form, the law of England and Wales comprises statute law and the common law.

Provisions of statute law are introduced by the incumbent legislature, which in the UK happens to be Parliament (the Government plays a crucial role in law-making), whilst provisions of the common law have evolved over many years through the courts. Under any such legal system, it is often the case that certain provisions or rules will be passed that are applicable at the time in which they were made law but soon after become outdated a number of these laws remain in force today. Furthermore, provisions of law are routinely introduced by the Government in the context of shaping the political landscape, which is not necessarily in the best interests of the public.

In respect to motoring offences, the media will often jump on any story that highlights the apparent failings of the legal system not least because it provides an opportunity to attack the Government. Sometimes, despite the good faith in which it was incorporated into the domestic law, an offence can be applied in such a way that might be considered inappropriate or misguided. A prime example of over-zealous policing is that of Michael Mancini, a Scottish businessman from Ayrshire. In early 2010, Mr Mancini was seated in his stationary van at traffic lights. The vehicle's handbrake had been engaged. Having the urge to blow his nose, Mr Mancini removed his hands from the steering wheel, picked up a tissue and proceeded to do just that; whereupon, a nearby police officer handed Mr Mancini a 60 fixed penalty notice.

Mr Mancini was charged with a motoring offence that had been ushered in as part of a crack-down on the use of mobile phones by drivers of moving vehicles. As introduced by section 26 of the Road Safety Act 2006, any person who drives a motor vehicle in a "position which does not give proper control or a full view of the road and traffic ahead" is guilty of an offence, for which a fixed penalty notice can be issued. It would seem that Mr Mancini was simply unfortunate to find himself in the presence of a police officer who took the letter of the law to the limit and beyond.

By and large, the UK laws on motoring offences have adequately addressed the requirements of society. Section 26(1)(b), for example, makes it an offence for a driver to use a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive communication device whilst in control of a vehicle. Studies have shown that the use of mobile phones can seriously distract drivers and the law reports of recent times are littered with tragic cases involving fatal road traffic accidents caused by such distractions.

Conversely, more serious offences such as reckless driving, causing death by reckless driving and driving when under the influence of drink or drugs (Road Traffic Act 1988) perhaps do not go far enough in prosecuting those who risk their lives and those of others whilst behind the wheel.