9 Penalties

ANALYSIS OF PENALTIES FOR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS:MAGNITUDE AND EFFECTIVENESS

Dinesh Mohan

Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

December 2009

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................. 1

BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................. 2

RESEARCH ON EFFECTIVENESS OF FINES AS DETERRENTS..............................................................................3

NORWAY.............................................................................................................................................................3THE NETHERLANDS................................................................................................................................................3AUSTRALIA...........................................................................................................................................................4USA...................................................................................................................................................................5NEW ZEALAND......................................................................................................................................................6UK.....................................................................................................................................................................7SUMMARY OF RESEARCH STUDIES ON PENALTIES.......................................................................................................8

DATA ON TRAFFIC VIOLATION PENALTIES IN HIGH INCOME COUNTRIES........................................................9

AUSTRALIA...........................................................................................................................................................9USA, MICHIGAN STATE...................................................................................................................................10NORWAY............................................................................................................................................................13UK...................................................................................................................................................................14

Fixed Penalty Notice...................................................................................................................................14Breath test.................................................................................................................................................14Road offences which result in disqualification from driving?.....................................................................15Road offences which result in vehicle seizure?...........................................................................................15What road offences result in arrest and imprisonment?............................................................................15Maximum Penalties...................................................................................................................................15Parking fines in London..............................................................................................................................16Summary....................................................................................................................................................16

DRINKING AND DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.................................................................................17SUMMARY OF PENALTIES IN HIGH INCOME COUNTRIES WITH LOW FATALITY RATES...........................................................19

Fixed penalties...........................................................................................................................................19Penalties imposed by courts.......................................................................................................................19Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................19

Executive Summary

1. There is no evidence that severe penalties reduce violations in traffic,

including jail sentences given in isolation. Announcement of severe

punishments have a deterrent effect over a few months and the beneficial

effect disappears over time.

2. Fines should be based on the ability of the defaulter to pay. Severe penalties

may also

3. Severe penalties may have the effect of increasing criminal activities by the

defaulter in order to collect money to pay the fine.

4. Penalties should be in proportion to the ability of the defaulter to pay.

5. All violations that are not considered serious in terms of threat to life or wilful

negligent acts endangering the community (serious injury or death), and those

that do not require judgement should have fixed penalties (termed

compoundable in India)

Summary for all countries studied

Prorated for Indian PCI USD 1,0001


Lowest penalty (eg parking) ~75 ~180

Highest penalty ~2,000 ~4,800

Drinking and driving ~500-1,000 ~1,200-2,400

Considering the income of road users in India, penalties should be in the following

range:

For compounding

Minimum penalty: Rs 200

Maximum penalty: Rs 2,500

Courts may determine higher levels of punishment depending on the criminality

involved.

1 Equivalent to Indian family income of ~ Rs. 20,000 per month (About 70% earn less than this)2 Equivalent to Indian family income of ~ Rs. 50,000 per month

1

Background

This review of the effectiveness of penalties for traffic violations has been on

the suggestion of the Chairman of the Committee to review Motor Vehicles Act,

1988.

Many stakeholders have submitted to the Committee that fines and penalties

should be made much more severe so that toad users are deterred from committing

violations. However, some Committee members felt that changes in the Act should

be based on some scientific criteria and practical experiences around the world.

This review consists of two parts:

Review of studies on effectiveness of penalties in high income countries that

have achieved low road traffic fatality rates.

Review of the magnitude of penalties for traffic violation in countries that have

achieved low road traffic fatality rates. The magnitude of the fines have been

prorated for two income levels in India:

a. Family income of ~ Rs. 20,000 per month. This is equivalent to the average per-

capita income of India. It is estimated that about 30% of the families earn this

amount at present price levels. Families are able to own a motorcycle at this level of

income.

b. Family income of ~ Rs. 50,000 per month. It is estimated that less than 10% of

the families earn this amount. Families are able to own a car at this level of income.

However, it should be noted that most drivers possessing a professional

drivers license would be earning less than Rs. 20,000 per month.

2

Research on effectiveness of fines as deterrents

Many countries have commissioned studies on the impact of higher fines on

reduction of offences. The salient points from some of these studies are summarised

below. Sentences emphasized are at the discretion of the author.

NORWAY

“Problem: Many motorized countries use fixed penalties to deter the most common

traffic violations. Fixed penalties are usually given at the spot by a police officer. If

the offender accepts the fixed penalty, no court hearing or trial is held. During the

years 1995–2004, the rates for fixed penalties for traffic offences in Norway

increased substantially. This paper evaluates the effects on compliance of these

increases. Method: Regression analysis was performed to determine the effects of

increases in fixed penalties. Results: For speeding in general, no effect of increasing

fixed penalties can be found. For speeding close to speed camera sites, there is a

weak tendency for the violation rate to go down. This tendency is not statistically

significant at conventional levels. For seat belt wearing, wearing rates are found to

increase as fixed penalties have increased. In recent years, however, enforcement of

the seat belt law has stepped up, making it impossible to separate the effect of

enforcement from that of fixed penalties. Impact on industry: It has been suggested

that the police may adapt to stricter penalties by reducing enforcement or by

adopting larger tolerance margins for violations. Available evidence does not support

this hypothesis.” 3

THE NETHERLANDS

“Many studies have demonstrated that the combination of enforcement and

penalties prevent the violation of traffic regulations and increase road safety.

However, the most common type of penalty at the present time, a fine, has been

found to have little effect... When road users consider the subjective probability of

detection to be sufficiently likely, they will avoid violating a regulation... The

combination of enforcement and penalty is generally preventative when road users

avoid traffic violations on the basis of the expected negative consequences. In other 3 Elvik, R., Christensen, P., (2007). The deterrent effect of increasing fixed penalties for traffic offences: The Norwegian experience. Journal of Safety Research 38, 689-695.

3

words, road users adapt their behaviour without having already been punished. In

particular, frequently conducted and very visible traffic checks, which are

unpredictable in terms of time and place and are combined with public information

campaigns, bring about the general prevention of traffic violations...The purpose of

threatening people with penalties is to make it unattractive to commit violations

(general prevention) and the actual punishing of offenders is intended to prevent

offenders from repeating the offence (specific prevention). Many studies have

demonstrated that combining enforcement and penalties prevents violations and

increases road safety. Of course, the penalty must match the seriousness of the

violation and must be substantial enough to influence behaviour, but particularly the

frequency, visibility, and unpredictability of inspections are responsible for the

general prevention of traffic violations. Making penalties heavier, as an isolated

measure, has been found to have little extra effect.

Research into the specific preventative effect of penalties shows that the

effect of the currently most common type of penalty, a fine, is negligible when

expressed in time. The effects are also negligible in terms of recidivism.”4

AUSTRALIA

1. “What we do know from the available evidence, however, is that the certainty

of detection, apprehension and conviction does matter and in fact may matter more

than punishment severity in deterring potential offenders. One reason offered for the

superior effect of certainty is that apprehension for an offence elicits more costs to

an individual than simply those formally imposed by the justice system. Informal

sanctions from family, peers and colleagues who learn about the offence, and the

resulting feelings of shame and embarrassment, are also anticipated costs

associated with apprehension and conviction for an offence. Policies that can

successfully increase the perceived certainty of detection and prosecution for drink-

driving offences are therefore likely to have a greater impact on offending and,

subsequently, road accident rates than those advocating harsher penalties.”5

4 SWOV Fact sheet...Penalties in traffic. SWOV (Institute for Road Safety Research), Leidschendam, The Netherlands,January 20095 Briscoe, S., (2004). Raising the bar: can increased statutory penalties deter drink-drivers? Accident Analysis & Prevention 36, 919-929.

4

2. “Each year in New South Wales more than 50,000 persons convicted by a

court receive a fine as their principal penalty. Little is known about the deterrent

efficacy of these penalties. This study investigates whether fine amount has an

impact on reoffending. The study examines the history and subsequent reoffending

of 70,000 persons who received a court imposed fine for a driving offence between

1998 and 2000. The results provide little evidence to suggest the presence of

marginal deterrent effects from court-imposed fines on driving offenders; the most

consistent predictors of returning to court were individual attributes of offenders. As a

result, it is suggested that substantial increases in fines and licence disqualifications

would have limited potential in deterring recidivist offenders. .. The present analysis,

failed to find any evidence for a significant relationship between fine amount and the

likelihood that an offender will return to court for a new driving offence. Nor was there

any evidence from our analyses to suggest that longer licence disqualification

periods reduced the likelihood of an offender reappearing before the courts.”6

USA

1. “Speeding citations and their legal consequences are the most common

enforcement tools to identify and control speeders, yet little is known about the

effectiveness of a speeding citation. There was no significant effect of receiving legal

consequences on the risk of receiving a subsequent speeding citation (adjusted RR

0.98, 95% CI 0.83-1.16). Receiving fines and demerit points did not appear to deter

future speeding violations, as shown by comparison with those who escaped legal

consequences (adjusted RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88-1.24). Conclusions: Speeding

citations may not be effective in changing drivers' speeding behavior. However, the

penalty of "fines and PBJ" may be more effective in changing driving behaviors than

other kinds of penalties. Increasing drivers' perception that they are at risk of being

caught speeding and awareness of the consequences from receiving points may

improve the effectiveness of speeding law enforcement.”7

2. “We examined effects of state statutory changes in DUI fine or jail penalties

for first time offenders from 1976 to 2002. Results: Twenty-six states implemented

6 Moffatt, S., Poynton, S., (2007). The deterrent effect of higher fines on recidivism: Driving offences. Attorney General's Department, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney.7 Li, J., Lawpoolsri, S., Braver, E. R., (2006). Speeding Tickets: Effective Deterrents for Future Violations or Not? TRB 85th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM 29. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, pp. 1-29

5

mandatory minimum fine policies and 18 states implemented mandatory minimum

jail penalties. Estimated effects varied widely from state to state. Using variance

weighted meta-analysis methods to aggregate results across states, mandatory fine

policies are associated with an average reduction in fatal crash involvement by

drivers with BAC≥0.08 g/dl of 8% (averaging 13 per state per year). Mandatory

minimum jail policies are associated with a decline in single-vehicle nighttime fatal

crash involvement of 6% (averaging 5 per state per year), and a decline in low-BAC

cases of 9% (averaging 3 per state per year). No significant effects were observed

for the other outcome measures. Conclusions: The overall pattern of results

suggests a possible effect of mandatory fine policies in some states, but little effect

of mandatory jail policies.”8

3. “Driving under the influence (DUI) is a significant public health problem... The

purpose of this paper is to summarize the current knowledge about DUI relapse, or

recidivism...While the results showed support for the swiftness and certainty of

punishment, there was no support for the severity of punishment. That is, the

relationship between the amount of the fine and DUI relapse was not significant.

However, deterrence theory would expect certainty and severity of punishment to

show a multiplicative relationship, meaning that severity would have its strongest

effects when certainty of punishment was high. This interaction was not tested in

either study; therefore, firm conclusions regarding the influence of fines cannot be

drawn at this time.”9

NEW ZEALAND

“The question arises whether it is fair and appropriate to have flat-rate

penalties (irrespective of prior records) for more and more offences, particularly in

the cases of first offenders who can receive no concession and those who continue

to re-offend and incur no additional penalty. The example of first offenders is an

argument for not setting the levels of infringement fees for individuals at too high a

level. Greater use of warnings or diversion, if necessary on a formal basis with

8 Wagenaar, A. C., Maldonado-Molina, M. M., Erickson, D. J., Ma, L., Tobler, A. L., Komro, K. A., (2007). General deterrence effects of U.S. statutory DUI fine and jail penalties: Long-term follow-up in 32 states. Accident Analysis & Prevention 39, 982-994.9 Nochajski, T. H., Stasiewicz, P. R., (2006). Relapse to driving under the influence (DUI): A review. Clinical Psychology Review 26, 179-195.

6

procedural protections, could address some concerns about prosecuting authorities

being heavy-handed in their use of infringement notices in a manner that seems

more related to raising revenue than encouraging people to obey the law...There are

probably two essential pre-conditions for the fine to continue to be the core sanction.

There must be principled means for adjusting the amount of a fine to take account of

both the offender’s culpability and his or her resources and there must be efficient

and reliable systems of collection and enforcement to ensure that most fines that are

imposed will be paid in full and on time...There is a perception that fines cannot be

applied to impecunious offenders because either they have such limited ability to

meet additional financial obligations that little or nothing will be paid or they will

commit more crime to obtain illicit income to pay the fine... (large fines) may punish

the families of offenders more than the offender themselves (through resulting

financial hardship)...they are inappropriate for offenders who pose a risk to the

community (as they involve no supervision or incapacitation)...large fines are often

difficult to collect and prove costly to enforce...as with infringements (although to a

lesser extent) they may get to be perceived as a method of raising additional public

revenue rather than as appropriate penalties for offences.”10

UK

“Given that the levels of fixed penalties should not be beyond the financial

means of a person who is able to tax, insure and maintain a motor car, the

Government is not persuaded that there is a strong case for allowing offenders to

come to court to look for a reduced penalty compared to the standard fixed penalty.

It recognises, however, that there may be special circumstances to be taken into

consideration, as there are now for the matter of special reasons not to disqualify,

but mitigation would not normally be applicable in the case of these offences. As the

review indicates there are substantial savings on court costs to be made from

dissuading offenders from opting for a court hearing. The Government, therefore,

proposes to seek an early opportunity to introduce this measure...The Government

remains of the view, however, that the maximum penalty for the offence where a

death occurs as a result of an aggravated vehicle taking ought to be brought into line

10 Criminal Justice Policy Group, (2000). Review of Monetary Penalties in New Zealand. Ministry of Justice, Auckland, pp. 1-139.

7

with the other causing death offences and, therefore intends to raise the maximum

penalty for all these offences to 14 years’ imprisonment.”11

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH STUDIES ON PENALTIES

6. There is no evidence that severe penalties reduce violations in traffic,

including jail sentences given in isolation. Announcement of severe

punishments have a deterrent effect over a few months and the beneficial

effect disappears over time.

7. Fines should be based on the ability of the defaulter to pay. Severe penalties

may also

8. Severe penalties may have the effect of increasing criminal activities by the

defaulter in order to collect money to pay the fine.

9. Penalties should be in proportion to the ability of the defaulter to pay.

10.All violations that are not considered serious in terms of threat to life or wilful

negligent acts endangering the community (serious injury or death), and those

that do not require judgement should have fixed penalties (termed

compoundable in India)

11 Department of Transport, (2002). Report on the Review of Road Traffic Penalties. Home Office Communication Directorate, London, pp. 1-13.

8

Data on traffic violation penalties in high income countries

AUSTRALIA

Fines in Australia are set in terms of “Penalty Points” for all violations and crimes

including traffic. These remain constant under the law until amended. The Treasurer

sets the monetary value of the Penalty Unit and this is announced officially from time

to time. Table below shows how these values have been set over a few years.

Financial Year 1 Penalty Unit

2004 - 2005 (1/7/04 - 30/6/05) $102.252005 - 2006 (1/7/05 - 30/6/06) $104.812006 - 2007 (1/7/06 - 30/6/07) $107.432007 - 2008 (1/7/07 - 30/6/08) $110.122008 - 2009 (1/7/08 - 30/6/09) $113.422009 - 2010 (1/7/09 - 30/6/10) $116.82

Penalties for different traffic offences in Australia are shown below.

OFFENCE PENALTY UNITS

Equiv Indian Rs.

Prorated for Indian PCI US$ 1,00012

Prorated for Indian PCI US$ 2,40013

Parking violations 2-3 10,000 213 511Interfering with the driver's control

3 13,698 291 699

Lane indiscipline 5 22,830 486 1,166Driving in bicycle lane, bus lane

5 22,830 486 1,166

BAC .02-.08 5 2,2830 485 1,165Red signal 10 45,660 971 2,332Wrong ocupancy 10 45,660 971 2,332Helmet 10 45,660 971 2,332Motorcyle with more than 2 pass

10 45,660 971 2,332

Seat Belts 10 45,660 971 2,332Mobile phone 10 45,660 971 2,332BAC .08-.15 10 4,5660 971 2,331BAC >.15 15 6,8490 1,457 3,497Speed-limit by less than 35 km per hour

20 91,320 1,943 4,663


9

USA, MICHIGAN STATE

Penalties in the State of Michigan are in USA are shown below:

OFFENCEPenalty US$ (Within 21

Days)*

Equivalent Indian Rs.

Prorated for Indian PCI

USD 1,00014

Prorated for Indian PCI

USD 2,40015

ACCIDENT

Regardless of Offense (except careless driving, brakes, defective steering and speeding)

161 7,567 183 439

SPEEDING

1-5 OVER LIMIT 116 5,452 132 316

6-10 OVER LIMIT 126 5,922 143 343

11-15 OVER LIMIT 141 6,627 160 384

16-20 OVER LIMIT 161 7,567 183 439

21-30 OVER LIMIT 171 8,037 194 466

31 + OVER LIMIT 186 8,742 211 507

0 0

DRIVING 0 0

Allow to Ride Outside of Vehicle 96 4,512 109 262

Drove on or over Sidewalk or Curb

96 4,512 109 262

Drove with One Arm or Lap Driving

96 4,512 109 262

Riding Outside of Vehicle 96 4,512 109 262

Drove over Fire Hose 111 5,217 126 302

Drove Through Funeral Procession

111 5,217 126 302

Obstructed Vision 111 5,217 126 302

Varying Course w/o Signal and/or Safe Observation

111 5,217 126 302

Blocking Traffic 116 5,452 132 316

Following Too Closely 116 5,452 132 316

Impeding Traffic 116 5,452 132 316

Disobey Traffic Control Device 121 5,687 137 330

Failure to Use Due Care and Caution

121 5,687 137 330

Interfere with Moving Traffic 121 5,687 137 330

Wrong Way on Divided Highway or a One Way Street

121 5,687 137 330

Drove Left of Center 126 5,922 143 343

Drove Through Private Property to Avoid Signal

126 5,922 143 343

Improper Passing 126 5,922 143 343


10


Days)*




Open Alcohol in Motor Vehicle Driver/Passenger

146 6,862 166 398

Drove Around Railroad Gates 160 7,567 182 436

Careless Driving 201 9,447 228 548

Careless Driving with Accident 251 11,797 285 684

0 0

FAILED TO STOP/YIELD 0 0

Failed to Signal on Turn 96 4,512 109 262

Red Light, Amber Light or Red Flasher

121 5,687 137 330

Failed to Stop at Stop Sign 121 5,687 137 330

Failed to Yield Right of Way 121 5,687 137 330

Failed to Yield to Pedestrian 121 5,687 137 330

Against Red Light 121 5,687 137 330

Improper or Prohibited Turn 121 5,687 137 330

Failed to Yield to Emergency Vehicle

156 7,332 177 425

Failed to Stop at Railroad Signal 160 7,567 182 436

Failed to Stop For School Bus 206 9,682 234 561

Failed to Yield to Emergency Responder

401 18,847 455 1,093

AUTOMOBILE REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE

Improperly Displayed, Dirty or Obscured Plate

96 4,512 109 262

No Proof of Registration/Unsigned

96 4,512 109 262

Expired/Improper Plate 136 6,392 154 371

No Proof of Insurance 186 8,742 211 507

DRIVER'S LICENSE 0 0

Failed to Change Address 81 3,807 92 221

Drove without Corrective Lens 135 6,3345 153 368

Expired Operator's License 135 6,3345 153 368

No Operators License on Person/Illegible or Defaced

135 6,3345 153 368

0 0

EQUIPMENT VIOLATIONS 0 0

Seat Belt Driver/Passenger 65 3,055 74 177

Broken or Cracked Windshield 111 5,217 126 302

Child Restraint 111 5,217 126 302

All Other Equipment 111 5,217 126 302

Defective Brakes 191 8,977 217 520

11


Days)*




Defective Steering 191 8,977 217 520

ENVIRONMENTAL FEES

Allowing Litter on Public or Private Premises

65 3,055 74 177

Early Set Out of Bulk Items 65 3,055 74 177

Failed to Cut Grass/Weeds, Allow to Grow in Excess of 12 In.

65 3,055 74 177

Failed to Remove Containers from Kerbside

65 3,055 74 177

Commercial Refuse Mixed with Domestic Refuse

120 5,640 136 327

Failed to Keep Premises Free from Litter

120 5,640 136 327

Prohibited Burning of Refuse in Open Fire

120 5,640 136 327

Use of Unapproved Storage Container

120 5,640 136 327

* When fine is p[aid after 21 days, there is an additional penalty of about 50%.

12

NORWAY

The amount of fines imposed in Norway are given in the Table below:

OFFENCEPenalty

Norwegian Kroner

Equivalent Indian Rs

Prorated for

Indian PCI USD

1,000

Prorated for

Indian PCI USD

2,400

Speed limit 60 km/h or lower, violation < 5 km/h 500 3,525 71 169Speed limit 70 km/h or higher, violation < 5 km/h

500 3,525 71 169

Cycling without headlight or in violation of traffic signs

700 4,935 99 237

Not wearing seat belts 750 5,288 106 254

Illegal use of agricultural vehicle on public road 1,000 7,050 141 338Speed limit 60 km/h or lower, violation < 10 km/h

1,200 8,460 169 406

Speed limit 70 km/h or higher, violation < 10 km/h

1,200 8,460 169 406

Wrong use of headlights; no use of indicators 1,500 10,575 212 508

No parking brake, light vehicles 1,500 10,575 212 508Speed limit 70 km/h or higher, violation < 15 km/h

2,000 14,100 282 677

Speed limit 60 km/h or lower, violation < 15 km/h

2,200 15,510 310 744

Driving on pedestrian area 2,500 17,625 353 846Speed limit 70 km/h or higher, violation < 20 km/h

2,800 19,740 395 948

No parking brake, heavy vehicles 3,000 21,150 423 1,015Speed limit 60 km/h or lower, violation < 20 km/h

3,200 22,560 451 1,083

Violating certain traffic signs 3,200 22,560 451 1,083

Engine tuning of moped or motorcycle 3,200 22,560 451 1,083Speed limit 70 km/h or higher, violation < 25 km/h

3,800 26,790 536 1,286

Red light running 4,000 28,200 564 1,354

Illegal overtaking 4,000 28,200 564 1,354

Failure to yield 4,000 28,200 564 1,354Speed limit 60 km/h or lower, violation < 25 km/h

5,000 35,250 705 1,692


5,000 35,250 705 1,692


6,000 42,300 846 2,030

13

UK

The police have the power to stop anyone at any time – they don’t need to

give you a reason – and failing to stop is a criminal offence. When pulled over by the

police, you may be asked to produce documents including:

driving licence insurance certificate vehicle registration document

If you don’t have these with you, you’ll be given seven days to produce them

at a police station. If you feel you’ve been stopped too many times, you can make a

complaint.

Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN)

If you’ve committed a minor traffic offence, like not wearing a seatbelt or

driving with a broken headlight, the police may issue you with a one-off fine called a

fixed penalty notice.

Non-endorsable offences - meaning those which don’t result in points on your

licence - usually incur a fine of £30.

Fines for endorsable offences like speeding are usually £60, although there

may be some exceptions. More serious offences such as driving without insurance

can incur fines of up to £200.

Police do not have the power to make you pay fines on the spot. If you feel a

penalty notice is unjust, you can choose not to pay the fine and argue your case in

court. If you do pay the fine, you won’t be prosecuted and no record of your offence

will be kept.

Breath test

Police can ‘breathalyse’ you (ask you for a breath test) if they suspect you’ve

been drinking if, for example, your driving seems erratic. You’ll be asked to give two

valid samples of breath, and the lower result is the one on which any prosecution will

be based. If you fail the breath test, the police will take you to the police station

where you’ll be charged and the evidence (the breath test) will be stored. You must

leave your car until you’re sober enough to move it, or another ‘legal’ driver can

move it with your permission. Failure to give a breath test is an offence.

14

Road offences which result in disqualification from driving?

If you get 12 points on your licence within a three year period as a result of

endorsable offences, your licence will usually be revoked for at least six months.

Drink driving offences will result in mandatory disqualification from driving.

Road offences which result in vehicle seizure?

The police have the power to seize a vehicle if it’s being used in an anti-social

manner (causing alarm, harassment or distress). This includes inconsiderate driving

and unauthorised off-road driving of cars, motorbikes etc. Police can seize vehicles if

drivers don’t have an appropriate licence or insurance.

What road offences result in arrest and imprisonment?

The police can arrest you for any offence if they see fit. Serious road offences

may result in imprisonment – such as causing death by dangerous driving.

Maximum Penalties

Offence

Penalty

Points Likely Penalty Fixed Penalty Option

Accidents

Failing to stop after an accident 5-10 up to £5,000 No

Failing to report an accident 5-10 up to £5,000 No

Alcohol

Refusing roadside breath test 4 up to £1,000 No

In charge with excess alcohol 10 up to £2,500 No

After being in charge refusing to

supply specimens for analysis10 up to £2,500 No

Driving with excess alcohol 4 up to £5,000 No

After driving refusing to supply

specimens for analysis4 up to £5,000 No

Documents

No Insurance 6-8 up to £5,000 No

No Tax 0 up to £1,000 Yes

No MOT 0 up to £1,000 Yes

No Driving Licence 3-6 up to £1,000 No

Speeding

Speeding - Exceeding the speed limit

(non-motorway)3-6 up to £1,000 Yes

15

Offence

Penalty

Points Likely Penalty Fixed Penalty Option

Speeding - Exceeding the speed limit

on the motorway3-6 up to £2,500 Yes

Parking fines in London

DescriptionNon R Zone fine

from 01/07/2007

R Zone fine from

01/07/2007

Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours £100 £120Parked without clearly displaying two valid pay and display tickets when required £60 £80Parked without payment of the parking charge £60 £80Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place without clearly displaying either a permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place £100 £120Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place displaying an invalid permit, an invalid voucher or an invalid pay and display ticket £60 £80Parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading £100 £120Vehicle parked more than 50 cm from the edge of the carriageway and not within a designated parking place £100 £120Parked for longer than permitted £60 £80Parked in a parking place designated for police vehicles £100 £120Parked on a taxi rank £100 £120Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway) £100 £120Stopped on a restricted bus stop/stand £100 £120Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking) £100 £120Parked with engine running where prohibited £60 £80Stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zig-zags £100 £120

Summary

Except for serious offences like leaving the scene of accident, drunken driving

resulting in injury or serious accident, traffic violators in UK are given as fixed

penalties. These are shown below:

OffencePenalty

UK £Equivalent Indian Rs.



Non- endorsable violations like not wearing a seatbelt

30 2,280 53 127

Speeding 60 4,560 106 255

16

Without insurance 200 15,200 353 848Parking (in London) 60-120 4,560-9,120 106-212 254-508Maximum fine possible 5,000 380,000 8,837 21,209

DRINKING AND DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL

A section on penalties for driving while intoxicated (DWI) has been specially

included because these are generally the most severe penalties in most countries.

An examination of these will give us an idea bout revocation of licences, etc. The

table below gives us an idea form 7 representative nations.16

Country Sanctions for First Offense Sanctions for Multiple

Offenses

Australia

Victoria

$1,200 ($754.80 US) maximum fine.For learners or probationary drivers with BAC over .00, disqualification of license for 6 months maximum, 1 month minimum with extension of probationary period for up to 7 months. Police have power to suspend the license on the spot until the case is heard for BAC of 0.15 or greater years gaol and/or $180,000 ($113,220.00 US) maximum fine plus 2 years minimum disqualification. For DUI liquor or drug, $2500 ($1,572.50 US) maximum fine or 3 months gaol plus 2 years minimum disqualification

$2,500 ($1,572.50 US) maximum fine. For all 2nd offenders, police have the power to suspend the license on the spot until the case is heard.

Canada

British

Columbia

A 24-hour roadside suspension may be given for BAC greater than .05. Administrative suspension of license for 90 days may be imposed for a BAC over .08. For Criminal Code offenses, license is suspended for 1 year for the first offense

For second Criminal Code offense within 10 years, a 3 year suspension of license.Third time offenders may receive an indefinite suspension of license.

Netherland

For first offenders not involved in a traffic accident, fines are graduated according to BAC level. Fines

Against repeat offenders and offenders involved in accidents, a penalty is

16 NHTSA, (2000). On DWI Laws in Other Countries. Department of Transport, Washington DC, pp. 1-41.

17

Country Sanctions for First Offense Sanctions for Multiple

Offenses

s range from a minimum of f390 for BAC of 54-80 mg/100 ml to 2,200 for BAC of 211-250 mg/100 ml ($194.94 to $1,099.65 US). Suspension of license for BAC level greater than 131 mg/100 ml. Length of suspension increases with BAC level. 2 week imprisonment may be given for BAC over 211 mg/100 ml. Motorists refusing to take evidential breath test incur a penalty equal to that given for BAC level of 211- 250 mg/100 ml.

requested belonging to a BAC category which is one or two categories higher than the actual BAC category.

Sweden For first offense with no aggravating circumstances, fines are imposed. For a BAC level between .02 and .10, the amount of the fine is determined by income level as well as BAC level and the circumstances. For BAC level between .03 and .10, licenses may be revoked for 2 to 12 months depending on the circumstances and the BAC level. Above .10, a minimum 12 months and a maximum 36 months loss of license. If BAC level is greater than .10, imprisonment for 1 to 2 months. A drunk driver who causes an accident involving a fatality can be imprisoned up to 6 years.

Fines are usually not applicable for repeat offenders. Heavy fines if applied. License suspension for repeat offenders: Below .10 BAC, close to 12 months; and above .10, well above 12 months.

United

Kingdom

Fine of up to 5,000 pounds ($8,005.00 US). The average is300 pounds ($480.30 US). Suspension of license is possible, though rare for first offense. Imprisonment for up to 6 months is possible, though rare for first offense.

Fines are the same as for firstoffense: up to 5,000 pounds; average is 300 pounds.3 years minimum license suspension if there has been a previous drink/drive offence within 10 years of the latest. Possible imprisonment for up to 6 months

18

SUMMARY OF PENALTIES IN HIGH INCOME COUNTRIES WITH LOW FATALITY RATES

Fixed penalties

Summary for all countries studied



Lowest penalty (eg parking)~75 ~180

Highest penalty ~2,000 ~4,800

Drinking and driving ~500-1,000 ~1,200-2,400

Penalties imposed by courts

When the offence involves severe injury/fatality along with criminal

negligence, offenders can be sentenced to jail and heavy punitive fines can be

imposed as per the criminal laws of the country. Jail terms are not given unless the

criminal intent is determined by courts. For drinking and driving most countries do

not impose jail terms for the first offence. Jail terms from one week to 3 months are

given to repeat offenders and those having BAC levels much above the prescribed

limit for cases which do not involve death or serious injury.

License revocation for specific violations are in use specially for drinking and

driving.

Conclusion

The above analysis shows that, considering the income of road users in India,

penalties should be in the following range:

For compounding

Minimum penalty: Rs 200

Maximum penalty: Rs 2,500

Courts may determine higher levels of punishment depending on the criminality

involved.


19

9 Penalties

Documents

Transcript of 9 Penalties