21/03/2008
The Highway Code is a useful tool for driver seeking guidance on various rules and regulations that apply on our roads. In my time of defending road traffic cases throughout Scotland it is repeatedly churned out by traffic police in support of criminal charges. But how much relevance does it have in the modern era?
Consider the issue with stopping distances. Firstly, the thinking time involved is entirely subjective. A trained fighter pilot would be presumed to have sharper reaction times however the Courts do not tend to place too much weight on the subjective nature of reaction times.
I have represented trained racing drivers with presumably razor-sharp reactions although when reliance is placed on this the Courts tend to take the view that a trained driver should be more aware of the risks involved in travelling at excessive speeds. On a linked point, it can be frustrating when a police officer gives evidence that he is fully trained in the operation of the Visual Average Speed And Recorder (VASCAR) and the Courts simply accept that the officer’s reaction times are the same as they were over a decade prior to the speed check. Life is such that we all deteriorate over time and the presumption must be that reaction times are affected simply by the aging process. This is relevant in such cases because the device simply works by virtue of a serious of toggle switches and the timings are crucial to ensuring an accurate speed is recorded.
The actual braking distances involved in the Highway Code are a relic from the 1960s and relate to tests undertaken using an out of date test car. The world is now a very different place and cars have sophisticated braking systems that mean the “typical braking distances” referred to in the Highway Code are defunct.
Specific information about vehicles involved in road traffic offences should be given more weight by the Courts as each case should turn on its own facts. Without any scientific testing it seems obvious that the suggested braking distance at 70mph is 75 metres or 24 car lengths is farcical.
The relevance of all of this is huge. I regularly defend clients charged under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, namely dangerous driving. Now this is a very serious charge carrying a mandatory minimum period of disqualification of 12 months with a compulsory order to resit. Typically the police statements indicate the following about why they consider the manner of driving to be dangerous:
(a) possibility of debris on the roads which contains many forms the most common being the remains of large goods vehicles after sustaining a blow out and the police regularly receive reports from motorists reporting the remains of tyres or other types of debris;
(b) possibility of stray animals on the roadway, for example cattle and livestock;
(c) possibility of slow moving vehicles;
(d) possibility of stationary vehicles on the roadway due to traffic;
Furthermore there is always a reference to the typical stopping distance. For example, at speeds of 80mph, the typical stopping distance would be noted as 400 feet. This rather “over eggs the pudding” and unfortunately motorists charged with road traffic offences in Scotland face prosecutions based on this estimate.
As I say, I consider the actual vehicle involved in the alleged offence as extremely relevant from an evidential perspective. A well maintained modern vehicle with ABS or a similar system will be able to come to a halt in perhaps a third of the “typical stopping distances”. This is crucial and the Courts should attach more weight to the specifics of each vehicle in the same way as it would be considered an aggravating factor if the vehicle was in blatant breach of Construction and Use Regulations.
Michael Lyon is a specialist motoring lawyer based in Glasgow. The Firm undertakes the defence of all types of Road Traffic Cases in Scotland.
Expert representation provided in all Courts including Glasgow, Perth, Dumfries, Selkirk, Stonehaven, Aberdeen, Kilmarnock and Paisley.
W: http://www.theroadtrafficlawyer.com
E: ml@theroadtrafficlawyer.com
T: 0141-550-1074
M: 07903-818-719 (Urgent Cases Only)