THE news that the Government is considering a major review of the traffic laws got me thinking. If I punched a motorcyclist’s face and he fell and broke his neck, I could go to jail for life. If I killed him by driving at 100 mph and crashing into him, the maximum sentence would be 14 years plus a mandatory two-year driving ban.

Suppose I didn’t spot him as I pulled out in a right turn across his path. If he died, the maximum sentence would be five years and a mandatory one-year driving ban. Not that I plan to do any of the above, but if I did, in each case a man would be dead through my fault and his family in mourning. Only the maximum sentence would be different.

Taking it further, if, in the last case, the motorcyclist didn’t die, but was left paralysed from the neck down, the maximum sentence is a fine and although I could be banned from driving, I could get penalty points instead.

Imagine trying to explain that to the paralysed motorcyclist as he contemplates the rest of his life.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard a judge telling a defendant, often through gritted teeth, “I should send you to prison for... years, but the law will only allow me to give you ...”. Sometimes they start their remarks by saying that a vehicle is a weapon.

The problem judges grapple with every day is that the traffic laws concentrate on the mechanics of driving, whereas everyone except the driver is only interested in the consequences of bad driving.

If I walk around with a pistol loaded and cocked, the law would punish me for the consequences and wouldn’t be interested in my expertise or otherwise at aiming, pressing the trigger or just carrying the pistol. So here is my suggestion for reforming the traffic laws. P

ut the consequences first and the mechanics of driving second by creating an offence of criminal driving causing injury or death. Criminal driving would be anything against the law involving a moving vehicle, such as drink-driving, speeding, going through a red light or the wrong way down a one-way street, driving without a licence, breaking a driving ban, dangerous driving, and so on.

Then set the maximum sentence according to the consequences, so that, for example, criminal driving causing death would carry a life sentence and a mandatory five-year driving ban; criminal driving causing life-changing injury such as paralysis from the neck down could carry a maximum sentence of 14 years, plus a mandatory three-year driving ban; causing serious injury a five-year sentence with a mandatory two-year driving ban and causing a lesser injury a six-month sentence with a mandatory one-year driving ban.

Judges would still have to take the level of driving into consideration when passing sentence but they would have a much higher upper range than they do now. That would make motorists think more about how they drive and appreciate that a judge is right when he or she says a car is a weapon. Anything that can kill or injure is a weapon in the wrong hands.

If amber gamblers knew that going through a red light could put them before a judge with the power to lock them up for life, instead of a fixed penalty tickets and three points on their licence, they might think three times about doing it and slow down as the lights go to amber instead of speeding up.

Sentencing motorists according to the effect on road victims, rather than their standard of driving, could finally convince those drivers who think that good driving is performing Formula One-type manoeuvres that good driving is actually about ensuring every road user gets to their destination alive and well.