Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Italy gets tough on killer drivers - how do new laws compare to UK?

“A driving licence is not a licence to kill,” says interior minister as senate votes in new laws

Italy’s parliament has passed legislation that creates a new offence of “omocidio stradale” – “road homicide” – as part of a sweeping reform of the law in cases where a motorist is charged with killing or injuring someone in a road traffic incident. How do the laws, and specifically the punishments laid down, compare with those in the UK?

Senators voted overwhelmingly in favour of the new legislation earlier this month, which will pass into law once it has been formally ratified by the President of the Republic, Sergio Matterella.

The bill had previously been passed by the country’s lower house, and Interior Minister Angelino Alfano reacted to the news by tweeting that “A driving licence is not a licence to kill,” adding, “I owed it to a friend. We owed it to all victims.”

As this article from La Stampa explains, the new standalone offence of road homicide encompasses three separate scales of punishment depending on the circumstances of the case.

What is particularly striking for anyone familiar with the comparable laws in the UK are the minimum jail terms and driving bans stipulated, and the way the Italian system increases both the minimum and maximum sentences where there are aggravating circumstances such as a driver fleeing the scene, or being unlicensed.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/

Here are the three base offences and the punishment provided for each, as well as their equivalents in the UK. It should be noted that in Italy, the sentences can be reduced by up to half if the victim is found to have been partly responsible.

Italy

Causing death when not driving in compliance with the Codice Stradale (Highway Code) – between 2 and 7 years’ imprisonment, 15-year ban.

Causing death by dangerous driving (eg speeding, ignoring traffic lights, risky overtaking) or with a blood alcohol level between 0.8 grams per litre and 1.5 grams per litre – between 5 and 10 years’ imprisonment, 15-year ban.

Causing death by driving with a blood alcohol level above 1.5 grams per litre or while under the influence of drugs – between 8 and 12 years’ imprisonment, 15-year ban.

UK

Causing death by careless driving – up to 5 years’ imprisonment, minimum 1 year-ban.

Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs – 1 to 14 years in prison, minimum 2-year ban.

Causing death by dangerous driving – between 5 and 10 years’ imprisonment, minimum 2-year ban.

Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs – 1 to 14 years in prison, minimum 2-year ban.

The new laws in Italy also stipulate minimum and maximum jail terms for motorists who injure people while driving, examples including a minimum of six months’ imprisonment for causing serious injury through dangerous driving.

That rises to a maximum of seven years for drivers of large vehicles such as lorries or buses who are found to be drunk or under the influence of drugs.

Anyone convicted of causing injury while driving also receives an automatic five-year ban.

In the UK, the offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, introduced in 2012, has a maximum penalty of five years in prison, and/or a fine, and is disqualified from driving for a minimum of two years.

Both the jail terms and the length of driving ban are increased under Italy’s new laws by between a third and two thirds when the motorist flees the scene – failure to stop, in its UK equivalent – meaning a minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment in cases where someone has been killed, and three years where he or she has been injured.

Other aggravating factors include driving without a licence or driving without insurance, and cases where more than one person has been killed or injured.

MPs call on UK government to overhaul sentencing for drivers who kill 

We’ve reported on several cases on road.cc in which a driver in the UK was convicted of killing two cyclists in a single incident, leading to the victims’ MPs urging the government to introduce harsher penalties.

> Has the government's promised driving offences review been shelved?

In January 2013, Ross Simons and his wife Clare were killed by driver Nicholas Lovell as they rode their tandem. Later that year, Lovell, who had been banned from driving at the time of the fatal crash, pleaded guilty to causing their deaths by dangerous driving and was sentenced to 10 years six months in prison.

He had 11 convictions for driving while disqualified, and had also been convicted on four occasions of dangerous driving.

Prime Minister David Cameron told Kingswood MP Chris Skidmore that the government was reviewing sentencing in serious driving cases, something it had promised in its response that year to the Get Britain Cycling report from the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG).

As we reported last month, however, concerns have been raised that the review has been shelved after Lord Berkeley asked justice minister Andrew Selous for an update and was told that penalties for driving offences were expected to form part of a wider review of criminal sentencing that would begin by the end of this year.

Meanwhile, Reading West MP Alok Sharma has been campaigning for changes to the law after two of his constituents, John Morland and Kris Jarvis, were killed by motorist Alexander Walter in 2014.

Walters, who was drunk and had taken cocaine, was driving a stolen car and fled the scene, pleaded guilty to seven offences including causing death by dangerous driving, and was sentenced to 10 years three months in jail.

A petition launched by their fiancées, Tracey Fidler and Hayley Lindsay, collected more than 100,000 signatures calling for dangerous drivers to get a maximum sentence of 14 years for each person they kill, with the sentences to be served consecutively, not concurrently.

Under the new Italian laws, certainly in the latter case the driver would have been looking at a much longer jail sentence due to the drink and drugs aspect and other aggravating factors involved as well as the fact that two people lost their loves.

But it’s in less extreme – and, sad to say, all too common cases – that the biggest differences perhaps lie between the two countries.

We regularly report on cases where motorists convicted of causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving have been handed a community order or suspended prison sentence, rather than a custodial one. In Italy the driver would be jailed for at least two years.

In the past two days, we have reported on two drivers convicted of killing a person on a bike through dangerous driving, a more serious offence; they were sentenced, respectively, to two years and four years in jail, whereas in Italy the minimum sentence would be five years in prison.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

18 comments

Avatar
davembk | 8 years ago
0 likes

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar
davembk | 8 years ago
3 likes

To read about selfish killer drivers who get away with  bans or community service is bad enough but for the ones who've lost  loved ones because of them, just hammers home further that lives lost on the roads somehow don't matter anywhere near as much as lives lost in other ways.

It's good for all obvious reasons that there's an upsurge in cycling but sad that inevitably more lives will be lost at the hands of idiot drivers, even though hopefully we will see an increasing percentage of cyclist drivers, with obvious safety gains.

In 2008 we lost our 25 year old son Anthony who thanks to a van driver never made it home from a training ride. As always seems to be, he was hit from behind, and never stood a change despite being an impeccably safety conscious cyclist always.The driver was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving but never went to court because the CPS did not want to take the risk of the classic Sun In Eyes excuse proving enough to get him off.

The fact that the threat of a private prosecution was enough for his insurance company to lie down and cough up at least some funeral costs etc told us what we were all thinking.....

Anyone who goes through any ordeal finds themselves from that point, tuned in to all similar ones that follow, and so we are extra-acutely aware of the gauntlet we cyclists run every day, and sometimes fail, another family crushed.

We deserve better than having to worry every time we go out whether we'll make it home.

"Speed thrills, Pain lasts"

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar
moretti1972 | 8 years ago
0 likes

It's impossible to obtain a meaningful conviction in Italy with its time limitations for prosecution and three degrees of judgement. This is meaningless legal posturing, unfortunately.

Avatar
kil0ran | 8 years ago
0 likes

Agree re driving while disqualified escalation of sentence, mandatory jail term would be a deterrent more than a 15-year ban.

Avatar
Nuclear Dan | 8 years ago
4 likes

When we used to have sensible laws and sentencing guidelines we used to punish the offense not the consequences.

There shouldn't be a difference in sentencing between causing an accident and killing someone in that accident as someone dying is essentially a random event.

I'd also question exactly what benefit sending someone to jail for a non violent offense. Don't say deterrence there are 40 million drivers and circa 100 go to jail a year for death by dangerous driving.

The chances of getting caught for dangerous driving and the consequences for that are a far more important influence on behavior than the consequences for the tiny number of people who actually kill somebody.

Avatar
jacknorell replied to Nuclear Dan | 8 years ago
6 likes

Nuclear Dan wrote:

I'd also question exactly what benefit sending someone to jail for a non violent offense.

I'm not sure how driving a 2 tonne metal box into a person is anything but violent? Please do explain.

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to Nuclear Dan | 8 years ago
0 likes

Nuclear Dan wrote:

When we used to have sensible laws and sentencing guidelines we used to punish the offense not the consequences. There shouldn't be a difference in sentencing between causing an accident and killing someone in that accident as someone dying is essentially a random event. I'd also question exactly what benefit sending someone to jail for a non violent offense. Don't say deterrence there are 40 million drivers and circa 100 go to jail a year for death by dangerous driving. The chances of getting caught for dangerous driving and the consequences for that are a far more important influence on behavior than the consequences for the tiny number of people who actually kill somebody.

Just checking, are you saying that the offence for killing someone while on your phone should be the same as backing into someone's car in Tesco's car park whilst on your phone?

Avatar
freespirit1 replied to bendertherobot | 8 years ago
2 likes

bendertherobot wrote:

Just checking, are you saying that the offence for killing someone while on your phone should be the same as backing into someone's car in Tesco's car park whilst on your phone?

 

I feel it should be classed as manslaughter, with the CPS actually going for the charge rather than watering it down to careless or dangerous driving. One or two cases will start ramming the message home.

Avatar
Nuclear Dan replied to bendertherobot | 8 years ago
0 likes
bendertherobot wrote:

Nuclear Dan wrote:

When we used to have sensible laws and sentencing guidelines we used to punish the offense not the consequences. There shouldn't be a difference in sentencing between causing an accident and killing someone in that accident as someone dying is essentially a random event. I'd also question exactly what benefit sending someone to jail for a non violent offense. Don't say deterrence there are 40 million drivers and circa 100 go to jail a year for death by dangerous driving. The chances of getting caught for dangerous driving and the consequences for that are a far more important influence on behavior than the consequences for the tiny number of people who actually kill somebody.

Just checking, are you saying that the offence for killing someone while on your phone should be the same as backing into someone's car in Tesco's car park whilst on your phone?

Not remotely, the is a ratio of ten serious injuries to one death on the roads. Hence my argument that we should not differentiate between people who cause a serious accident by dangerous driving and those who's serious accident kills somebody because the difference between those scenarios is random chance.

Either way it's the chances of being caught using your mobile and the consequences for that transgression are more important than what happens if you are involved in a serious accident.

The chances of being involved in a fatal accident are very low and everyone believes it will never happen to them.

Avatar
davel replied to Nuclear Dan | 8 years ago
4 likes
Nuclear Dan wrote:

people who cause a serious accident by dangerous driving

oxymoron: this might be extremely nitpicky, but I wonder how much the current culture has bedded in because we call events with an obvious cause 'accidents'.

Avatar
Argos74 replied to Nuclear Dan | 8 years ago
5 likes

Nuclear Dan wrote:

There shouldn't be a difference in sentencing between causing an accident and killing someone in that accident as someone dying is essentially a random event.

 

Having worked in motor claims for five odd years, I slowly came to the conclusion that there is massive under prosecution. The vast majority of accidents were the result of some form of driver error, ranging from careless to dangerous to "really should not be left alone in the kitchen" driving. Yet few resulted in criminal investigation or prosecution. Just a tow truck to the garage / scrapyard.

 

I will take umbrage at the term "random accident", as the effects of the minor crashes which I logged every day and result in minor damage to the vehicles involved, can be utterly devastating when you replace one of vehicles with a pedestrian or cyclist.

 

In the past month, I had three near misses - two left hooks and a T bone, from which I emerged with light injuries and a lot of swearing. If I were a car, I'd have two lots of front offside damage, and some front nearside damage. Nothing to worry the Total Loss team. But I was a cyclist, and without some very nifty handling, I'd be three files on a very puzzled PI handler's desk.

 

So yeah, I'd say agree with you in a way, and prosecute the instance of negligent driving over the consequences, and a lot harder in terms of bans and sentencing. Every. Single. One.

Avatar
davel replied to Argos74 | 8 years ago
5 likes

Argos74 wrote:

Nuclear Dan wrote:

There shouldn't be a difference in sentencing between causing an accident and killing someone in that accident as someone dying is essentially a random event.

 

Having worked in motor claims for five odd years, I slowly came to the conclusion that there is massive under prosecution. The vast majority of accidents were the result of some form of driver error, ranging from careless to dangerous to "really should not be left alone in the kitchen" driving. 

The IAM agrees with you: http://www.iam.org.uk/images/stories/policy-research/licensetoskill.PDF

It's a cultural thing. We accept driving 'accidents', but it's resulted in an acceptance of some shoddy driving standards.

We need to accept that yes, humans aren't perfect and genuine accidents will happen. But we also need to hammer home that if you turn into a psycho behind the wheel, or if you're a negligent or incompetent driver, society would rather you didn't drive. Draconian prosecution and sentencing might be needed for that.

But that won't happen.  It would need politicians to tell people who are a bit shit at driving that they might be a bit shit at driving, and that's a vote loser. The turkeys 'running our country' don't even want to discuss Christmas, never mind vote for it, whether it's The Right Thing or not.

Meanwhile, 5 people will be killed on the roads today. And tomorrow. Not by terrorists. Not by immigrants nicking their jobs or school places. Not by EU red tape, or economic headwinds. But it's OK, and isn't worthy of politicans' time, because Shit Happens.

Avatar
mike the bike | 8 years ago
0 likes

 

There is a significant problem with long and lifetime driving bans, they push the end of the punishment so far into the future that the banned driver sees no sense in obeying the terms of the ban.  Feeling he has nothing more to lose he takes a chance and continues to drive, which is exactly the opposite of the courts' intention.

A shorter ban, whilst it may not fit the crime so precisely, is more likely to be obeyed and removes the offender from the road, at least for a reasonable time.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to mike the bike | 8 years ago
14 likes

mike the bike wrote:

 

There is a significant problem with long and lifetime driving bans, they push the end of the punishment so far into the future that the banned driver sees no sense in obeying the terms of the ban.  Feeling he has nothing more to lose he takes a chance and continues to drive, which is exactly the opposite of the courts' intention.

A shorter ban, whilst it may not fit the crime so precisely, is more likely to be obeyed and removes the offender from the road, at least for a reasonable time.

So because killer drivers refuse to obey the law, we have to let them drive again? Options involving sharp thingsband blocks of wood look more attractive every time I read this stuff. 

Avatar
Paul_C replied to mike the bike | 8 years ago
14 likes
mike the bike wrote:

 

There is a significant problem with long and lifetime driving bans, they push the end of the punishment so far into the future that the banned driver sees no sense in obeying the terms of the ban.  Feeling he has nothing more to lose he takes a chance and continues to drive, which is exactly the opposite of the courts' intention.

A shorter ban, whilst it may not fit the crime so precisely, is more likely to be obeyed and removes the offender from the road, at least for a reasonable time.

no, long term ban, and if they persist in driving while banned, lock them up and ban them for life... and keep on locking them up every time they get caught...

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to mike the bike | 8 years ago
6 likes
mike the bike wrote:

 

There is a significant problem with long and lifetime driving bans, they push the end of the punishment so far into the future that the banned driver sees no sense in obeying the terms of the ban.  Feeling he has nothing more to lose he takes a chance and continues to drive, which is exactly the opposite of the courts' intention.

A shorter ban, whilst it may not fit the crime so precisely, is more likely to be obeyed and removes the offender from the road, at least for a reasonable time.

Sounds like contempt of court, straight to jail.

Avatar
kraut | 8 years ago
9 likes

 dangerous driving (eg speeding, ignoring traffic lights, risky overtaking)  <<= Pretty sure you could do all those things at the same time in the UK and still ony get charged with careless driving. 

Avatar
bendertherobot | 8 years ago
4 likes

The bans are a stand out feature. But it's not really all that easy to compare the offences in the manner described. We have entry points, levels, aggravating and mitigating factors etc. But that ban is bloody great. Good luck to them enforcing it mind.

Latest Comments