Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour Party have been told to think about introducing "lifetime driving bans” for one group of motorists in a major crackdown on road safety rules. The Government is already looking at toughening up drink drive limits as part of their new Road Safety Strategy plan.
However, experts have suggested that while the idea of lifetime bans wasn’t included in the initial Government report, “there’s an argument to say they should be”. John Kushnick, Legal Operations Director at National Accident Helpline, stressed that lifetime bans should be considered for motorists caught drink driving on more than one occasion.
He argued this new rule would send a strict message to road users and possibly stop out-of-control road users before they “kill” behind the wheel.
Speaking exclusively to Express.co.uk, John explained: “Courts can already impose lifetime bans but rarely do – less than 1% of those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving in 2024 received them.
"Rather than mandatory bans, create a presumption of lifetime bans with the onus on defendants to show why it’s inappropriate. This is more proportionate than a mandatory approach that risks being rejected outright.
“More importantly, introduce lifetime bans for repeat offenders before they kill. A ban after two or three drink-driving convictions would be preventative. In fact, analysis shows 47% of those convicted for driving while disqualified already had previous convictions.”
The UK Government has opened a consultation looking into new, tougher drink drive rules as part of a major overhaul of several motoring rules. Labour has proposed to lower the legal limit in England and Wales from 35µg/100ml breath to just 22µg.
This would match the current limit in Scotland and mean that just one pint could put some road users above the limit. However, John argued that an idea of introducing mandatory lifetime bans would be “unpopular in legal circles” and is likely to be rejected by officials.
Instead, a presumption of securing a lifetime ban allows judges to ensure that punishments would “balance harm with proportionality”.
John added: “But here’s the problem, causing death by dangerous driving may not mean worse driving than cases without a fatality. High-speed racing in a residential area that doesn’t kill someone could be more egregious. Should outcome determine punishment when behaviour is identical?”
