Keeping up, and keeping on: Risk, acceleration and the law-abiding driving offender
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895817738555 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817738555
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2019, Vol. 19(2) 254 –270
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895817738555
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Keeping up, and keeping on:
Risk, acceleration and the
law-abiding driving offender
Helen Wells
Keele University, UK
Leanne Savigar
Keele University, UK
Abstract
Roads policing is the most likely generator of an adverse-outcome encounter between the general
public and the police and is therefore one of the most likely situations in which individuals are
confronted with their own ‘law-abidingness’, or lack of it. Despite this, it has so far failed to excite
much criminological interest. The article will propose that the concepts of ‘risk’ (as a political
as well as sociological concept) and ‘acceleration’ (of technological change, as well as everyday
life) can be used to explain the controversial and apparently unsettling image of roads policing in
recent years. This article reflects on how speeding offences (researched between 2002–2006) and
mobile phone use by drivers (researched between 2013–2016) reveal much about how drivers
see themselves, their priorities and the law.
Keywords
Acceleration, driving, law-abiding, mobile phone, risk, speeding
Introduction
It is frequently observed that societies appear able to accept high levels of road death and
injury (Corbett, 2003: 27) – levels that would produce uproar if caused in some other
way. It is possible that we are able to tolerate a certain amount of ‘collateral damage’ in
exchange for the freedom offered by personal mobility (Johnson et al., 2014: 28).
Corresponding author:
Helen Wells, Centre for Social Policy, Chancellors Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
Email: h.m.wells@keele.ac.uk
738555CRJ0010.1177/1748895817738555Criminology & Criminal JusticeWells and Savigar
research-article2017
Article
Wells and Savigar 255
Alternatively, it may be that we are unwilling to condemn others for behaviour we engage
in ourselves and which – ‘but for the grace of God’ – would see us change place with the
offender (Plowden, 1971: 368), or that we believe that we are better than the average
driver so it will never happen to us (Delhomme, 1991; Svenson, 1981). Perhaps it is
significant that the frequent, yet dispersed, nature of road deaths sees their attenuation in
the media (Anderson, 2006), preventing them from getting their rightful (actuarially con-
ceived) place on society’s risk radar. If the reality of actual road death and injury fails to
excite much interest, it is perhaps unsurprising that attempts to take action against com-
mon behaviours that sometimes increase the chances of it happening have met with
resistance (Wells, 2012). Given that driving licences and road crashes are both ubiqui-
tous in contemporary societies, road traffic law is a particularly apt focus for exploring
the crimes of ordinary, ‘law-abiding’ people.
This article concerns itself with two forms of behaviour that are both pervasive and
against road traffic law. The first, breaking the speed limit, has been proscribed by law
in some form since 1861. It occurs when an individual drives a motorized vehicle at
more than the miles-per-hour limit set for that stretch of road and is premised on the
logic that the faster a vehicle is driven, the less time the driver has to react to danger,
and the more damage is done if and when they collide with something else. While it is
impossible to know how many times this offence is committed (Snow, 2015: 159), it has
been detected millions of times over the last 15 years on UK roads, with recent increases
being made possible following the introduction of automated speed cameras (Home
Office, 2016a). The second offence with which this article is concerned is the use of a
hand-held mobile phone while driving. Part of the Road Traffic Act since 2003, the law
is premised on the logic that ‘using’ – that is holding, and communicating via – a mobile
telephone will increase a driver’s reaction time, make it more likely that they will fail to
react sufficiently quickly to changing circumstances and therefore be more likely to
cause harm. It is an offence detected by a human traffic officer who observes that the
phone is ‘in use’, and is an offence that has been prosecuted around 1.2 million times
since December 2003 (Home Office, 2016b).
While both offences may sound relatively simple, while the underlying logic is
seemingly apparent and while campaigns to communicate that logic have been both
emotive and persistent, the enforcement of both has been complex and the behav-
iours seem somewhat entrenched. Although we would not expect that something as
simple as the creation of a law would be sufficient to see a behaviour cease, we pro-
pose that there is ‘something about’ the type of person to which they apply, and
‘something about’ contemporary society that means that the existence of these laws
is only a small part of the story. Furthermore, there is ‘something about’ the targeting
of these laws on the act of driving in contemporary society that sees those laws take
a back-seat to a range of other pressures that, seemingly, make the illegal actions
worth committing. This article therefore considers two recent attempts to reduce the
numbers of road deaths and injuries recorded in the UK by tackling, at an aggregate
level, driver behaviours that are shown to increase the likelihood of a crash occurring
at an individual level. These two offences form particularly good examples of where
the ‘crimes of the law-abiding’, while often perceived as minor, can frequently result
in injury and, on occasion, death.
To continue reading
Request your trial