:00:00. > :00:10.Tonight on Panorama: Fatal distraction on Britain's roads, as
:00:11. > :00:15.the law struggles to hold drivers who kill to account, are we doing
:00:16. > :00:19.enough to curb distracted driving? We just can't keep on loading
:00:20. > :00:22.drivers more and more and more and not expect that it won't have an
:00:23. > :00:29.impact on the safety of people's driving. Only one in three convicted
:00:30. > :00:33.of killing through careless driving receives a custodial sentence. I
:00:34. > :00:41.would love the magistrates to tell us why they thought that sentence
:00:42. > :00:46.was adequate for killing our dad. Are prosecutors and the courts
:00:47. > :00:50.getting it wrong? And as the modern driver demands more and more from
:00:51. > :00:55.their car's infotainment system are motor manufacturers making things
:00:56. > :00:59.worse? There's no controversy whatsoever, using a secondary device
:01:00. > :01:01.of some kind in your car increases your likelihood that you're going to
:01:02. > :01:21.be in a crash. If five people died in a train crash
:01:22. > :01:27.tonight, it would make headline news. If five more died tomorrow
:01:28. > :01:34.night, we'd freeze the network. In this country, five people die on the
:01:35. > :01:40.roads every day. Road deaths seldom make headlines. It's as if we accept
:01:41. > :01:44.them as a fact of life, but is that complacency leading to an injustice
:01:45. > :01:48.to victims and their families? Recent changes in the law have vowed
:01:49. > :01:56.to dispel a feeling that we've gone soft on dangerous driving. The
:01:57. > :02:01.things drivers get up to behind the wheel never fail to amaze. This
:02:02. > :02:08.driver takes hand free to a new level, 30 seconds at more than 60mph
:02:09. > :02:11.with his hands behind his head. For this driver, knowing where he was
:02:12. > :02:17.going was more important than seeing where he was heading. And for this
:02:18. > :02:23.motorist, a flat battery was surely the least of his worries.
:02:24. > :02:26.Fortunately, no-one in these examples lost their lives. When bad
:02:27. > :02:40.driving kills, does the law hold drivers to account. ? On 24th May,
:02:41. > :02:44.2012, 39-year-old Joe Wilkins was cycling along this road, just six
:02:45. > :02:49.miles from his home. A car approached from that direction and
:02:50. > :02:54.drove straight into the back of Joe, killing him instantly. Investigators
:02:55. > :03:01.found the driver had 13 seconds to see Joe. The jury were told he had
:03:02. > :03:08.six-and-a-half seconds to react. Put yourself in the driver's seat for
:03:09. > :03:14.that length of time. Visibility was good and the driver claimed his eyes
:03:15. > :03:25.had been firmly on the road. But he didn't see Joe. What I kind -- I
:03:26. > :03:30.kind of always liked Joe, even from the age of five. I put a note in his
:03:31. > :03:36.drawer when he was five to ask him if he'd marry me, basically. He was
:03:37. > :03:43.funny. He was kind. He was a family man. On the evening that Joe was
:03:44. > :03:50.killed, Nic had to return home and break the news to their eldest
:03:51. > :03:58.daughter. She was five years old and she'd just lost her best friend too
:03:59. > :04:02.at that point. The scream that came out of her little mouth was just,
:04:03. > :04:07.yeah, it's something that I won't ever forget. The driver was charged
:04:08. > :04:13.with causing death by dangerous driving which carries a maximum
:04:14. > :04:18.sentence of 14 years. Shortly before the trial, prosecutors added the the
:04:19. > :04:23.alternative charge of causing death by careless driving, to which the
:04:24. > :04:29.defendant pleaded guilty. My expectations from the start was that
:04:30. > :04:33.he would be found guilty of death by dangerous driving, which is what we
:04:34. > :04:39.were going for and that he'd go to prison. How did you feel about the
:04:40. > :04:46.fact that he was found not guilty of dangerous driving? Devastated, to be
:04:47. > :04:52.fair. Because I can't see, to this day, that it was anything other than
:04:53. > :04:56.dangerous driving. How do you feel about the jury's verdict? They heard
:04:57. > :05:03.the evidence and made the decision. Yeah, if you try to put yourself
:05:04. > :05:07.into a juror's position, you can see that they could feel for the person
:05:08. > :05:14.stood in the dock telling their story of what happened, because that
:05:15. > :05:19.could be them. Probably most of them are drivers. Found not guilty of
:05:20. > :05:25.death by dangerous driving, the driver received one of the lowest
:05:26. > :05:27.possible sentences for death by careless driving, 240 hours
:05:28. > :05:33.community service and a year's driving ban. The judge concluded the
:05:34. > :05:37.collision had been due to momentary inattention. From the moment the
:05:38. > :05:41.jury said "not guilty", I think we were more and more let down from
:05:42. > :05:45.there. Mainly by the judge, I suppose. I certainly wouldn't want
:05:46. > :05:51.to be on the roads with anybody that classes that as just careless.
:05:52. > :05:58.Solicitor Paul Kitson works at one of the UK's largest law firms and
:05:59. > :06:01.has vast experience in pursuing civil fatal accident claims. The
:06:02. > :06:06.difference between death by careless driving and death by dangerous
:06:07. > :06:12.driving is that with careless cases the standard of driving falls below
:06:13. > :06:17.a careful and competent driver, whereas, for danger Russ driving,
:06:18. > :06:21.the -- dangerous driving, the standard falls far below that of a
:06:22. > :06:26.careful and competent driver. What is meant by "far below" is not
:06:27. > :06:33.particularly clear. There is much conclusion with the judiciary about
:06:34. > :06:37.where that dividing line falls. Before 2008, momentary lapses in
:06:38. > :06:41.concentration which resulted in death were generally charged as
:06:42. > :06:46.careless driving, which doesn't carry a custodial sentence. The new
:06:47. > :06:50.law, causing death by careless driving, carries a maximum five-year
:06:51. > :06:56.sentence. There was a gap in the law and it needed to be filled. The
:06:57. > :07:01.trouble is that gap in the law has been used to capture case that's
:07:02. > :07:05.ought to be dangerous driving cases. According to road safety charity
:07:06. > :07:11.Brake, the new law is failing to deliver justice. We are seeing time
:07:12. > :07:15.and time again families who are already traumatised and grieving, as
:07:16. > :07:21.a result of being bereaved or seriously injured in a road crash,
:07:22. > :07:28.feeling grossly let down and their pain added to by what goes on within
:07:29. > :07:32.the criminal justice system. So is the careless driving law being used
:07:33. > :07:37.to deal with dangerous drivers? In the last year, before the new charge
:07:38. > :07:43.was brought in, 233 people were convicted of causing death by
:07:44. > :07:48.dangerous driving. In 2013, a total of 310 people were convicted of
:07:49. > :07:53.causing death by dangerous or careless driving. So that means that
:07:54. > :07:59.more people were held to account for killing from behind the wheel.
:08:00. > :08:04.However, of those convictions, only 109 were convicted of death by
:08:05. > :08:09.dangerous driving. That means since the new charge was made available to
:08:10. > :08:16.prosecutors, convictions for the more serious charge fell by 53%.
:08:17. > :08:22.What's behind this startling fall? What we're seeing is plea bargaining
:08:23. > :08:27.happening, where motorists are accepting a plee for death by
:08:28. > :08:31.careless driving and they are contesting the dangerous driving
:08:32. > :08:36.charge. In many cases the dangerous driving charges are dropped if
:08:37. > :08:42.there's a guilty plea entered for careless driving and if the case
:08:43. > :08:48.does go to court, the judges themselves are slow to make strong
:08:49. > :08:54.jury recommendations or directions to convict for the dangerous driving
:08:55. > :09:17.charge. In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service told Panorama:
:09:18. > :09:23.Getting the charge right is not the only problem. When it comes to
:09:24. > :09:27.causing death by careless driving, there are concerns that the sentence
:09:28. > :09:39.doesn't always reflect the severity of the crime. 72-year-old Brian
:09:40. > :09:45.Pattinson from County Durham had an impeccable driving record. Dad was a
:09:46. > :09:48.really careful driver because his oldest son, Tony, was killed on the
:09:49. > :09:53.road when he was very young, about three or four. That made dad real
:09:54. > :10:04.lay ware of how dangerous the roads can be. On 17 July, 2012, Brian's
:10:05. > :10:09.car was hit head on when a driver failed to see stationary traffic at
:10:10. > :10:15.this junction. He died in hospital the following morning. His killer
:10:16. > :10:17.wars convicted of causing death -- killer was convicted of causing
:10:18. > :10:21.death by dangerous driving but avoided jail. He was given an
:10:22. > :10:28.18-month community supervision order, a 12-month driving ban and
:10:29. > :10:34.ordered to pay ?85 in costs. ( How can you say my dad was worth ?85?
:10:35. > :10:37.It's just absolutely appalling. I would love the magistrates to look
:10:38. > :10:43.me and my brothers in the face and tell us why they thought that
:10:44. > :10:51.sentence was adequate for killing our dad. Since the incident, Kelly
:10:52. > :10:56.often compares fines and costs for other offences. Magistrates imposed
:10:57. > :11:01.a fine of ?100 along with a ?20 victim surcharge and costs of ?150
:11:02. > :11:07.for dropping litter. Another guy didn't clean up after his dog and
:11:08. > :11:14.was fined ?100 with a ?20 victim surcharge and costs of ?150. The
:11:15. > :11:20.worst one, a guy who had to pay ?1,400 because he caused unnecessary
:11:21. > :11:26.suffering to a squirrel. I don't agree with animal cruelty at all,
:11:27. > :11:32.but for causing the suffering and death a squirrel you have to pay
:11:33. > :11:39.?1400 and for causing the suffering and death of our dad, you pay ?85. I
:11:40. > :11:48.don't understand the law at all. It makes no sense at all. Have we
:11:49. > :11:53.developed an attitude problem when it comes to driving and what does
:11:54. > :11:58.that mean for that all important standard of a careful and competent
:11:59. > :12:02.driver? Getting stopped. He's right behind us now... The police are
:12:03. > :12:09.carrying out a collision reduction operation on the busy M62. Texting.
:12:10. > :12:17.They're using an unmarked HGV cab to get a good look at drivers' extra
:12:18. > :12:28.crick lar activity. He's on his mobile phone, left hand, left ear.
:12:29. > :12:32.It's the white van in lane one. Directions on her knee there, look.
:12:33. > :12:38.He's reading it now. She's looking down at it now as she's driving
:12:39. > :12:41.along. Some people might think these things aren't particularly
:12:42. > :12:45.important. You try telling somebody's relatives that it's not
:12:46. > :12:48.important when you're knocking on the door, telling them that their
:12:49. > :12:53.son or daughter has died as a result of somebody making a phone call and
:12:54. > :13:04.that's not an acceptable excuse to them. Using a mobile device. There
:13:05. > :13:10.you go. Oh, yes. He had absolutely
:13:11. > :13:15.everything going on there. Inspector Mark Hughes runs the major
:13:16. > :13:18.collisions team. He's been to many fatal accidents to establish whether
:13:19. > :13:24.they were due to dangerous or careless driving. You've got to
:13:25. > :13:29.decide would the normal person think that is careless or dangerous. Death
:13:30. > :13:34.by dangerous is a more serious charge, therefore the evident shall
:13:35. > :13:41.requirements are significantly higher. You need to stop him. He's
:13:42. > :13:44.chatting away like a good' un on his Often it's phone. Impossible to
:13:45. > :13:52.establish precisely what a driver was doing at the wheel when they
:13:53. > :13:56.crashed. In just a few hours on one stretch of motorway, the team pulled
:13:57. > :14:01.19 people for distracted driving. It's a big problem. It must be going
:14:02. > :14:03.on nationally all over the place. It needs addressing, whether it's
:14:04. > :14:11.education, enforcement or a mixture of both. Enforcement is succeeding
:14:12. > :14:17.in changing behaviour. Today seat belts are generally worn and alcohol
:14:18. > :14:22.avoided. Road deaths have fallen year on year. More technical
:14:23. > :14:26.advances have played a part in improving safety, another aspect of
:14:27. > :14:35.vehicle innovation is proving more controversial. So this is a 1983
:14:36. > :14:40.Mazda RX7. In its time it was a cutting-edge sports car. But to the
:14:41. > :14:46.modern eye, the amount of knobs in this car are purely to operate the
:14:47. > :14:58.car. It's very basic. There's very little in here to distract you.
:14:59. > :15:09.Fast forward 31 years, and look how things have changed: This is the
:15:10. > :15:14.latest Mazda 3 and it is what we have come to expect from a modern
:15:15. > :15:19.car. It has far more knobs and switches and even what the industry
:15:20. > :15:26.describe as an infotainment system, which allows you to access your sat
:15:27. > :15:32.nav, voice-activated controls, and even a social media platform access,
:15:33. > :15:39.like Facebook and Twitter. This is about a whole lots more than just
:15:40. > :15:46.getting from a to B. Like many cars, the ASDA comes with a warning about
:15:47. > :15:50.distracting -- the Mazda comes with a warning about being distracted
:15:51. > :15:59.while driving. The Facebook app reads out status updates and allows
:16:00. > :16:03.the driver to interact. Drivers can listen to emails and send
:16:04. > :16:10.voice-activated texts. These are just a few examples of features
:16:11. > :16:13.available across the market. There is no doubt that infotainment and
:16:14. > :16:19.technology is becoming a big selling point. Consumers want the
:16:20. > :16:22.technology. We see our car like our office or work space. We want the
:16:23. > :16:28.same functionality that we have in those places in our car. The Ford
:16:29. > :16:33.Fiesta. Never has more advanced engineering gone into a small car.
:16:34. > :16:41.30 years ago, it was performance and safety that got everybody excited.
:16:42. > :16:45.The airbag system reacts within 30 ms. Today it is infotainment that
:16:46. > :16:53.manufacturers are keen to tell us about. Connectivity to the world.
:16:54. > :16:58.Technology companies and manufacturers have created an
:16:59. > :17:09.infotainment industry valued at $30 billion. Forgive him. He is an
:17:10. > :17:17.idiot. In the US, these developments have set manufacturers and the
:17:18. > :17:23.courts on a collision course. Senator Rockefeller recently chaired
:17:24. > :17:26.a meeting for the industry. What is so important about having kids
:17:27. > :17:31.driving along updating their Facebook networks? What does that
:17:32. > :17:37.have to do with anything? You should know that I am very unhappy, if not
:17:38. > :17:44.desperate, about death and close to death injuries. And the sake of
:17:45. > :17:50.outdoing each other and making more money. So should we be concerned?
:17:51. > :17:55.Professor Paul Atchley has been studying cognitive distraction in
:17:56. > :17:59.drivers for 20 years. Cognitive distraction essentially means that
:18:00. > :18:04.one cognitive process, for example talking, is interfering with another
:18:05. > :18:09.one, such as looking at the road while driving. There is no
:18:10. > :18:14.controversy whatsoever. Using a secondary device of some kind in
:18:15. > :18:19.your car, like a cellphone, while driving, doing Twitter a hands-free
:18:20. > :18:25.device, that causes mental workload and that workload reduces your
:18:26. > :18:30.ability to deal with hazards and increases your likelihood of being
:18:31. > :18:34.in a crash. We can all get distracted from time to time when we
:18:35. > :18:38.are driving. Whether it is tuning the radio, fiddling with the sat nav
:18:39. > :18:43.system, it may be that you are eating behind the wheel. With all
:18:44. > :18:52.the new technology in cars, my question is where are we heading and
:18:53. > :18:55.is it safe? Motor manufacturers argue that many of these
:18:56. > :19:02.developments keep us safe by keeping our hands on the wheel. The problem
:19:03. > :19:09.is there is plenty of research that suggests that hands-free is not
:19:10. > :19:12.nearly as safe as people think. I have come to the University of Leeds
:19:13. > :19:18.for a driving test with a difference. This state-of-the-art
:19:19. > :19:25.simulator can be used to analyse driver behaviour in the finest
:19:26. > :19:29.detail. Every twitch of the wheel and tap of the pedals is monitored,
:19:30. > :19:36.and even my eye movement is under scrutiny. The test is simple. Drive
:19:37. > :19:45.safely along a motorway following roadworks signs, and then exit
:19:46. > :19:49.towards Wakefield. No problem. So now I am going to give this a go
:19:50. > :19:58.with a hands-free kit. Hands on the wheel, eyes on the road, how is my
:19:59. > :20:03.driving? OK, we are now going to do the 20 questions to ask. Ask your
:20:04. > :20:11.first question when you are ready. Is it a human being. No. This test
:20:12. > :20:14.is designed to simulate the demands of a fairly intense conversation
:20:15. > :20:23.like discussing work on the way to the office. Is it an animal? Yes. Is
:20:24. > :20:30.it a large animal or a small animal? You can only ask me yes or
:20:31. > :20:51.no questions. Is it as big as a dog? Yes. Does it live in... A
:20:52. > :20:54.house. No. Does it meow? No. OK, I'm afraid we have to stop you there
:20:55. > :21:03.because you have missed injunction that you were supposed to turn off.
:21:04. > :21:12.-- the junction. All over onto the hard shoulder and we. Driving now.
:21:13. > :21:17.-- pull over and we will stop driving now. I didn't pass the test.
:21:18. > :21:21.It was difficult talking to somebody on the phone while I was trying to
:21:22. > :21:25.drive, trying to keep my eye on the traffic. At times I must have been
:21:26. > :21:30.driving without being aware of my surroundings, what was behind me and
:21:31. > :21:35.what was happening. I really wasn't. At times I felt like I had a
:21:36. > :21:41.bad case of tunnel vision. What does the data reveal? When we loaded you
:21:42. > :21:45.up with that demanding cognitive task, we can see the tunnel vision
:21:46. > :21:50.you are describing with the eye tracking data. Hypervigilance at the
:21:51. > :21:53.front, losing that peripheral awareness that we would hope you
:21:54. > :21:57.would have in a normal situation, which may have resulted in the fact
:21:58. > :22:01.that you missed the junction you were supposed to exit the motorway
:22:02. > :22:06.for in that condition. I did slow down a bit, probably because I felt
:22:07. > :22:14.the need to concentrate but tunnel vision was not my only problem. What
:22:15. > :22:17.we did see was nearly a 100% increase in tailgating on the phone.
:22:18. > :22:23.For eight minutes you were within one second of the car in front. Even
:22:24. > :22:26.though you had slowed down, you were in more hazardous situations because
:22:27. > :22:32.of the demands of the cognitive task. I had actually taken the test
:22:33. > :22:37.a third time without distraction but 1.5 times over the legal
:22:38. > :22:43.drink-driving limit. Unlike hands-free, that is seen as
:22:44. > :22:48.completely unacceptable. I drove faster when drunk at my lane
:22:49. > :22:51.discipline was affected, but I did not suffer tunnel vision and I
:22:52. > :22:59.tailgated much less than when on the hands-free. People call me up in the
:23:00. > :23:04.car and they say, shall I call you back? No, I am on the hands-free, it
:23:05. > :23:08.is safe. But not as safe as I thought it would be. That is the
:23:09. > :23:12.point. It is not as safe as you thought it would be. We need more
:23:13. > :23:17.awareness and we cannot keep on loading up drivers more and more and
:23:18. > :23:20.then not expect it when we have difficult and challenging driving
:23:21. > :23:25.conditions not to have an impact on their driving. I had no idea that
:23:26. > :23:29.talking hands-free could impair my driving in similar ways to being
:23:30. > :23:37.drunk and I am not alone. The AA carried out a survey of more than
:23:38. > :23:40.18,000 drivers the Panorama of the people who chose to take part, a
:23:41. > :23:48.court assumed that if something was in a car, it was safe to use. -- a
:23:49. > :23:52.quarter. The trouble with understanding risk is that we are
:23:53. > :23:56.not statisticians and we don't look at tables. We look at what other
:23:57. > :24:01.people are doing, what our Government tells us is safe and what
:24:02. > :24:07.people who sell us things tell us is safe. Cognitively there is no
:24:08. > :24:11.difference between a hand-held and hands-free telephone conversation.
:24:12. > :24:15.The AA survey revealed that four out of five believed deaths resulting
:24:16. > :24:19.from hand-held telephone conversations should be charged as
:24:20. > :24:24.dangerous. For hands-free conversations, that number fell to
:24:25. > :24:27.one in five. That is important because what they're careful and
:24:28. > :24:34.competent driver thinks provides the standard by which these cases are
:24:35. > :24:38.tried. -- the careful and competent driver. But I am not sure that
:24:39. > :24:41.drivers, including myself, I getting the right messages from the
:24:42. > :24:46.Government and the industry about the risk. In the USA, Senator
:24:47. > :24:51.Rockefeller has warned the industry that he will push for legislation to
:24:52. > :24:55.put the brakes on infotainment. If we can't get something worked out,
:24:56. > :25:00.we will have to do it here and you will lobby hard against it and you
:25:01. > :25:10.may prevail. You may think what you are doing is creating a social good.
:25:11. > :25:13.If any of you think you are creating a social good for the betterment of
:25:14. > :25:15.the American people and the environment in which they with, I
:25:16. > :25:23.would like to have you explain that to me right now. -- in which they
:25:24. > :25:31.live. It is the sort of question that if you don't ask it, it is
:25:32. > :25:38.barrister -- embarrassing for you. I have visited the association of
:25:39. > :25:42.manufacturers and traders to find out more. Isn't it just about profit
:25:43. > :25:47.and not safety to put these things and cars? I think the question is
:25:48. > :25:50.misplaced. The level of developments and advancements around vehicles
:25:51. > :25:57.shows that the industry takes this very seriously. But social media in
:25:58. > :26:03.cars, is that responsible? The law is very clear on this. Your focus
:26:04. > :26:06.should always to be to give due care and attention to the road and the
:26:07. > :26:11.motorist must do that. If they want to use social media devices, they
:26:12. > :26:15.must all over and park and abide by the law. What is the point of
:26:16. > :26:20.putting these devices in cars if they are not supposed to be used by
:26:21. > :26:23.drivers while driving? Drivers want to have that technology.
:26:24. > :26:27.Increasingly the technology is on the contrary, to make sure your
:26:28. > :26:32.focus is on the road, and the best advantage of that is satellite
:26:33. > :26:36.navigation. But sat navs help drivers and social media platforms
:26:37. > :26:40.don't. Why is it necessary to have them in your car? People want to
:26:41. > :26:44.have that kind of access. What we are trying to do is to allow them to
:26:45. > :26:50.have access but not so that it interferes when they are driving.
:26:51. > :26:55.According to the industry, if people want it, and it is safe, then we
:26:56. > :26:59.should give it to them. Fair enough but who says what is safe? In this
:27:00. > :27:05.country we only legislate against televisions and hand-held phones in
:27:06. > :27:11.cars. What in vehicles is a voluntary set of design guidelines.
:27:12. > :27:19.-- what governs infotainment in vehicles. But the Government barely
:27:20. > :27:30.mentions cognitive distraction so why is it overlooked? What do you
:27:31. > :27:34.make of the dis- science that says there is a concern? The science is
:27:35. > :27:38.clearly mixed. I think all of the industry undertakes a lot of
:27:39. > :27:42.research to make sure that new technologies can be harnessed to
:27:43. > :27:45.support the driver. According to critics, the industry is picking and
:27:46. > :27:52.choosing in science and turning a blind eye to a body of evidence on
:27:53. > :27:57.cognitive distraction. What has been dismaying to me personally is that
:27:58. > :28:01.what we see are people really paying attention to the data that they
:28:02. > :28:05.think are most beneficial to them. If your goal is to put as much
:28:06. > :28:09.technology in a vehicle as possible, because frankly people
:28:10. > :28:13.want it and they want to be in communication with folks around
:28:14. > :28:19.them, it is a good story to believe there is no such thing as cognitive
:28:20. > :28:24.distraction. After everything I have seen, it is hard to escape the
:28:25. > :28:28.thought that as consumers we are demanding vehicles with more
:28:29. > :28:34.infotainment. In doing so, are we taking driving seriously enough? Are
:28:35. > :28:35.we eroding that all-important standard of the careful and
:28:36. > :28:39.competent driver?