I do hope that this directive to judges will not be portrayed as motorist-bashing by the sort of twat who goes around vandalising speed cameras.

It will do for now, but I think the whole classification needs to be re-thought. At the moment there are offences of ‘careless driving’ and ‘dangerous driving’. Given that even the safest driving attracts some risk, how can careless driving not be dangerous? No wonder the courts come up with some disproportionately lenient sentences.

Why not just have ‘dangerous driving’, while recognising that there are degrees of danger? Or differentiate between careless driving and reckless driving? That at least implies some sort of intention to take chances as opposed to just allowing yourself to be distracted.

The difficulty is this demand to take into account any deaths or injuries caused by either careless or reckless driving. I know it seems right to punish somebody who causes a death more than somebody who doesn’t, but if the intention is the same in both cases it is surely just a matter of chance as to whether injury or death is caused.

Imagine if a driver is caught taking a blind corner in a 30mph area at 60mph, having been spotted by a traffic patrol, and then another driver later takes the same blind corner at 40mph but there is a pedestrian crossing the road who is killed. Who is most at fault – the one taking the corner 50% faster or the one who happened to hit someone? I am glad I do not have to make such decisions.

Relatives of traffic fatalities will rightfully want to see anyone responsible for the accident punished significantly if they are at fault, but being too lenient if a driver is lucky enough to drive recklessly without causing an accident doesn’t do enough to deter. Whichever approach the judiciary take is going to be wrong isn’t it?