Drivers can currently be prosecuted for causing death on the roads when they drive dangerously or carelessly and under the influence of drinks or drugs. The penalties for committing these offences were increased in 2003.

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest road casualty rates in Europe and much safer roads than Australia and the United States. The number of people who die on Britain's roads has been declining for a number of years; whether this is due to safer cars, traffic measures or better driving is a matter of some debate. In any event, the government decided to introduce the Road Safety Act in 2006, and it received Royal Assent on 8th November of that year. Some parts of the act came into force in February 2007 and others in September 2007.

Two sections of the act have provoked the most interest: creating a new offence of death by careless driving in its own right, as well as an alternative for the offences mentioned above. Another offence of causing death when driving while disqualified, unlicensed or uninsured was also introduced. The two new offences both carry possible prison sentences, five years for the first offence and two years for the latter. Although the new offences have been on statute books for some time, they are not yet in force.

There have been widespread reports in the media of the Sentencing Guideline Council's provisional proposals for dealing with these new offenders, something which the Ministry of Justice has been waiting for before implementing the new offences. The Council's suggestions included non-custodial sentences for offenders where there were no aggravating features, which predictably received mixed reactions from road safety groups and motoring organisations; one side claiming the proposals were too lenient, the other too draconian.

Currently, fewer than 250 people are prosecuted for death by dangerous driving each year, while around 3,200 people die on the roads each year. It will clearly be an emotive issue when someone does die on the roads, but the question remains whether every death would result in a prosecution.

There will always be pressure for a driver to account for his actions and no doubt the Crown Prosecution Service will consider each case individually. As many defence lawyers will testify, careless driving is notoriously easy to prove - the test is whether the standard of driving falls below that expected of a reasonable driver - but where a death has resulted there will always be a suspicion of fault.

In one view, it is difficult to see when the less severe offence of causing death while uninsured, unlicensed or disqualified will be used if the Crown has success in prosecuting offences of careless driving. It may only be used where no criticism of a driver can be made. Previously, careless driving was mainly tried in the magistrates' court, so there is a possibility that the test will be interpreted differently by judges and juries, particularly if the courts are reluctant to criminalise otherwise good citizens. This may explain why the government has put the old common law definition of carelessness into statute form.

It will be interesting to see what the impact will be of a potential 3,000 individuals a year receiving vehicular manslaughter convictions. It is perhaps trite to say that those who drive more have a higher chance of being involved in accidents, but it remains to be seen what effect these convictions will have on those convicted gaining employment in the future. In one dimension it is difficult to see the purpose of the legislation, apart from punishing those who have already been involved in a tragic and undoubtedly debilitating accident. The rather poignant irony is that where victims survive, albeit just with horrific injuries, the maximum penalty for careless driving remains a fine.

If the purpose of the new law is to promote better and safer driving, it is hard to envisage why no changes have been made to assist drivers when ever there has been a crash. To only penalise those who have been unfortunate enough to be involved in a fatal accident seems arbitrarily counterproductive. The new offences may also have the effect of attributing blame where previously no fault may have proportioned - both on those who survived and those who did not - and whether this is productive or helpful in tragic circumstances will remain to be seen.