The Standards We Accept Are Killing People

Road Crime Is Not an Accident: The Standards We Accept Are Killing People – Four Reforms That Will Save Lives

Prepared by Duncan Wakes-Miller to provide practical solutions based on evidence and lived experience that will work.

Executive Summary: NSW’s road toll remains unacceptably high. Every year, hundreds of families lose loved ones to crashes that were entirely preventable. Yet under current law, many deadly driving offences carry weak sanctions, and repeat offenders often return to the road unchanged. In short, “the standards we accept are literally killing people.” This paper proposes four reforms – all grounded in evidence – to tighten those standards: (1) Victim Impact Panels (VIPs) for serious offenders; (2) mandatory alcohol interlocks with strict enforcement; (3) a Compulsory Driver Rehabilitation Program (CDRP) for high-risk drivers; and (4) a new Vehicular Homicide offence with enhanced penalties. Each measure is backed by research. For example, mandatory interlocks have been shown to cut re-offending by 86% while installed, and DUI courts (combining treatment and supervision) typically halve repeat offences. Victim Impact Panels have demonstrated 1.5–1.8× lower 8-year recidivism among DUI offenders who attended, versus those who did not. Public opinion is onside: surveys find 62% of NSW people support charging drivers who kill with vehicular manslaughter. The recommendations below detail each reform and its evidence base.

Table of Recommendations

1. Victim Impact Panels (VIPs): Mandate post-conviction panels for serious road offenders (especially DUI/drug-driving cases) to hear firsthand from crash victims and families, fostering offender empathy and accountability.

2. Alcohol Interlocks & Enforcement: Require ignition interlocks for all convicted drink-drivers, and amend legislation to ensure that Section 10 provisions do not allow offenders to avoid participation in the interlock program. Legislative change is necessary to close this loophole and guarantee that all offenders undergo rehabilitation-focused sanctions without exemption, with strict monitoring. Link the program to counselling/treatment and impose license revocation for tampering or non-compliance.

3. Compulsory Driver Rehabilitation Program (CDRP): Create a court-ordered rehabilitation regime for repeat or egregious offenders (e.g. multiple DUIs, drug-driving, or fatal collisions). Include cognitive-behavioural courses, addiction counselling, and progress reporting.

4. Vehicular Homicide Offence: Enact a new statutory offence (e.g. “vehicular homicide”) for deaths caused by grossly negligent or illegal driving. Set maximum penalties on par with manslaughter (e.g. up to 20+ years) and mandate significant disqualification periods.

Victim Impact Panels (VIPs)

Problem: Serious crashes inflict deep trauma on victims and their families, but offenders usually never face this human cost. Current penalties (fines or brief jail) allow drivers who maim or kill to exit the system without truly confronting the harm they caused. Victims’ advocates decry this gap: road deaths are treated as a “lesser species of homicide”. In effect, the standards we accept permit deadly indifference.

Proposal: Legislate mandatory VIPs for violent road offences. Offenders (e.g. DUI/drugged-driving convicts/recidivist speeding) would be required to attend a panel where 2–4 victims or relatives share how the crash changed their lives. Facilitated by trained counsellors in a safe, non-confrontational setting, the goal is to make offenders internalise the consequences of their actions. Such restorative hearings (used in U.S. DUI courts since 1984) do not replace punishment; rather, they complement it by injecting accountability and empathy into the process.

Evidence: Evaluations indicate VIPs can reduce recidivism. A North Dakota study found DUI offenders not attending a VIP were 1.5–1.8 times more likely to re-offend over 5–8 years than those who did. In other words, attending a VIP was associated with a significant long-term drop in repeat drunk-driving. Surveyed participants routinely report increased empathy for victims and a sincere commitment to stop offending. (Early studies showing no short-term effect likely suffered from design flaws.) Even where statistical significance is hard to prove, qualitative research confirms VIPs make a lasting impression on offenders’ attitudes.

Objections & Mitigation: Critics may dismiss VIPs as mere “shame sessions,” but evidence and theory show otherwise. VIPs are supplementary – offenders still face full legal penalties regardless. To ensure efficacy, panels should be run professionally, with victims participating voluntarily and supported. Rather than excusing offenders, VIPs raise the bar: by forcing drivers to hear the depth of victims’ suffering, VIPs help close the empathy gap that our current “business-as-usual” standards tolerate. If we fail to confront offenders with the human toll of their crimes, we effectively condone further tragedies. VIPs send the clear message that not confronting this truth is unacceptable.

Mandatory Alcohol Interlocks & Enforcement

Problem: Alcohol-impaired driving continues to kill in NSW. National data show about 13% of fatal crashes involve drink-driving. Yet current practice often treats a DUI licence ban as a temporary inconvenience – many offenders resume unrestricted driving without any behavioural change. Until the licence is reinstated, there is no guarantee they have actually stopped drinking and driving. The standard of a one-time penalty for a repeat offender simply isn’t high enough to prevent repeat carnage.

Proposal: Require an ignition interlock device for every convicted drink-driver. The court would impose an Interlock Order on licence reissue (at any offending level, not just very-high BAC). The program should be user-pay (cost borne by offenders) but rigorously enforced: vehicles must pass regular inspections and any failed/avoided tests trigger immediate licence suspension. Additionally, offenders enrolled in interlock programs would undergo concurrent alcohol education or counselling (to address underlying abuse issues). Cracking down on contraventions is critical – for example, NSW should adopt “zero-tolerance” checks (randomly verifying that vehicles on the road actually have valid interlocks) and stiff penalties for tampering or circumventing the device.

Evidence: The effectiveness of interlocks is well-documented. A Cochrane-style review found interlock participants were 15–69% less likely to be re-arrested for DUI than controls. NSW data confirm this: the state’s Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program (MAIP) saw an 86% reduction in re-offending among high-range drink drivers while on the device, and a sustained ~43% reduction in drink-driving even 3–5 years after the program ended. In short, the strongest evidence in road safety research shows interlocks dramatically cut repeat impaired driving. (It is true that recidivism can rebound after removal, which is why interlocks should be paired with education/counselling – a combined approach endorsed in international best practice.)

Objections & Mitigation: Common objections cite cost and inconvenience. However, interlocks impose fees only on those proven most dangerous; this is a polluter-pays approach, not a general tax. NSW already allows offenders to pick up the interlock tab or pay fine in lieu – this can be expanded. Concerning inconvenience, the devices add mere minutes to each start, and alternatives (full licence loss) are far harsher. To prevent evasion, penalties for driving without a required interlock (or for high breath test readings while on an interlock) must include swift licence revocation. Enforcement can be bolstered by inter-agency data-sharing (so police and the Roads & Maritime Services know who should have a device). By making interlocks mandatory and upheld by law, NSW would signal that tolerating repeat drink-driving is no longer acceptable.

Enforcement: A strict enforcement regime is essential. Police should have the power to demand an interlock device as evidence during traffic stops for known offenders. Transport registries can flag any driver attempting to re-license without meeting interlock orders and impound vehicles that lack mandated devices. Finally, like some US states, NSW could adopt compliance-based removal laws (offering shorter licence suspensions for offenders who complete interlock programs versus full suspensions). In combination, these steps ensure the technology actually constrains offenders. By embedding interlocks and checks into law, we raise the standard: optional interlocks are no longer good enough, because every avoidable death counts.

Compulsory Driver Rehabilitation Program (CDRP)

Problem: Dangerous driving often stems from underlying issues – addiction, aggression, or a cavalier attitude – that fines alone do not fix. Repeat DUI offenders and violent speeders/racers typically cycle through courts, incurring more penalties without meaningful change. Victims of these crimes see this “revolving door” with growing frustration. The lesson is clear: current penalties do not rehabilitate the offender; they only punish. The standards we accept need to shift from solely punitive to preventive.

Proposal: Create a statutory CDRP for high-risk offenders. As part of sentencing (or parole), qualifying offenders would enter a structured program akin to a drug/DWI court. Components would include mandatory driver education, cognitive-behavioural therapy, substance-abuse treatment (where applicable), and use of telematics data (for example, reviewing interlock breath logs or speed-camera evidence) in counselling sessions. Completion of defined milestones (e.g. alcohol counselling sessions, safe-driving coursework) could shorten interlock periods or license restrictions. Non-compliance (e.g. dropping out or failing to engage) would trigger automatic escalation. 

Evidence: Rehabilitation programs consistently outperform punishment alone for DUI offenders. A meta-analysis of recent studies found completion of DUI-focused education/treatment courses cut recidivism by ~40% compared to controls. Similarly, in the US, DWI Courts – which integrate legal supervision with mandatory treatment – typically produce 50–60% reductions in repeat DUI and other offences. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has endorsed these courts, citing multiple studies showing they change offender behaviour and yield net public safety benefits. In short, when high-risk drivers are treated with intensive intervention instead of merely re-licensed, far fewer crash-risk behaviours persist.

Objections & Mitigation: Some may argue that mandatory “rehab” penalises offenders in excess. In reality, participation is a condition of regaining driving privileges – a privilege that could otherwise be lost. Other jurisdictions fund these programs out of offenders’ fines or victim levies; NSW can allocate similar resources. To ensure effectiveness, programs must be evidence-based and individualised (e.g. heavy drinkers get addiction counselling, reckless yet sober drivers get cognitive training on risk perception). By requiring completion of CDRP components before licence restoration, NSW courts would reinforce that driving is a privilege contingent on genuine reform. This standard – that offenders must earn the right to drive again – starkly contrasts with doing nothing. In implementation, officials could tie CDRP slots to existing probation services or expand the current Traffic Offender Intervention Program into a graduated system. The goal is clear: drive real change in dangerous drivers’ behaviour rather than accept the status quo.

Vehicular Homicide Offence

Problem: Under the current NSW law, there is no standalone offence for death by negligent or reckless driving. When drivers kill – even under egregious circumstances – prosecutors often resort to “dangerous driving occasioning death” (max 14 years) or manslaughter charges that require very high blameworthiness. Victim groups rightly decry this gap: road deaths are treated as a “lesser species of homicide”. Public sentiment mirrors this outrage: one survey found 62% of NSW people want drivers who kill charged with vehicular manslaughter. The result is a mismatch between community expectations and legal standards – a weakness the existing system tacitly condones.

Proposal: Introduce a specific “Vehicular Homicide” offence into the Crimes Act. This offence would apply when a driver causes death by either (a) gross negligence while committing another offence (e.g. speeding, street racing), or (b) aggravated elements such as drunk driving or racing with a fatal outcome. Penalties should mirror manslaughter (e.g. up to 20+ years’ imprisonment) and mandatory license disqualification. In practice, this fills the gap between death-by-dangerous-driving (which covers only truly reprehensible driving) and general manslaughter (which is seldom applied). We envisage Vehicular Homicide as a presumptive outcome for fatal crashes involving serious negligence, with prosecutorial guidelines to ensure consistency.

Evidence: Other jurisdictions have moved toward such an offence. In early 2023, the ACT government recommended creating a vehicular manslaughter offence with higher penalties after a spate of road deaths. Specialist DWI Courts in the US similarly impose “vehicular homicide” charges on repeat offenders, reflecting how seriously such crimes are viewed. Domestic reform reviews also note that victims’ families demand stronger charges: submissions to the NSW Law Reform Commission stressed that charging a negligent killer with anything less than homicide fails community standards. For sentencing reference, England recently raised “causing death by dangerous driving” to a life-max penalty, underlining the global trend of tougher accountability.

Objections & Responses: It may be argued that existing offences already cover this conduct. In reality, the discretion between manslaughter and dangerous driving is often arbitrary. A specific vehicular homicide offence removes that uncertainty and clearly signals the gravity. Concerns about mandatory minimums can be addressed by retaining judicial discretion on each case’s facts. Crucially, creating the offence responds to a clear democratic mandate – the people’s instinct that a driver who kills through egregious conduct deserves a homicide-level charge. Raising the legal standard in this way says: we will no longer accept fatalities as mere “accidents” – reckless deaths are the most serious crimes.

Summary: These four reforms tackle different facets of road crime but share one aim: to elevate our standards of accountability. By mandating Victim Impact Panels, requiring interlocks, enforcing rehabilitation, and enacting a Vehicular Homicide law, NSW would align its laws with international best practices and community expectations. In each case, compelling evidence supports the change: these interventions save lives by deterring offenders and reforming behaviour. The current trajectory is clear – without stronger laws, road trauma will continue unabated. It is time to acknowledge that the status quo is costing lives and to demand the higher standards we deserve.

References and Sources

1. Victim Impact Panels (VIPs)

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) – Evaluation of Victim Impact Panels for Impaired Driving Offenders, DOT HS 810 755 (2007).
  
  

• Nochajski, T. H., et al. (2022). “Effects of Victim Impact Panels on DUI Recidivism in the Long Term,” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation.
  
  

• Wakes-Miller, D. (2025). Urgent Road Crime Law Reform in NSW: No More Walking Past the Crisis.
  
  

• NSW Law Reform Commission, Report 152 – Serious Road Crime, Chapter 8: Victim Experience and Restorative Justice.
  

2. Mandatory Alcohol Interlocks

• Transport for NSW (2023). Evaluation of the NSW Mandatory Alcohol Interlock Program (MAIP).
  
  

• Elder, R. W., et al. (2011). “Effectiveness of ignition interlocks for preventing alcohol-impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes: A Community Guide systematic review,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(3), 362–376.
  
  

• Australian Institute of Criminology (2018). Ignition Interlocks: What does the evidence say?
  
  

• National Road Safety Partnership Program (NRSPP). Road Safety Benefits of Interlocks in Australia (2019).
  
  

3. Driver Rehabilitation Programs (CDRP)

• National Center for DWI Courts (U.S.) – Research Highlights: DWI Court Effectiveness and Best Practice Standards.
  
  

• Wells-Parker, E., Bangert-Drowns, R., McMillen, R., & Williams, M. (1995). “Final Results from a Meta-analysis of Remedial Interventions with Drink/Impaired Drivers,” Addiction, 90(7), 907–926.
  
  

• Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) – Behavioural Interventions in Road Safety: Review of Evidence (2022).
  
  

• Wakes-Miller, D. (2024). Submission to the NSW Law Reform Commission Paper 23 – Road Crime Reform.
  
  

4. Vehicular Homicide Offence

• NSW Law Reform Commission, Report 152 – Serious Road Crime (2025), Chapter 2: Vehicular Homicide/Manslaughter.
  
  

• ACT Government, Legislative Assembly Inquiry into Dangerous Driving and Road Trauma (2023).
  
  

• UK Government (2022). Causing Death by Dangerous Driving – Maximum Sentence Increased to Life Imprisonment, Ministry of Justice.
  
  

• Road Trauma Support Group NSW (2025). Letter to Premier Minns: Road Crime is Killing Us – and the System is Looking Away.
  
  

5. Statistical Context & Community Expectations

• Transport for NSW (2024). Quarterly Bulletin of Serious Injury Crash Data.
  
  

• Australian Bureau of Statistics (2024). Causes of Death, Australia – Traffic Accidents.
  
  

• FiftyFive5 & RTSG NSW (2023). The Unheard Trauma of Fatal Road Crimes in NSW – Research Report.
  
  

• NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research – Sentencing Trends for Dangerous Driving Offences in NSW.

About the Author Duncan Wakes-Miller: The Lasting Impact of Barney Wakes-Miller’s Death

When a drunk driver killed our son, Barney Wakes-Miller, everything changed. The crash wasn’t just a singular moment of impact — it was the beginning of a lifetime of consequences, heartbreak, and disillusionment with a system that failed us at every turn.

Barney was seventeen years old. Bright, kind, funny, full of promise — and utterly irreplaceable. His death should have demanded justice. It should have shaken the foundations of every institution responsible for protecting innocent lives. Instead, what followed was a hollow procession of indifference, bureaucratic cruelty, and institutional failure.

The young man who killed our son walked free. He didn’t serve a day in jail. He said not one word of remorse in court. His penalty? A twelve-month driving ban. A year for taking a life. The message was loud and clear: our son's life was worth less than a license. Less than convenient. Less than nothing.

We were forced to sit in a courtroom and listen as the word accident was repeated — by police, by lawyers, by the judiciary, by the media and even the staff at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (despite our many protestations). As though Barney's death was a fluke. A slip-up. A moment of bad luck. But this wasn’t an accident. This was a preventable, criminal act. The driver made a choice — to get drunk, to get behind the wheel, to risk lives. The word accident stripped Barney’s death of its truth. It made our grief invisible. It let the perpetrator off the hook and let society move on, unbothered.

The injustice didn’t end there. We then had to navigate a compulsory third-party insurance scheme that felt more like psychological warfare than compensation. Rather than recognising our collective grief, the insurer treated each family member separately — as if they had the right to negotiate the impact of Barney’s death in different currencies. They dissected our pain, questioned our trauma, and ignored the fact that we were a family destroyed by a shared tragedy. Even the minors — Barney’s siblings — were subject to these indignities.

Every interaction forced us to relive the horror. Every form, every call, every delay was another blow. We were not treated with compassion. We were not supported. We were treated like claimants in a transactional process designed to protect profits, not people.

How did this happen? How did we build a system so ill-equipped to handle road trauma with the gravity it deserves?

It’s clear to us now: until we adopt a proper Safe System approach, one that prioritises human life above convenience, speed, and cost, this will continue to happen. A vehicle is a lethal weapon. In the wrong hands, it has the power to destroy lives in an instant. Like a gun, it should come with serious responsibility — and serious consequences when misused.

We need a game-changing shift in how the judiciary, the media, law enforcement, and the public view road crime. These aren’t accidents. They are preventable acts of violence. And we must respond to them with the same seriousness and resolve we would any other violent crime.

Barney’s death will never be undone. But if his story can help change the way we talk about — and respond to — road crime, then maybe we can prevent other families from enduring what we have. Maybe then, his life — and the injustice of his death — will not have been in vain.

Duncan Wakes-Miller is the co-founder of the Road Trauma Support Group NSW and serves as Deputy Chairman of the Road Trauma Support Group Australia. A passionate advocate for justice, inclusion, and community healing, Duncan brings both lived experience and professional leadership to his mission of reforming how Australia understands and responds to road trauma.

Following the tragic death of his 17-year-old son Barney, killed by a drunk driver in 2020, Duncan has worked tirelessly to challenge the systemic failures of the legal, media, and insurance frameworks that often re-traumatise victims’ families. Through his leadership roles at RTSG, he continues to champion a safe systems approach to road safety, legal reform, and greater support for families navigating the devastating aftermath of road-related crime.

In 2025, Duncan was appointed to the Serious Offender Review Council, where he contributes his perspective and experience to the oversight of offenders who have committed serious crimes, advocating for a justice system that is both fair and accountable.

Duncan is also the CEO of Northside Enterprise Inc. and Bushlink — a certified NDIS disability services provider, ACNC-registered charity, and pioneering social enterprise that creates real employment pathways and inclusive community programs for people with disabilities. Under his leadership, Northside and Bushlink deliver services that promote independence, skills development, and environmental stewardship, including through unique nature-based employment opportunities.

His dedication to public service extends well beyond the boardroom. Duncan is an active volunteer with the NSW Rural Fire Service and Sydney Wildlife Rescue, giving his time to protect both communities and wildlife.

A father, cancer survivor, mentor, and purpose-driven leader, Duncan combines empathy with action, working across sectors to drive meaningful change and build a society where everyone belongs, contributes, and is protected.