A proposed change to the penalty points system for drivers who fail to wear seatbelts is now under consideration as the Labour Party transitions leadership from Sir Keir Starmer to Andy Burnham.
The original plan, which was put forward by the Labour government under former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, forms part of the Road Safety Strategy announced earlier this year in January. Since then, the government has consulted on the proposals, with motorists eagerly awaiting any updates.
With seven months having passed since the leadership change, it now falls to Andy Burnham, the new Prime Minister from the Labour Party, to decide on the next steps.
The proposal specifies that “3 penalty points should apply to all drivers who fail to wear a seatbelt or who fail to ensure that any child in the vehicle wears an appropriate child restraint.”
The consultation document notes that “In general, seatbelt wearing rates are good. Most vehicle occupants understand why it is important to wear seatbelts, and they do so, as the law requires.”
Insurance broker Ratcliffes commented on the potential impact of the rule change, stating: “In a transport business, penalty points are not just a private matter for the driver. They can affect whether a driver meets your internal standards, whether they need to be disclosed to an insurer, and whether they change the risk profile of the fleet.”
They added: “For larger fleets, one driver receiving 3 points may not change much on its own. For a smaller operator, the same points can matter more, especially if the driver already has existing endorsements. Where this catches people out is the gap between written policy and real behaviour.”
Ratcliffes emphasised the importance of active seatbelt checks, noting: “Most businesses have a safety handbook or driver declaration. Fewer can show that seatbelt use is being checked, reinforced and dealt with when poor habits appear.”
“This is especially relevant where drivers make frequent stops, move around yards, reverse in tight spaces, or carry other workers between sites. Some exemptions exist, but operators should not rely on informal assumptions. The safest position is to make the expected behaviour clear, then record any genuine exemption properly.”