To Weaken the Dangerous Driving Law Means We Didn't Learn from Tragic Incidents

このページを日本語で読む

In 2021, a car traveling at 194 km/hour (120 mph) killed a man in a vehicle turning right on a public road in Oita City. And in 2024 in Isesaki City, Gunma Prefecture, a drunk driver in a truck killed three people in an oncoming vehicle. In both cases, the offenders were initially charged only with negligent driving.

After a petition campaign by the bereaved families, however, the charges were revised to dangerous driving. This categorization carries a heavier statutory penalty under the Road Traffic Act.

This judicial confusion about what is or is not dangerous driving stems from the vagueness of standards under the law. Therefore, the Legislative Council, a deliberative council of the Ministry of Justice, has made an effort to clarify the situation. It has now proposed numerical standards for evaluating driver-related speeding and drinking infractions.

What the New Draft Says

Under the Legislative Council draft, speed limits would be applied uniformly. In the future, speeds should not exceed 60 km/hour (37 mph) on roads and expressways where current speed limits are 60 km/hour or higher. And on roads with currently lower speed limits, the driver's speed should not exceed 50 km/hour (31 mph). Finally, it proposes a numerical standard for alcohol consumption violations of 0.5 milligrams or higher per liter of breath.

This is due to come up for amendment of the law during the ordinary Diet session in 2026.

Driving Dangerously

Critics have noted that the Council considered two proposed versions of numerical speeding standards and drinking limits. However, the adopted version proposes higher limits and is more lenient towards perpetrators.

Let's consider why that was done.

One reason is the judiciary's reluctance to apply the dangerous driving law except in extreme cases. Currently, the crime of dangerous driving resulting in death or injury is treated the same as the crime of intentionally causing death by injury. Therefore, it has a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison.

However, the judiciary should have no hesitation in applying tougher standards even now. Violations of extremely high speeds and drunk driving do constitute "reckless driving" under the law. These standards apply where the driver is aware that their conduct could lead directly to a serious accident.

*A hit-and-run incident occurred in Umejima, Adachi Ward. Police officers investigate the Toyota Certified Used Car believed to have been involved in the incident. (©Sankei by Hideyuki Matsui)*

Therefore, some will no doubt question the validity of the new, more lenient numerical standards.

Clarification of the numerical values could also lead to the misunderstanding that driving below the standard speed is a sure way to avoid serious charges. However, the draft also addresses this point. It includes provisions stating that driving at any speed that makes it extremely difficult to avoid serious traffic hazards is punishable, even if the driver has not exceeded the speed limit.

Yet, even in this case, the draft limits this provision to cases where there are "items equivalent to" the numerical standards. Interpretation of this wording is bound to lead to new confusion.

Driving Under the Influence

Regarding drunk driving, the Road Traffic Act currently stipulates that a driver's license may be revoked if their alcohol level is 0.25 milligrams per liter or more. Therefore, the proposed numerical standard of more than 0.5 mm of alcohol, twice the current level, has been criticized as too lenient.

The crime of dangerous driving was established in 2001. It was adopted after a tragic accident on the Tomei Expressway in which two young girls were killed by a drunk driver behind the wheel of a truck.

The law was born out of the anger of bereaved families and society. Against that backdrop, the loud calls for legal reform are an expression of frustration with the current confusion and what appears to many as a weak-willed judicial system.

Therefore, shouldn't the Legislative Council's draft proposal be further considered to determine whether it adequately addresses these concerns?

Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun

このページを日本語で読む