On-the-spot points for careless driving

robmanic1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 769343.ece

This can only be a good thing, can't it?

The only argument I can see against it, is that motorists will resent cyclists even more than they already do. Interesting comments though.

The simple fact is, as I see it is, if you don't break the law you've nothing to worry about, no?

DonDaddyD

Welcome to the Nanny State.

I'm sorry but this would be far too much power for police officiers to have. How would it be regualated? Are there any assurances that police officers wouldn't abuse this power?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Robmanic1 wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5769343.ece

This can only be a good thing, can't it?

The only argument I can see against it, is that motorists will resent cyclists even more than they already do. Interesting comments though.

The simple fact is, as I see it is, if you don't break the law you've nothing to worry about, no?

Not really that simple though, is it?

From the article:

"Unlike existing fixed-penalty offences, such as speeding and using a hand-held mobile phone at the wheel, the evidence for careless driving is much less clear-cut and is often a matter of the officer's opinion."

So: you've got nothing to worry about so long as you drive in a manner which means there is no chance of a policeman forming an adverse opinion of your driving.

No thanks.

Police = police.
Judges = judges.

Call me old fashioned, but I Iike those pigeon holes.

Think about this.

The Police could send you to prison if, in their opinion, you had in your possession material that encouraged terrorism.

Bassjunkieuk

Well none of the comments that I read over seemed to even mention cyclists!
Most are just moaning about an "erosion of their civil liberties" what to drive like an ar5e and not get reprimanded for it?

It's just another example of social responsibility. People don't want to be held responsible for their own stupid or illegal actions and try to blame someone else. Having been knocked off my bike twice and having numerous near misses by people who where driving without paying much attention I think this is a great idea!

Also I'm not saying that I'm a saint behind the wheel either, SCR is a dangerous beast and can creep into racing other drivers!

downwardslide

If your caught speeding or using a mobile behind the wheel, thats fairly clear cut, £60 and 3 points, quite right.
"careless" driving is however entirely subjective and to have a fine/points imposed by a police officer just because they happen to be feeling particuarly vindictive that day hardly seems fair.
I'm all for improving driving standards and attitudes to other road users, but this seems to me to be a revenue raising exercise dressed up as a road safety measure.

robmanic1

Greg66 wrote:

The Police could send you to prison if, in their opinion, you had in your possession material that encouraged terrorism.

Not sure of you point on this one fella.

I'm not supporting the idea by the way, just interested in folks views on it. I can't help thinking though, that if you drive sensibly and within the law, you'd probably be ok. And, as cyclists, if it makes drivers that much more careful that should be a good thing. We see many anti-motorist rants on here, and personally I think we can be a little sanctimonious at times so should we not rejoice?

biondino

Let's just all try not driving like c***s, eh.

DonDaddyD

Robmanic1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

The Police could send you to prison if, in their opinion, you had in your possession material that encouraged terrorism.

Not sure of you point on this one fella.

I can't help thinking though, that if you drive sensibly and within the law, you'd probably be ok.

But that's the point, whether you were driving within the law would only be dependant on a police officers oppinion and not whether you actually driving OK.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Robmanic1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

The Police could send you to prison if, in their opinion, you had in your possession material that encouraged terrorism.

Not sure of you point on this one fella.

It's an offence (one I sort of made up - I couldn't be @rsed to look up the precise wording of terrorism offences) where there is a degree of subjectivity in the assessment of whether it has been committed. Look at the material in question; ask the question: "does it encourage terrorism"; form a view; conclude that the offence has/has not been committed.

That process is one that should be undertaken by a court and determined by a jury. The police's task is to investigate the offence and collate evidence. The prosecution presents that evidence; the court decides whether the case is made out.

I don't think it's a good idea to bypass the prosecution and court stages, and simply let the police decide whether, in their subjective view, the offence has been committed. The example I gave was intended to be an extreme in order to point up the potential seriousness of giving the police these sorts of powers.

Try a different one. How about if the police have on the spot powers to fine cyclist, and put points on a cyclist's driving licence, if they consider that a cyclist has been riding inconsiderately. Fancy that? Or would you prefer to have the opportunity of persuading a court that you weren't riding inconsiderately before the punishment is handed out?

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

I don't think it's a good idea to bypass the prosecution and court stages because I would be out of a job!

:roll:
:roll: :roll:
Sorry couldn't resist.

MrChuck

Greg66 wrote:

Try a different one. How about if the police have on the spot powers to fine cyclist, and put points on a cyclist's driving licence, if they consider that a cyclist has been riding inconsiderately. Fancy that? Or would you prefer to have the opportunity of persuading a court that you weren't riding inconsiderately before the punishment is handed out?

Sounds good, but I think Greg has nailed the problem with this sort of thing here.

the_hundredth_idiot

biondino wrote:

Let's just all try not driving like c***s, eh.

I'm on. Now, just 60 million other British residents to convince ...

greg66_tri_v2.0

Let me tell you a story.

Earlier this month, the week after the snow, one of my mates managed to spin his car 180 degrees joining one of the bridges over the Thames on a Sunday morning, cracking a wheel on a kerb. Nothing else was involved. Maybe he hit ice, maybe he gunned it too hard before the car was straight. Who knows?

So he's sitting there, by the side of the road, waiting for his wife to turn up. He's Asian, sitting next to a two seater sports car pointing the wrong way on a bridge.

In 20 minutes four police cars stopped to question him. The fourth contained a younger officer, who's opening gambit was "You were driving without due care and attention, weren't you. I'm going to do you for driving without due care and attention". He then accused my mate of having been driving on the pavement, relying on some black marks on the pavement, which were not, on any view, tyres marks. The older officer eventually pulled him off and they went on their way without doing anything.

His wife, meanwhile, was pulled over on the way to him by a police van. She (white, driving a low slung 2+2 coupe) was pulled over by a police van, because (according to the WPC driving the van) "you went too fast round that bend. You could have rolled your car. I [in my van] could hardly keep up with you." Leaving aside the fact that she did keep up, having trouble keeping up is pretty plainly because she was driving a van, with a CoG a lot higher than a sports car.

And finally.

The brother in law of another mate is a policeman - works with police dogs. When he was a bobby in a station, he was given some high speed driving training. This consisted of (a) an older Sergeant sitting him down in a panda car; (b) said older Sergeant instructing him: put the blues and twos on, and drive as fast you can round the town centre. Try not to hit anything.


You want to give these people the power to hand out points?

lost_in_thought

Much as the sentiment is heading in the right direction, I do find it a bit perturbing that essentially a police officer's opinion of your actions can land you with three points and a fine.

There's a great deal of potential for the police to misuse this power, intentionally or unwittingly.

cjcp

The Association of Chief Police Officers welcomed the move. A spokesman said: “We see it as a way of reducing the time involved in processing cases. We believe strongly in education and, where appropriate, would make use of driver-improvement schemes as an alternative to fines and penalty points.”

Administrative benefits, see. That trumps everything then.

For "The Association of Chief Police Officers" read "someone who represents the people who'll decide whether you're guilty or not".

If that's seriously the best reason they can up with for this policy, it doesn't suggest that the people determining your fate will have the most agile of minds (yes, I know that may come across as a very a&rsey comment, but to give the police this role, the reasons in favour need to be a little more overwhelming), in which case, this proposal is a very bad idea.

Wouldn't surprise me if this was a scare tactic though as a way of sounding out public opinion and just to put people on their guard. It's only a consultation paper.

And cue the arguments concerning breach of the right to a fair trial.

il_principe

biondino wrote:

Let's just all try not driving like c***s, eh.

But but I live in London!

always_tyred

Robmanic1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

The Police could send you to prison if, in their opinion, you had in your possession material that encouraged terrorism.

Not sure of you point on this one fella.

The police/government have a history of using any power that they believe may be available to them, regardless of the spirit in which that power was provided to them.

For example: (1) heckling a politician = terrorism (2) over extending your Icelandic bank and going out of business = assests seized under anti-terrorism legislation.

The police already have the powers to enforce the relevant traffic laws. At present there is a balancing factor of requiring evidence and good reason enough to justify the legal process. Take that away and abberant behaviour on the part of the police will occur. Just look at parking enforcement.

Its an ill conceived idea from the office of the Nth home secretary in the last N-1 years.
Home secretary, 6 figure salary, free second home, generous personal allowances: no previous experience required.

robmanic1

Greg66 wrote:

Let me tell you a story.

Earlier this month, the week after the snow, one of my mates managed to spin his car 180 degrees joining one of the bridges over the Thames on a Sunday morning, cracking a wheel on a kerb. Nothing else was involved. Maybe he hit ice, maybe he gunned it too hard before the car was straight. Who knows?

So he's sitting there, by the side of the road, waiting for his wife to turn up. He's Asian, sitting next to a two seater sports car pointing the wrong way on a bridge.

In 20 minutes four police cars stopped to question him. The fourth contained a younger officer, who's opening gambit was "You were driving without due care and attention, weren't you. I'm going to do you for driving without due care and attention". He then accused my mate of having been driving on the pavement, relying on some black marks on the pavement, which were not, on any view, tyres marks. The older officer eventually pulled him off and they went on their way without doing anything.

His wife, meanwhile, was pulled over on the way to him by a police van. She (white, driving a low slung 2+2 coupe) was pulled over by a police van, because (according to the WPC driving the van) "you went too fast round that bend. You could have rolled your car. I [in my van] could hardly keep up with you." Leaving aside the fact that she did keep up, having trouble keeping up is pretty plainly because she was driving a van, with a CoG a lot higher than a sports car.

And finally.

The brother in law of another mate is a policeman - works with police dogs. When he was a bobby in a station, he was given some high speed driving training. This consisted of (a) an older Sergeant sitting him down in a panda car; (b) said older Sergeant instructing him: put the blues and twos on, and drive as fast you can round the town centre. Try not to hit anything.


You want to give these people the power to hand out points?

Is the fact that your mate is Asian relevant? Are you suggesting it was the reason behind him attracting the attention of plod? I think anyone in the same situation would catch the eye of the law, don't you?

I've been stopped 3 or 4 times whilst driving, each time for valid reasons, if you break the law you get busted, I didn't bleat about it, it was a fair cop. I tend to find the folks that complain the most about over-zealous policing are the very ones it is aimed at (I'm not suggesting this is the case with your good self or anyone else presenting a view on here).

steve-m

MrChuck wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Try a different one. How about if the police have on the spot powers to fine cyclist, and put points on a cyclist's driving licence, if they consider that a cyclist has been riding inconsiderately. Fancy that? Or would you prefer to have the opportunity of persuading a court that you weren't riding inconsiderately before the punishment is handed out?

Sounds good, but I think Greg has nailed the problem with this sort of thing here.

+1

although instinctively I think "yeah great, and tasar them at the same time", rationally, it is wrong.

Christophe3967

Always Tyred wrote:

The police already have the powers to enforce the relevant traffic laws. At present there is a balancing factor of requiring evidence and good reason enough to justify the legal process. Take that away and abberant behaviour on the part of the police will occur. Just look at parking enforcement.

Exactly. But will common sense prevail?

always_tyred

Robmanic1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Let me tell you a story.

Earlier this month, the week after the snow, one of my mates managed to spin his car 180 degrees joining one of the bridges over the Thames on a Sunday morning, cracking a wheel on a kerb. Nothing else was involved. Maybe he hit ice, maybe he gunned it too hard before the car was straight. Who knows?

So he's sitting there, by the side of the road, waiting for his wife to turn up. He's Asian, sitting next to a two seater sports car pointing the wrong way on a bridge.

In 20 minutes four police cars stopped to question him. The fourth contained a younger officer, who's opening gambit was "You were driving without due care and attention, weren't you. I'm going to do you for driving without due care and attention". He then accused my mate of having been driving on the pavement, relying on some black marks on the pavement, which were not, on any view, tyres marks. The older officer eventually pulled him off and they went on their way without doing anything.

His wife, meanwhile, was pulled over on the way to him by a police van. She (white, driving a low slung 2+2 coupe) was pulled over by a police van, because (according to the WPC driving the van) "you went too fast round that bend. You could have rolled your car. I [in my van] could hardly keep up with you." Leaving aside the fact that she did keep up, having trouble keeping up is pretty plainly because she was driving a van, with a CoG a lot higher than a sports car.

And finally.

The brother in law of another mate is a policeman - works with police dogs. When he was a bobby in a station, he was given some high speed driving training. This consisted of (a) an older Sergeant sitting him down in a panda car; (b) said older Sergeant instructing him: put the blues and twos on, and drive as fast you can round the town centre. Try not to hit anything.


You want to give these people the power to hand out points?

Is the fact that your mate is Asian relevant? Are you suggesting it was the reason behind him attracting the attention of plod? I think anyone in the same situation would catch the eye of the law, don't you?

I've been stopped 3 or 4 times whilst driving, each time for valid reasons, if you break the law you get busted, I didn't bleat about it, it was a fair cop. I tend to find the folks that complain the most about over-zealous policing are the very ones it is aimed at (I'm not suggesting this is the case with your good self or anyone else presenting a view on here).

I think you are being quite naive.

I've been given an on the spot fine for not doing anything wrong at all, in the past. Said plod didn't know the law (which, admittedly is quite an obscure exemption relating to carrying a particular object on the roof of a car). Unfortunately, the brilliant system we have directs the appeal in the first instance to the same plod, and so one has to then persuade said plod that they made a mistake. Given how diminishingly unlikely this is, your only other recourse is the court.

Its a very very bad system. It should not be expanded. The other good example of "guilty until proven innocent" is parking. Surely that's enough of a warning of the dangers?

DonDaddyD

Robmanic1 wrote:

Is the fact that your mate is Asian relevant? Are you suggesting it was the reason behind him attracting the attention of plod? I think anyone in the same situation would catch the eye of the law, don't you?

I questioned whether stating the ethnicity was relevant. I came to the conclusion that it is and it isn’t. You’re right in the sense that anyone with a car pointing the wrong direction would rightly be questioned by a passing police officer. Were four cars necessary? Would it have been four cars had the person was white? Who knows in the case of the latter, but the former? Well the other three police cars could have been useful elsewhere in the capital IMO.

What is poignant is that police incompetence extends beyond ethnicity as Greg’s Asian friend’s wife, who is white, also encountered a useless police officer. In that respect then yes, stating the ethnicity was relevant.

I tend to find the folks that complain the most about over-zealous policing are the very ones it is aimed at.

I find this incredibly short sighted. Where I originally hail fromthe police are very biased, heavy handed and often abuse the powers they have already.

DonDaddyD

I've got a (slightly personal) example of why handing powers of immediate judgement by rationalised by police opinion wouldn't work.

The abuse of the sus-law, which allowed police to effectively stop, search and even arrest individuals on the basis of a mere 'suspicion' of wrong-doing (a blinkered crime prevention tactic) was one of the key things that susposedly (and it bloddy well did!) caused the Brixton Riots.

always_tyred

Yes, yes, but if you forced everyone to carry ID cards with RFID chips in them, then in similar events in the future, you could just send a drone aircraft over the scene and instantaneously record the identities of all of the law abiding people running away.

DonDaddyD

Always Tyred wrote:

Yes, yes, but if you forced everyone to carry ID cards with RFID chips in them, then in similar events in the future, you could just send a drone aircraft over the scene and instantaneously record the identities of all of the law abiding people running away.

You've never seen a riot have you? I'm told that everyone runs...

robmanic1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Robmanic1 wrote:

Is the fact that your mate is Asian relevant? Are you suggesting it was the reason behind him attracting the attention of plod? I think anyone in the same situation would catch the eye of the law, don't you?

I questioned whether stating the ethnicity was relevant. I came to the conclusion that it is and it isn’t. You’re right in the sense that anyone with a car pointing the wrong direction would rightly be questioned by a passing police officer. Were four cars necessary? Would it have been four cars had the person was white? Who knows in the case of the latter, but the former? Well the other three police cars could have been useful elsewhere in the capital IMO.

What is poignant is that police incompetence extends beyond ethnicity as Greg’s Asian friend’s wife, who is white, also encountered a useless police officer. In that respect then yes, stating the ethnicity was relevant.

I tend to find the folks that complain the most about over-zealous policing are the very ones it is aimed at.

I find this incredibly short sighted. Where I originally hail fromthe police are very biased, heavy handed and often abuse the powers they have already.

I am, of course, speaking from my own, personal experience. I am lucky in that I was raised to be a good citizen and obey the law, I have broken the law in the past and been punished (I'm talking driving offences here) and quite rightly so. I can only speak from my own experience and draw my possibly short-sighted conclusions from this. Some folk on here have had different experiences and these have helped form their opinions.
Without being to "Daily Mail", I think there are good points to this, freeing up the police to spend less time filling in forms and more time policing (if that is the real reason behind it) is a good thing, punishing (minor) offenders on the spot rather than going through the potentially expensive courts system also seems to make sense to me.

All that said, I am probably naive and almost certainly short sighted and dream of a country that decent folk can walk the streets in safety, its time to reclaim the once proud country our fathers and forefathers fought for (stop me if I'm going too far).

DonDaddyD

Robmanic1 wrote:

I am, of course, speaking from my own, personal experience. I am lucky in that I was raised to be a good citizen and obey the law, I have broken the law in the past and been punished (I'm talking driving offences here) and quite rightly so. I can only speak from my own experience and draw my possibly short-sighted conclusions from this. Some folk on here have had different experiences and these have helped form their opinions.
Without being to "Daily Mail", I think there are good points to this, freeing up the police to spend less time filling in forms and more time policing (if that is the real reason behind it) is a good thing, punishing (minor) offenders on the spot rather than going through the potentially expensive courts system also seems to make sense to me.

All that said, I am probably naive and almost certainly short sighted and dream of a country that decent folk can walk the streets in safety, its time to reclaim the once proud country our fathers and forefathers fought for (stop me if I'm going too far).

You've taken offence, I'm sorry. I don't think there is anything wrong with your view but it works on the assumption that police opinion is infallible and that they only arrest people who have broken the law. Your post implies that police never make mitakes. That's what I find naive.

We cannot leave judgement of one individual to be solely based on the opinions of another, its not impartial of fair to not consider the evidence.

In Greg66's example his friend would have been given a fine and so would his wife, based solely on flawed police opinion, who clearly had not considered everything but rather reacted to their immediate opinion.

always_tyred

DonDaddyD wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Yes, yes, but if you forced everyone to carry ID cards with RFID chips in them, then in similar events in the future, you could just send a drone aircraft over the scene and instantaneously record the identities of all of the law abiding people running away.

You've never seen a riot have you? I'm told that everyone runs...

Actually, a couple. Thankfully, they were more "hippy" riots (remember the half a million people who descended on the meadows in Edinburgh a couple of years ago, wearing white t-shirts; well some of them did get moderadely aggitated, in a hippy and well meaning sort of a way - there was also a bunch of slightly more aggitated anti-globalisation hippies on campus one year at a big Asia-Pacific evil world leader meeting).
As I recall, it very much depends on the direction you are running.

Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin......

robmanic1

DonDaddyD wrote:

[
You've taken offence, I'm sorry. I don't think there is anything wrong with your ideology but it works on the assumption that police opinion is infallible and that they only arrest people who have broken the law. Your ideology implies that police never make mitakes. That's what I find naive.

No offence taken DDD, I enjoy a good debate as much as the next forumite

I admit I am edging towards devils advocatism on this, but, in principle a good idea, in practice of course, it will never work and will inevitably lead to abuse.
I'm thinking of a time when a "clip" around the ear by your local, rosy-cheeked, big mustacheo'd bobby was enough to show your average con the error of his ways, and no mistake.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Yes, yes, but if you forced everyone to carry ID cards with RFID chips in them, then in similar events in the future, you could just send a drone aircraft over the scene and instantaneously record the identities of all of the law abiding people running away.

You've never seen a riot have you? I'm told that everyone runs...

and carries their ID cards!

God I hope we never have ID cards in the UK.

DonDaddyD

Robmanic1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

[
You've taken offence, I'm sorry. I don't think there is anything wrong with your ideology but it works on the assumption that police opinion is infallible and that they only arrest people who have broken the law. Your ideology implies that police never make mitakes. That's what I find naive.

No offence taken DDD, I enjoy a good debate as much as the next forumite

I admit I am edging towards devils advocatism on this, but, in principle a good idea, in practice of course, it will never work and will inevitably lead to abuse.
I'm thinking of a time when a "clip" around the ear by your local, rosy-cheeked, big mustacheo'd bobby was enough to show your average con the error of his ways, and no mistake.

I agree, with you. I also agree that police officers have lost their fear factor with the youth of today (my generation 20something) and younger. I cannot help but think its becaue they (the police) abused their 'powers' with my Fathers Generation (40something) they made themselves a threat so people lost respect for them,quickly.

Also social values have changed a bobby on the beat just doesn't carry the same level of respect anymore.