"Clampdown" on "Boy Racers"

bails87

Anyone else heard this stuff this morning?
A [sarcasm]wonderful[/sarcasm] idea from Richard, sorry, Phillip Hammond about fining 'boy racers' on the spot but allowing tory voters, sorry, 'law abiding motorists who suffer a lapse of judgement' to be sent on their way with a cheery wave.

The idea of on the spot fines for careless driving was proposed by Labour. This time they're doing the same thing but letting drivers "who are merely occasionally careless" get away with it.

Fortunately the Daily Mash has the antidote
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 105113797/

You can't look in the rear view mirror without seeing some greasy faced yob making filthy hand gestures and being ghastly.

"And then, when the police stop them, they're all like 'yeah, whatever' and 'so what, copper?'. What a way to behave.

"Meanwhile there you are, minding your own business with the cruise control set at 85, being made to feel like someone who is breaking the law."

rick_chasey

It's what the minority that can be describe as "the swing voters who decide elections" would want.

ChrisLS

...there has been far to many "everyday ordinary" motorists caught on speed cameras which is only a way of making money from hard pressed motoring public... oh I can't go on this makes me so depressed...and angry :x :evil:

bails87

Speeding fines as a "stealth tax" is such an annoying argument. Don't want to pay the "tax"? Then stop breaking the f*cking law!!!

If speed cameras are such good revenue generators, then surely we should use speed cameras to catch speeders, the fines will then pay for thousands of traffic cops who can do the 'grey' work, rather than the 'black and white' of speeding.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Speeding fines as a "stealth tax" is such an annoying argument. Don't want to pay the "tax"? Then stop breaking the f*cking law!!!

The law is an ass though, isn't it bails?

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Speeding fines as a "stealth tax" is such an annoying argument. Don't want to pay the "tax"? Then stop breaking the f*cking law!!!

The law is an ass though, isn't it bails?

But whose ass? Some of them are fantastic

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Speeding fines as a "stealth tax" is such an annoying argument. Don't want to pay the "tax"? Then stop breaking the f*cking law!!!

The law is an ass though, isn't it bails?

But whose ass? Some of them are fantastic

Touché.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's what the minority that can be describe as "the swing voters who decide elections" would want.

daviesee

The question is.......who will be doing the catching and enforcing?

How many police are actually out and about to catch the offendors?

ChrisLS

...using a mobile phone to call, chat and text seems to be an un inforceable so how are they going to police this new one then?

bails87

daviesee wrote:

The question is.......who will be doing the catching and enforcing?

How many police are actually out and about to catch the offendors?

Aren't the police cutting officers at the moment?

That's my problem with the idea. The transport minister has said that cameras only catch speeders, but if you're doing something else that's dangerous then you'd get off "scot free"

So why not catch the speeders and catch 'other' offenders. If they did that I'd have no complaints. Other than the fact that he's telling police forces what to do and then saying "staffing levels are a matter for Chief Constables" when someone brings up the delicate question of who's going to do the catching and fining,

CiB

R4's Today programme wrote:

The UN and the Commission for Global Road Safety are today launching a Decade for Action on Road Safety, in a bid to reduce the number of people killed yearly in road accidents around the world. Professor Ian Roberts, of the charity Roadpeace, says the proposals do not go far enough. And Lord Robertson, chairman of the Commission for Global Road Safety, promotes the plans.

This is the underlying reason for the sudden announcement of a load of safety measures. Apparently cars will kill more people this century than all of the conflicts in the 20th century, according to Lord Robertson on the wireless this morning. And how to resolve this problem of killing machines wiping out a million souls? Easy - Lord Robertson announced three times during his interview that the answer is to get more people wearing helmets. People, not just cyclists.

I'd like to see that. His message was clear - we want more people to wear helmets. So as a minimum we can expect a helmet law to be floated in the near future. I'd like to see his stance being taken literally with a law requiring peds (and drivers) to also wear a helmet. He did keep repeating a claim that 85% of deaths are pedestrians, so obviously they're the ones that need to wear the hats.

Here you go - the interview.

jds_1981

CiB wrote:

Here you go - the interview.

Rational argument fail.

greg66_tri_v2.0

CiB wrote:

R4's Today programme wrote:

The UN and the Commission for Global Road Safety are today launching a Decade for Action on Road Safety, in a bid to reduce the number of people killed yearly in road accidents around the world. Professor Ian Roberts, of the charity Roadpeace, says the proposals do not go far enough. And Lord Robertson, chairman of the Commission for Global Road Safety, promotes the plans.

This is the underlying reason for the sudden announcement of a load of safety measures. Apparently cars will kill more people this century than all of the conflicts in the 20th century, according to Lord Robertson on the wireless this morning. And how to resolve this problem of killing machines wiping out a million souls? Easy - Lord Robertson announced three times during his interview that the answer is to get more people wearing helmets. People, not just cyclists.

I'd like to see that. His message was clear - we want more people to wear helmets. So as a minimum we can expect a helmet law to be floated in the near future. I'd like to see his stance being taken literally with a law requiring peds (and drivers) to also wear a helmet. He did keep repeating a claim that 85% of deaths are pedestrians, so obviously they're the ones that need to wear the hats.

Here you go - the interview.

That was a jaw on the desk listening experience.

As I understood it though, Lord Robertson, portrayed as the motorists' ally, was proposing helmets for the occupants of cars, whereas Prof Ian Roberts was being reported as having suggested helmets for everyone.

Frankly, these people should be pushed down the stairs.

nation

I'm skeptical.

On the one hand, it is a problem that crap driving other than speeding is so rarely caught. On the other hand I'm not seeing how the current speeding enforcement is draining resources away from enforcement of reasonable driving standards, which seems to be what is being suggested.

gtvlusso

Greg66 wrote:

Frankly, these people should be pushed down the stairs.

Preferably, not wearing a helmet....

sketchley

Isn't this simple increasing the number of offence that fixed penalties can be issued for? Isn't that a good thing? At the moment the only recourse is to prosecute for large number of these offence so they carry on without redress as no consequence, think motorcycles in ASLs. Surely the issuing of FPN takes less time and costs less than prosecution so this increases the number of people being pulled up for and acts as a deterrent.

Would any one on here really have problem with FPN for motor vehicles left hooking, close passes, or for that matter ASL or mandatory cycle offences?

daviesee

Sketchley wrote:

Would any one on here really have problem with FPN for motor vehicles left hooking, close passes, or for that matter ASL or mandatory cycle offences?

I don't have any problem with FPN for any illegal acts. My problem is, who is going to police it? Pun intended.

bails87

Sketchley wrote:

Would any one on here really have problem with FPN for motor vehicles left hooking, close passes, or for that matter ASL or mandatory cycle offences?

No, of course not. I also have no problem with them having to go to court either. If the police are seeing offences and thinking "nevermind, I can't be arsed with the forms" then that needs to be sorted.

But it's the suggestion that Mr Fotherington-Smythe won't be prosecuted for speeding but Baz and Gaz will because one is a 'decent' person who made a mistake and the others are 'boy racers'.

But it's reinforcing the "I go to work, pay my taxes, drive a nice car. Therefore I should be allowed to drive how I want, but those council estate plebbos should be picked up by the rozzers and given a bloody good thrashing" mindset that some/many drivers have.

And as nation said " I'm not seeing how the current speeding enforcement is draining resources away from enforcement of reasonable driving standards, which seems to be what is being suggested." Why mention reducing punishments for speeding and drivers who are "merely" careless. By all means make minor stuff easier to punish, but there's no need to reduce the punishment itself. And certainly no need to ignore stuff just because the driver in question hasn't been caught before.

tobermory

What is considered careless driving it's a grey area.
With all the police cutbacks will there be enough law on the roads feel the collars of the wrongdoer's

The Rookie

Sketchley wrote:

Isn't this simple increasing the number of offence that fixed penalties can be issued for? Isn't that a good thing?

On a superficial level it would appear to be, but I have 'seen'* fixed penalties issued where there was no realistic chance of a conviction, however in many cases it costs more to defend and win than it does to pay the fixed penalty, that is not justice, its revenue generation.

Simon

*Have knowledge of if you prefer

W1

The Beginner wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Isn't this simple increasing the number of offence that fixed penalties can be issued for? Isn't that a good thing?

On a superficial level it would appear to be, but I have 'seen'* fixed penalties issued where there was no realistic chance of a conviction, however in many cases it costs more to defend and win than it does to pay the fixed penalty, that is not justice, its revenue generation.

Simon

*Have knowledge of if you prefer

Indeed. FPNs are fine for absolute offences, they are not suited for "grey area" offences where the use of judgement or opinion is required. The abuse of the Section 59 "offence" is a worrying indicator of how some police officers act when give wide ranging discretionary punishment (rather than detection) powers.

snailracer

The Beginner wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Isn't this simple increasing the number of offence that fixed penalties can be issued for? Isn't that a good thing?

On a superficial level it would appear to be, but I have 'seen'* fixed penalties issued where there was no realistic chance of a conviction, however in many cases it costs more to defend and win than it does to pay the fixed penalty, that is not justice, its revenue generation.

Simon

*Have knowledge of if you prefer

Surely, that is tempered by the fact that it's not "free" for a policeman to turn up in court, either? The police service has to control its budget as well - it won't if it hands out loads of frivolous FPNs that get thrown out in court.

snailracer

W1 wrote:

...
Indeed. FPNs are fine for absolute offences, they are not suited for "grey area" offences where the use of judgement or opinion is required. The abuse of the Section 59 "offence" is a worrying indicator of how some police officers act when give wide ranging discretionary punishment (rather than detection) powers.

In times past, the police had very strong discretionary powers which could be abused, because in court a policeman was almost always a more credible witness than the defendant. These days, almost every traffic car is set up to collect video evidence, which keeps everyone honest - defendants and police.

W1

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

...
Indeed. FPNs are fine for absolute offences, they are not suited for "grey area" offences where the use of judgement or opinion is required. The abuse of the Section 59 "offence" is a worrying indicator of how some police officers act when give wide ranging discretionary punishment (rather than detection) powers.

In times past, the police had very strong discretionary powers which could be abused, because in court a policeman was almost always a more credible witness than the defendant. These days, almost every traffic car is set up to collect video evidence, which keeps everyone honest - defendants and police.

The police are still believed in preference to a layman, unless there is other independent evidence (largely). A video camera won't pick up everything that the police see, so again there can still be "police vs crim" debates. However what a FPN does it remove that debate from the courtroom and put it at the roadside, and that (in grey area offences) makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Whilst an FPN can be rejected, the penalty if found guilty later will be higher, meaning that the defendant is effectively intimidated into accepting the FPN when the facts may not be clear and may not have stood up in court (but the defendant may not know or realise, as there is no access to legal advice before deciding whether to accept an FPN or not). As I say, the police use of their powers under S59 give a worrying indicator as to how this new punishment option may be abused.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

...
Indeed. FPNs are fine for absolute offences, they are not suited for "grey area" offences where the use of judgement or opinion is required. The abuse of the Section 59 "offence" is a worrying indicator of how some police officers act when give wide ranging discretionary punishment (rather than detection) powers.

In times past, the police had very strong discretionary powers which could be abused, because in court a policeman was almost always a more credible witness than the defendant. These days, almost every traffic car is set up to collect video evidence, which keeps everyone honest - defendants and police.

The police are still believed in preference to a layman, unless there is other independent evidence (largely). A video camera won't pick up everything that the police see, so again there can still be "police vs crim" debates. However what a FPN does it remove that debate from the courtroom and put it at the roadside, and that (in grey area offences) makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Whilst an FPN can be rejected, the penalty if found guilty later will be higher, meaning that the defendant is effectively intimidated into accepting the FPN when the facts may not be clear and may not have stood up in court (but the defendant may not know or realise, as there is no access to legal advice before deciding whether to accept an FPN or not). As I say, the police use of their powers under S59 give a worrying indicator as to how this new punishment option may be abused.

I'd imagine the ever unfolding evidence from the Ian Tomlinson inquiry isn't especially helping the case for police as better witnesses...

rml380z

I never carry much cash. Would I be marched to the nearest cash machine? I seem to remember this being (quite rightly) ridiculed by Lib/Con when they were in opposition.

mapleflot

Just cruised through BBC's Have Your Say website. Looks like `the motorist' feels betrayed by this since the War on Him was promised to be over.` Police should instead be concentrating on those deadly road tax non-payers and red light ignorers: cyclists.' Apparently.

I'm thinking: in-car cameras may start to be more common from this, which may be useful for cyclists' legitimate cases in the future if the stronger motoring lobby can induce them as greater sources of evidence.

MrChuck

jds_1981 wrote:

CiB wrote:

Here you go - the interview.

Rational argument fail.

I was astonished by that. He's almost wilfully not seeing the bull in the china shop.

Depressing.

stuartturbo

My favorite is undertaking or as i say "i am maintaining speed and lane discipline" ( i do it regular when driving) only because i drive at 70 on the A2 near side of FOUR and there is a car in lane 2 or 3 pottering along at below 56mph PULL OVER. I have even undertaken the HATO cars.
At the end of the day the police have to be on the roads to catch the said offensives, some thing that appear to be lacking
how about a text number to report shit driving 5 complaints and Police can track you and throw the book at you

Initialised

Good job I'll be ditching the car soon.