http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...pot-fines.html
Printable View
The begining of the end. You mark my words.
Ye I'm gonna trade ny Fazer in for a second hand C70 - who needs 150 BHP any way? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by dan_geoghegan
About bloody time if you ask me!
How long have we, as drivers, moaned that speed cameras do nothing to catch bad drivers, yet safe drivers who drive a few miles over the speed limit get penalised when it's been proven time after time that speed doesn't kill. Unsafe speed for the conditions does.
Shame it will encourage more dishnesty among our public sector though, and be so hard to actually prove
mmm legalised corruption as plod ain't exactly got an unblemished record.
In news recently a past murder case involves plod corruption, and isn't isolated by any means, so anyone who questions this needs to take onboard the evidence for all to see.
OK so there are accidents, blah,blah but isn't there too much policing,limits, laws, time, money, personnel, cost involved in traffic. TBH you have a job to really speed the majority of time and so what if you undertake some slow vehicle or tailgate for awhile is it such a big deal as long as by in large traffic flows smoothly.
BTW also think too much time and inconvenience to traffic is caused when plod shuts roads/mways for hours over accident investigations. Generally what happened is pretty much obvious. Something that has happened in recent times and a whole industry has been created around it generated by claims culture, etc,etc.
p.s. apparently traffic has slowed with the price of fuel soaring
Just making an observation with this. With a 70mph limit, many people consider it safe to be sitting at 80-85mph on motorways. With an increase of the limit to 80mph I'm guessing the same people will be sitting at 90-95mph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squashed_Fly
SF - as one of "your" public sector employees would you be a bit more specific about my "dishonesty" to give me a chance of defending myself?
What's wrong with the courts?? the issue is not the system, but the lack of traffic cops.... does increasing the powers available solve this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWGraeme
Where shall I start?
MP expenses
School places for cash
Police bribes
Need I go on? I didn't say everyone who works there is dishonest. Just that we already have many instances of out publicly paid employees taking the p155, do we need to give them anymore excuses?
Or perhaps I'm wrong, and everyone who works in the public sector is squeaky clean?
But shall we not make this another 'ooh no, I'm offended by something Squashed Fly said' type thread and keep it on course? Perhaps that would be better until you've learnt the art of actually manning up when someone confronts you directly and in privacy on something ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squashed_Fly
Where shall I start?
MP expenses
School places for cash
Police bribes
Need I go on? I didn't say everyone who works there is dishonest. Just that we already have many instances of out publicly paid employees taking the p155, do we need to give them anymore excuses?
Or perhaps I'm wrong, and everyone who works in the public sector is squeaky clean?
But shall we not make this another 'ooh no, I'm offended by something Squashed Fly said' type thread and keep it on course? Perhaps that would be better until you've learnt the art of actually manning up when someone confronts you directly and in privacy on something ;)[/quote]
Just pointing out the limitations of any argument or debate when tarring everyone with the same brush. The majority suffers due to the minority yet again. ;)
It always cheeses me off when I see people towing something going faster than they should but slow enough not to get caught on a GATSO. Unfortunatly these things don't know the max spped for a given vehicle, for a bike it can be 70 (road dependant) but not for a goods vehicle or car towing a caravan.
8-)
Where do you draw the line? I drive a tip top condition Mercedes Vito and have a dogs danglies braked trailer. So that 8 braking wheels on something weighing not much more than a towing car. Why do I have to be subject to the same rules as someone in a piece of sh1t montego towing a badly packed caravan. Everything is brought down to the lowest common denominator. I would gladly pay extra to do an advanced test that proved I was capable of driving/riding better than the tossers that cause all the trouble and not be subject to the same restrictions.
And another thing! My trailer is marked as being able to tow 2.7 tonnes, my van will tow 2 tonnes. I CAN be done for towing the trailer because potentially I could break the law and tow too much. How the hell is that fair? >:(
It's not often I get involved in these threads, other than to lock or remove them :P
Personally I think these on the spot fines sound like a great idea, provided they're used as per the news reports - for people tailgating, undertaking, intimidating other road users, etc. I might start to take the focus away from speed and on to bad driving.
Increasing the max speed on the motorway is an interesting one - I'm all for it as someone who tends to stick to about 80ish mph on the motorways anyway, but it's interesting that during a time when the government is trying to cut the UK's carbon emissions they're allowing drivers to legally drive faster (and so use more fuel).
Might change my mind if I get a £100 on the spot fine, but for now this is my view.
Call me a cynic if you wish, but there can be no doubt that the Lib-cons are introducing these “On the spot fines” on economic grounds and not as a measure to improve road safety. In line with the government’s cuts, this is all about freeing up the courts and extracting revenue from road users through fines. The police already have the powers to charge road users who are suspected of any of the road traffic offences covered by the proposed changes. If the government expects me to believe that it’s serious about road safety, then it will need to invest in more road traffic patrols and scrap the fixed penalties, which in my view, may alienate the police from the people they are supposed to serve.
I’m totally opposed to these new police powers because I believe in the fundamental principle that whatever the alleged offence and without exception, every suspect should have the right to a fair trial. It has never been the role of our police force to act as judge and jury and these new powers will lead us down a slippery slope.
Transport Secretary Philip Hammond defended the fixed penalties (expected to be £80-£100) when he said, “Motorists issued with the penalties would reserve the right to appeal.” I just wonder how many road users, who believe they are innocent of the charged offence, will appeal against the fixed penalty? In the current economic climate how many of us can even afford to lose a day’s pay to find a solicitor we can afford?
and a point made there Ken brings us onto the fact that the legal system is now far too expensive for the vast majority of people to use in anyway shape or form which is something that needs radical return to reality.
I have recently utilised the services [dire that they were ::)] of a solicitor charging over £200 a fookin hour :o and then the useless peetaker had the cheek to complain I was talking too fast ;D although he did reduce his charges in line with estimate....out of control cost though.
This is one example of the dishonesty I was referring to as far as this goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by monday21
And I agree fully, however, even if it is for economic reasons, anything that makes car (and some bike!) drivers think twice before driving like an idiot can only be a good thing imho...
There are lots of unmarked cars on the road, especially on motorways, but we don't realise a lot of the time as if all the traffic is moving at 80, they're very unlikely to reveal themselves. But these new powers will give them the ability to stop people behaving like idiots, regardless of the speeds they are doing so hopefully we will see a rise in police action (and a decrease in accidents on our roads). Maybe that's a very idealogical view?
I'm pretty sure that the cash from on the spot fines will go back to central govt rather than being spent on beer tokens by the individuals concerned. I tend to agree with Ken on this one in that it saves money in administration but hope the individuals rights to question the event are upheld.
This is one example of the dishonesty I was referring to as far as this goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squashed_Fly
And I agree fully, however, even if it is for economic reasons, anything that makes car (and some bike!) drivers think twice before driving like an idiot can only be a good thing imho...
There are lots of unmarked cars on the road, especially on motorways, but we don't realise a lot of the time as if all the traffic is moving at 80, they're very unlikely to reveal themselves. But these new powers will give them the ability to stop people behaving like idiots, regardless of the speeds they are doing so hopefully we will see a rise in police action (and a decrease in accidents on our roads). Maybe that's a very idealogical view?[/quote]
This isn't a new law. It's enabling the police to be judge, jury and executioner. Innocent until proven guilty goes out of the window and the divide between the public and the police gets wider. Education is the ONLY way forward with regards to road safety.
As for this attitude that alot of people on here seem to have about evil drivers making the roads dangerous for us lovely bikers. That's a load of crap. Most bikers I know are some of the worst offenders I've seen, but fellow bikers seem to laugh it off. If a 19 year old in a saxo acts the same way, all hell breaks loose. I've said it before, just because someone chooses the same mode of transport as me, it doesn't make them my friend.......appart from you lot. You're all right! ;D
Dishonesty comes in many guises. I didn't for one second think we were going to end up like eastern europe, where you can pay off coppers with bribes etc. They would have to be accountable for the money (although I'm sure it's not beyond the realms of possibility that you might be be able to buy your way out of a fine in some cases).Quote:
Originally Posted by BMWGraeme
I meant more about where the money etc goes afterwards, whether or not cops are genuinly nicking REAL offenders, as opposed to just lining the countys pockets and, as Ken said, if safety is the real issue pushing this matter.
Some excellent points posted on this thread, but I remain unconvinced that the proposed “On the spot fines” will improve road safety.
It has always been the role of the police to collate sufficient evidence before charging a suspect(s) of committing a particular alleged offence(s). Subsequently, it is the role of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide as to whether or not enough evidence exists to continue with a prosecution. Finally, it is the role of the courts to hear all the available evidence from the prosecution and defence before returning a verdict of innocent or guilty. It is enshrined in English law that a judge(s)/jury must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that a defendant(s) committed the alleged offence/crime before returning a guilty verdict. Not any more it would seem – all the above will now be at the discretion of a police officer with a couple of years training under his/her belt.
The current maximum sentence for “Careless driving, inconsiderate driving, driving without due care and attention” is a £5000 fine, 3-9 penalty points or a discretionary ban. How can a punishment of an £80 – £100 fine improve road safety? I have no doubt that under the new proposals convictions of the road traffic offences covered in the legislation will soar and the government will flag it up as a great success. Hardly surprising considering our justice system would no longer apply.
What next? Shoplifting, burglary perhaps?
You can't win - w complain there's too much beaurocracy and red tape, so we give them powers to 'just get stuff done' and then suddenly we want a trial, jury, paperwork, judge etc.
I think a bit of common sense is in order. If plod sees you driving like a twat, and he's got it on his in car video recorder, then he should be able to pull you over, give you fine/slap on the wrist. Whether I'm in my car, or on the bike, if I decide to ride in a way that potentially might cause others harm/annoyance, I have to accept the consequences that may come with it if I'm caught.
"How can a punishment of an £80 – £100 fine improve road safety?"
It cant, directly. But if you get picked up for driving dangerously and fined, you might think twice before doing it again so ultimately the safety will improve over time. We've spent so long worrying about whether we're speeding, we've forgotten to check whether we're actually driving safely.
The bottom line is, if you drive sensibly, and take into account road conditions/traffic etc and choose your speed in accordance, you won't get a fine. I'd only be worried about it if I thought I drove like a knob.
I am all in favour of cutting red tape and bureaucracy as a means of reducing the financial burden on the public purse, but not at the expense of undermining our judicial system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squashed_Fly
Time will be the judge, as to whether these new police powers will lead to a significant drop in the number of convictions of motoring offences. On the other hand, the loss of a day’s wages and no court appearance may not be enough of a punishment to deter many irresponsible road users from driving/riding irresponsibly. Perhaps the following is a good case in point
“Research released in December 20009 by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) has revealed that, of all Motoring Offences, the number of incidents involving drivers using their mobile phone has increased dramatically. It appears that some people are still not getting the simple message.”
“In London alone, more than 14,000 drivers were caught using their phone while driving, including over 2,000 van drivers. This increase is despite tougher mobile rules introduced in 2007.”
On my recent trip to Carlisle, I counted 43 motorists operating a mobile phone while driving.
Don't forget that you don't have to accept an on-the-spot fine.
If you disagree with it, you can always elect to take it to court.
But most people don't because if found guilty, the penalties can be much higher than the fixed penalty.
The option is there.