Police to issue on the spot fines for Careless Driving

[MGF]

The term 'on the spot fines' ia misleading. The Police cannot issue fines or points. They can issue FPNs that give the driver a choice to accept the penalty or to contest the allegation in court. If there is no proof a driver should not be ticketed. If you were ticketed without any proof would you contest it?

[brianhaddon]

... the only people that will suffer from these new laws will be those that dont deserve it.

So no change there then.

Regards
Brian Haddon

[ipsg.glf]

There are a few huge problems with this idea, that will be missed by both the people putting forward the legislation, and many of the people affected by it.

Picture 2 scenarios.

1: 22 year old girl is following a tractor. She's been behind it for some time, then sees her chance and overtakes. In doing this slightly clips a double white line, so techincally has committed an offense. A police person having a bad or slow day stops her, and the usual questions and checks follow. She has a license, her documents are all in order, and she is pretty upset / distrought about being stopped, and admits clipping the line, and that she knew it was wrong. Enterprising police person then as per his instructions from his superiors, or force policy, writes the ticket and gives her the points / fine on the spot, no proof, and no harm actually done.

2: 22 year old guy is following a tractor. He's been behind it for more than a few minutes, it bored, so just gives it the beans round a blind bend, the oncoming car is a police car, who sees the manouvre, but it's not recording. He turns round, on come the lights and he stops the driver of the overtaking car down the road once he has had to press on to catch up. At this point he's annoyed about the manouvre, and thinks the chap has been trying to escape him, as he got his toe down following the overtake, and has been doing a bit of speeding. The normal checks are done, false information is given, which checks out. He denies all wrong-doing, and there is no proof. A huge amount of paperwork and hassle is now needed to prosecute, and the officer will probably lose, so he just gives the chap a ticking off, and sends him on his way.

I think these are pretty realistic possibilities, and the only people that will suffer from these new laws will be those that dont deserve it. Those who have no license, no money, and shouldn't be driving will continue to ignore their fines, their car will get taken away so they'll just get another one, and continue to ignore the consequences, but the general motoring public will act as a source of good statistics and income, and help improve figures yet further with crime detections and solves going up easily and quickly with these laws. It would not make the roads safer, just more profitable for those who enforce to rules, whether ill-conceived or not.

EvilChap

I don't understand.

Scenario 1 - Wouldn't the officer either give 'advice' or issue a EFPN for crossing a solid white line?

Scenario 2 - False details checking out. What about who the car is registered to? And will the person be named on the insurance? Police can arrest if they suspect false details. Do we want people who overtake on blind bends to get off scot free? You tell me....

[Renny]

The only officers that should be able to issue any on the spot fine for a motoring offence other than a parking offence, should be trained traffic officers and no other. Any thing else would be akin to letting jo public issue tickets. Third party perception?

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

This is already happening. A good mate who drives in a "spirited" but safe manner was reported by a car driver who he overtook. The other car was reportedly travelling at about 40mph or less on a clear rural road. My mate overtook and whilst on the offside, the other car seemed to accelerate. Mate accelerated to complete the overtake safely before the approaching bend and oncming traffic. Oncoming car did not slow or change position on the road or offer any rebuke. The overtaken car followed my mate at a distance to the local supermarket, confronted him and subsequently reported him to the police. There were no "independant" witnesses, the other driver claimed his wife in the passenger seat as a witness. My mate has been charged and is due to appear in court for trial next month.

[ipsg.glf]

The only officers that should be able to issue any on the spot fine for a motoring offence other than a parking offence, should be trained traffic officers and no other. Any thing else would be akin to letting jo public issue tickets. Third party perception?

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

This is already happening. A good mate who drives in a "spirited" but safe manner was reported by a car driver who he overtook. The other car was reportedly travelling at about 40mph or less on a clear rural road. My mate overtook and whilst on the offside, the other car seemed to accelerate. Mate accelerated to complete the overtake safely before the approaching bend and oncming traffic. Oncoming car did not slow or change position on the road or offer any rebuke. The overtaken car followed my mate at a distance to the local supermarket, confronted him and subsequently reported him to the police. There were no "independant" witnesses, the other driver claimed his wife in the passenger seat as a witness. My mate has been charged and is due to appear in court for trial next month.

Methinks you have not got the whole story from your mate.

[michael769]

'Tis also in Scotland and things are different there...

Indeed it is. The requirements for corroboration are much stricter up here and evidence will not be accepted in court without independent corroboration - a prosecution based on the word of one person (a partner is not acceptable for corroboration) is doomed to be thrown out at the initial diet for lack of evidence. This is something that the Procurator Fiscal would be well aware of.

I wonder what other evidence the prosecution is planning to rely on?

[Renny]

Methinks you have not got the whole story from your mate.

I understand how that could be perceived, and I did ask that very question, but I'm fairly certain that I have been told everything.

Indeed it is. The requirements for corroboration are much stricter up here and evidence will not be accepted in court without independent corroboration - a prosecution based on the word of one person (a partner is not acceptable for corroboration) is doomed to be thrown out at the initial diet for lack of evidence. This is something that the Procurator Fiscal would be well aware of.

I wonder what other evidence the prosecution is planning to rely on?

He does have a bit of an brusque temprament and may have said something when confronted by the other driver in Tesco's car park, but he has assured me there are no other witnesses as far as he or his solicitor knows. There has already been an initial diet, but seemingly the PF in Arbroath is well known for what has been said to be draconian views on road traffic offences.

[fungus]

It seems to me that since the Speed Kills manta, that overtaking is viewed by the majority of the population as dangerous and socialy unacceptable. Remember, "Let's make speeding as socialy unacceptable as drink driving". This is not helped by the bleatings of BRAKE, who seem to get an inordinate amount of media publicity over other parties interested in road safety and motoring, but whose views oppose the emotive views expressed by BRAKE. Is it little wonder that drivers like Rennys freind find themselves facing rough justice in the current climate of political correctness?

Rant over for the time being.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

[TripleS]

It seems to me that since the Speed Kills manta, that overtaking is viewed by the majority of the population as dangerous and socialy unacceptable. Remember, "Let's make speeding as socialy unacceptable as drink driving". This is not helped by the bleatings of BRAKE, who seem to get an inordinate amount of media publicity over other parties interested in road safety and motoring, but whose views oppose the emotive views expressed by BRAKE. Is it little wonder that drivers like Rennys freind find themselves facing rough justice in the current climate of political correctness?

Rant over for the time being.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

No need to cease the 'rant', you're quite right in what you say.

I did an overtake a couple of days ago which meant that I passed one car then slotted into a good sized gap, rather than continue and pass the second car as well, because an oncomer appeared. it was all quite comfortable and orderly but I still received a headlight flash from the one towards, and yet he had no grounds for complaint. Apparently it was quite sufficient that he had seen me overtaking!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[zadocbrown]

I did an overtake a couple of days ago which meant that I passed one car then slotted into a good sized gap, rather than continue and pass the second car as well, because an oncomer appeared. it was all quite comfortable and orderly but I still received a headlight flash from the one towards, and yet he had no grounds for complaint. Apparently it was quite sufficient that he had seen me overtaking!

I did something similar on holiday. Except the hazard was a blind crest rather than an oncoming vehicle, though there could have been one. There wasn't, as it turned out, which was fortunate because the taxi ( ) which had followed me through then decided to overtake not just me but the landrover in front as well, potential closing speed of 120 plus and vision must have been about 50 yards before he reached safety! Another day he would have been dead meat

[nodigitsever]

even the mere mention of a fine or forfeiture BEFORE conviction in a Court of Law invalidates said fine, re BOR Act 1669, remember you are presumed to be Innocent till proven Guilty in a Court of Law, do not forget this as it s the very basis of over 800 Years of English Law

[waremark]

even the mere mention of a fine or forfeiture BEFORE conviction in a Court of Law invalidates said fine, re BOR Act 1669, remember you are presumed to be Innocent till proven Guilty in a Court of Law, do not forget this as it s the very basis of over 800 Years of English Law

Current government have rejected this principle. They claim that it is necessary to keep us safe from terrorism. Have I got off-topic? Sorry.