Police to issue on the spot fines for Careless Driving

[Darren]

There's alot of press noise about this, would be interested to read your views.

"The Department for Transport has proposed a series of road safety measures including allowing officers to issue £60 fixed penalties and three points to motorists who admit the offence."

What are the main issues you forsee?
Would there be a better way of doing this?
Rather than a fine which in, itself doesn't change the person, their beliefs or risk in terms of road safety, should people have to go compulsory re-training?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hBZ5QcrFhg4vc87vAIYKtnn5z9uQ
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6029134/Police-cannot-be-trusted-with-fines-magistrates-warn.html
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6885&edition=2&ttl=20090818091015

[jont]

To me, the biggest issue is one of opinion. Speeding is reasonably absolute - although even there you have errors in kit and signage - but I imagine most people have an idea of whether they were speeding when caught. What concerns me with this is like the S59 legislation, it gets ever harder to defend yourself as a motorist.

I wonder what has prompted the legislation - if it's more careless driving being seen, why are we treating the symptoms instead of the cause - ie falling driving standards generally? Are non-traffic officers (who may not have had any advanced training) going to be allowed to issue these penalties? I know I have made perfectly safe overtakes that appear to have upset other road users - could this be construed as careless? And on whose part? Mine for overtaking, or their reaction to being overtaken?

I wonder what the burden of proof will be and should you choose to contest the notice how easy it will be to fight in court? While most officers probably can be trusted, no doubt there will be some who chose to abuse this legislation and it further alienates the police from the general public.

[Gareth]

The proposals effectively remove the notionally independent arbiter when there is a dispute because, from the police side, it will simplify and speed up paperwork, and from the other side, it will provide certainty about costs and penalties which may be more attractive even if there is an honestly held belief that an offence hasn't been committed.

[Gerald]

The proposals effectively remove the notionally independent arbiter when there is a dispute because, from the police side, it will simplify and speed up paperwork, and from the other side, it will provide certainty about costs and penalties which may be more attractive even if there is an honestly held belief that an offence hasn't been committed.

Whilst I see the administrative benefits of taking more cases out of the court system, I feel that Careless Driving is far too subjective an offence to be dealt with by means of an FPN.

The biggest risk for me is that of an overzealous newbie officer issuing a ticket for a manouevre that is perfectly safe, but appears not to be so from his/her position.

[Darren]

It seems the IAM are on the ball today!

ON-SPOT FINES "TOO EASY AN OPTION" FOR POLICE, SAYS LEADING DRIVING GROUP

The IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) has echoed the concerns of the Magistrates' Association, pointing out that the careless driving ticket is too easy an option.

"A simpler procedure may persuade officers to deal with more serious cases by FPN (fixed penalty notice), rather than the more appropriate - but more time consuming - prosecution and court appearance," said IAM Policy Director Neil Greig.

"Offences range from very bad driving - which could have been charged as dangerous, but wasn't - to minor parking knocks. It is generally dependent on the surrounding facts, witness testimony and the courts' interpretation of them. As such the IAM feels that careless driving should not be included in the list of fixed penalty notices," he said.

The IAM believes that rather than devising methods of making careless driving prosecutions simpler and more attractive to police officers, DfT should campaign pro-actively to improve driver behaviour generally.

"We would have been prepared to support the proposal if it was shown that it would lead to an improvement in driving standards and a reduction in casualties - or even an improvement in the obviously deteriorating quality of police prosecutions," said Mr Greig.

[Big Err]

It seems the IAM are on the ball today!

The IAM believes that rather than devising methods of making careless driving prosecutions simpler and more attractive to police officers, DfT should campaign pro-actively to improve driver behaviour generally.

Blimey!

[MGF]

I wonder what the burden of proof will be and should you choose to contest the notice how easy it will be to fight in court?

Ultimately he burden and standard of proof will remain the same. All that is being proposed is that if you admit the offence, same as with speeding, you can elect to be dealt with by FPN instead of going to court.

However many people may well be intimidated into paying an FPN and taking 3 points for a S3 offence rather than defending it. This may encourage Police officers to issue them in situations where they currently wouldn't report for careless driving.

[jont]

I wonder what the burden of proof will be and should you choose to contest the notice how easy it will be to fight in court?

Ultimately he burden and standard of proof will remain the same. All that is being proposed is that if you admit the offence, same as with speeding, you can elect to be dealt with by FPN instead of going to court.

However many people may well be intimidated into paying an FPN and taking 3 points for a S3 offence rather than defending it. This may encourage Police officers to issue them in situations where they currently wouldn't report for careless driving.

The intimidation factor is what bothers me. How can you prove you weren't driving carelessly? With speeding offences you may be able to prove the kit was defective, operated incorrectly or the limit was not correctly signed. But how can you prove you weren't driving carelessly if an officer asserts that you were?

[hir]

Chief Constable Mick Giannasi, in charge of roads policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said: "By dealing with offences in this way, it can result in a reduction in the amount of time that police officers spend completing paperwork and attending court, while also reducing the burden on the courts and the taxpayer."

So this is now the main criteria for dispensing British justice... saving time for the police and reducing costs!

I wouldn't trust a police officer who is not a police advanced/class 1 driver to make an instant judgement regarding careless driving. I have taken a number of non-advanced driver police officers out on IAM/RoSPA observed drives and have frequently been surprised at their comments regarding other drivers around us and how if they were in uniform they would consider reporting them for careless driving when in my opinion the individuals were not exhibiting careless driving. I even had one associate who told me that straight-lining was dangerous and wasn't allowed and if he saw anyone doing it while he was in uniform he would consider reporting them for careless driving; I explained why we do it and when we do it and four weeks later he was straight lining as though it was second nature to him. Which just goes to prove, as other commentators have already pointed out, it's all a question of opinion and should be left to the courts to decide.

[ROG]

I do believe a comment is made on the roadcraft dvd/video where the trainer says to those doing their response course (not traffic) - "At times you will need to stand in judgement of someone elses driving and how can you do that if your own driving is not well above standard" - or something very similar to that.

Tends to agree with the last poster and the comments made by non advanced officers IMO

[ScoobyChris]

The intimidation factor is what bothers me. How can you prove you weren't driving carelessly? With speeding offences you may be able to prove the kit was defective, operated incorrectly or the limit was not correctly signed. But how can you prove you weren't driving carelessly if an officer asserts that you were?

This comment got me thinking. If I was driving along and a non-traffic officer stopped me and charged me with driving carelessly and I opted not to accept the FPN at the roadside, presumably he would still be called on to form part of the prosecuting team's case when it came to court? Would we then still have the same predicament where, in the opinion of the officer, my driving fell short of what is expected of a careful and competent driver, irrespective of the number of qualifications or not I hold, with no evidence available to the contrary?

Chris

[Gareth]

If I was driving along and a non-traffic officer stopped me and charged me with driving carelessly and I opted not to accept the FPN at the roadside, presumably he would still be called on to form part of the prosecuting team's case when it came to court? Would we then still have the same predicament where, in the opinion of the officer, my driving fell short of what is expected of a careful and competent driver, irrespective of the number of qualifications or not I hold, with no evidence available to the contrary?

The officer would be asked to describe a defendant's driving and, in particular, to justify why he thought the driving was below the appropriate standard. The defendant would have the opportunity to assert that the officer's description wasn't accurate and/or that what the officer described did not fall below the appropriate standard.

[fungus]

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

[Red Herring]

I agree with all the posts that say Careless Driving is far to subjective for it to be dealt with at the roadside by means of an FPN. You only have to look at some of the instances where Sect.59 warnings have been issued to see how unreliable some police officers opinion are of what is careless driving, and for these officers to be able to potentially impact on a drivers licence and livelyhood will result in further loss of public confidence in the service. Diluting the justice system in this way is a step backwards, what we should be doing is raising the publics expectation that bad driving will result in harsher penalties imposed by the court, not telling them careless driving is now so trivial you just get a ticket for it.

[EvilChap]

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.