On the spot fines for 'careless' driving

[ScoobyChris]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13356057

Discuss

Chris

[jont]

Given how few trafpol there seem to be around, I can't help but wonder if the next step will be to give these powers to someone watching via CCTV rather than actually at the scene.

While I think it sounds like a convenient idea, it's more open to abuse than speeding as there's no objective measure about what constitues "careless".

I'd still rather see a stronger focus on getting uninsured/unlicensed drivers off the roads, but I guess that isn't as conducive to revenue.

[MGF]

...I'd still rather see a stronger focus on getting uninsured/unlicensed drivers off the roads, but I guess that isn't as conducive to revenue.

90% of drivers who are responsible for fatal casualties are insured and licensed. Although the uninsured/unlicensed class of drivers is disproportionately represented in the casualty stats., focusing on this class of driver can only possibly result in marginal improvements in casualties.

Indeed excessive speed is a contributory factor in around a quarter to a third of casualties and for that very reason focusing on that class of driver is heavily criticised on this forum.

It isn't clear from the report but I would suggest the proposal is that an FPN will be available as it is in speeding cases although the right to a Court appearance would remain. I am not sure it would be possible to endorse someone's licence without a fair hearing.

As for the report (the statement has not yet been made) fixed penalties will not make any difference to "the genuinely reckless" as this class of driver should be dealt with by way of a court appearance in any event.

[Big Err]

While I think it sounds like a convenient idea, it's more open to abuse than speeding as there's no objective measure about what constitues "careless".

When you consider the level of evidence that is produced in court to secure a Careless driving charge (normally involves a collision to get that far) it does seem unusual that it is being considered for a fixed penalty. However, it does beg the question of how many times do police officers see examples of Careless driving and fail to act on it due to the lengthy court proceedings that occur if it is reported?

[jont]

However, it does beg the question of how many times do police officers see examples of Careless driving and fail to act on it due to the lengthy court proceedings that occur if it is reported?

Then the policing system is broken. If that is the case, shouldn't the system be to have more police out there and to change their performance targets, rather than bringing in another piece of dubious legislation? (a bit like allowing FPN for mobile phone offences when to me that should come under careless driving too). Although I often wonder how many people done for speeding should really have been done for careless but speeding is easier to secure a conviction for, particularly if they accept a FPN.

[Big Err]

Then the policing system is broken. If that is the case, shouldn't the system be to have more police out there and to change their performance targets, rather than bringing in another piece of dubious legislation?

I would suggest it's got more to do with the Court system than the Police.

[jont]

Then the policing system is broken. If that is the case, shouldn't the system be to have more police out there and to change their performance targets, rather than bringing in another piece of dubious legislation?

I would suggest it's got more to do with the Court system than the Police.

Okay, bad choice of words on my part - as an outsider I tend to lump police/courts together as I suspect many members of the public do.

[faboka]

I didn't realise Careless driving had to go through the courts.

First impressions to me seems to be like a good idea. Why can people who speed be fined but careless driving cannot?

[ScoobyChris]

Why can people who speed be fined but careless driving cannot?

I'd guess it's because speeding is an absolute offence (ie were you driving above the prescribed limit) whereas careless driving is more subjective and requires a qualified opinion, although I'm not sure what qualifications one requires to hold that opinion. One thing they did say on the radio this morning which was encouraging was that for "occasional" offenders, an educational course would be offered, although I suspect most of the people who are caught will know what they were doing wrong

Chris

[MGF]

I didn't realise Careless driving had to go through the courts.

First impressions to me seems to be like a good idea. Why can people who speed be fined but careless driving cannot?

They can but they have to be convicted first. If you mean FPNs should be available for careless driving I think the answer is that so long as the technology is used correctly there is little scope for a defence when speeding is alleged. Hence it is easier all round if the driver can accept points and a fine without having to go to court.

Careless driving is not straightforward which means drivers are far more likely to dispute whether or not they have actually committed the offence. Disputes can only be settled in court.

I believe the fear is that as things stand Police are discouraged from initiating prosecutions unless there is plenty of evidence to be sure of a successful prosecution.

If FPNs were introduced these might be issued without too much thought, possibly influenced by the mood, personal opinions and prejudices of the issuing Officer.

The driver might be reluctant to go to court to defend himself because the cost and potential consequences are less attractive than just taking the points and paying the fine.

[martine]

Also in the statement to the commons today by Phil Hammond (Secretary for Transport):

"Launch a new post-test qualification for new drivers, including an assessment process to give insurers confidence that it will create safer drivers who can expect to pay lower insurance costs. This will replace the current Pass Plus scheme."

Sounds interesting but until we have the detail I will keep the champagne in the fridge.

[TripleS]

Then the policing system is broken. If that is the case, shouldn't the system be to have more police out there and to change their performance targets, rather than bringing in another piece of dubious legislation?

I would suggest it's got more to do with the Court system than the Police.

Okay, bad choice of words on my part - as an outsider I tend to lump police/courts together as I suspect many members of the public do.

Yes, this MoP certainly does the same. It's all part of officaldom, which in total costs us far more than is justified by the results it achieves. Value for money in the public sector is pretty abysmal IMHO.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[MGF]

At para 5.15 of the Framework


...We propose to increase the payment levels for offences related to speed, the requirement to control a vehicle (including mobile phone use), pedestrian crossings and wearing a seatbelt to between £80 and £100 from the current level of £60..."

[GJD]

Has anyone seen whether the intention is to allow all police officers to issue these FPNs, or only traffic police? The Careless Driving section of the framework document didn't seem to answer that question.

[GJD]

...I'd still rather see a stronger focus on getting uninsured/unlicensed drivers off the roads, but I guess that isn't as conducive to revenue.

90% of drivers who are responsible for fatal casualties are insured and licensed. Although the uninsured/unlicensed class of drivers is disproportionately represented in the casualty stats., focusing on this class of driver can only possibly result in marginal improvements in casualties.

Indeed excessive speed is a contributory factor in around a quarter to a third of casualties and for that very reason focusing on that class of driver is heavily criticised on this forum.

"Many accidents are not caused by excessive speed" is one of the criticisms heard. Another is, "many incidences of excessive speed are not dangerous". Your 90% figure suggests that "excessive speed" can be replaced by "uninsured/unlicenced drivers" in the first statement. I wonder if the same replacement fits the second statement.