Gareth wrote: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.
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.
Darren wrote: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.
jont wrote:
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?
MGF wrote:jont wrote: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 wrote: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?
ScoobyChris wrote: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?
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests