Good point.
Dorset Police ClampDown
- Thread starter BSRU
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Good point.
Spinney
Bimbleur extraordinaire
- Location
- Back up north
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
zero tolerance is a great approach. the objectiuve isn't to get people banned but to get people to improve, through chaning behaviour, and in this instance I think there may be an direct relationship between this campaign the improved accident stats on Dorset's roads.
more power to their elbows.
more power to their elbows.
What about aiming for zero road deaths, like Sweden.
http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/features/feature1952/
great blog post by the way gaz.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
ha ha ha ha .
and you think banning people will stop em driving. look at some of the stats for those who get stopped for driving while banned.
all that wil do is increase the number of banned drivers.
a bit like when Pistols got banned from private ownership. all it did was criminalise thise who had them. didn't stop your Harlesden wannabe killing another blood did it.
As Easy As Riding A Bike
Well-Known Member
Yes, perhaps we should get rid of the idea of punishment entirely.
The new ASSET cameras, equipped with ANPR, will help tremendously to get idiot, illegal drivers off the roads.
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
I suggest you read my blog post about this mater.
Why do people get away with driving without insurance? Perhaps because the police don't have a big enough presence and the people that break the laws know that the chances of getting caught are slim.
If we do the following we can make the roads a safer place for everyone to use.
- Increase traffic officer numbers
- Fine people baised on their income
- Use un-marked police cars to catch people unaware.
- Licences expire after an amount of time at which point you can no longer drive and you must re-take a driving test.
- All police cars with ANPR cameras, this will help in catching the banned drivers, uninsured drivers and people skipping MOT.
The police need to be funded some how.
Ste T.
Guru
"The BBC item claimed that road deaths had been reduced by half due to crackdown on mobile phone users, non-seat belt wearers etc."
The trouble is that measures like these require officers on the road, in cars. I don't know about around your way, but here on North Merseyside there are plans afoot to reduce the number of police considerably. The only police helicopter is for the chop and they have been asking for local volunteers to man the police station for the few hours it will be open.
The number of people driving around with illegally darkened front seat side windows is well on the rise as they know it stops you being caught on the phone and if they aren't stopping you for the windows, which are easy to spot, whats the odds on being caught texting etc.
It's a game man, it's a game!
The trouble is that measures like these require officers on the road, in cars. I don't know about around your way, but here on North Merseyside there are plans afoot to reduce the number of police considerably. The only police helicopter is for the chop and they have been asking for local volunteers to man the police station for the few hours it will be open.
The number of people driving around with illegally darkened front seat side windows is well on the rise as they know it stops you being caught on the phone and if they aren't stopping you for the windows, which are easy to spot, whats the odds on being caught texting etc.
It's a game man, it's a game!
mgarl10024
Über Member
- Location
- Bristol
I agree with the idea that people driving without insurance should have their cars seized - I'd hoped that it would increase the risks of driving without insurance significantly enough to make people reconsider.
I do sometimes disagree with the zero tolerance aspect though. If someone is doing 60 in a 30, throw the book at them. If they're doing 37, then some discretion is called for. I know the risks for someone being hit at 37 are worse than 30, but almost everyone will slip up now and again, and it's the catching of the innocent people on their occasional slip up that gives the police a bad name in this area.
I do sometimes disagree with the zero tolerance aspect though. If someone is doing 60 in a 30, throw the book at them. If they're doing 37, then some discretion is called for. I know the risks for someone being hit at 37 are worse than 30, but almost everyone will slip up now and again, and it's the catching of the innocent people on their occasional slip up that gives the police a bad name in this area.
I'm afraid that I can't agree with this though. I think I know what you're trying to do - i.e. make the financial cost 'feel' the same regardless of wealth, but that's what the points system and banning are designed to do. It irritates me when politicians use the word "fair" to mean "take more from the wealthy" - I'm by no means wealthy, but if people have made the right decisions and worked hard to earn some money then taking more from them for the same infraction is not "fair".
Poacher
Gravitationally challenged member
- Location
- Nottingham
Could be wrong, but I very much doubt that the drivers awareness courses are free - they're probably at least as much as the default fine of £60. Can anyone on here confirm this? 
IMO, for legal drivers (i.e. discounting endorsements) with VED, insurance, MOT. The punishment is not handed out by the legal system. A £60 fine is a lot to some, but not to others.
The group that does punish the driver for offences is the insurance system.
Not only are premiums increased with points (although my 3 didn’t have any effect) The DVLA takes the points off after 3 years. Insurance companies don’t disregard offences till 5 years have passed.
My dad was recently refused insurance by several companies as although he had 3 points on his licence, the ones that came off 6 months earlier took him to/over 12 in the last 5 years.
The group that does punish the driver for offences is the insurance system.
Not only are premiums increased with points (although my 3 didn’t have any effect) The DVLA takes the points off after 3 years. Insurance companies don’t disregard offences till 5 years have passed.
My dad was recently refused insurance by several companies as although he had 3 points on his licence, the ones that came off 6 months earlier took him to/over 12 in the last 5 years.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
couldn't agree more. who is going to pay for this though? How are they to be funded for this? fines from those caught, as you could get to a point where people are not offending so revenue isn't being raised. the govt looks at the drop in offences disbands the unit and the cycle starts all over again.
perhaps a levy on all cars sold in trade , but then that willl encourage more private sales so revenue stream would diminish. raise the cost of a test , but then that discriminates against poorer sections of society and you need a car licence to get your HGv one etc.
I don't think my various licences are a right. i earned them and look after them. i drive sensibly as i know i cannot afford the consequences if i don't.
it irks me greatly when i see illegal number plates, illegal tints on front windows people on mobiles etc.
the last bullet point is never going to work though. Pool cars i think is the term the police use. get stopped , surrender vehicle, get nicked , don't go to court etc drive another pool car and so the cycle continues.
anybody can come up with a million and one ways to reduce offences by motorists bjut until they can also come up with how they are funded then i will keep on living in the real world where those who want to drive illegally will.
as a matter of interest are you a car driver?
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
you really are being obtuse .
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
But the ban system isn't working. You need to strike fear into the motorists.