Fixed Penalty Notices for Careless Driving

[Dan B]

There's no specific law against tailgating either, but that's one of the behaviours they apparently want to target. So if there's a will to look at close passes (notice my use of the word "if") then the absence of a "3 feet to pass" law or similar should not be an obstacle

 

[ferret fur]

Surely the best way is if the police can fine drivers on the basis of Mikey's helmet cam videos

 

[Norm]

I am hopeful that it could lead to a lot of FPNs being given out in circumstances where the police would otherwise not bother trying to add cases to the workload of an already-backlogged CPS.

This.

If it's an alternative to doing nothing to the drivers they are already stopping but not prosecuting, it sounds like a good thing to me.

 

[jnb]

I'd say this is a good thing, yes obviously there's a question of whether there are enough police to do anything with these new powers but the same criticism could be made of the current system plus the current system requires all the overhead of court procedures and use which have the effect of making even fewer police available and costing a lot of time and money all round.

 

[John the Monkey]

The subtext is interesting, Hammond claims to be targeting the "reckless", not the "occasionally careless".

He even does the "55 in a 50" justification for breaking the speed limit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/11/government-careless-drivers-fines?CMP=twt_iph

He's either an idiot, or unbelievably cynical. I daresay the Mail et al are lapping it up, mind.

 

[Tommi]

http://www.guardian....nes?CMP=twt_iph

I stopped reading when I saw Guardian quoting Daily Mail. Is it safe to continue?

Anyway... I'm rather wondering why the penalty notices aren't relative to income or wealth like in some countries? Seems like fixed amount is not very balanced deterrent and favouring the rich.

 

[Woz!]

As two previous posters have commented, I'm very concerned about giving even more power to the police.
As a keen photographer I followed the stories of people being detained under various Anti-Terror legislation for legitimately and harmlessly using their cameras in public. I see extending police power and removing the court process as a dangerous route to go down, even if it is cheaper.

 

[Manonabike]

I actually don't think this is a good idea. On the spot fines will not deter those who can afford the fine easily, in fact, quite the opposite. I've seen people parking where it's not permitted or over staying in the knowledge that it's only £30 fine. I'm sure these people would view the situation differently if they had to appear in front of a judge.

 

[Norm]

I think the idea is, like FPN's for speeding offences caught on camera, that you can still refuse to pay on-the-spot and take it to court, although at risk of greater punishment if still found guilty.

I actually don't think this is a good idea. On the spot fines will not deter those who can afford the fine easily, in fact, quite the opposite. I've seen people parking where it's not permitted or over staying in the knowledge that it's only £30 fine. I'm sure these people would view the situation differently if they had to appear in front of a judge.

Reading beyond the Dail Mail-type summary, the police fines will still come with 3 points, so most will be deterred after the first couple of nickings. Which is more than happens now when the police think that they won't get far in court so do nothing.

Again, we shouldn't compare the new proposals with existing legislation and punishments, we should compare them to those who just get a ticking off as the police don't think the offence worth pursuing through the courts.

In other words, someone who gets caught overtaking on the left may currently get nothing more than his arse kicked and then drive off with nothing on his record. Under the new proposals, he'll get his arse kicked and an notice to pay £xx and send in his licence, much the same as those caught on camera currently, with the option to fight if for the punks who feel lucky.

 

[pshore]

As two previous posters have commented, I'm very concerned about giving even more power to the police.
As a keen photographer I followed the stories of people being detained under various Anti-Terror legislation for legitimately and harmlessly using their cameras in public. I see extending police power and removing the court process as a dangerous route to go down, even if it is cheaper.

You are not alone in your worries, this story was linked to in the Guardian article above back in Aug 2009:

Magistrates object to on-the-spot driving fines plan

The DfT said that making careless driving a fixed-penalty offence would help the police enforce the law against bad drivers who admit fault with a minimum of bureaucracy. "But all drivers would have the option to contest their case in court and we would work with the police and the courts to develop guidance to ensure that cases are handled correctly."

The part in bold was still the line being given by Hammond this morning.

In some ways I like this FPN approach, but if I had been given a FPN that I thought was unfair, the onus is now on me to prove I am not guilty. Most people can't be bothered with that.


Still, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. When did you last see a traffic officer? I see PCSO's all the time but they cannot deal with moving traffic offences in my county.

 

[gbb]

The video they played along with the news article showed lots of driving that didn't seem that bad.

And there lies the problem. I saw some footage for as split second and thought exactly the same.
It appeared a guy entered a hatched zone a little early, but if thats the kind of thing they're going to do you for...i'm against it.
An example, There's a hatched zone in peterborough just before the right turning lane. That lane is always heavily used but its short. If you dont enter the hatched zone, you can completely block everyone else who's going straight on. Everyone accepts the hatched zone as an extension of the r'h lane or traffic cant flow.
It doesnt cause any problems (although technically you shouldnt do it of course).
Basically its a lack of space for all the traffic.
Anyway, in those kind of circumstances, you'll end up with far worse traffic flow but everyone obeying the rules.

Rock and a hard place....

 

[Mad at urage]

And there lies the problem. I saw some footage for as split second and thought exactly the same.
It appeared a guy entered a hatched zone a little early, but if thats the kind of thing they're going to do you for...i'm against it.
An example, There's a hatched zone in peterborough just before the right turning lane. That lane is always heavily used but its short. If you dont enter the hatched zone, you can completely block everyone else who's going straight on. Everyone accepts the hatched zone as an extension of the r'h lane or traffic cant flow.
It doesnt cause any problems (although technically you shouldnt do it of course).
Basically its a lack of space for all the traffic.
Anyway, in those kind of circumstances, you'll end up with far worse traffic flow but everyone obeying the rules.

Rock and a hard place....

I saw cars entering hatched zones with broken white lines around them - which does not contravene the HC if it is safe to do so (and should not be taken as careless driving unless the 'unsafe to do so' is also demonstrated). I feel it is likely (I hope) that the compilation was by the Beeb (who are as ignorant of the HC as most drivers) rather than by the people who will be tasked with enforcing this.

It might become even more beneficial to know the HC well, and be able to dispute that sort of point at the time: OTOH I was once told by a police driver who had pulled me over for wobbling whilst climbing a hill (by his account I was wobbling up to a foot), that I should be maintaining a straight line and that he didn't care what the HC said, he would have me for dangerous cycling if he saw me doing that again "Sonny" ( he was about 10 years younger than me, even all those years ago).

 

[Arch]

Saw this on BBC news this morning. While the interviewer was chatting to the RAC spokesperson on a traffic island a flatbed truck rolled past and someone in the rhs (drivers?) seat hung out of the window and shouted "ygggbredorwagaddub" at the camera.

I saw that, wouldn't it be fab if the plod tracked him down and did him for driving without due care or something....

I don't suppose the new idea will do much. People who drive badly won't care much about getting points (or they wouldn't drive badly would they?), and £60 is peanuts to many people - or they'll just not pay up and probably get away with that, while the wheels of justice grind slow. But mostly, who is going to enforce it? Unless you station a copper on every junction, most people will continue to get away with bad driving, and the threat of prosecution will be as potent as it is now, IE, not very.

Sadly, what we really need is the hardest thing to acheive, a change of mentality. It can be done (think drink driving etc), but it takes a looooooong time to reach a tipping point.

 

[potsy]

I actually don't think this is a good idea. On the spot fines will not deter those who can afford the fine easily, in fact, quite the opposite. I've seen people parking where it's not permitted or over staying in the knowledge that it's only £30 fine. I'm sure these people would view the situation differently if they had to appear in front of a judge.

+1 especially when reading a recent article on a well known footballer.

Manchester City striker Mario Balotelli has picked up nearly £10,000 in parking fines and averages three tickets a day, according to The Sun. The former Inter man, whose controversial behaviour both on and off the pitch has led to many questioning his professionalism, is also said to have had his car impounded 27 times since moving to Eastlands from his native Italy last summer.

Balotelli has already paid £300,000 in club fines for a number of misdemeanours, the most recent being for throwing darts at a youth team player.

Speaking to The Sun, a club insider said: "Mario will drive from his luxury apartment to a restaurant a few streets away and leave the car on double yellows.

"The other week the Maserati misfired so he just abandoned it. Staff have had to bail it out 27 times.

"The valet the club uses empties the glovebox of tickets every time he cleans it. Mario doesn't seem to care. It's a drop in the ocean to him.

"Mario was pulled over by the police and he had £25,000 cash on the passenger seat. They asked him why and he said, 'Because I can'. He doesn't care much for authority."

 

[Woz!]

In some ways I like this FPN approach, but if I had been given a FPN that I thought was unfair, the onus is now on me to prove I am not guilty. Most people can't be bothered with that.

Quite - it's a reversal of the burden of proof, which seems to be creeping in all over the place.

Still, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. When did you last see a traffic officer? I see PCSO's all the time but they cannot deal with moving traffic offences in my county.

I'm not worried about being booked - I rarely see cops on the road and I no longer drive that much anyway.
It's the creeping powers of the police, combined with a lack of checks and balances that concern me. Get the cops to wear helmet cams and then they can replay the evidence to you and THEN give you a choice of court or on-the-spot. That works;not a threat followed by their word against yours if you try and take it further.