On-the-spot fines for careless driving!!

[Arch]

This says it all really..

A spokesman for The Association of Chief Police Officers said:

“We see it as a way of reducing the time involved in processing cases. We believe strongly in education and, where appropriate, would make use of driver-improvement schemes as an alternative to fines and penalty points.”

Do those driver improvement things really work? I knew a guy who opted to go on one instead of get points (he already had some) and the last time I was in a car with him he seemed to be driving up against the limit the whole time - like he was really only paying token lip service to it because he ought to, rather than because he understood why. And he wasn't a young guy either, he was in his fifties, so you'd think he'd be able to think about it.

 

[Crankarm]

I'm all for it. With a pecuniary interest the Police might actually start enforcing road traffic laws. In France or Italy if a driver is caught by traffic police doing something he/she shouldn't they end up with being fined and licensed endorsed. If the matter is relatively trivial you pay up and go on your way. In France it used to be minimum of £90 on the spot. The Italian police have a sliding scale at the discretion of the officer which I must admit is a charter for corruption or two receipt books…... But if the driver refuses or can't pay they can't go any further and their car is impounded. In France a colleague of mine was stopped by the police and booked to appear before a local magistrate the next morning as she had been driving at 100kmh through a 60 km/h limit. They caught her in a speed trap at one of those hamlets in the middle of nowhere that lasts all of about 50 feet but has a 60km/h speed restriction. She was fined £180 but her license wasn't endorsed as she was not French. She got her car back as it was a French lease car and she was working for a UK company.

As I say I am all for UK police being able to make on the spot fines and collect them at the point of wrong doing. For too long civil liberty do-gooders have resisted this. I mean there is no uncertainty in a driver using a mobile while driving. Police cars are kitted out with so much camera equipment that the Police could show the errant driver an action replay of the misdemeanour. Plus I include winkers as well, one headlight jobbies, no indication merchants, no seat belt loons. All the strict liabiilty offences including speeding and RLJers which would also apply to cyclists . There is a very rich seam for making money here I’m surprised it has not been taken up years ago by the Government or police. Drivers would still be able to challenge any penalty as is proper. However, if they didn't pay up then they would lose their vehicle and go to court with minimum 6 points penalty if found guilty. Something radical has to be done as currently it's a free for all on the roads too many drivers pay lip service to the law and are a real a danger to others and themselves. Too many cyclists are being knocked down. Giving the police the authority to collect fines is an excellent idea and not before time. If police forces are allowed to keep the money from fines then presumably the day it were to come into force we would see every single police car and officer out on the road. Currently there is no or little incentive for the police to enforce road traffic laws. That’s why there are so many speed cameras = £££££.

If a car passed a cyclist too closely in the opinion of an officer then yes he should be allowed to stop the driver and fine them. It is my impression that in one European country, I can’t remember where I read it, that cars when on single carriageway roads when overtaking have to allow cyclists one complete car width when over taking meaning that they have to cross over to the other side of the carriageway. However, slow moving vehicles including cyclists have to periodically pull over to allow faster vehicles to pass if a sufficient number are waiting to pass. Sounds fair to me. I think this is the case in Switzerland abut I might well be wrong.

 

[Crankarm]

I agree bollo that fixed distances are not the answer. However, the cyclist/police man, would press a button to indicate a dangerous overtake, then when back at the station the footage could be viewed and taking into account the video footage and the distance measurements a decision could be made to fine or not. This would all depend on road conditions speeds etc. The decision would be the same if a police officer didn't have the gizmos, except if questioned there would be evidence.

This would also save police time, in that you wouldn't have to stop the driver at the time, the fine could be sent in the same way that a speed camera fine is.

Of course there would be practicalities etc to consider, but the point of such a system would be to reinforce the message that close passes are not acceptable, and the police take it seriously enough to do something about it.

Of course, the police won't feel strongly enough to do something about it.....

Magnatom I'm surprised you don't have a camera facing rearwards as well say mounted in your...........saddle or on your rack if you have one. I remember seeing footage from some one who had done just that showing his weekly commute and it was for the most part truly frightening, seeing how fast vehicles approached him from behind, how closely they positioned their cars narrowly missing him, and the gestures and clear abuse they were shouting at him as they went by. There were even the sound and sight of cars locking up their wheels as they tried to stop to avoid crashing into him. Perhaps this is your next project?

 

[Piemaster]

Do those driver improvement things really work? I knew a guy who opted to go on one instead of get points (he already had some) and the last time I was in a car with him he seemed to be driving up against the limit the whole time - like he was really only paying token lip service to it because he ought to, rather than because he understood why. And he wasn't a young guy either, he was in his fifties, so you'd think he'd be able to think about it.

My (retired) mother had to go to one of those after being caught speeding by a camera. She was on the way back from an Association of Advanced Drivers meeting at the time

 

[Amanda P]

Something radical has to be done as currently it's a free for all on the roads too many drivers pay lip service to the law and are a real a danger to others and themselves.

Radical, maybe, but why just fines?

There's an urban myth about a short-sighted Rolls Royce driver, who after his all-too-frequent collisions, simply handed a business card out through a slightly-rolled down tinted window. Whatever bill was sent to him was promptly paid.

£60 fines, or even €90 fines, are not really going to hurt most drivers, even if they do help ease the tax burden.

A driving license is a privelege awarded to those who have shown (by means of the driving test) that they can operate a motor vehicle safely and responsibly.

If someone demonstrates by their driving behaviour that they cannot, or choose not to operate it safely and resonsibly, they should lose that privelege. Temporarily or permanently, depeding on the circumstances.

Having your car impounded for seven days, not being able to drive to work, or get there at all, not being able to drive at work, not being able to get out for your social activities, shopping and all the rest of it - now those things would hurt most drivers. A couple of weeks without a car, and the stigma attached to it, would do a lot to deter irresponsible driving.

In my opinion.

 

[magnatom]

Magnatom I'm surprised you don't have a camera facing rearwards as well say mounted in your...........saddle or on your rack if you have one. I remember seeing footage from some one who had done just that showing his weekly commute and it was for the most part truly frightening, seeing how fast vehicles approached him from behind, how closely they positioned their cars narrowly missing him, and the gestures and clear abuse they were shouting at him as they went by. There were even the sound and sight of cars locking up their wheels as they tried to stop to avoid crashing into him. Perhaps this is your next project?

I have had a camera on the back for a while, but it is extra hassle that I don't have time for. As well as setting it up, there is the footage to edit! I just wouldn't have the time.

 

[HJ]

Very very hard to enforce and how do you define a motorist that drives to close to cyclists?

Agreed.

I good suggest that the following which I lifted from the Draft Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CAPS) would be a better approach...

The introduction of traffic laws that encourage considerate behaviour by drivers and cyclists could make an important contribution to an improved cycling environment (with positive consequences in terms of safety). The UK is one of the few countries in Europe whose legal systems do not automatically assume liability of the driver in a collision between a vehicle and a bicycle. Such a system should encourage greater care on the part of drivers and deter them from encroaching on the road space of cyclists, leading to increased feelings of safety among cyclists. Achieving meaningful changes in driver legislation would, however, be challenging given the political significance of driving in the UK.

 

[thomas]

The UK is one of the few countries in Europe whose legal systems do not automatically assume liability of the driver in a collision between a vehicle and a bicycle.

Why should it? If the bicyclist is in the wrong, they're in the wrong. Fair dos if it makes people pay more attention to cyclists, but if a cyclist does something wrong and I was driving I wouldn't want to be liable for that. It's why I've got cycle third party insurance - encase I make a mistake.

 

[Crankarm]

Radical, maybe, but why just fines?

Did I mention just fines alone???................read my post .

There's an urban myth about a short-sighted Rolls Royce driver, who after his all-too-frequent collisions, simply handed a business card out through a slightly-rolled down tinted window. Whatever bill was sent to him was promptly paid.

What myth is this, I've never heard of it? Presumably the totting up of penalty points on his license would lead to him being disqualified don't you think? He would then have to re-take his test and fail the sight test unless he had his vision corrected with specs? If he was a business man in a Roller who was frequently in collision with other road users then surely he needs to find a better chauffeur don't you think? Sack him he's a useless driver.

£60 fines, or even €90 fines, are not really going to hurt most drivers, even if they do help ease the tax burden.

No as you say they won't hurt them but they will hit them in the wallet where it does hurt . I think coupled with points on their licences or the threat of losing their cars drivers would rapidly improve their manners and standard of driving. That would be just for starters. The really bad ones who as we all know do serious damage should be locked up for long periods much longer than at present and disqualified from driving for life. The ability of the police to collect on the spot fines would be an incentive for them to actually police road traffic...............why don't you read my post

A driving license is a privelege awarded to those who have shown (by means of the driving test) that they can operate a motor vehicle safely and responsibly.

It's not a privilege (note correct spelling ) it is a license, the name rather gives it away.

If someone demonstrates by their driving behaviour that they cannot, or choose not to operate it safely and resonsibly, they should lose that privelege. Temporarily or permanently, depeding on the circumstances.

I agree but there should be a prescribed hierachy of misdemeanours corresponding to an offence and suitable penalty such as we currently have don't you think?

Having your car impounded for seven days, not being able to drive to work, or get there at all, not being able to drive at work, not being able to get out for your social activities, shopping and all the rest of it - now those things would hurt most drivers. A couple of weeks without a car, and the stigma attached to it, would do a lot to deter irresponsible driving.

Indeed. Perhaps in view of this the ex-driver would decide to take up cycling?

 

[Crankarm]

I have had a camera on the back for a while, but it is extra hassle that I don't have time for. As well as setting it up, there is the footage to edit! I just wouldn't have the time.

I think occasional footage showing what was going on at your rear would be be very revealing .

 

[Amanda P]

but they will hit them in the wallet where it does hurt .

My point is that it doesn't hurt - or not enough. The standard £60 fine is a pinprick for the vast majority of drivers. £60 won't even fill the tank of a big car these days. You'd grumble about it, but you'd write the cheque and get on with life without thinking about it much more.

I think coupled with points on their licences or the threat of losing their cars drivers would rapidly improve their manners and standard of driving.

Agreed.

That would be just for starters. The really bad ones who as we all know do serious damage should be locked up for long periods much longer than at present and disqualified from driving for life. The ability of the police to collect on the spot fines would be an incentive for them to actually police road traffic...............why don't you read my post

I read it carefully, and I'm agreeing with what you say. I'm simply adding that short term bans would be good too.

It's not a privilege (note correct spelling ) it is a license, the name rather gives it away.

Thanks for correcting my spelling: that's one of those words that always gives me trouble. I'm not much better with "license"!

But the point is, whatever you call it or however you spell it, it's only given to someone who has demonstrated their competence. When they demonstrate their incompetence, it can, and should, be taken away.

I agree but there should be a prescribed hierachy of misdemeanours corresponding to an offence and suitable penalty such as we currently have don't you think?

A hierarchy of misdemeanours (wow, your spelling really is impressive), yes. But the penalties we currently have clearly aren't enough. Hence my proposal for short-term bans.

Perhaps in view of this the ex-driver would decide to take up cycling?

My (implied) point exactly.

 

[Amanda P]

What myth is this, I've never heard of it?

I was using the mythical driver to illustrate the point that, for a large section of society, £60 here or a few hundred there is chickenfeed. It really doesn't hurt.

The Rolls driver is surely just a myth - but I'm pretty sure there are folk out there who really wouldn't care about writing a cheque for a few hundred to fix a dent in someone elses car caused by their own poor driving. Neither would they care about a £60 fine. Or even a £600 fine.

They would (and do) care when they lose their licenses though. So we should do it more often.

As for penalty points - they do not automatically occur as a result of a collision. In fact I think it's quite rare. Read the Commuting forum and see how many of us have had accidents involving motor vehicles.

I think you'll be able to count the number of incidents which have resulted in a driver getting points on their licenses on the fingers of one foot.

 

[Davidc]

The problem is that, for most driving offences, the chances of being caught are very remote (unless you're stupid enough to speed or use a phone when police are watching).

There are two ways around that: make the chances of being caught much higher, by putting more police on the streets, or else make the penalty, when you are caught sufficiently severe that people will think twice before committing the offence in the first place.

I would argue for short instant bans.

So, if caught speeding a first time, maybe a ban of a week. But if you were caught driving during that ban, you'd be banned for, say, five years - to deter anyone from flouting the ban. And police would be checking on occasionally during your ban to make sure you're not driving.

A week without the car would make people realise how much they rely on it.

If caught speeding, driving carelessly or whatever a second time, a ban of perhaps a month. And so on.

Someone stupid or careless enough to be caught committing offences four times within three years would be banned for a long period, and would have to re-take their test.

Vehicles are dangerous weapons, but we treat them almost with contempt - even when they are deliberately used as weapons. Why not deal with offenders as we would those who use knives or guns as weapons? If someone injured or killed another person with a gun, would we ever let them own one again? We do if they do it with a car.

I've said this on another thread today - Uncle Phil is right, except that the penalties need to be much higher. If drivers can't follow the rules they should be taken off the roads. 1 year ban for a first offence of any sort, with a re-test at the end, and a life ban for any subsequent offence.

Why? - you only need to read the first line of this government document.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...bar/suppletablesfactsheets/flagbfactsheet.pdf

I have to use the roads in a car and as a pedestrian, and chose to use them on a bike. Why should I, and everyone else, have to be put at risk by an irresponsible minority?

 

[Tinuts]

Interestingly enough, on the day the announcement was made I was passed stupidly closely by an idiot in a van. I know the "announcement" will not have become law yet but passing too close to a cyclist is still contrary to Highway Code Rule 163 and so therefore, arguably, a prosecutable offence. In order to determine just how seriously (if at all) the Police take the safety of cyclists a complaint with accompanying video has been lodged at Hampstead Police station and I await the outcome with interest.

To make a real impact on close passes, you would need cyclists out there who had video (a couple of cameras) and ultrasound equipment (range finding) attached to their bikes. If properly calibrated this would provide ample evidence of bad driving. The footage and data could be analysed later (the cyclist could mark the data when a close pass happened) and fines posted out in a similar way to speed camera fines. All very technically feasible, and wouldn't necessarily weigh a huge amount with current technology. The costs would probably be less than a speed camera. This equipment could routinely be placed on police cyclists bikes, and occasionally on 'unmarked' bikes.

Of course it all depends on priorities, and cyclist safety is not a police priority.

 

[magnatom]

Interestingly enough, on the day the announcement was made I was passed stupidly closely by an idiot in a van. I know the "announcement" will not have become law yet but passing too close to a cyclist is still contrary to Highway Code Rule 163 and so therefore, arguably, a prosecutable offence. In order to determine just how seriously (if at all) the Police take the safety of cyclists a complaint with accompanying video has been lodged at Hampstead Police station and I await the outcome with interest.

Good luck with that, and welcome to the forum!

Is the video online?