section 59 - outrageous highway robbery?

rev_henry

You fail to mention what he was doing the first time he got an S59 OP? Care to tell us? This thing does seem somewhat open to abuse to me, but generally they're given out to young lads who drive round estates blasting their bass boxes and subwoofers too loud etc.

Interestingly, all that is technically needed for someone to be convicted of speeding is for a policeman to believe you drove past him too fast. Although this never actually happens these days.

skintbuthappy81

Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 states that -
Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public.

I'm a Police Officer and more often than not I issue these to the people on motorbikes/quad bikes that they razz around the streets on at all times. I think you may find that there was more to the story from your sons friend than failing to indicate at a roundabout.

tomstickland

Inactive wrote: »

I disagree, these idiots get all they deserve.

What idiots?
When you have a cover-all law that's entirely up to the judgment of a police officer, isn't that rather dangerous?

Inactive

tomstickland wrote: »

What idiots?
When you have a cover-all law that's entirely up to the judgment of a police officer, isn't that rather dangerous?

Less dangerous than the imbeciles that they are dealing with I would suggest.

rev_henry

There's a similar power for anti social people as well as cars. Section 297 is it? Basically a legal order from a policeman to go away from a specific place, e.g. if you're drunk in town and causing a disturbance. It is then an offence to return and if you do you'll be arrested.

skintbuthappy81

rev_henry wrote: »

There's a similar power for anti social people as well as cars. Section 297 is it? Basically a legal order from a policeman to go away from a specific place, e.g. if you're drunk in town and causing a disturbance. It is then an offence to return and if you do you'll be arrested.

Sorry to be pedantic but females are officers too, including me

Yep you're right but it's a section 27 you are thinking of and can't return for upto 48 hours.

LeeSouthEast

Ah yes, as mummy is always told the full frank circumstances of the stop.

S59 is a powerful tool that I have never known be abused (certainly down here). It gives a first chance to correct driver behaviour, and then starts impacting the wallet if that fails. Eventually they learn to modify their behaviour, or they run out of money to run the vehicle in the first place. Whichever way it swings, it's win/win.

Taking off my official cap, I've been driving since the age of 17 (yeees I know Sec.59 didn't exist back then), but I've only been stopped twice in 10 years of driving. Once for a random breath test at Christmas, and once for completely missing that the 40 I was in had become a 30. (And it was a good job I got pulled, as 50 yds further up the road was a speed camera. No negotiating with one of them...)

My point is, if you drive per the rules of the road, are considerate to other road users and don't drive like a prat, S59 never enters into it.

k18dan

Lets get away from the "boy racer" tag that seams to be throwen around all the time, and also away from who is guilty or not in this case.

Say YOU were given a section 59 on the say so of a member of the public for no reason (quite possible) - how would you feel?

I too am fed up of the idiots driving around like spoons.. however I don't feel a section 59 given just on the say so of a member of the public isnt right?

However if CCTV is used as a tool to convict.. then im all for it, that way the right person/people are convicted

Inactive

k18dan wrote: »

Lets get away from the "boy racer" tag that seams to be throwen around all the time, and also away from who is guilty or not in this case.

Unfortunately it is the " boy racers " that are no doubt in question here.

I very much doubt that any normal law abiding driver has ever been issued with one of these.

anewman

k18dan wrote: »

Say YOU were give a section 59 on the say so of a member of the public for no reason (quite possible) - how would you feel?

I would hope the officer dealing with it would be intelligent/sensible enough to expect video recorded evidence clearly identifying the offender/car, or wait until they see the offence occuring themselves.

Boyracers are a more common problem than interfering busy body neighbours making false allegations.