On spot fines for bad driving

Mankysteve

grimsalve wrote: »

Didn't they try doing that a few years ago? It ended up costing too much money to crush all the cars, issue fines, etc.

Nope they still do crush uninsured vehicles. When pulled person is given the choice as to whether to hand the vehicle over to police and its crushed or pick up from the recover yard with proof of insurance and pay storage fees.


People who say it pointless as you won't get everyone. The same could be said about most crimes. Plenty of people get away with such crimes does that mean we shouldn't legislate against them?

I don't know enough about the situation in Bradford to really comment probably other than the usually Tabloid headlines.

Yorkie1

I have a few reservations in practice.

Firstly, I think that most insurance companies state that you shouldn't admit any liability at the scene. Would accepting a FPN for Due Care (particularly if another party was involved and a claim might materialise, although I accept this is probably unlikely) compromise your position with your insurance company?

Next, a Due Care offence is often very subjective, particularly at the more minor end of the offence, which I think this is aimed at, and I suspect that many people will accept the FPN, and thus the conviction, where they may well be acquitted by a court - either because the evidence is weaker by its nature, or because the level of driving isn't sufficiently serious.

I also suspect a Due Care conviction will have a much more significant effect on their insurance record / premium when renewing, than say a speeding offence. I don't know, but I imagine that the code on the driving licence CD10 will not be amended to indicate that it was imposed following a FPN rather than court hearing.

vaio

And that is compounded by the fact that even if you go to court and get acquitted you won’t get your costs paid.

So the choice becomes…..

Accept the FPN, points & fine (£)

Go to court, get acquitted and have to pay your own legal costs (£££)

Go to court, get convicted, pay your own legal costs, prosecution costs, victim surcharge and probably a larger fine (£££££)

It’s a gamble with loaded dice which is why I suspect that a lot of people will end up accepting a FPN when they shouldn’t because it’s probably the cheapest way out.

Yorkie1

If you go to court and get acquitted, your costs are paid from central funds.

But yes, if you go to court and either admit it or are convicted, you are looking at more money than if you accepted the FPN.

Flyboy152

I can see this as a fast fix for the police officer who can't be bothered to fill out the paperwork for dangerous driving and the offence gets downgraded to careless driving. But in reality, the revved up git will probably kill someone the next time he does it.

paddedjohn

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

Undertaking should be permitted to be honest. Other countries manage perfectly well with it.

If you are being undertaken, it is you who is in the wrong.

If people got rid of this "slow lane, middle lane, fast lane" mindset and started think of lanes as "driving lane, overtaking lane, overtaking the overtaking lane", then we would solve a lot of congestion problems in this country.

Contrary to popular belief it is NOT illegal to undertake but it can be considered dangerous and traffic police are likely to frown upon such behaviour.

jase1

So, we are now in a position where if you are on a two-lane motorway and you come across a car in the right-hand lane travelling at 45mph (and it happens) you stand a realistic chance of being fined if you finally run out of patience and pass on the left.

On YouTube there is a video of an IAM driver from the 1960s flashing, then finally beeping such a driver in a demo (and being given the bird for it). Is this still Roadcraft-endorsed practice? It's the only option open to us if we wish to travel at the legal limit against such a driver.

WhiteHorse

While idiots need to be hammered, it's a question of priorities. If they have time to do this, they have time to arrest drug dealers. Which comes first? Quick cash for the government, or the welfare of the citizenry?

marlot

WhiteHorse wrote: »

While idiots need to be hammered, it's a question of priorities. If they have time to do this, they have time to arrest drug dealers. Which comes first? Quick cash for the government, or the welfare of the citizenry?

There's quite a strong body of opinion which says the battle against drugs is lost, and it would be better to legalise it. It could gradually be taxed then, too.

Meanwhile, back on the merits of giving FPNs to bad drivers ....

I'm all in favour - but we need to re-establish traffic police.

Dave101t

you cant be fined on the motorway, its very unlikely as ive undertook in front of police and they werent bothered. if you maneuver to undertake, maybe, but not if your following your own lane and speed.