First speeding fine in 35 years -advice needed

arcon5

So you want to take a police officer away from his duties for a much longer period of time to do a course with the driver? Absurd.

lyniced

arcon5 wrote: »

So you want to take a police officer away from his duties for a much longer period of time to do a course with the driver? Absurd.

What do you mean?

Cornucopia

The fact that speeding drivers aren't taken off the roads there and then, like drunk drivers are, just confirms that speeding is not as dangerous as drunk driving (or at least that it is not perceived as such).

Joe_Horner

kerby_crawler wrote: »

If the police stop me when I am drunk, or driving an unroadworthy vehicle, I will not be allowed to proceed - it would not be unreasonable for them to have similar powers if they catch me committing any other driving offence.

Poor analogy.

If you're stopped drunk then (at least until you lose your licence) they only stop you till you're sober again - because it's not possible to be stopped when drunk and be told "On your way, sir, try to keep your blood-alcohol level down please"

If you're stopped in an unroadworthy vehicle then only certain officers can prevent you from carrying on and, even if that happens, it's not you they're detaining but the unroadworthy car. If you happen to have a friend driving behind then you'll be free to go.

It's entirely unreasonable for the Police to have powers beyond stopping and reporting because it is NOT their function to determine guilt - that's the job of the Courts.

Even with an FPN they're not deciding that you're guilty, they say they believe you are and offer you a way to reduce the likely penalty if you put your hands up to it by accepting. So they're still not determining your guilt - they're saying they think you did it and, by agreeing to the FPN, you're voluntarily admitting your guilt.

steven147

either the awarenesses course and £60 fine and car insurance goes up by £100+ or 3points £60 fine and add £100 on your car insurance . stays on your license for 4years too it does as well. but the awareness course don't sound that good according to which tho which.co.uk/news/2012/11/car-insurers-hike-premiums-for-speed-awareness-courses-302535

Joe_Horner

The simple thing with that is to not use insurers who ask about them.

Even if they do ask specifically, if (as Elephant apparently have) they've listed it as a "conviction" then it's debateable whether you'd have to say yes anyway because it's not a conviction. It would be like asking if you have any genetic disabilities then listing "black skin" under those as a way to try and avoid racism laws!

Since it's not a conviction, asking is essentially the same as asking "have you ever exceeded the speed limit?" which the vast majority of drivers would have to answer "yes" to, whether or not they've ever been caught.

Aretnap

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Even if they do ask specifically, if (as Elephant apparently have) they've listed it as a "conviction" then it's debateable whether you'd have to say yes anyway because it's not a conviction. It would be like asking if you have any genetic disabilities then listing "black skin" under those as a way to try and avoid racism laws!

Don't think I agree. Insurance is a contract voluntarily entered into between the driver and the insurance company, so the starting point is that the insurer can ask any questions they like, unless there's a law preventing them doing so. The Equality Act would prevent them from asking about race or skin colour, or at least prevent them from loading premiums on the basis of the answers. What similar law would prevent them from asking about speed awareness courses?

Since it's not a conviction, asking is essentially the same as asking "have you ever exceeded the speed limit?" which the vast majority of drivers would have to answer "yes" to, whether or not they've ever been caught.

Not quite. If they asked "have you ever exceeded the speed limit, almost everybody would have to answer "yes", and therefore everybody would be in the same boat. Insurers could not lead premiums for it - it would be about as useful as asking "do you breathe air?" However, attending a SAC is evidence that you've been caught speeding, and while the correlation may not be perfect, your chances of being caught speeding are at least somewhat related to the frequency with which you exceed the limit. So it's more akin to asking "do you exceed the speed limit regularly" - ignoring for a moment the fact that that question is hopelessly vague, it is one that only some drivers would have to answer "yes" to.

I agree that in practical terms the solution is to stick with insurers who don;t ask the question - AFAIK it's only Elephant, Admiral and other insurers from the same group of companies who do.

kerby_crawler

arcon5 wrote: »

So you want to take a police officer away from his duties for a much longer period of time to do a course with the driver? Absurd.

Not at all. The arresting officer would return to his normal duties after handing over the offending driver to an appropriate person.

I disagree with sgt pepper that this procedure would be less of a disincentive to offending drivers than points on the licence.

Dangerous driving sometimes takes place because of the driver's need to meet a deadline of some sort - very often the deadline is more important than the risk of incurring a fixed penalty.

Sgt_Pepper_2

kerby_crawler wrote: »

Not at all. The arresting officer would return to his normal duties after handing over the offending driver to an appropriate person.

I disagree with sgt pepper that this procedure would be less of a disincentive to offending drivers than points on the licence.

Dangerous driving sometimes takes place because of the driver's need to meet a deadline of some sort - very often the deadline is more important than the risk of incurring a fixed penalty.

So it the time of cuts have staff on standby incase someone speeds and elects to do the course?

A large percentage of people would rather pay more than take the points. This is proven by the success of the courses. Forcing them to do them there and then will reduce the amount that get points, there removing the greater deterrent.

kerby_crawler

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

So it the time of cuts have staff on standby incase someone speeds and elects to do the course?

A large percentage of people would rather pay more than take the points. This is proven by the success of the courses. Forcing them to do them there and then will reduce the amount that get points, there removing the greater deterrent.

Any additional costs would be covered by the price of the course, and having people getting paid for doing nothing would surely help the unemployment figures...

I still believe that for many drivers, the worst penalty is to miss their deadline - 3 points and a small fine is a risk that many drivers will happily take (and. of course, there is no logical reason why offenders should not have to take a course in addition to receiving points and paying a fine).