£60 fine and three points on licence for minor accidents

[Beetnik]

Don't worry about it, its hard to get your point accross using PC's as a method of communication anyway.

You just have to have a go at everyone don't you? Unmarked comes on here, giving us the benefit of his knowledge and all you can do is slag of him and his colleagues.

 

[UnMarked]

You just have to have a go at everyone don't you? Unmarked comes on here, giving us the benefit of his knowledge and all you can do is slag of him and his colleagues.

I wasn't offended - I'm a T(raffic) C(onstable) anyway!!!!

 

[st4]

You just have to have a go at everyone don't you? Unmarked comes on here, giving us the benefit of his knowledge and all you can do is slag off him and his colleagues.

I will have a go @ this, I think you meant off, not of :bannana:

 

[Dieselman]

Likewise your prespective sometimes amazes and bewilders me, but never mind.

Such originality and thought.
I read this Yesterday and went to bed to sleep on it to see if it bothered me. The good news is I slept like a dream..

I would bother about your comment if I though you added anything to conversations but your posts generally don't, they are the same anti establishment posts regurgitated with no reference to anything to support you POV.
You don't seem to read and take in information supplied even on here, so ask the same questions and have the same arguments time and again.

I never knew you had to report damage to someone elses animal. I thought if you ran over a dog you could carry on driving if you fealt like it.

Interesting question though, if you wish to call the police do you ring 999 or is there another number to call?

Just ring the local Police phone number, not 999 unless it is an emergency.

here you go..
http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/

0141 532 2000

De Ja-Vu.

What number do you call, surely not 999.

I fail to see what the issue is with these 'New powers' as they aren't new at all. Police have always had the power to issue a ticket and report the offense to the CPS for prosecution, or indeed prosecute directly before we pandered to all the bleeding hearts hiding behind civil liberties technicalities to escape punishment.

The only difference is that if this goes through the Police will be able to issue a FPN instead of passing the details to the CPS. If the recipient doesn't want to plead guilty to the FPN then they can pursue this in exactly the same manner as now, they can go to Court.
As many people who have been prosecuted probably do, I wish I'd been offered a cheap low points FPN for a CD10 offense.
In reality it's a good way of saving the tax payer money and freeing up court time for more deserving cases.

But then I take it you won't like that, just as you don't like Police, rules, any form of Government, taxation, blah, blah..in fact anything that doesn't fit with your point of view.
I think as you go through life and have a few more experiences, you may well find things other than whether the Police (et al) can ANPR your car journeys more important, and I don't mean bothering about whether your Mum has paired your socks up properly in the drawer.

In my opinion the level of awareness and observance of driving rules has decreased significantly in the last 10-15 years along with the level of enforcement.
This has been recognized in the report so something is being done about it to get enforcement back to a higher level, as it used to be.
Some people, you included, have moaned that there is not enough active Policing of the roads other than cameras, well now something is being done about that.
As always, be careful what you wish for.

Just in case we don't think the level of enforcement is lower.

"The level of enforcement is steadily dropping," the Government noted in the consultation paper.

In 1986 there were 107,600 motorists convicted of careless driving but by 2006 this had fallen by more than 75 per cent to only 25,400.

At present police can only prosecute motorists for careless driving through the courts. Most of those taken to court plead guilty and are penalised with points on their licence and a fine.

"This would suggest that there are careless drivers who are currently 'getting away with it'," the document states.

I guess it's time to get back to basics and start driving properly again instead of winging about the rules. (which aren't even being enforced)

Unless, of course one wants to be known as a Troll.

 

[chelone]

No , this has been discussed before ....

I was stationary , i was hit from behind at 40 mph , and was shoved with 2 other cars for nearly 70 feet with my foot hard on the brake . 3 cars were written off in the accident such was the force involved ...

What should i do , stop at the roundabout before this one and allow the whole road to be clear for 2 miles before proceeding ?

In the end we all claimed off the chap who hit me

lol...I could see that.

~ chelone

 

[st13phil]

‘Penalties’ are not raised for those who are proved guilty in court. You simply lose the right to the discount afforded by an early guilty plea or acceptance of a fpn.

I understand the distinction, but the result is the same. It's a bit like "double or quits", which is a strange distortion of justice in the accepted sense of the word and with the latest sentencing guidlines in place it looks to me much more like coercion. Regarding defence strategies, I fully accept that some people use a court appearance to voice their indignation rather than a defence but that in itself doesn't warrant an increased penalty in my view.

I do have severe reservations about increasing the use of fpns.

I do to, and quite possibly for similar reasons. I'd be interested in your views on that and also the recently floated wheeze that successful defendants should not receive a costs award "for minor motoring offences".

 

[st4]

Such originality and thought.
I read this Yesterday and went to bed to sleep on it to see if it bothered me. The good news is I slept like a dream..

I would bother about your comment if I though you added anything to conversations but your posts generally don't, they are the same anti establishment posts regurgitated with no reference to anything to support you POV.
You don't seem to read and take in information supplied even on here, so ask the same questions and have the same arguments time and again.

Wow. I never actually saw your post with the strathclyde police number on it, I would have used the "thanks" button for it as its genuinely useful post. I forgot all about that thread, hence I asked unmarked the same question again, and now I've got the hint. I can't remember every single thread I've posted on and which ones to revisit when I log on. You'll find also that there are more important things than tieing up every loose end on here also

Funnily enough however I do drive outside of my own patch so should I carry numbers for every different constabularly in my phone . I guess I'd have to use a 118 type service, @ additional expense to me.

But then I take it you won't like that, just as you don't like Police, rules, any form of Government, taxation, blah, blah..in fact anything that doesn't fit with your point of view.
I think as you go through life and have a few more experiences, you may well find things other than whether the Police (et al) can ANPR your car journeys more important, and I don't mean bothering about whether your Mum has paired your socks up properly in the drawer.

Do you know that for a fact?

This is a motoring based forum, and hence I talk about aspects of motoring and I feel that the points I raised are most relevent to motoring today. I've never said I don't like governments, but I don't like this one very much. Your posts won't change that. A slightly patronising comment but I'll let it go as I have more important problems to worry about today.

In my opinion the level of awareness and observance of driving rules has decreased significantly in the last 10-15 years along with the level of enforcement.
This has been recognized in the report so something is being done about it to get enforcement back to a higher level, as it used to be.
Some people, you included, have moaned that there is not enough active Policing of the roads other than cameras, well now something is being done about that.
As always, be careful what you wish for.

Really, so with all these speed cameras now being errected you think enforement of traffic law is lower. That genuinely does amaze me. I wouldn't trust the spurious nonsense this government turns out, traffic enforcement is falling. I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life.

I am quite happy to see the police out in their cars, the strathcylde police were very active of this period, and that marked up E60 5 series is now a familiar, in unfeared, sight for me.

I guess it's time to get back to basics and start driving properly again instead of winging about the rules. (which aren't even being enforced)

You're probably right, lets start driving properly again.

However receiving FPN's for minor parkings dings is really going to change that isn't it

 

[jj_uk]

St13phil…..
Probably not the right forum for discourse on the strengths and weaknesses of our legal system but, briefly, in answer to your questions: FPNs represent a significant departure from the preferred separation of investigation (police), prosecution (CPS) and determination (judiciary). This doesn’t mean there is no place for them but they carry a risk. The risk becomes greater as their use is extended beyond more easily determined, absolute matters (such as speeding) into areas which require greater judgement (like public order offences).

I have not heard of any move to end the awarding of costs for successful defendants in motoring matters. Sad if true since, in my experience, a defendant nearly always benefits from using an experienced advocate at trial.

 

[verytalldave]

Reads to me like yet another government initiative to raise money to help fill the gaping cash hole in the economy.
It doesnt surprise me at all. In fact I expect many more similar ideas to be put forward in the future. It seems that its only the motorist that the government has over a barrel and can demand payment easily.
Its got nothing whatsoever to do with upholding the "law" or citizen protection. Its 100% to do with revenue raising.
Again.

 

[oldcro]

If we stopped randomly killing thousands and seriously injuring tens of thousands every year, then maybe, just maybe we would be allowed to drive faster.

Just a thought.

 

[verytalldave]

If we stopped randomly killing thousands and seriously injuring tens of thousands every year, then maybe, just maybe we would be allowed to drive faster.

Just a thought.

The UK (when compared to the rest of the world) is actually quite a safe country in which to drive and be driven. I admit there is always room for improvement, and even just one accident prevented is worthwhile.
Speed per se is not a problem, its inappropriate speed that's the fault.
Some drivers seem incapable of discrimination of when to slow down and when its safe to go fast.

 

[st4]

If we stopped randomly killing thousands and seriously injuring tens of thousands every year, then maybe, just maybe we would be allowed to drive faster.

Just a thought.

Why not just ban alcohol, tobacco, sex without protection. Driving is just one of many hazards that are out there in the big bad world. I've seen a very similar post from you in another thread, and whilst I don't entirely agree with it, I don't entirely disagree with it either.

Speed is a major cause of accidents, but its not the only one, corse steering is another, corse braking is another, lapses of concentration is another (a really worry given the amount of distractions onboard modern cars). You'll never acheive a completely 100% accident free situation out in the roads because that doesn't, and will never, equate with real life. Where I agree with you is that driving standards should improve, but so should the standard of roadspace that we pay stupid money for.

Speed is easy to target as its directly measurable, its not see easy for a policeman to measure lack of attention and the others I've listed, and thats why it seems to be area targeted the most as its the easiest to prosecture and raise money from.

I'll once again re-hash an old point of mine, road traffic law would not be so strongly enforced if it weren't for the financial gains. Its not about safety, its about money, and the original topic of this thread is another step to make more money out the motorist for making a simple mistake (i.e. a ding).

I'll give you an example of why I think reporting supermarket dings is ridiculous and is a civil matter. Mr A is walking down the street, Mr B doesn't look where he is going and bangs into Mr A and Mr As phone drops out his pocket. Mr B appologises and buys mr A a new phone for his troubles. The police would not be involved in such a matter as its a civil one, it may have happened in public but is a civil matter. Why when Mr A and Mr B become cars should it be any different? It shouldn't and isn't, and is therefore just another step to mercilessly profiteer out of those who drive cars.

 

[oldcro]

The UK (when compared to the rest of the world) is actually quite a safe country in which to drive and be driven. I admit there is always room for improvement, and even just one accident prevented is worthwhile.


Being a in a safer country is little consolation to someone who has just lost a loved one. We should be aiming for a safe country, not a safer one than other countries. By that I mean we should always be reaching for the ultimate goal, not accepting second best.

Speed per se is not a problem, its inappropriate speed that's the fault.
Some drivers seem incapable of discrimination of when to slow down and when its safe to go fast.

I quite agree with what you say about speed and drivers. Drivers vary from very good to very poor and good ones can be poor depending on their mental and physical state at the time. Poor drivers are rarely classed as good.

So in an ideal world each driver would have his/her own set of speed limits depending on whether they were in the good or poor class of driver at that particular time. As this is of course totally impractical a line has to be drawn somewhere. Make the limit ideal for good drivers and poor drivers become a liability. Making the speed limits suitable for poor (at the time) drivers is equally unproductive as it frustrates good drivers making them even poorer drivers.
So speed limits have to be set at a happy medium which hopefully reduces accidents to a minimum.

 

[st4]

I quite agree with what you say about speed and drivers. Drivers vary from very good to very poor and good ones can be poor depending on their mental and physical state at the time. Poor drivers are rarely classed as good.

So in an ideal world each driver would have his/her own set of speed limits depending on whether they were in the good or poor class of driver at that particular time. As this is of course totally impractical a line has to be drawn somewhere. Make the limit ideal for good drivers and poor drivers become a liability. Making the speed limits suitable for poor (at the time) drivers is equally unproductive as it frustrates good drivers making them even poorer drivers.
So speed limits have to be set at a happy medium which hopefully reduces accidents to a minimum.

Perhaps this idea could be extended to classifying cars, they way motorcycles and HGV's are done. Drive train i.e. RWD, AWD FWD, power to weight, out right power, out right mass. It would prevent the scenario of a poor driver in charge of a vehicle they can't really control.

The simple L test would give access to a range of "easy" cars to drive (think eurobox focus, golf type cars @ the top end of this spectrum), and then a "big car" test would open up the proper metal thats out there.

 

[oldcro]

Why not just ban alcohol, tobacco, sex without protection. Driving is just one of many hazards that are out there in the big bad world. I've seen a very similar post from you in another thread, and whilst I don't entirely agree with it, I don't entirely disagree with it either.


Alcohol, tobacco and unprotected sex are entirely different subjects and while very important in their own rights are nothing to do with the matter in hand.


Speed is a major cause of accidents, but its not the only one, corse steering is another, corse braking is another, lapses of concentration is another (a really worry given the amount of distractions onboard modern cars). You'll never acheive a completely 100% accident free situation out in the roads because that doesn't, and will never, equate with real life. Where I agree with you is that driving standards should improve, but so should the standard of roadspace that we pay stupid money for.


Of course speed is not the only cause of accidents, but it is a major one and if travelling a bit slower saves a life then it is worth it. Unless of course your attendance at your destination by a particular time is so vital that you consider driving too fast is an acceptable risk.
I am well aware that 100% accident free roads are unachievable, but should that stop us trying to reduce the number of accidents?


Speed is easy to target as its directly measurable, its not see easy for a policeman to measure lack of attention and the others I've listed, and thats why it seems to be area targeted the most as its the easiest to prosecture and raise money from.

I'll once again re-hash an old point of mine, road traffic law would not be so strongly enforced if it weren't for the financial gains. Its not about safety, its about money, and the original topic of this thread is another step to make more money out the motorist for making a simple mistake (i.e. a ding).

I'll give you an example of why I think reporting supermarket dings is ridiculous and is a civil matter. Mr A is walking down the street, Mr B doesn't look where he is going and bangs into Mr A and Mr As phone drops out his pocket. Mr B appologises and buys mr A a new phone for his troubles. The police would not be involved in such a matter as its a civil one, it may have happened in public but is a civil matter. Why when Mr A and Mr B become cars should it be any different? It shouldn't and isn't, and is therefore just another step to mercilessly profiteer out of those who drive cars.

I fail to see the relevance of the above to my original simple statement.

I think we should agree to disagree *** as I disagree with much of what you say as you do about what I say. Who was it said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it", Although I'm not sure I would go as far as the death bit in this case.

 

[st4]

I fail to see the relevance of the above to my original simple statement.

.

Your simple statement was OT wrt this thread, as was my reply to it. Come to think of it what on earth was the relevance of this comment in relation to the topics being discussed:

If we stopped randomly killing thousands and seriously injuring tens of thousands every year, then maybe, just maybe we would be allowed to drive faster.

Just a thought.

Nonetheless I afforded you the courtesy of a reply and the relevance was to illustrate that there are other hazards out there, and that you can't legistlate and protect from all risks. I think that if everyone obeyed the speed limit there would still be accidents and deaths, maybe less, but not that much less. Are the areas in other aspects of modern life where more lives could be saved more easily.

Think about the Mr A and Mr B example again. Its very relevent for this thread