|
|
Post by jonjel on May 11, 2011 14:14:07 GMT 1
I see that moves are afoot to allow fixed penalty notices for careless driving. That could be a step too far as it is often a matter of opinion, and circumstance, whether a driver has been careless.
I would think that ALL of us that drive have sometimes been a bit careless, and we got away wiht it because at the time Mr Plod was not looking.
We can be fined 'on the spot' as drivers for parking, speeding, no seat-belts, defective tyres, using a hand held mobile, eating or drinking at the wheel, no tax or insurance and I guess a number of other things.
So how long will it be before we simply pay a fixed penalty up front before we get in the car. Then the police can simply deduct from that sum until it has all gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 11, 2011 15:30:20 GMT 1
Are you really complaining about being fined for using a hand-held (given that it has been clearly demonstrated to be dangerous). Ditto defective tyres.
And I think you'll find that not having insurance will often get you a little more than an on-the-spot fine............they impound the vehicle.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on May 11, 2011 15:53:54 GMT 1
Curiouser and curiouser. I posted a reply and it disappeared.
STA. I am a model of careful driving. I don't use a mobile on the move, always wear a seat belt and do all the right things. Not perhaps in the right order, but you get my drift.
I was simply musing that since driving is now a very expensive and risky pastime maybe we should all just plead guilty and pay up front.
By the way, I think they only crush your car if you can't or won't pay the release fee. Silly really, because you still have to pay it eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 11, 2011 17:13:39 GMT 1
Except why should you, as a careful driver, have to pay for those who aren't? I'm sure it is a very noble proposal, but seems to ignore the fact that the whole point of fines etc is to deter. As I understand it, for the uninsured case, it didn't, it was just viewed by some as an annoying but less expensive route than actually getting insured! Hence impounding vehicles, which has the advantage of getting then straight off the road until they are insured.
As a non-driver, it seems to me that driving is now seen as something that (almost) everyone should be able to do. Whereas I am very sceptical of the general ability of the population to drive in a safe manner. Seems we just have to accept that a certain proportion of drivers will be unsafe, and then try to weed them out as best we can before they kill themselves or someone else. Idiots that use mobile phones, apply make-up, or eat their breakfast cereal whilst driving just demonstrate how appallingly stupid some people can be, even without a drink!
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on May 12, 2011 4:06:43 GMT 1
I have just read that a burglar was let off with a caution, because it was "his first offence", despite hitting the owner of the house. It seems strange therefore that when one commits an offence whilst driving (say speeding) one is immediately fined, whether it is one's first offence or not. There must be logic there somewhere, but I think it got lost in the space time curvature!
P
PS: I am very impressed with the drivers here in Canada. They never seem to exceed the speed limit despite never seeing police on the main routes.In town and in residential areas they seem happy to cruise at 20miles/hr, they also give all walkers/cyclists a wide birth and will stop to let someone cross the road just about anywhere in an urban situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 12, 2011 8:54:21 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 12, 2011 17:26:25 GMT 1
I get extremely agitated with drivers who use their mobiles. Uninsured drivers ARE being addressed, with the database to check and empounding the vehicle. Overtaking, inside-taking, tail-gating and standing on the brakes in front of someone are all 'bad-form'. Fixed penalty notices for such large amounts are a recipe for corruption, and a step too far. The idea looks good on paper, but doesn't take into account 'human nature'.
StuartG
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on May 12, 2011 20:40:40 GMT 1
Hi Stuart, One of your video clips was blocked here in Canada, but the other with the kids playing hockey wasn't. Brilliant. My son-in-law was, until last season, a professional ice hockey player so I know about the "punch ups". Spanish news once introduced a clip of such a confrontation by saying that ice hockey was the only sport where you pay one entry fee and get two sports (ie Ice hockey and boxing)! You'll be pleased to hear that such behaviour is confined to the rink! Back to the UK next week, so I'll need to get used to news clips of football hooligans and drunken weekend revellers again, pity.  P |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on May 12, 2011 20:52:20 GMT 1
Except why should you, as a careful driver, have to pay for those who aren't? I'm sure it is a very noble proposal, but seems to ignore the fact that the whole point of fines etc is to deter. As I understand it, for the uninsured case, it didn't, it was just viewed by some as an annoying but less expensive route than actually getting insured! Hence impounding vehicles, which has the advantage of getting then straight off the road until they are insured. As a non-driver, it seems to me that driving is now seen as something that (almost) everyone should be able to do. Whereas I am very sceptical of the general ability of the population to drive in a safe manner. Seems we just have to accept that a certain proportion of drivers will be unsafe, and then try to weed them out as best we can before they kill themselves or someone else. Idiots that use mobile phones, apply make-up, or eat their breakfast cereal whilst driving just demonstrate how appallingly stupid some people can be, even without a drink! Spoken like a true non-driver. In the middle of an unbelievably busy period so rushed off my feet 16hrs a day. Very angry at the idiot trundling along at 25mph in front of me holding up the traffic. Approached roundabout and the clown refused to enter the roundabout until there wasn't a car to be seen in any direction. They broke no laws but should'nt be allowed on the road. I however was eating a burger, talking on the phone, lighting a fag and driving exactly one millimeter off this idiots bumper. I was in complete control of the vehicle - the nutter in front was not. Then there's drinking and driving... There was a film made a few years back to show the effects of drinking and driving. It involved some celebs and racing drivers driving a course while getting progressively pissed. The outstanding feature of the experiment was that their driving actually improved up to about four pints. The film was never released. Most of these laws have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with getting us out of our cars and onto a bloody bus. |
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on May 13, 2011 9:56:19 GMT 1
STA. You don't drive! You mean you walk!!
And Mr Smith, since there are only about five policemen north of Inverness then no doubt you are safe. You should have just passed him on the inside on the roundabout.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on May 13, 2011 12:18:06 GMT 1
There are many policemen north of inverness and their only reason for being, their total workload is chasing motorists - especially in Orkney.
We also have the benefit of a sherriff who is a card carrying lunatic who utterly detests motorists.
Get caught one click over the limit on a first offence and you're lookin at an 18 month ban and at least a £1000 fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 13, 2011 13:57:22 GMT 1
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. There are numerous scientific studies on the effect of alcohol, on the effects of alcohol on driving ability etc etc. All of which told us what we knew anyway, if we drink -- that your decision making ability takes a tumble! Not to mention fine motor skills etc etc.
I get a bus, tram, train or taxi. Or my missus drives.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on May 13, 2011 14:36:01 GMT 1
So so true. I have met a lot of people who all claim they drive better when they have had one or two. It has usually been difficult to verify as it was a rare event to find them stone sober. I saw a TV programme some years ago where they were testing people every half hour on simple tasks after loading them with measured shots. One old girl was doomed from the start because she was pissed before she arrived!
The effects are similar to being exposed to high altitude. The ability to do very simple things rapidly diminishes. Oddly women under those tests perform better than men.
Trams STA? I thought you lived in a tramless city with a view of the Mendips on a clear day?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on May 15, 2011 10:05:10 GMT 1
"There are numerous scientific studies on the effect of alcohol,"
Paid for by governments who want to reduce the drink/drive limit.
Government and science in bed together - always a bad thing.
|
|
