Essex Police yesterday started running a campaign to enforce the wearing of seatbelts, having run a similar campaign back in March and catching 3,500 people in the month.
To launch the campaign they have gone very high profile with interviews on local radio and press releases in all the local papers and on their website. Unfortunately they appear to have put out a release which is patently incorrect in its interpretation of the law relating to the responsibility of the driver in ensuring passengers are belted up.
I quote from their press release:-
'Drivers should remember that they have a responsibility not only to themselves but to their passengers; it is up to the driver to ensure everyone in the vehicle has belted up. If an adult passenger in the car, whether front or rear, does not clunk and click they too can be the recipient of a £30 fixed penalty notice.'
Having had the discussion on here a while back,
tinyurl.com/cnxf8
I couldn't understand how they could so easily misread both the Highway Code section 75 and the appropriate Road Traffic Act 1988 section 14 & 15 when we obviously could. I therefore posted a request for clarification on the Essex Police website that I was correct in assuming that the driver was responsible for all passengers under the age of 14 and that any passenger over 14 was responsible for their own actions. Essex Police have now replied stating that my interpretation is correct and their press release is wrong!
OK, anyone can make a mistake, but the Chief Inspector of the Traffic Division on seat belt law? I hope he's going to employ better proof readers next time around!
Having said that they are still using the same press release today!
On the plus side 6 out of the 7 guys at work yesterday knew the seatbelt law and responsibilities and were in favour of the campaign, let's hope it bears fruit during next week's return to the school run.
|
>>'Drivers should remember that they have a responsibility not only to themselves but to their passengers; it is up to the driver to ensure everyone in the vehicle has belted up. If an adult passenger in the car, whether front or rear, does not clunk and click they too can be the recipient of a £30 fixed
Law or not,I make sure all passengers are secure before moving.If they dont they sit untill they do,if they get annoyed they are thrown out full stop.Your point is correct though not many take it seriously.Bit like you should not use mobile while driving;)
--
Steve
|
I'm with Steve. The important thing is to get the message across, and we should support Essex police on this. It may not be a legal requirement but surely any driver has a moral duty and responsibility to his / her passengers to make sure they are as safe as possible.
Not only that - we all know the horrific stories of unbelted back seat passngers being flung forward on a crash and killing the people in front.
|
|
Rightly or wrongly they should be factually right though.
|
>>Rightly or wrongly they should be factually right though.
They are factually right in telling us we should not use a mobile phone while driving,people carry on doing so whether they are told its illegal or not.Whether a mistake is made or not in an advert does not take away the fact its law.regardless of how the ad is portrayed,anyone that regards the law should know it.and stick to it,If they don`t they should suffer the outcome
--
Steve
|
Journalistic Licence with good intent.
How many times have you seen/heard you local Plod about to mount a drink/drive complaint and they will RANDOMLY STOP. You cannot do this for a breath test.
dvd
Edit: But there is way round this.
|
"You cannot do this for a breath test"
Oh yes they can! (groan)
"excuse me sir, you were driving rather slowly.."
To me at 11pm driving at 28mph through a 30mph limit, having driven 400 miles in day.. 1km from home.
Breathtest did not register:-)
madf
|
|
|
|
Actually, I think the press release is quite correct and has in fact been very cleverly worded. The release states the driver has a responsibility to themselves and passengers. It does not say responsibility under law.
As the driver, you do have a responsibility to yourself to ensure that the adult passenger behind you is belted. You don't want him crashing into you and killing you from behind, do you?
...up to the driver to ensure everyone in the vehicle has belted up.... is a clever use of words that covers all eventuallities in one easy sentence.
The advert has to be short & sweet and easy to digest from the listeners point of view as well as getting the message across in a short cost-effective piece of airtime.
|
Dare I disagree with DVD ?
Yes I will !
Random breath testing has always been with us. Scenario Police stop a car that is being driven perfectly with no "moving traffic offences". Officer approaches the driver and he smells booze on his breath and requests a breath test, Officer forms his suspicion at that point having effectively randomly stopped the car...nothing wrong with that.
|
There are no flies on you PU......
That is exactly the way round it by using the power to stop any vehicle.
In Oz, Police have the power to set up a road block and immediately ask the driver to blow. This is random. In Uk ,BiB having stopped, have to form suspicion that driver has con- suumed alllkkohol. Or has committed traffic offence or been involved in a RTA before they can ask you to stick the pipe in your mouth.
Approaches have been made for power as per Ozplod to be available in UK. Can see it coming in the future.
Do PU out of a job?
If your drink don't drive, or if you drink don't drive.
dvd
|
|
There was a bit of a stink a few Christmases ago around here "road Safety Checks" were set up outside town, they hooked a few drunken fishes that day. One driver wanted to go not guilty on the grounds of randomness.....
|
I agree Cyd, that's how I read it,
'Drivers should remember that they have a responsibility not only to themselves but to their passengers; it is up to the driver to ensure everyone in the vehicle has belted up. '
((((Maybe a new paragraph would have helped reduce confusion)))))
'If an adult passenger in the car, whether front or rear, does not clunk and click they too can be the recipient of a £30 fixed penalty notice.'
|
I was pretty sure that that was the correct ruling - that any passenger 14 years old or older was responsible for their own seatbelt, and that the driver would not be done for their passenger's failure to comply.
Imagine my surprise then, when on one of these Police documentary programmes on BBC1 the other week, an officer went completely against this by issueing a £60 fine and 3 points to the DRIVER of a car which was seen with a 14 year old passenger hanging out of the window, clearly not strapped in.
Presumably this was completely wrong?
|
|
|
|
"If your drink don't drive, or if you drink don't drive."
Or operate a computer... :-)
|
Imagine my surprise then, when on one of these Police documentary programmes on BBC1 the other week, an officer went completely against this by issueing a £60 fine and 3 points to the DRIVER of a car which was seen with a 14 year old passenger hanging out of the window, clearly not strapped in.
There are other offences though and the fact he was given a 3 pointer tends to suggest that the ticket was issued for something else, no seatblet worn is not endorsable.
|
From the footage that was shown on TV, there was no other offence shown or mentioned for the fine and points, giving the impression that the officer was indeed doing the driver for the no-seatbelt-on-passenger offence, but of course it is only TV so it could have been poorly edited.
I thought at the time that the officer came across as extremely smug and condescending also.
|
|
|
|
I remember a case some 20 years ago where an actor got off a drunk drive charge because he proved the police had no reasonable cause to stop his car. Forgot his name.
As for the press release, it is the police's duty to enforce the law (which we all wish they would do but let that pass) not to make stuff up, however well intentioned.
|
|
Law's been tightened (excuse pun) up quite a bit since together with some very good supporting case law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
