OK, fair enough, many of you don't like it...
So what do you propse to reduce the increasing amount of bad driving we all see nowadays?
And how will we pay for whatever you propose?
Edited by b308 on 24/12/2008 at 15:18
|
b308
"So what do you propse to reduce the increasing amount of bad driving we all see nowadays?
And how will we pay for whatever you propose?"
The laws are already in place. No need for new ones. The tools are there; it's just that some people in power are addicted to legislation.
Pay for it? Are you joking? If all the money paid in car tax went on the roads, the roads would be the finest in the West! I think that's a rather satisfactory answer despite the "pooling" of revenue HMRC engages in.
If you've never been above 30mph in a 30 zone then you're quite simply a celestial wonder to behold!
|
The laws are already in place. No need for new ones. The tools are there; it's just that some people in power are addicted to legislation. Pay for it? Are you joking?
The law as it stands (if I've read the "story" correctly) means that at the moment to be done for "careless driving" you have to go to court... what they are proposing is that the Police could give on the spot fines like speeding and reduce the paperwork, not to mention the court time...
The question I asked was for those of you who are always moaning about the reducing standards of driving and if they don't agree which what is being proposed what are their alternative suggestions and how would they pay for their proposed suggestion...
You can't have it both ways, if they come up with some scheme to tackle a problem its unfair to criticize without giving some feasable alternative.
As for the bit about my driving, no I'm not perfect, but I don't regard fines for speeding or careless driving a tax... a tax is something I don't have any choice but to pay, both of those I can avoid by being more careful.
My only issue with it is that it must be done fairly, not as a "vendetta", something needs to be done, only time will tell if this is the right way of tackling it...
And regards those uninsured/taxed drivers, I agree something more needs to be done to keep them off the roads (I have suggested automatic prison for repeat offenders before), but most of the bad driving we all see each day is not done by them, I suspect, but by us "legal" drivers...
|
b308
your point is a very fair one
I was nicked for careless driving 12 years ago - and rightly so. Lesson very much learnt. I deserved what I got £600, six points and uninsurable for three years. Pretty miserable. So on the subject of perfect driving, I cannot claim this either. Still learning as they say.
I didn't go to court though I could have done.
While it is of course, silly to critisise measures I deem as sensible, without offering an alternative, I don't think this is sensible. It's just giving more ARBITRARY powers to the authorities. Sorry, but I'd like to have the option of my day in court. Something which should be possible for every minor transgression, else there's some change in UK law about which I'm not aware.
Why is it not possible anymore for traffic police to wave someone down and have a go at them for going too fast or carelessly? Why is everything so tied to proceedure and regulation that tickets MUST be issued? It's the lack of discrimination available to the already put-upon police that's half the PR problem imv.
You rather skipped over my answer about "paying for it" and raise the question again! I would like to provide you with the same reasonable answer as I did originally. What's wrong with that answer?
|
|
|
>>You can't have it both ways, if they come up with some scheme to tackle a problem its unfair to criticize without giving some feasable alternative.
B308, that argument is a straw man, irrelevant. Should somebody come up with a stupid idea there is no obligation either to accept it, or propose anything else.
About 25 years ago I was rebuked by a bobby for munching on a (ham) sandwich while driving (crawling in traffic actually) down Greek Street in Leeds. I unwisely took issue with this, on the grounds that it was not unsafe, and was threatened with being run in. In future, perhaps this will be a ticket and three points?
The trouble is that drinking from a bottle of water at traffic lights, taking a bite from a sandwich, or even, for that matter, using a hand held mobile telephone or driving after three or four pints, need not be unsafe per se. Defining these things as unsafe is where the trouble starts.
One can see that, on balance, the drink-drive law as it stands might be a good thing - clearly too many people could not be trusted to behave responsibly, so a liberty was lost. Unfortunately it was the thin end of a very unpleasant wedge, and far more babies than bathwater will be thrown out as this develops.
If the government wanted to foment a revolution, it could scarcely adopt a better strategy. There are plenty of very unpleasant, violent and dishonest people out there - how about a sensible plan to deal with them?
Edited by Manatee on 24/12/2008 at 21:40
|
>>You can't have it both ways if they come up with some scheme to tackle a problem its unfair to criticize without giving some feasable alternative. B308 that argument is a straw man irrelevant.
No its isn't...
So what are your proposals then?!
Or don't you have anything better?
As regards the rest that I snipped, thats exactly what I'd said in several previous posts... its how its implemented that will make it a good thing or a load of carp... we shall see!
|
Not every minor bump is a sign that the driver involved is going to go on and kill some one one day, any more than the argument that watching violent cartoons will turn all kids in to murderers.
Thus my proposal..do nothing. Simply carry on with the system as it is.
To often, the raft of new laws, rules and regulations manages only to punish the occasional , accidental transgressor whilst leaving the habitual offender untouched.
|
|
|
B308 - I have no alternative proposals because none are necessary. Drivers can still AFAIK be charged with driving without due care and attention, careless driving, or dangerous driving - but the case has to be made.
My point was that there is no need for an alternative idea every time somebody puts forward a stupid one - it just does not follow from the premise, though it is a trap that many seem to fall into all the time.
The existing laws are not there by accident or because all previous legislators were stupid.
|
B308 - I have no alternative proposals because none are necessary.
Though if you look at many of the threads on this and other motoring forums it is as clear as day that bad driving needs to be tackled... this will tackle some of it, though I have reservations on how its implemented... therefore I would disagree with you that nothing needs doing... in fact I'd say that not enough is being done at the moment to tackle the decline in driving standards... if this makes it easier to penalise those who drive badly then it may be beneficial.
The other issue which would come from anything that tackled bad driving is covered on another thread... What you do to prevent re-offending?... Its also clear that current punishments do not deter people from doing it again... so a whole new can of worms is opened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is just another message which says Canada may be -20c in the winter but they want me more than the UK does, lets all move to Canada, Australia etc any where that will have us and let the ever increasing amount of foreigners (usualy from Eastern Europe these days) rule the UK.
I have mentioned this countless times now but when I am driving I do feel like a crinimal, what if they find a broken spring, what fi I accidently stop over the line at lights etc. This new rule just makes it even worse. The worst thing is the real bad drivers are the ones that never get caught as their cars are usualy not even licenced or have a false plate on it.
|
FPNs etc for careless drivng are fine....IF....the officers empowered to dish them out are not subject to endless targets and figures i.e. you allow them to use their judgement and only put pen to paper when they feel it is necessary.
If (as at present) you close them down with targets, they will comply with them, but will go for the easier, more plentiful, option. That is human nature and keeps your boss off your back. That is not good for this country because Mr and Mrs Average are being hammered...and believe me the people working in that system really do not like it..but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to be the maverick and break the cycle.
|
|
I hope before anyone becomes judge and jury on driving standards they have to have an advanced driving qualification and are not the local beat bobby or hobby cop.
Edited by Old Navy on 24/12/2008 at 17:50
|
I hope before anyone becomes judge and jury on driving standards they have to have an advanced driving qualification and are not the local beat bobby or hobby cop.
more than valid point....and it won't be a stipulation will it
|
I can see in court a lot of these cases being thrown out, as the cops would have to gather a lot of evidence that the person to blame was actually guilty of a crime. So in reality the system may not work or it may not be as bad it as it seems, it may simply be person xx crashed into my car because he went through a red light so points may be issued for that.
The system would be absolute kaos if people got 3 points for a minor knock in Tesco car park and that is what I am more concerned about. I have no problem with the police as longs as they use their discretion and I am against any laws which remove that power from them. The last thing we need is cops to become computers.
My mate was involved in a nasty accident a few years back, the police were involved, he basically went through a red light, but the police made him do a producer and said although it was careless driving (the story is complicated) it was a momentery laps and he could see he had a good attitude so no point on prosecuting. Said mate has been very careful since and never did that silly mistake again (he forgot to make sure the lgiht had not changed back to red as he moved off, it was on green, then changed as he set off in a big que of traffic).
My dad also went through a red light as the son was shining in it, again police were involved, we thought he would get done for careless driving but the cop said it was a bad junction with no proper road markings and there own investigated concluded that the lights were not clear on a sunny day so it would be unfair to prosecute.
I think if any of these accidents happened today 3 points would have automatically being issued.
Finally if these laws make the general public become against the police then the general public may not help them when they really need it. A customer of mine genuinely forgot his tax disc was out of date anf got into a huge amount of trouble over it.
|
I'm not convinced that the ability to "warn" rather than just fine has been excluded in these proposals... also the press have latched onto certain, more extreme, situations where people could be fined, making it look worse than it is...
As I have said before, the principle is ok, its how its implemented thats the crux of the matter, as WP said... as it is its only a proposal at this stage, hopefully before they implement it they will take into account the feedback they will getting.
To go back to the cost of any other proposals, FD, I wasn't trying to get out of it, its just that all the money currently got from us motorists is already used up in the state machine, so any extra costs will have to be got from either raised taxes elswhere... or cuts...
Edited by b308 on 24/12/2008 at 18:37
|
Exactly.
I think so many variables cause fault acidents. If you were changing the radio while navigatiing a complex round about then yes 3 points is fair enough but what if you're adjusting your heater on an fairly open road with little traffic? It may technicaly be an offence but it is very unlikely to do any harm.
|
|
|
"its how its implemented thats the crux of the matter"
I do agree! At the risk of being tedious though, I'll repeat my point about anti-terror powers being used by local councils. This sets something of a precedent insofar as new legislation is concerned. I think so anyway. But I leapt on your comment a bit enthusuastically probably.
Also agree re where the money comes from - I can be obtuse occasionally. The majority of council tax bills go towards public sector pensions and welfare payments. But no council advertises the fact. It's all about "value policing" and the "new climbing frame in the park". If motorists' money is ALSO being used for public pensions and welfare then perhaps public sector workers could do without some of the gilt-edged priviledges accorded to them. Or cut back on welfare? I can't see either happeneing though. It's really the motorist who provides the "cash cow". So why not pump them for more?
It's NOT as if cars are some unnecessary luxury. Whereas a 3/4 pension most definitely IS!
|
Another point worth considering...
Lot of Lloyds names sitting in Parliament. Now let me think 3 points on licence...insurance premium increases... get the picture.
|
Mr X - I am disappointed in you suggesting such a thing - that might be like the government taxing vehicles according to CO2 emissions knowing sales of diesels would suddenly go through the roof and then also knowing you can get loads of extra tax revenue from a more expensive fuel. Even though countless other pollutants go untaxed as well.
In fairness this lot can't think in a joined up way like that - everything is done reactively.
|
|
I've only read some of the contributions here but I really wouldn't worry about this proposal. Even if passed I can't see any real difference in numbers of minor accidents attended. Police won't have any more interest or time to attend accidents where drivers can exchange details and let the insurers thrash out the detail. CPS charging standards at present allow for, amongst other things, 'minor errors of judgement'. To issue a ticket flies in the face of that. If you ever find yourself in receipt of a ticket say nothing then elect a court hearing at the last opportunity. In the majority of cases the officer will not have properly gathered the evidence to support a prosecution, something that should be done at the time, incidentally. And just so that everyone's clear: a fixed penalty notice is not an 'on the spot fine'. No such thing exists. The process is that the officer reports the person for the offence, and issues the ticket. The recipient then has the option to pay if they accept they committed the offence OR they can request a court hearing. No officer has the power to issue fines.
|
|
Sorry, just read some threads: as for pensions - feel free to join and enjoy the special nature of the work. pension contributions at 11% assuming you get to 30 years service uninjured or worn out by shift work. Have fun walking in to everyone else's fights and dealing with societies mentally disturbed, drunk and drugged. Ask yourself: could you walk in uniform into a pub fight?? Could/would you face the drugged nutcase threatening you with a knife? My friend works in the city with minimal responsibility and a huge salary. I don't moan about that, we all make our choices. We all have the option to change if we now feel we made the wrong choices.
|
Sorry just read some threads: as for pensions -
woodster, that comment might have been aimed at MP's as surely they're the only ones who can implement this sort of thing
|
"My friend works in the city with minimal responsibility and a huge salary. I don't moan about that, we all make our choices. We all have the option to change if we now feel we made the wrong choices."
So, let me get this right. In the private sector, you get huge salaries and no stress. Well woodster, maybe I'll leave the private sector job I'm now in and get one just like your friend. You see 11% contributions sounds better than the zero I get now!
I pay more than a thousand pounds a year into public pensions. I don't actually mind paying tax (I believe strongly in progressive taxation) but it would be nice occasionally for sanctimonious public sector workers to understand that yes, they are amazing, godlike creatures but not any more worthy than the rest of us. Incidentally, my sister in, my mother when working, my brother now are ALL employed in the public health sector. They moan but they do acknowledge they get far more holiday entitlement, more support, more pension contribution (any for that matter) than equivalent earners in the private sector. The profligacy they witness is disgusting and depressing. But, despite the physical abuse my sister in law has encountered at the hands of mental patients, she's treated extremely well by the NHS, very well. She has a new car every year too, which is nice. "How pointless" she says.
So to Gordon Brown, I say raid the public pensions just as you have the private ones. Were we all to be employed in the public sector, we'd none of us have a job. Would we?
Edited by FocusDriver on 24/12/2008 at 23:47
|
Gordon can't raid the public pensions as they are not 'funded', in that there are no managed funds to be invested and produce an income or to be tinkered with by him and his cohorts. The Government just pays them.
|
Gordon can't raid the public pensions as they are not 'funded'
He could raid the payments directly rather than ransack the funds - something to look forward to.
Merry Christmas!
|
Manatee - I don't think that OAPs (of whom I am one) who already have one the lowest pensions in the whole EU would appreciate having their 'funds' raided! Whose should be targetted?
|
Manatee - I don't think that OAPs (of whom I am one) who already have one the lowest pensions in the whole EU would appreciate having their 'funds' raided! Whose should be targetted?
I wasn't making a proposal - merely observing that the fact that public sector pensions are not funded doesn't make them immune from state depredation.
|
|
|
|
|
