20 replies to this topic

[jimmyf46]

Dont know if anyone has seen this which was in the Telegraph.........ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING.
E
Motorists at fault in minor accidents face £60 fines and three points on their licence in a clamp down on careless driving by the Government.

By David Millward, Transport Editor
Last Updated: 8:57AM GMT 24 Dec 2008

Thousands of drivers who would have escaped prosecution for collisions after simply swapping insurance details will now face likely prosecution as soon as the police become involved.

An array of trivial motoring offences in addition to minor crashes are also likely to lead to action under proposals to give police powers to issue fixed penalty notices for careless driving.

They could include eating, drinking or smoking at the wheel, reading a map, tuning a radio or arguing with a passenger.

All funds raised from the on-the-spot fines will go directly to the Treasury, which already makes more than £100 million a year from speed cameras.

The proposals triggered fears of a surge in the number of drivers being prosecuted, as happened following the introduction of speed cameras.

There were 260,000 people convicted of speeding offences in 2000-01 when speed cameras were in their infancy but by 2006-07, after they had been rolled out nationwide, this figure had reached 1.75 million.

They are contained in a Department for Transport consultation paper, which raises concerns that a sharp decline in the number of convictions for careless driving may be due to the amount of paperwork involved in the police bringing prosecutions.

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

Some also warned that the new system would see motorists will fall foul of police officers under pressure to prove they are cost-effective and meet targets.

"Cops aren't daft," said Kevin Delaney, Scotland Yard's former head of traffic. "They are human like the rest of us and will take the easiest option.

"The easier you make it for them to meet performance targets by issuing tickets, the more likely they are to do it."

Critics fear that making it easier for careless driving prosecutions to take place will simply mean that the Treasury will cash in from the sharp rise in income from fines.

"This smacks of trying to make a fast buck out of already heavily taxed drivers," said a spokesman for the TaxPayersAlliance.

"Obviously dangerous driving should still be penalised. Ordinary families are struggling with the credit crunch, trying to get more money from them is wrong."

The plans were described as a "bombshell" by Rob Gifford, director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, and normally sympathetic to the Government's strategy. "This could lead to policing by numbers rather than policing aimed at raising standards," he said.

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.

But the Government has been alarmed by the fall in the number of convictions for poor driving.

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.

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

This, it is believed, has resulted in an increasing number of cases of careless driving going unpunished.

Ministers believe that this is because of the burden of paperwork police have to deal with in bringing a careless driving case to court.

The Government believes that a simpler process – bringing careless driving into line with the prosecution of speeding – would "increase the chances of enforcement action being taken against demonstrably bad driving."

Such a move could add to the burden on motorists, many of whom have backed the Daily Telegraph's Fair Deal for Drivers campaign against plans to impose "green taxes" on the owners of "environmentally unfriendly" cars.

Few dispute the need to pursue blatantly bad driving, but there are fears that the new system could lower the prosecution threshold because of the ease with which fixed penalty notices can be handed out.

Motorists are expected to comply with The Highway Code and failure to do so can be construed as careless driving.

It is this which could lead to prosecutions for fiddling with the radio, listening to loud music or swigging a bottle of water.

Similarly tens of thousands of minor accidents are normally settled by drivers swapping insurance details, even if the police are called to the scene.

Now, it is feared, officers will be expected to issue a fixed penalty notice to the driver deemed to have been at fault.

Insurers paid out on 1.7 million road accidents last year, the majority of which were regarded as minor.

"We would like to know more about how the new system will be used, especially after minor accidents," said Andrew Howard, the AA's head of road safety.

"Penalties should reflect how bad the driving was, not whether or not a police officer attends the scene."

There are also fears that the offence of careless driving could be devalued by the introduction almost automated system.

Mr Delaney, who is also head of road safety at the Institute of Advanced Motorists, warned it would remove the stigma of a court appearance for bad driving.

But the Department for Transport defended the plans in the consultation.

"Bad driving puts other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians at risk and is rated by the public as the second most important road safety issue for the Government to tackle," a spokesman said.

"Making careless driving a fixed penalty offence will help the police to enforce against bad drivers who admit fault with a minimum of bureaucracy, freeing up police resources.

"But all drivers will always have the option to contest their case in court and we will work with the police to develop guidance to ensure that cases are handled correctly."

Text Size Email this article
Print this article
Share this article
delicious
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Google
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
http://www.telegraph...-accidents.html
Related Content
More on Motoring
Motorists' fines: the potential charges
Instant fines for foreign speeders
Police show shock photos
Two-thirds of drivers caught speeding escape penalty points in some areas
Crackdown on distracted and careless driverseen the article in the Telegraph

[TDMick]

Wouldn't it be nice, if just for one day EVERYBODY left the car / motorcycle, whatever, at home, and decided to go to work by public transport?
We could all have a nice day waiting for a train/bus/tram etc.
And the government might learn a lesson?

[jimmyf46]

Wouldn't it be nice, if just for one day EVERYBODY left the car / motorcycle, whatever, at home, and decided to go to work by public transport?
We could all have a nice day waiting for a train/bus/tram etc.
And the government might learn a lesson?

Impossible for me as i have to drive 30 miles each way to my office and there is no direct transport link, but i think that the public transport system would go into meltdown, and that WOULD be good to see.

[andyj]

Actually I think it's quite a good idea - if only it worked.

A 'minor' accident that incurs swapped insurance still often screws the innocent party as they lose NCB, have to cough up the initial excess and maybe wait months/years/forever to get it back from the other party, have to spend time without their vehicle (not everyone can get a courtesy vehicle whilst theirs is being repaired) etc. etc.

A 'minor' accident is possibly only a few inches / mph off a serious or potentially fatal one. I would love to think this proposed fine / points penalty would be a smack in the face and reality check for those who think anything else.

Andy. Driving Without Due Care & Attention (CD-10) & 5 points at age 18. Accident was potentially fatal to both parties involved but mercifully both walked away only bruised / scratched. No further points / fines in 23 years more driving & riding. These days I'd have got a ban & re-test.

Edited by andyj, 07 January 2009 - 09:01 am.

[Pict]

Currently, I'm pissed off at cyclists, having just had a dent/gouge put in our car door by a wobbly twat's pedal - and of course cyclists are the one class of road user exempt from insurance...

[andyj]

Currently, I'm pissed off at cyclists, having just had a dent/gouge put in our car door by a wobbly twat's pedal - and of course cyclists are the one class of road user exempt from insurance...

Damn. They scarper a bit quick when you get out of the cage as well.

However, I'm sorry so say you forgot about Horsies.

[TDMick]

What I want to know is how is the poor old plod supposed to make a decision about who is to blame for an accident. Witnesses will vanish as they normally do unless you are very lucky, but can you see witnesses hanging round to be interviewed by the police ( probbly a PCSO anyway), so it will be the poor sod behind who'll get the points.
Another effect will be that the guilty party will probably bugger off sharpish.
in the end it will come down to one persons word against another, and the poor sod at the back will cop it every time.

[pete7]

I agree that it may be difficult for first police to scene to quickly assess who is to blame. Some countries have this "police must attend every accident" and I have seen it cause chaos for the whole traffic system.

However - I think it is worrying that the Telegraph appears to think we should autmotatically sympathise with a motorist who is 'merely' eating his lunch, drinking from a bottle of water, lighting his cigarette while driving a motor car.

It's a shame but the media always seem to expect us to feel sorry for the 'poor driver' who is 'victimised' by police or traffic wardens when those guys are, in principle at least, trying to make the road safer.

I guess I would feel more sorry for

- kid who is run down by a driver who is distracted by eating a hot steak pie
- accident victim waiting for ambulance seriously delayed by car illegally parked and causing obstruction
- (and especially) a TDM rider who gets a lighted cigarete in the face thrown from car window

we all make mistakes but lets not jump on band wagon of sticking up for driver who may be in the wrong

Ride/drive enthusiastically - but take it seriously and concentrate

Pete (old git, still hoping to get a lot older)

[TDMick]

And the guy who gets reversed into at a roundabout (insurance scam) gets three points as well?
Taking the application of the law from the trained policeman's decision making ability, and handing it to a YES/NO decision making system just makes them tax gatherers.

[danceswithmopeds]

http://www.maplin.co...e...&T=12445068

Try one of these. Only £40, easy to use.

[andyj]

Actualy thats not entirly true, you can claim off their home/Farm insurance if their hose causes damage to you or your vehicle/property.

Same with the cyclists then.

[stu]

However - I think it is worrying that the Telegraph appears to think we should autmotatically sympathise with a motorist who is 'merely' eating his lunch, drinking from a bottle of water, lighting his cigarette while driving a motor car.

I'd agree with you there. the average car is now as comfortable as a sitting room. Lets not make it a lounge/diner.

[GrahamI]

Bit of journalistic over kill again, if you have a small prang and exchange insurance details, why would you call plod? No need to get them involved and no need for either party to get points and a fine

As for sorting out dangerous driving, I am well up for that, perhaps we will get car drivers who start LOOKING before changing lanes on the motorway, and actually KEEPING LEFT on the motorway instead of hogging the middle/outside lanes

Yes, had another bloody naff commute home today, I really do wonder how some people manage to get home alive in thier cars, the lack of attention is unbelievable with some of them....grrrr

[jimmyf46]

Think you might find that insurance companies will end up having to inform "plod" that there has been an accident, and who was involved. It's about making money, not making roads safer!!

[andyj]

Think you might find that insurance companies will end up having to inform "plod" that there has been an accident, and who was involved. It's about making money, not making roads safer!!

Then why the points and not just a fixed penalty?

[Jez]

Anything that punishes lazy, inconsiderate, arrogant or just plain bad driving is worth investigating. The standard of driving has plummetted in recent years due to the lack of Police on the streets (strange to hear a biker call for more Police) and reliance on automation.

If you drive "well" you have nothing to fear. I know this sounds simplistic but if everyone did it it would make everyone safer/happier.

The dozy twats who hog lanes 2 and 3 and school run mums who are oblivious to anything other than their little cherrubs need to learn that the freedom of individual transport is something to be appreciated and not taken for granted. Everyone elses rights demand as much respect as ones own.

[Quartermaster]

[quote name='Jez' date='Tue 13th Jan 2009, 06:50 PM' post='108272']

"The standard of driving has plummetted in recent years due to the lack of Police on the streets (strange to hear a biker call for more Police) and reliance on automation."

I wholeheartedly agree Jez. They take the cheap option by sticking cameras up all over the place mainly as revenue generators and then cut the number of traffic police, who at least had some discretion as to whether to book you or give you a dressing down. Then the cheeky sods have the gall to moan when prosecutions for careless driving plummet. It's very difficult to get a speed camera to the scene of a minor prang!

Edited by Quartermaster, 13 January 2009 - 09:54 pm.

[GIBBO]

Perhaps with ALL the money that's going to be collected...... it will pay for more traffic cops who will be able to police our roads as they used to be, (I'm an old git) and who can make an honest and impartial decsion on something that's happened.

Edited by GIBBO, 21 January 2009 - 10:35 pm.

[slartybartfarst]

How this going to work? Plod will not attend an RTA unless someone is injured or the road is obstructed (not even when you tell them the other party has admitted having no licence or insurance). So unless the rules of engagement are changed if means very little. Even if the Plod were required to attend given the number of traf pol available at any one time you could have several hours wait given the number of minor prangs every morning and evening.

Slarty