[Merged] - The Road Traffic Act (inc Speeding)

[me283]

Sure, I see the point. But my gripe with this is a little different. If you call the police about a more serious incident (trust me, I reported being threatened by an axeman in public - no joke), then they are busy. I was told firstly that no "real" offence had been committed; then I was told they would try to send someone round as they were busy, but it might be a week or so. Now, I am all in favour of fixed cameras outside schools, hospitals, old people's homes etc. BUT, when the police would rather catch errant drivers at £60 quid a pop when the cameras are already doing a job, than actually employ people to tackle SERIOUS offenders, you have to wonder where the priorities lie?

Speeding is an offence, yes. If you are caught, pay the penalty. But in the big scheme of things I feel that the seriousness of the offence doesn't really warrant the efforts put in to catch offenders.

[me283]

Originally Posted by punky

But you wern't being cautioned. You wern't arrested. Small speeding offenses (unless they are big enough to constitute dangerous or reckless driving) are civil offenses. You don't have a criminal record. Your right to silence on the grounds that it might incriminate yourself doesn't apply.

Of course, with free speech you have the right in life no to say anything you don't want to say, but if you exercise that right with a bill (which is essientially what you recieved), then you would still have to go through the collections process etc. The freedom to non-speech doesn't apply to everything.

OK, I see your point. But if it's a civil offence, why are they quoting the Act? And also, my research says that the English Constitution is based partly on the Bill of Rights 1689. In there it states that "fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal". In short, who has the right purely to issue me a fine in the first place? At the end of the day, the more I look into this the more it becomes clear that our "rights" are being chipped away.
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

That's not true, but you had the rough end of the stick. The court gives you the oppotunity to plead innocent (and win, as in some cases) but unfortunately you wern't so lucky. The judge ruled against you, but you were unlucky as it seems the fixed penalty people negligently hinded your defence.

They are a bit touchy on the whole tying down the driver thing. It used to be a loophole that if you didn't respond with who was the driver was technically they couldn't do anything, but then the changed the rules that if the car owner couldn't identify the driver then the owner is responsible.

The sad point is Punky, that the bench ruled that I hadn't made ENOUGH effort to ascertain the driver's identity. The prosecution was pathetic, and made several glaring errors. But still, I should have tried harder. This apparently includes the fact that I should have chased up the Fixed Penalty Office. I have to say, British Justice stinks.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by me283

At least five. Myself, my partner, and several family members. Plus, at the time, it was checked by two seperate people on a couple of occasions, as it had developed a fault. All this was explained to the magistrates. All denied speeding in it (surprise surprise), but the bench decided I hadn't tried hard enough.

So none of your family members have any idea who was driving??

If it was me I wouldn't let them drive my car again.

If you suspect that it was people checking it out for a fault then do you not have any evidence that the car was in the garage at the time of the incident?

[me283]

The mechanics were doing a favour, and in truth, no-one can be sure enough that it was them to actually admit it. Would you?! I also mentioned to the court the possibility that another car has copies of my number plates. This actually happened to me a few years ago. I realise it's tougher now, but it's still a possibility. At the end of the day, they could prove nothing. They only FELT that my efforts were insufficient.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by me283

The mechanics were doing a favour, and in truth, no-one can be sure enough that it was them to actually admit it. Would you?! I also mentioned to the court the possibility that another car has copies of my number plates. This actually happened to me a few years ago. I realise it's tougher now, but it's still a possibility. At the end of the day, they could prove nothing. They only FELT that my efforts were insufficient.

Yes if I was driving someone elses car and thought I might have been caught speeding then I would admit it and take the points rather than have someone else take them.

Surely you know what dates and times the mechanics had the car? They are not doing you much of a favour if they are bombing round in your car.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by me283

Andyl, I fully agree with you. But then we should possibly look at amny other angles too - for exampl are our speed limits reasonable? They are somewhat lower than you might find elsewhere in Europe, and many were set a long time ago when cars and road conditions necessitated much lower limits.

Many speed limits were set a long time ago and cars have got better in many respects but have drivers got better? A car doing 40 mph in a 30 mph area will cause just as much injury to a child it hits today as a car doing the same many years ago. Roads are much busier now and performance of vehicles has increased dramatically. A rapidly accelerating modern car can soon make what looked a safe time to cross the road a potential accident, particularly if the driver is more concerned with the modern invention of a mobile phone he is holding to his ear. Too many drivers have the attitude that accidents only happen to other people and that their reaction times are good enough to cope with any incident. They view speed limits as a challenge not a warning that there is a reason for them being there.

[me283]

I think you are missing the point. They weren't sure, so they weren't about to admit to it when it could just as easily have been someone else. So I can't reasonably point the finger at just one person.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by me283

I think you are missing the point. They weren't sure, so they weren't about to admit to it when it could just as easily have been someone else. So I can't reasonably point the finger at just one person.

Well, if you want to take the punishment for someone elses crime...

Is it your car? If so I suspect if you restrict access to the people who are using it then they might have a flashback and remember who was driving.

[me283]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Many speed limits were set a long time ago and cars have got better in many respects but have drivers got better? A car doing 40 mph in a 30 mph area will cause just as much injury to a child it hits today as a car doing the same many years ago. Roads are much busier now and performance of vehicles has increased dramatically. A rapidly accelerating modern car can soon make what looked a safe time to cross the road a potential accident, particularly if the driver is more concerned with the modern invention of a mobile phone he is holding to his ear. Too many drivers have the attitude that accidents only happen to other people and that their reaction times are good enough to cope with any incident. They view speed limits as a challenge not a warning that there is a reason for them being there.

All valid points, but the issue here is about speeding. Try stopping from 30 mph in a 20 year old car, then compare it to the same in a modern car. If all limits were 5mph there would probably be no fatalities, but that's not realistically practical. SO a line has to be drawn. The issue would be whether that line that was drawn years ago now needs to be moved?

[punky]

Originally Posted by me283

OK, I see your point. But if it's a civil offence, why are they quoting the Act?

Because that is what you are breaching. I recieved a parking ticket the other day, which is the most minor of civil infractions you can get, and it still says I was in breach of the Road Traffict Act 1991.

And also, my research says that the English Constitution is based partly on the Bill of Rights 1689. In there it states that "fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal". In short, who has the right purely to issue me a fine in the first place? At the end of the day, the more I look into this the more it becomes clear that our "rights" are being chipped away.

It comes down to semantics and language. You recieved a "Notice of Intended Prosecution", not a fine. "Notice" and "Intended" are both words which indicate that a fine could be payable in the future, should you be proven guilty. If what you said was true, they wouldn't need to send the NIP out, they would just give the case to a collections agency. The NIP still says quite clearly that you are innocent until proven guilty, and no fine is payable until either you declare yourself guilty by returning the NIP or lose the case in court. Looking at my parking ticket, it says "... who believes a penalty charge is payable..." "Believe" doesn't equal guilty of, or convicted of.

You have brought up an interesting point though about the fines before conviction. Does that apply to these on-the-spot littering style fines? Can you still fight those in court? On-the-spot fine wording pretty much seems to rule out the innocent-until-proven-guilty.

[me283]

Originally Posted by gazzae

Well, if you want to take the punishment for someone elses crime...

Is it your car? If so I suspect if you restrict access to the people who are using it then they might have a flashback and remember who was driving.

No I don't, and the crime was "Failing To Provide Info". The speeding issue was superceded. It's my car, and it's a nice car, but I don't think people will admit to speeding just to get another drive of it! At the end of the day, I was found guilty of not trying hard enough, and that's a ridiculous state of affairs.

[punky]

Originally Posted by me283

No I don't, and the crime was "Failing To Provide Info". The speeding issue was superceded. It's my car, and it's a nice car, but I don't think people will admit to speeding just to get another drive of it! At the end of the day, I was found guilty of not trying hard enough, and that's a ridiculous state of affairs.

Actually, now you said that, you were lucky you were in contempt of court (which you would be if the judge asked you to name the driver and you wouldn't, and the judge felt you was deliberately withholding his name).

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by me283

It's my car, and it's a nice car, but I don't think people will admit to speeding just to get another drive of it!

Why not? From what you say it seems that your car is used quite a lot by other people not just the odd drive. They might be willing to admit to speeding rather then find another mode of transport.


Don't mean this to sound rude, but the I get impression that you could find out who was driving if you wanted to, but you just want to get off without paying the fine.

[me283]

Punky,

I think another key word is "prosecution". How can it then be a civil offence? And as for being "proven" guilty, that was a farce in my case too. Also, the mere mention of a fine is surely wrong before guilt is established?

The question of fines is a very grey area from what I have found out. It seems (and this is not a political rant) that the government has brought in several laws that are in contravention of the English Constitution. But who has the money and the ability to fight them? I personally think on-the-spot fines are a good thing in some cases, but the administering of these matters is fraught with pitfalls.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by me283

All valid points, but the issue here is about speeding. Try stopping from 30 mph in a 20 year old car, then compare it to the same in a modern car. If all limits were 5mph there would probably be no fatalities, but that's not realistically practical. SO a line has to be drawn. The issue would be whether that line that was drawn years ago now needs to be moved?

Maybe the line should be moved, but which way?

Think about the reason why a speed limit may be 30 mph. It isn't all to do with stopping distances. It's just as much to do with the damage that an accident at that speed can do. In a built up area there is a chance that a child may suddenly run out from behind a parked car when you are so close that no matter how good you or the car are you cannot avoid hitting them. The greater your speed, the more injury you will cause or death even. Speed limits are there in built up areas to reduce injury in the event of an accident and as a warning that you should expect the unexpected. Heed that warning and drive responsibily which means lowering your speed way below the limit if conditions require it.