Careless driving, Plod Judge and Jury?

[R1Geezer]

These new "careless driving" on the spot tickets, I assume it is possible to disagree with the officer and plead not guilty somehow? I just think the whole thing is too subjective. I assume the new law is to cover what was previously "due care" territory, but that was getting silly, I mean it was becoming plod's default position in most cases, for example, when an accident has occurred. Then there is the other end of the scale when they'll use the fixed penalty rather than put a case together for what is in reality Dangerous driving. Your thoughts....?.

[jackthehat]

Well, if they catch more prats abusing the rules of the road and can implement immediate fines without having to tie up the courts, etc., thus saving the taxpayer some money, I say it's a good idea.

[R1Geezer]

Yes I agree, any thoughts on what I asked?

[jackthehat]

I assume as the Traffic Police will be the enforcement unit, all offences will be backed up by digital recording......the right to challenge will remain as it is and if you want to waste your own time (and the courts) I suppose that will be up to you.

Perhaps a regular loss of money via these fixed penalties will more fully concentrate the mind of those numpties who insist on inconveniencing other road users ?

[R1Geezer]

This is not about me jack, I'm asking a reasonable question. Are you saying that when plod says it's careless it's careless and that's an end of it, are they infallible?

There are lots of ways of "inconveniencing" others, none of which are careless driving so not sure what you are gettig at there.

[kinell]

we have a constitutional right to trial by our peers (jury)......the courts dont like it being invoked for so called 'petty' offences....tough

this obsession with saving money at the cost of the full process of law is getting worse,

a policeman says you were speeding without firm evidence so you are offered a '3 and 60' (3 points and £60 fine)

if you argue ...as is your right..against his view and lose via a biased magistrate you can cop an endorsement of up to 6 points and a nice hefty fine and costs,

insist on your right for a proper trial ...the penalty cannot be worse

[The-HouseHusband]

To have any effect then you will need traffic officers on the road at all times, unfortunately due to spending cuts we have less of the specially trained officers and the cars are out on the road for shorter periods due to rising fuel costs.

As with any situation it is always comes down to the view points of the opposite parties, what one sees as a means to an end is wrong in someone else's eyes. All you can hope is that those that those that are in a position to hand out these fines have had sufficient training.

I would imagine that the challenge system will remain in place, so if the driver involved thinks they are in the right they can take it further with the chance that if the conviction is upheld then the costs will be much higher. The majority of patrol cars are fitted with cameras so if a driver wants to appeal they will not just be going off the view of the officer but also the video.

[The-HouseHusband]

@ Kinnel - speeding charges can only be handed out if you are caught by one of the recognised methods of technology. Police do not just give out speeding fines without evidence, driving without due care and attention is a different matter and only needs to be witnessed by two officers (both can be in the same vehicle). Usually they will have video evidence to back them up in court if required, quite often provided by TV companies that like to make documentaries such as traffic cops and the like's.

[jackthehat]

It's interesting that you have taken my comments as a personal dig............!?!

The words 'you' and 'your' were a third-person indicator...not an R1Geezer indicator.

[Gromit]

Let's face it, the aim here isn't for better justice, it is to save money. The system may be abused. The police might deliberately target certain drivers (this week it is stop an aded motorcyclist Week).

However it works out in practice, as long as it saves money, it will be deemed a success.

[bazwillrun]

I'm sure it will be as effective as the law about using a mobile phone whilst driving......not.

and no doubt its a £100 now, or if you decide to fight it because you believe this decision is wrong and i've given you this ticket to raise revenue and meet targets, it will be £200 after 14 days blah blah.

[Dodger666]

The only time I see cops on the road around our locality is when they're speeding down the road with blues & twos on. As for any on foot, there's more chance of seeing rocking horse manure on the pavement. Some years ago, however, I did see two policemen cycling along the pavement. Will one of their colleagues book them in future should they be seen doing it again?

I agree with bazwillrun, the introduction of the hand held mobile whist driving law did nothing to stop it and neither will this new law stop careless driving.

[venator]

I understand they will wear special black masks, and say "stand and deliver"

[anotheoldgit]

How will they stop 'tail-gating' on the motor way for instance?

Unless of course the car that is being 'tail-gated, happens to be an unmarked police car, or a police car just happens to witness the offence.

[chirpychirpy]

Careless Driving - the new single from George Michael, surely

[New Judge]

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1016800.html

Two further points:

Yes, geezer, careless driving is a subjective matter and in my opinion a fixed penalty for the majority of such offences is inappropriate.

No, kinell, we do not have "...a constitutional right to trial by our peers (jury)......" for careless driving. It is a summary offence and those pleading not guilty are tried by a bench of three lay magistrates or a District Judge (Magistrates' Court) sitting alone. Those declining a fixed penalty will retain the right to such a trial, however.