Safe Speed Forums

While I agree with you about the use of discretion about whether to target/prosecute a driver in the first place, unfortunately the "line in the sand" can also be used to determine the penalty if the speed is far enough over it.
I'm sure I've read Trafpol stating they won't generally pull anyone over for less than 90-95 in normal circumstances (as long as, apart from the speed, the driving is OK). However if you do get pulled above 95 you're likely to end up having a chat with the magistrates, and potentially (e.g. 100+) pleading why you shouldn't be banned.
If the limit was raised to 80 this should also (hopefully) mean you would generally need to be doing 105+ to need to be referred to the magistrates (less than that could normally be dealt with by FPN), with 110+ being the threshold at which they give consideration to giving you a break from driving.

Absolutely. We'd also need sensible new sentencing guidelines. It makes sense that if we require Police to use intelligent discretion, we should require magistrates to use intelligence also.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The problem with discretion, is that the current government is erroding officers ability to do this with stringent guidelines on what we are supposed to report. If they'd but out, the decent people of this country would not fall foul of the criminal justice system, and the police could concentrate on real criminals

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

I didn't know that the erosion of descretion was so formalised. Can you tell us any more (hopefully a great deal more) about this?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I suppose one of the best examples, is what is now called the 'ethical recording of crime'. This was originally brought out to paint a more true picture of crime, and stop officers 'cuffing' incidents.
Say for example that you are driving allong and someone T bones you. You get out of your lovely new pride and joy car and shout "You blind f**king Tw*t, are you tring to f**king kill me". You have done this because you are upset, and it's totally out of charecter. The other driver calls the police saying there has been an accident, and the other driver is being abusive towards them. Allong I come, and the other driver starts winging about your abusive manner. I would have normally suitably advised both parties (told you off) and explain to the other person that you were upset, didn't mean anything by it and that's the end of that matter.
These days we have people who trawl our computer incidents making sure everything has been done by the book. So now I have to create a crime record for a public order offence that you have commited. I then either report you for summons, or deal with the matter by way of a clear up procedure (I can explain what that is if necessary)
Either way you are now on our records for a totally out of character outburst, and could face conviction and a fine at court.
Sometimes we can still get away with a bit of common sense suitable advice, but that realy does depend on the sort of information that is recorded on the incident from the reporting person. I've even heard of some daring officers who come across incidents, and just sort it out the common sense way without creating an incident because they know what is to follow Free thinking radicals like this are slowly being hunted down by the auditers

There are many more examples, but basically it is getting harder and harder to show a little common sense. There are probably officers on this forum who have more service than I (nearly 7), but the changes I have seen since I joined are heart breaking.

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

Yes - the standard yobbo reaction. This doesn't seem to happen in America because, on occasion, the other driver has a pistol and can shoot you out of self defense! It seems that British males have become prone to these outbursts because we have been reasonable and tolerated it. Like binge drinking, peeing in the street, dropping chewing gum on the pavement and speeding, it is all part of the male yobbo culture that prevails here. But things have gotten worse because of our famous tolerance and now we have to draw a line under it. Now guys have to know that a piece of tin is not worth getting into trouble over, and abusive outbursts of panic don't send the right signals when an accident happens.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Presumably you favour a further move towards American culture then - as perhaps evidenced by your preference of "gotten" in place of "become"?

Yes, society would really be a better place if road accidents led to shooting incidents instead of slanging matches (or in extremis fisticuffs) as at present.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Yobbo? Going up to the other driver and giving them a thump would be yobbish behaviour. Attaching the same label to a mere verbal exchange, which under the circumstances would be entirely understandable, seems to be a bit OTT.




Americans are allowed to shoot people just because they don't like the way they were talking to them?




Umm, don't be sexist, British women are just as capable of producing such outbursts.




That sounds like the start of a slippery slope down to a place where we let people get away with causing all manner of damage to our personal possessions. If, through their deliberate action, someone causes damage to another persons property, they damn well should have cause to be concerned about what might happen to them - being shouted at by the property owner should be the least of their worries.


Indeed, isn't the real reason the yob culture is now so prevalent not because we tolerate it - because if you ask the average person in the street, chances are they'll say they find such behaviour revolting - but because through years of leftie lentilist do-gooder thinking, we've stripped the police and other authority figures of practically all their real power to do anything about it? We now have at least two generations who've grown up knowing they can, more or less, get away with anything they like, so not only do we have youngsters running riot in the streets, we also have parents of these youngsters who see nothing wrong in the behaviour of their beloved offspring.

This post was originaly about police discretion. In a perfect world (have you seen demolition man) we'd all be lovely to each other. However, even the most tollerant of people are capable of momentary loss of temper given the right circumstances. The example of an RTC I gave was just an example. It could have been a number of circumstances that will eventually lead a decent person going to court, instead of just having a few words of advice that they would in all likelyhood take on board.
I myself have been in an RTC, and attended many. My final word at non injury accidents are, everyone is ok, and a car is only plastic and metal for the insurance company to sort out.

Are you saying that anyone who spits chewing gum on the pavement should go straight to court. This reeks of zero tollerance policing, which is probably the most damaging and stupid policy any force can employ. A certain amount of tollerance is needed in society. There are better ways of dealing with people for minor offences, than sending them to court.

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

You are right,– a police officer must be able to use judgement. But don’t go easy on mouthy yobbos just because they are driving a nice car. Treat them like you would anyone who is shouting the odds in the street.

Take Ray Mallon (Robocop). He reckons we've cut the yobs way to much slack in the past and we are paying for it now. I'm saying we should have started to fine them on the spot a while back - no need to involve court in that. If we hit them where it hurts (in the pocket), we won’t have all these anti-social berks (drunks, speeders, abusive yobbos etc) causing all this expense to the taxpayer, i.e. to me!



As long as these better ways don’t cost me anything and work, I’m OK with that. But we’re already paying the wages of an army of coppers and the yobbos at it more than ever. What’s the answer, Neil? Softly softly, or to go after them with a big stick? I think the latter at least gives you the satisfaction of lashing out at the drunks, speeders, and abusive yobbos, which keeps them on the hop.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I'm a citizen of Canada - I can use "gotten" in place of "become" any time I like!



Americans have more self restraint when accidents happen because they have to - or risk things getting way out of hand. We don't have that constraint here because things are limited to fisticuffs, so the coppers should be harder on people to discourage yobbo behaviour.

_________________
I stole this .sig

There is a clear difference between my point and yours. I am reffering to everyday folk who for once in their life have found themselves on the wrong side of the law for what may be a very trivial matter.

You are reffering to Yobs. I take a very dim view of people like this. As part of a pro active community policing team in a deprived area, I deal with yobs on a regular basis, and give them no tollerance at all, untill they show a marked improvemnt in thier behaviour.

The point I am making is that anyone can make a mistake, and in certain circumstances, they should not allways have to go to court.

I certainly enjoy arresting my favourite yobs and love the feedback I get from the community when they are locked up, or given an ASBO.

Finally softly softly does work, it also gives me more time to deal with the real trouble makers, who get no softly softly.

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

It depends. If you say 'I am going to knock your block off' and advance menacingly, shooting might be appropriate. If you say 'that was a little careless, old chap' with a shrug, shooting would most certainly not be appropriate.

Indeed they are, although road rage is mostly attributed to young men.



We are talking about accidents here, which are, by definition, not deliberate. Any bloke who thinks he has been intentionally t-boned by a complete stranger should be banned on grounds on mental delusions.



Absolutely - we have mixed up professionalism with liberalism, and there is no connection. Proper policing must be impartial and unbiased, and mechanisms should exist to monitor the coppers to ensure they do the job properly. But policing but need not be liberal. We need to break that connection. We need no-nonsense but professional and unbiased policing. The trick is finding the balance, e.g. Ray Mallon, mayor (and former RoboCop) in Middlesbrough.

_________________
I stole this .sig

The victims of the abuse aren't helped by that. Fair play to you, though - if it is a unique situation, you should have the option to tick the perpetrator off and tell him to apologise nicely and let the matter rest.

_________________
I stole this .sig

So in Neils original post, where the accident victim simply gets out of their car and shouts at the other driver - regardless of the tone of language being used - whilst maintaining the physical distance between them, you'd agree that being shot at in return would be unacceptable? If so, why bring up the gun issue in the first place, and if not, then why not given what you've just written?




Whilst accidents aren't premeditated, I think there's grounds for treating a clearly avoidable accident (e.g. someone pulls out of a minor road without looking and collides with someone on the major road) as if there was a certain level of deliberate action involved. From the point of view of the innocent victim, does it really matter whether or not the person who collided with them deliberately set out to hit them, or did so as a result of sheer incompetence?

But don't forget that in the example given by Neil, the "victim" of this "abuse" is the driver who's just t-boned another vehicle... Let's not forget the true victim of the example, the innocent driver who's just been on the receiving end of a collision, with all the resultant mental and physical shock that entails.

If you have a gun, you have power to protect yourself. If you have no gun, the coppers use power to protect you. That is the deal in the UK, Twister. If they let the yobs curse and swear at you because their toy is damaged, they are not doing their job properly.



Like the Russian bloke who shot the air traffic controller in Zurich? No way - there is nothing personal in it.



But most of all, let's not forget the damage to the shiny toy. Listen - anybody involved in an accident must pay due regard to the other people's heath and safety before whining about the damage to their car's bodywork! Simple as that.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Your attitude is not encouraging nor, in my opinion, correct. Accidents/collisions are rarely just 'bad luck'. The difference between an injury acident and a non-injury accident is often no more than mere fortuity.

I find it incredible that the driver (causing a collision) whose carelessness/incompetence is self-evident (by reason of the collision) may escape legal sanction entirely whilst another driver, by exceeding an arbitrary speed limit in total (relative) safety, may lose his licence and livelihood.

Any crash is, except in very rare cases, the result of (at least) lack of due care on the part of at least one driver. If that self-evident breach invariably resulted in a prosecution, perhaps the drivers who cause crashes would become more responsible.

But accidents are almost never intentional.



Yet is right that a wrong-doing that is intentional (such as speeding) should be treated more harshly that a wrong-doing that is not.



Any crash is the result of lack of due care on the part of at least one driver combined with a random element of bad luck. Many crashes don't happen because the bad luck element is missing. Any breach should result in a prosecution, because an accident could have happened if it had been coincident with a random element of bad luck. The gravity of any offence is the same whether an accident happens or not, because (as far as the system is concerned) the chance of causing an accident was the same in both cases when the driver committed the offence, but in one case, the driver was lucky and in the other, not lucky.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Why the assumption that speeding is intentional?

But even if we allow you this blatantly untrue assumption, do you really believe that road safety is improved by punishing errors that don't cause accidents more than those that do?

My flabber is well and truly gasted!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!