Last night I was watching 'Road Wars' which for those of you who don't know is a (mainly) British based traffic police video clip type show. On this episode the traffic officers stopped a guy who was riding his Vespa scooter along a busy road. Now the guy in question I would place in his early twenties, and the video clip itself wasn't more than a couple of years old.
First of all he admitted that the scooter wasn't registered to him as "he had only bought it two days ago" and he was "riding it to a garage because he didn't know any other way of getting it there". Hmm, a likely story. It also transpired that the scooter had no MOT, no tax and no insurance either. The guy himself didn't have a motorcycle licence, he hadn't even done/got the necessary Compulsary Basic Training Certificate either. He wasn't displaying any L plates on the bike and best of all he was carrying another lad as a pillion passenger.
I think that is quite a list of offences to be commiting, but can you guess what punishment he got at court? He got a £25 fine for the offences, plus £35 costs and had his (car) licence endorsed with six penalty points.
So that does beg the question why do we bother paying large amounts of money out for tax, MOT and insurance. The penalties given out by the courts don't even equate to what it would have cost in the first place and the chance of getting caught by the police aren't exactly high. And what must planet must the magistrate be on when they hand out these punishments? Do they really think that they act as a deterrent for others doing the same?
|
Wish I had a Shilling for every time I have seen this or similar scenario played out over the past 40 years ---etc, etc.
Rgds.
|
I also find it amusing about the blind Iraqi man who was caught driving in the West Midlands earlier this year. This guy had lost both eyes in a bomb blast and yet he took to the roads here with a banned driver in the passenger seat giving him instructions.
He had already admitted to having no MOT, no licence and no insurance but they also convicted him of dangerous driving. So what punishment did he get? He got a suspended jail sentence, which was only 12 weeks and only suspended for one year. He had to pay £364 prosecution costs, but the best bit is he was banned from driving for three years and ordered to take an extended driving test if he should then want to apply for a licence.
How the hell does that work then? Is he going to suddenly grow a pair of eyes within the next three years or are they hoping that medical science is going to have an almightly breakthrough? In effect he got off lightly in my opinion for what was a very very dangerous and stupid thing to do. All in all he is out of pocket to the tune of £364, and that is no doubt being paid at a £1 a week or something similar.
|
|
New Labour's perverse rendition of equal ops.
|
|
How would you have punished the Scooterist out if you were Chairman of the Bench with a free reign ?
|
|
The fine imposed should be at the minimum equivalent to the price of obtaining insurance through a broker,and if it takes the person years to pay that amount they should not be allowed on the road untill it is paid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law abiding motorists should realise that the powers that be have little control over the illegal motorist. There was one woman on a Q Wilson programme who had driven around for many years with no tax ..insurance...mot etc. You pay more insurance because the companies have to pay out on fully cmprehensve policies with little hope of getting any from her. Let the punishment fit the crime......but how,,,the law has has no solutions...any of us got some?
|
'...the law has has no solutions...'
What about the policy of siezing then crushing (or auctioning off) cars that have been found being driven round without insurance?
Simply give the offender seven days to turn up at the car pound with the correct documentation or the car gets confiscated by the state and crushed or auctioned.
|
>>What about the policy of siezing then crushing (or auctioning off) cars that have been found being driven >>round without insurance?
>>Simply give the offender seven days to turn up at the car pound with the correct documentation or the car gets >>confiscated by the state and crushed or auctioned.
This is exactly what the authorities/police are doing at the moment. It is one of the latest schemes being tried out but unfortunately has many flaws. Firstly the bulk of the cars that are taken off people are the bangers that you can buy from the small ads for £100 or less. The statutory fee to get the car released from the pound is £105 + £12 per day storage. So add to that the fact that you first have to go and get some insurance for a few hundred quid, then pay at least £117 to get your car back, its just not worth it. You might as well buy another car from the small adds for £100 again.
If the car is worth getting back then usually the owner will get the correct documentation and retrieve their car. This is all fine and good but all that is left in the pound is usually the piles of junk that are only worth scrap value. Auctioning them off is just not viable and they just get weighed in for their scrap metal value, which is very little because you now have to pay for the tyres to be disposed off and the car to be 'depoluted' of its fluids before it can be crushed etc.
This scheme is great in theory but in practice it hardly covers it own costs.
|
|
Police are now instructed not to chase or follow motorcyclists who are not wearing helmets-they might fall off and hurt themselves.
|
Police are now instructed not to chase
Well, since the Police are "instructed" then I assume that it is not their idea. If its nto them, it must be the politicians. Now, the politicians don't really give a stuff what orders are given, providing it is in accordance with how they said they would behave when they were elected, provided its what thos people who car want to happen and doesn't offend those people who don't care, then that works for them.
So, any instruction given to the police arises from two sources...
1) Those members of the electorate who wanted it to happen.
2) Those members of the electorate who don't care that ti happened.
Leaving only..
3) The minority, usually silent.
4) the Ignorant
5) the tiny minority who get gobby about it
I see myself as lying within number 5). Where do those peopel who whinge about the police see themselves as lying ? And if nobody is in 1) or 2), in fatc if the majority of people aren't in 1) or 2), then how do the politicians keep their jobs ?
|
Well Mark we live in a country where nore people vote in vacuous TV programmes than in Elections. The electorate are disengaged, this suits certain people in power.....I am given to understnd that the "instruction"
not to chase unhelmeted motorcylists is a bit of a myth (with a basis in one incident somewhere) - be interesting to see what some Police Officers that visit here have to say. Was 3 above meant to be the majority ?
|
>>Was 3 above meant to be the majority ?
No, I'm afraid not. 2) is the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
We've covered all this before ..... and the answer is easy. First offence - crush the vehicle; second offence - crush the vehicle with the offender still in it. I'm pretty sure this would have a positive effect on crime levels. Any political party willing to include this in their next manifesto?
|
|
How about cutting the hands off shoplifters too? Hang on, I know a few countries you might like living in Waino. Iran, Iraq, why not move there?
|
How about cutting the hands off shoplifters too?
Not for the first offence;-)
Hang on, I know a few countries you might like living in Waino. Iran, Iraq, why not move there?
As an atheist, I wouldn't be welcomed in muslim countries. Anyway, their regard for the rule of law seems worse than ours!
|
|
|
|
"This scheme is great in theory but in practice it hardly covers it own costs"
I agree, it would make a lot more sense to crush it with the offender still in it.
|
re "the law has has no solutions" - there has been a great deal of thought given, and the report cited below sets out a number of lines of attack: www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents...3
A particular scam is highlighted here (taken from the report) "The concentration of convictions for uninsured driving among young inner-city males is very striking. As we have noted at various points, we do not know a great deal about the behaviours and attitudes of this group of the population. One common practice among this group does, however, appear to be car pooling or vehicle sharing; a low value vehicle is acquired and shared by the group. Often the vehicle in question is not registered nor certified as roadworthy. There would almost certainly be road safety benefits in such vehicles being removed from our roads. There are also likely to be benefits for levels of vehicle related crime since many such vehicles are known to be associated with other criminal activity. At present Police Forces do not have the legal authority to impound these vehicles." Reminiscent of areas of Preston, where I keep the car doors locked whilst transitting, to the amusement of SWMBO!
The availability of insurance (especially where the policy is taken out then cancelled) and VED data, and the linking of the databases to the Polis national computer gives them the tools - all that is needed is the will. But I fear the police aren't really that bothered as road policing is not one of their policies on which they are judged. If its not measured etc...
|
|
In some Eu countries the insurance certificate must be on the windscreen;OK.I know you need it to get a tax disc.In Germany,you need all these things just to get a number plate,and if the police find your plates have "expired" they remove them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
