Nor me, although I've heard of them impounding uninsured cars. It sounds promising, can we make proposals? Far too many morons with driving licences. On second thoughts, quite a lot of morons driving without licences, too. I wonder if there might be other charges pending?
"... but had continued to drive in a careless manner and had annoyed other road users."
Now he'll have to try driving in a carless manner. I wonder who the road user was; not a senior police officer by any chance?
Imposing penalties without a trial may be the thin end of a long wedge. I anticipate that a few of those entrusted with this power will abuse it and it will be removed.
|
It's been on the go for quite a while. ISTR DVD first pointed it out a long time ago. Deals with the Sunday morons in supermarket car parks doing donuts etc.
|
Yes, it seems that may be the case. See:
www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/wiltshire/archive/2001/0...l
"The agents who look after the Spitfire retail park in Bradley Road are considering ways of deterring the boy racers who gather there at night."
|
|
|
|
This is one of those examples that seem to be a very good example of justice being done, but afm has made the valid point:
Imposing penalties without a trial may be the thin end of a long wedge.
This is not the only example; there are an increasing number, which worries me.
|
>>Imposing penalties without a trial may be the thin end of a
long wedge.>>
The BBC story clearly states that a warning had been given previously, therefore the person concerned has no grounds for complaint after ignoring it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
On the spot fines have been around for a while, as have parking fines.
Whilst it could be portrayed as Orwellian, I would prefer to look on the bright side and see this as a spontaneous outbreak of common sense.
If you insist on driving like a prat in a retail park which many youngsters think is their right, ignore a warning and then get your car impounded I for one have a complete absence of sympathy.
Anyone care pass the hat round?
|
Malcolm_L - yes, in this case the powers were used appropriately. I think I acknowledged that.
But their existence still concerns me. Powers that are ok today on the basis that they are being used with discretion become problematic tomorrow when they are used with discretion most of the time.
|
|
|
"Whilst it could be portrayed as Orwellian, I would prefer to look on the bright side and see this as a spontaneous outbreak of common sense."
Absolutely; the majority of road users have the right not to be endangered by a moronic minority. There's a danger that the powers could be abused or extended and then become BIg Brotherish.
On the spot fines are, I think, offered as an option to a court appearance for some offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a good idea, maybe they should check the tax disc is there too as a deterent to others as well!
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
Anyway dont the local plod in the West country pull anyone over if you are driving on a country lane late at night or is it a myth??
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
Would say myth. Don't really see them about at night outside of the built up areas and can't remember ever seeing them patrolling back roads.
|
|
Common Practice around here S59 Police Reform Act seizures is being used to tackle Boy Racers and unlawful Off Road Driving. It was a piece of legistlation that the Rt. Hon D. Blunkett MP introduced as a last minute amendment into the Act, apparantly after a number of complaints fro his locals. Well done.
|
I take it unlawful countryside racing is common practise in the west country being with more fields around or up north as well?
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
It could be worse, according to radio 5 the Army blew it up
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4347437.stm
|
Looks like somebody left theirs unattended while he poped into McDonalds for breakfast. Only to come back & find it blown to pieces!
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
|
Here in New Zealand, the police can impound a car for 28 days on a number of pretexts. Driving outside the conditions of a restricted licence, street racing, sustained loss of traction are but a few. Recent law changes aimed at curbing the "boy racer" problem have given the police much wider powers. As there is no compulsory insurance here, there is no difficulty for a newly qualified driver or one on a restricted (learner) licence to buy a high powered car. There are a great number of used Japanese imports here, and a good percentage of them are "sports" models with supercharged or turbocharged engines. So the idiots in the UK with their Novas or Fiestas have more scope here with Nissan Skylines or Subaru Imprezas with over 200 bhp. I pass the sites of several fatal accidents with these types of cars on my way to work every day. I think we need the compulsory insurance here, so the insurance industry could help regulate the types of cars that new drivers can use.
|
I read that over in New Zealand there are fewer motorways meaning more as we have in U.K 'A-roads' meaning these boy racers have to overtake more dangerously when they race these fast motors.
--
Its not what you drive, its how you drive it! :-)
|
|
|
|
a piece of legistlation that the Rt. Hon D. Blunkett MP introduced as a last minute amendment into the Act,
Thereby avoiding any serious Parliamentary discussion as to how to bring such powers into force without giving the potential for misuse in the future.
I should point out that any such effect was of course entirely unintentional, before a control order is served on me.... ;-)
|
>> a piece of legistlation that the Rt. Hon D. Blunkett >> MP introduced as a last minute amendment into the Act, Thereby avoiding any serious Parliamentary discussion as to how to bring such powers into force without giving the potential for misuse in the future.
Not necessarily: last-minute amendments are often introduced as result of isues which arose in debate, after the govt has reviewed the issue and decided on what wording it would want for the change. Since opposition amendments rarely succeed, this sort of amendment is used more often than you might think.
In this case, the conservatives not only supported this power in debates on the bill, but wanted it available to CSOs -- see tinyurl.com/5o6k4
The Police Reform Act as passed restricts the power to "a constable in uniform"
I should point out that any such effect was of course entirely unintentional, before a control order is served on me....
The seizure power as enacted seems to me to be rather too widely cast, but if the Tories had had their way your car could be seized by a CSO, so maybe you ought to heave a sign of relief that the Tories don't have a majority in parliament :)
|
Fair point re the debating method, but I had the impression that this was a new provision introduced late in the day, rather than an amendment in response to discussion. But I don't know for certain.
It doesn't matter WHO can exercise the power to confiscate cars. What matters is HOW the power can be exercised and what opportunities there are to ensure that it is exercised properly. Arguably, limiting the power to a constable in uniform just imposes a pointless burden, of having to make sure a constable is there at the right time or wait for one to arrive.
If it is a clear case, why should you wait for the PC to turn up during which time the idiot driver can leave? If the power is reasonable, why shouldn't a CSO enforce it? Why, in fact, shouldn't a CID officer be able to? Or a traffic warden?
Indeed, if someone is doing donuts outside a primary school at 8:55 am then I'd support letting a lollipop lady take the keys off the berk behind the wheel if that stopped the car.
So it's not a party political issue, see? ;-)
|
It doesn't matter WHO can exercise the power to confiscate cars. What matters is HOW the power can be exercised and what opportunities there are to ensure that it is exercised properly.
Agreed. I can see a case for on-the-spot action, but if such an extreme mesaure is possible, it should at least be subject to prompt review by the courts (as happen if someone is arrested). Reading the Act, this one seems to be entirely at the discretion of a Constable, with review by the courts limited to not much more than the sort of grounds generally available through judicial review.
So it's not a party political issue, see? ;-)
Glad you agree :)
|
Agreed. I can see a case for on-the-spot action, but if such an extreme mesaure is possible, it should at least be subject to prompt review by the courts (as happen if someone is arrested). Reading the Act, this one seems to be entirely at the discretion of a Constable, with review by the courts limited to not much more than the sort of grounds generally available through judicial review.
Stop it, you're frightening me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
