75ZT Community

https://consultation.dft.gov.uk/dft/2012-25/consult_view

Three consultation documents which I thought be of interest (only a few pages).

I've been asked to give my opinion as one of a sample of the Judiciary but these are public consultation documents and anybody can make comment. You might have a hand in shaping future motoring legislation

Whether you make comment or not, they certainly make for interesting reading (I think).

What an interesting portfolio. Somehow I just can't help thinking its the income stream that's provoked it, but never mind it's well overdue.

Part A (Careless Driving) I agree that;

"2.1. Careless driving is an offence related to general poor driving
and includes a variety of behaviours, such as tailgating ..."

"Q2. Do agree that the FPN offence should carry 3 penalty
points and a fine of £90? If not, please explain your reasons
why."

The most important factor in my view is licence endorsement.

In this way the miscreant sees a 'hike' by his insurers effectively equating to a five year fine. In a world of shrinking resource, financial pruning will become increasingly effective as a control factor, in both shrunken income and the risk of losing employment. Importantly fine values need to be substantive, as reviews tend to be a decade apart and vales erode.

Personally, I'd make Fines a minimum of £250. Tailgating especially, is increasing alarmingly and makes my motoring a particular misery. I'm constantly bullied to either exceed the speed limit, or endure rear view mirror intimidation. Interestingly you suffer from this more in smaller cars, where bullying especially by women in SPV's at school run time is particularly prevalent.

Q6 "Non Insurance"

£300 fine AND licence removed for 12 months, this is really an anti-social offence, as we all pay by way of premium jack-ups. In real life though HMG won't do this as the poor little uninsured pleb would no doubt end up being kept by the tax payer, so overall no benefit to the Exchequer.

In reality we will probably see no change in overall result as the invigilators, (plods on the road) are set to decline, so unless prosecutions are increased by camera, who feels your collar?

Never knowingly under-jaundiced.

Interesting reading, thanks for the opportunity to see one of these ‘consultations’ that otherwise never come near the public and are circulated almost entirely among the people charged with the responsibility for imposing the results. The vast majority of the population, the ones who are the ’end users’, are presumably too thick to be trusted with being ’consulted’ or informed what is afoot, or where to go to be consulted. Or perhaps just considered ’infra dig’. And no matter who is consulted, the results are predetermined anyway.

It is, of course, entirely revenue based and the ’consultation’ is useful as a fig leaf in place of proper parliamentary debate. What tosh. D. of Transport and H&CO know full well that fines have never worked as a deterrent. Witness the disgrace of the huge amount in uncollected fines and the either minimal or ineffective efforts to collect them. What a way to help reduce the deficit! Even withdrawal of driving licences is futile. They leave court and drive home! And continue to drive with impunity!
If caught, banned again and again.

Of course, no matter how much fines are increased, the effect is variable. It comes, if paid at all, from credit cards (further increasing national debt). For the employed and funded wrong -doers and the unemployed and possible welfare claimants on subsistence living, the offence is exactly the same. Guess what? The effect on the two diverse offenders is very different. Attachments are made to salaries after sob stories are peddled to get the periodic payments down. Benefits are easier to debit of course, all in-house.

Receipts are down, costs of collection and services getting costlier and politically difficult to administer. So the solution is to maintain revenue by massively increasing penalties - the inverted law of diminishing returns.

Forget the blasting of the least able to pay (but just-as-guilty) due to the abdication of responsibility of office. Universal penalties for all take dogma to its ultimate bad-taste conclusion.

In the case of road traffic bullies, it only happens if you let it. As with all other forms of bullying. If an aggressive idiot tries to force you to move over, do it! By definition they are aggressive and idiots at the same time. A fearsome combination. You can’t win. So don’t get in the ring. Pull over after signalling your intention. You’ll get home safe and sound. He won’t follow you so he finds out where you live, and the next unfortunate blighter he kills won’t be you or yours. Phew! Glad that’s off my chest.

Jumper wrote:Never knowingly under-jaundiced.
In the case of road traffic bullies, it only happens if you let it. As with all other forms of bullying. If an aggressive idiot tries to force you to move over, do it! By definition they are aggressive and idiots at the same time. A fearsome combination. You can’t win. So don’t get in the ring. Pull over after signalling your intention. You’ll get home safe and sound. He won’t follow you so he finds out where you live, and the next unfortunate blighter he kills won’t be you or yours. Phew! Glad that’s off my chest.

Thanks for the advice ...

Fines should be relative to income, how ridiculous that someone on the minimun wage can be fined £60, a days wage, and a footballer if fined £60 thinks he has sneezed.

Rover418275 wrote:Fines should be relative to income, [...]

I agree, Mike, a fine would have the intended impact to the offender, regardless of the social status. That would be fair.

Well speeding fines don't have any impact, judging by the way people drive round here. Neither does the instant penalty for using a mobile while driving. I absolutely hate my journey to work because it's close on dangerous to obey the law, with the sheep speeders being chased out of the way by the out and out killers.

I guess it would be different if we had effective enforcement, but we don't appear to.

Duncan wrote:Well speeding fines don't have any impact,

And what do they get - 3 pointsd on their licence. So it is only after the third speeding offence, 9 points, do they slow down because the next time they lose their licence. Now if it was 6 points for speeding I think people would be more careful.

Duncan wrote:Well speeding fines don't have any impact, judging by the way people drive round here. Neither does the instant penalty for using a mobile while driving. I absolutely hate my journey to work because it's close on dangerous to obey the law, with the sheep speeders being chased out of the way by the out and out killers.

I guess it would be different if we had effective enforcement, but we don't appear to.

Yep, I agree.
13 mile drive to work, mostly on the A52 (dual cariageway).
Speed limit's 70, so if I drive at (say) 60 on the inside lane, you'd think that'd be OK.
But almost without fail, there'll be some berk right up my a**e, who'll eventually swerve out and overtake with clouds of smoke (assuming Diesel), then slam his brakes on as he aproaches the next obstacle.

As for using the outside lane, as I have to to turn right at a weird island, then just forget it! 80 minimum, regardless of weather/road conditions, maybe slowing to 60 through the 40MPH zone.

NO Police to be seen, except after these berks have ploughed into something/one.

I think the majority just ignore the law, because the chance of being caught is virtually Nil.

Can't say I particularly enjoy driving nowadays.