Would it be better to stop fines and withdraw driving licence (effectively ban) until the issue had been addressed by retraining? That is, for each offence a specific training program, - I would prefer government employed trainers not private – the training course would have to be completed and tested to regain licence. The training would have to be paid for, this would in effect be the penalty, cost + ban. The benefit I can see would be that all offenders are returned to the road re-educated.
No Fines!
-
23-05-09 19:04Not a bad idea, but who pays for it, as such training would be expensive? Also, would it be cost effective, as the police are catching more and more drivers who are driving without any license at all:(
Cheers, Smudger. -
Guestwagolynn23-05-09 19:39
There was a proposal to scrap road fund licence and collect the revenue through fuel tax. This opens the door to having an insurance disk displayed on each car. That might kill two stones with one bird so to speak!
Training cost to be paid by the motorist in place of fine, or a portion or linked to income. This is one of the reasons for the training to be state run it gives flexibility and presumably the state instructors have no incentive to drag out the training at £X per hour. Even if the state ends up paying, we the taxpayers win in the end because it should reduce medical cost from accidents the overall driving standards should improve overall.
When I drove commercially my employer was not worried about points, only getting the job done. Therefore drivers were only concerned when their points were getting too high. On this system one offence would have meant end of job, because you are banned until training is completed. This would have some effect on offending rates. Of course there would have to be sufficient trainers to go round to avoid delays. -
24-05-09 10:03Where the offence demands it, I would agree with a driving ban and retraining at the driver's expense to get the licence back. The one doubt is that drivers who had not committed an offence worthy of need for retraining could become subjected to this requirement as a revenue raiser, rather than a genuine need.
If you want proof of this risk, remember that all "authority" behaviour trickles down from the actions of the government of the day; and look what they have been up to!
In the case of banning drivers who are not legally on the roads, this problem will never be resolved until someone comes up with a system that makes it impossible to obtain (and keep) a motor vehicle without already possessing all the necessary qualifications and documentation for obtaining a vehicle. -
Guestwagolynn24-05-09 18:50In my (dream) world I would remove all cameras and invest in traffic cops, but better trained. The point about revenue raising; perhaps drivers might go around the training loop once for free, second time round on a income related basis, third time full cost. The saving from the NHS should pay for it, but the overall improvement will be well worth the cost.
Again referring to driving commercially the attitude was, probably still is, ‘I got caught’ not ‘I did something wrong’, pay the fine and get on with the job.
Among young bucks’ male and female, points on the licence are a status symbol. -
24-05-09 18:59Quote wagonlyn "There was a proposal to scrap road fund licence and collect the revenue through fuel tax. "
Yea! I remember that, he said, sell petrol at £3 a gallon, (was around 75p a gallon at the time) and abolish the road tax. Parliament said, "Don't be silly, petrol will NEVER reach £3 a gallon;) (enough said)
Cheers, Smudger -
Guestwagolynn24-05-09 19:08
But the right honourable gentleman can put it on his expenses! I think we are talking 0.0155p per litre.:D -
24-05-09 19:36Aye! I bet none of "honourable gentleman" even know that, as they are used to being chauffeured around in big flashy motors and have their cars fill up for them ;)
Cheers, Smudger. -
25-05-09 11:16Road Fund Tax
I can see I'll have to remind you, yet again, RFT was scrapped in 1935.:rolleyes::rolleyes: -
25-05-09 11:28Every time I pay for my insurance, I pay a contribution to help cover the costs of those who have uninsured collisions. Every time I buy fuel I pay a contribution towards the Govts scheme to reduce VAT. Now, I don't know about you but I interpret these payments as being made because someone, somewhere has done something wrong. So, I believe that as an innocent person, I am being fined because of someone else's wrongdoing. Yes??
As for doing away with Road Tax (by any other name), it has been discussed by Govts since the 60s and possibly even earlier. It won't happen because there are some who drive company cars, and only use their own cars occasionally. They wouldn't get their money back from them. (I am thinking Vintage/Veteran cars which still have to pay the annual rate, but do only a few hundred miles a year on the various 'Runs'.) -
27-05-09 17:46The problem of the original discussion is that most drivers who commit offences regularly are 100% perfectly aware that what they are doing is illegal and/or dangerous, but they genuinely believe they are safe drivers and will never harm any other motorists or themselves in their actions. They will just pay up, go through the training and take to the road again, carrying on their old habits which they don't see as dangerous.
-
27-05-09 17:5998selitb: With regard to your last post, I was once sat in the back of a Court where they were trying a man accused of running on bald tyres. He argued that his skill, and the road-holding of his car, were so good, he was just as safe on bald tyres, as anyone else on the road. The Magistrates went out of their way to explain his car was dangerous, but he just wouldn't accept it. The Magistrates retired, and when they returned, the comment was made that as he would not listen to reason, they had no compunction but to use the maximum punishment in the hope that would force him to change his attitude. He was fined £7,500, with £1,000 costs, and given 9 points on his License. He admitted his car was in the Court Car Park, so they also made him leave it there until he had made arrangements for it to be recovered to a place suitable for fitting new tyres.
-
Guestwagolynn27-05-09 19:58
Yes if it was cash, as now, but the point is they would lose their licence until they proved that they were better drivers, it’s the time factor that is the key.
As mentioned elsewhere my last employer had a scheme that put drivers through a part day course if they damaged a vehicle. Everyone I spoke to (having been through the course) had brought something away from the course, and it showed. This particular course was chiefly about defensive driving. That is not putting yourself into dangerous situations, e.g. a simple one would be; before committing to overtaking, plan your escape route should it all go wrong, because when it does you will not have time to work it out. All the drivers claimed to be hard bitten professionals, driving for years etc. -
Guestwagolynn27-05-09 20:04
Interestingly in my youth, we used to un-officially race minis on a go-kart track, I kept a set of tread free tyres just for that. Great in the dry, but hopeless in the wet!:) -
28-05-09 08:42Whatever metods of punishment are considered, fines, bans, imprisonment, or a combination of all, for the toughess cases it will always be necessary to administer heavy punishment; and much more severe than provided by current legislation. As with all crimes, the only real deterrent is fear of consequence.
-
Guestwagolynn28-05-09 16:16But surley snowball, ever escalating penalties are not working, and there is the problem. It flies in the face of human nature.
As a society we invest far too much in the way of hope and aspiration into a tin box on wheels, which in principle is a means of transport, and not a very good one. Unfortunatly we have allowed it to become a rite of passage, a sex/status symbol, we equate it with freedom and thrills, add to this for many people the only practical way to get to work is by car. This leaves anyone unable to join in deprived and excluded hence the drivers without licence, tax, and insurance. The driving licence is the only safety issue here, because it suggests no training. Though tax and insurance evasion gets linked with road safety, in my view it is not, everyone instinctively knows this so when authority tries to claim it is, they end up being taken for fools. If you ask, is tax and insurance evasion an offence to society, not fair play? I would agree and I think it is to do with the morality of modern life; unfortunately we cannot turn to our legislators for an example, can we? The most effective punishment is the loss of the right to drive, but there must be a way of getting that right back, otherwise they will just ignore the ban, the ban must be effectively policed. Of course by real police not substitutes.
That is not to say that there has not been some development in vehicles, I would say that the improvements in casualty figures have been due to changes in vehicles and nothing to do with law enforcement. Seat belt legislation was the only legislation in vehicle use that actually improved safety. It was resisted by manufacturers and drivers because it was the first time anyone had spoiled the dream and recognised that we are going to crash so we had better prepare for it. The vehicle construction legislation usually follows what is actually being done rather than taking the lead.
As I look around the roads now I notice a step change since ABS. Because drivers have never been taught how to stop, or how tyres work, now they can trundle along staring at their speedo without having the faintest idea about the tyres and the ABS will look after them when they jump on the brakes. Oh I forgot they probably will know that they have alloy wheels and wider tyres than the car in front.
I could go on; In short we should stop and take a sensible look at the whole subject, should untrained people be allowed access to a killing machine? If we answer yes to that then we must understand how people behave, design rules that encourage people to be responsible. Bullying, even state bullying is not sustainable in the long run. -
28-05-09 17:25
When you view some of the penalties for taking a vehicle and driving it at speeds of up to 100 mph in built-up areas, and the punishment is often a suspended sentence, then of course penalties are not working. And crowded jails are being seen as a more worrying factor than innocents being killed on the roads.
Personally, I see the modern motorcar as the only sensible means of transport; public transport is worse than the conditions allowed for livestock.
Motor vehicles are not meant to be used for "thrills" on public roads; that is misuse of the facility.
The last comment is, to me, the most important. In the wrong hands, and with the wrong temperament, a motor vehicle is just that; a potential killing machine.
Just as a gun requires a licence, so does a motor vehicle. A gun cannot be legally passed on without proper formalities.
I believe that, before a motor vehicle can be sold to a private buyer, the seller should be responsible for ensuring the buyer has a valid driving licence and all the relevant documentation to make the new keeper's ownership legal. Failure to do so should hold the selling keeper responsible for any subsequent incidents with the vehicle, as if it had not been sold.
In the case of selling to a dealer, that should be subject to the dealer being VAT registered, and the dealer is then subject to the same qualifying conditions.
Though not a perfect solution, it would go further towards keeping illegally owned vehicles off the roads than does the present sysytem.
Taking without consent will most likely always be a problem. -
Guestwagolynn28-05-09 18:30Yes that is step in the right direction, sufficient other details are required when a car is purchased to confirm the ownership of the licence. I would have thought that would be easy to initiate, but I think the marketing lot would oppose this as it is interfering with the dream.
The 100MPH is usually done with the police in pursuit why? There are other ways of stopping a car, but chasing is much more fun and this is the police! I think there are other ways as yet un-used to prevent cars being stolen, fingerprint sensing for one, but there are others.
I don’t condone the thrill, though I think thrill seekers, with training, can be re-trained to get a thrill from a well executed journey rather than the normal kangaroo performance.
Whatever, it is a major problem that requires (in the much used words of our legislators’) a root and branch overhaul.
Re cars; they are so good that about 4% of the fuel is used to do useful work. I am sure that if we are half as clever as we think we are we could do better than that! :o -
29-05-09 09:42Extract from above: 'ever escalating penalties are not working, and there is the problem. It flies in the face of human nature.'
Quite simply, the penalties are not seen as a strong enough deterrent. I was helping someone with research recently and came across a case in Saudi Arabia, where a car thief was sentenced to 4000 lashes. 20 to be administered every week until the sentence complete. That is why such places have such a low crime rate, it is virtually non-existent. -
Guestwagolynn29-05-09 13:19
A few years ago, I knew a Sociology prof who studied laws and law enforcement around the world. His view on the case you related would have been that the thief got the full treatment because he did not pay off the right people. The prof thought that this was the real reason for the low unrecorded crime in many parts of the world -
29-05-09 13:55Re: Rolebama about Saudi Arabia, it is obviously understandable why they have such a low crime rate with the frankly medaeval, barbaric and inhumane things they do even with the smallest of crimes, but I am grateful that we in this country do not live in fear of torture. There needs to be a balance between finding a strong and suitable punishment without resorting to barbarism fresh from Henry VIII's reign. I agree the punishments are too soft in this country but I think a longer prison sentence or permanent driving ban would be along the right lines rather than lashing or castrating.
-
29-05-09 14:41The real problem is that we have, crudely, three types of vehicle mis-use.
(1) The legal drivers, who are normally careful, but frequent RTC's occur in this group mainly because (a) it is the majority group, and (b) it represents the largest number of accidents in a group, but these accidents are largely minor in severity.
(2) The drivers who are normally safe, have a driving licence but, for various reasons, occasionally go onto the roads with one or more of their documentation invalid. Reasons can vary from simple absent-mindedness to deliberate omissions due to economic situations.
(3) Those "owning" and using vehicles illegally, or stealing and driving vehicles. These are the ones most likely to drive recklessly, put lives and property in danger, and take appalling risks to avoid being stopped by the police. As a group, they probably represent the biggest single threat to safety on our roads.
Categories 1 and 2 can be fairly easily dealt with by stiffening penalties currently allowable under UK law.
It is category 3 drivers who are the problem. These people are totally unfazed by being brought before the courts, and will simply go out and commit the same crimes again as soon as they are free to walk the streets. Currently, the only way to stop them is incarceration for lengthy periods of time. At the moment, this answer is not acceptable to society on cost, economics and (possibly?) human rights regarding the time factor.
However, statistics are proving that the situation is becoming worse. Like the comment or not, in recent years a section of the population residing in the UK have come from countries where ignoring laws that "do not suit them" are an everyday common fact. And this factor of the population is still growing.
Most of us occasionally resort to the "string 'em up" outburst due to sheer frustration, although at the same time we know this is unnacceptable in a civilised society.
The million dollar question is "how do we resolve it?" We don't yet know but, in the not too distant future, the law-abiding public will wake up, stand up, and say "no more, it's got to stop?"
And Joe Public will not be quelled by the excuse, "But we haven't got a plan!"
The only unknown factor is "How soon?"
Regards, Snowball. -
29-05-09 20:42On that point of punishment, I think the public are always angry when they see a driver getting off with a fine and a ban, when they have actually caused a death or deaths whilst driving.
Cheers, Smudger. -
Guestwagolynn29-05-09 22:18Hi Snowball, your cat 3 group. In my view, the answer is more police out working.
-
30-05-09 11:50
Multiply the thousands of miles of roads by the number of hours in a day, and I think you will agree that any practical level of police presence would be less significant than the proverbial "tip of the iceberg".
I truly believe that the greatest contribution towards eradicating this problem will be a combination of documentation control and technological advances in the security systems of motor vehicles.
On the documentation side, the passing on of a motor vehicle without first ensuring that the next owner is legally able to purchase it is a first step. This would probably have to be backed up with very severe penalties for non-compliance with the rules.
Government legislation for a minimum, and very effective, level of security written into the Construction and Use Act is needed to get vehicle manufacturers focused on security as a priority (and mandatory if they want to sell their vehicles), instead of pushing relatively unimportant features such as windscreen rain sensors ans self-parking systems.
The choice is stark and clear; do we want to drive this dangerous element from our roads, or are we happy to live with a weak system that allows unlawful drivers to continue killing innocent victims? -
30-05-09 12:14Re: 'On the documentation side, the passing on of a motor vehicle without first ensuring that the next owner is legally able to purchase it is a first step. This would probably have to be backed up with very severe penalties for non-compliance with the rules.'
I cannot agree with this. Someone who has owned the car for three or four years and driven it legally, then sells it on to an unscrupulous buyer, is then held liable? The sale then 'backfires' onto an innocent, law-abiding person. -
Guestwagolynn30-05-09 12:23I was thinking of the effect a traffic car has on traffic, or even a policeman on foot. It’s all to do with the odds on being caught. At present, the few traffic cars there are will quite likely be on domestic violence incidents rather than patrolling the roads. The only time they appear to go out is to hit the completed cases target. I am confident that a road side telling off is far more effective than a fixed penalty notice (for traffic offences). A – Because of the time it takes. B – Because the miscreant has a chance of understanding why they were stopped. In the case of commercial drivers the time delay will really hurt. For road fund tax, insurance and driving licence impound the car, theft well that is theft no more or no less. Impounded cars should not be seen as a source of revenue, there should be a reasonable period for the driver/owner to correct the problem. After which a recorded delivery letter asking for proof of progress if not the car should be sold or crushed.
-
30-05-09 12:45Part of the reason for cars being crushed is the cost of storage and security. In that respect, I would not like to see the money spent on buying land and empoying yet more admin staff. Unroadworthy cars should be recovered to owners address, at their expense, and a Rectification Notice issued. There should be no option of 'scrapping' the car, the driver/owner should be made to bring it up to scratch in all respects. A time limit should be agreed with regards to a 'means test'. This should also apply to those caught with no proper License. If time limit is exceeded, a fine should be levied on a weekly basis.
The enforced cost would guarantee another illegal car off the road, and the offender would be 'punished' by having to spend the same money on their vehicle as those of us who drive legally. Too many, at present, 'seem' to drive around in 'scrappers' with no worry about the car being impounded and crushed. -
30-05-09 13:21Re. Snowball's "category 3" drivers, who I think we all agree are the worst and our roads and indeed our whole society would be better of without them. A simple method used in many countries is to have an insurance disc unique to the car, similar to our tax discs, that is on the car's front windscreen. Obviously they would be prone to faking, theft etc., like tax discs, but in our technological age it really shouldn't be difficult to do and check something like this and it saves all the time and admin involved in the police stopping a car and ringing a desk clerk to check if they have insurance.
