cra wrote:
But couldn't all of these be classed as technical violations:
driving without a license
drining without insurance
driving without VED
I can see your point, but I don't think that driving without a license is a purely technical violation. If a driver hasn't got a license it's likely going to be for one of two reasons. Either they have not yet proved themsleves to be competent to drive by passing a test, or they have been daft enough to get banned. In the first case there may well be a potential safety implication, and arguably in the second as well depending on the circumstances of the ban. Someone who got caught four times 5 mph over the limit wouldn't worry me a great deal, but someone ignoring a drink driving ban would. After all, if they're ignoring the ban, they might well be prepared to keep drinking and driving as well.
I suppose being un-insured is normally technical. I've been briefly uninsured myself simply because I forgot to renew on time - we're only talking a couple of days, and I didn't suddenly turn into Mad Max, so I guess that's the sort of technical violation you're thinking of. Certainly I was in the wrong, but were the chances of me causing an accident any greater? No. However, there are probably some MOT failures out there that should really be in scrapyards, and if they're unroadworthy they're probably uninsured and untaxed as well. Sure, the danger is caused by their condition not the presence or absence of insurance cover, but I'm happy for the police to have one more charge to throw at the idiots when they catch 'em.
No VED is a grey area. Again, if a driver is avoiding VED merely because they're stingy or skint there isn't an inherent danger. It's a different situation if it's a dangerous wreck with two village brakes that no MOT tester will ever pass. Frankly, given the cost of the damn thing these days it always annoys me that I'm mug enough to pay my share and some other bar steward doesn't bother.
cra wrote:
Personally, I want to see zero tolerance of all offences except speeding (but then only where the speed is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions).
I'd certainly agree that speeding is the least appropriate offence to have zero tolerance policing. But do you really want to see zero tolerance on things like blown lights? I check lights almost daily (well, not if I'm not using the car, but you know what I mean), but there's still the chance of one blowing while I'm driving. At the extreme, if a rear number plate light goes the additional risk to other road users hovers around the square root of stuff all. That sort of offence is more bad luck than bad driving, so I hope we never get zero tolerance on that. (If they want to tighten up on that I'd suggest making bulb kits compulsory and giving tickets for that instead.) I'd still rather have a trained police officer deciding when a ticket is warranted and when advice/lecture is necessary.
By the way, on the subject of light bulbs here's a tip for the ladies. Women almost never get tickets for blown bulbs providing there's a bulb kit on board, they blame their feckless husband/boyfriend for not getting round to it, and they smile sweetly at trafplod and ask him for help.
Mind you, with trafplods being an endangered species the chances of getting tugged in the first place are pretty low.