Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Feb 16, 2020 20:37

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Classifying offences
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 18:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
The law does not presently adequately distinguish between broad types of driving offences. It is most important to draw clear distinctions between offences that are accidental and offences that are deliberate or wilfully negligent. Equally it is important to distinguish between safety violations and technical violations.

By using these two tests together we define four offence categories, and remedial action in the four groups is different.

Accidental safety violation ? training required
Deliberate safety violation ? punishment required, training may be required
Accidental technical violation ? warning or training optional
Deliberate technical violation ? warning or fine optional

The circumstances of the offence are all important in deciding if an offence is a safety violation or a purely technical violation. For example, someone driving on bald tyres (in good condition) in a long dry spell is unlikely to be causing a safety violation. However, the same actions in the rain may be extremely dangerous. Police traffic officers and the courts should strongly distinguish between safe and dangerous. This sort of approach contributes to the safety culture by encouraging consideration of the circumstances and the outcomes.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 19:29 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:55
Posts: 47
I am afraid I don't buy this notion that somehow not buying VED is not a violation woth bothering with (much).

I find the time to tax/insure/MOT my car. Why can't others?

Use ANPR to catch them and fine them. If they don't pay then seize car!

To be brutally honest I do find this notion pretty unappealing. In order to counter the anti-car loonies we should be coming up with ways of getting those motorists who flout the rules off the road. With less of them on the road, that is more road space for me and you to practice Roadcraft. :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 23:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
cra wrote:
I am afraid I don't buy this notion that somehow not buying VED is not a violation woth bothering with (much).


I wouldn't see a VED offence as a "driving" offence at all. It's a taxation offence.

cra wrote:
I find the time to tax/insure/MOT my car. Why can't others?

Use ANPR to catch them and fine them. If they don't pay then seize car!

To be brutally honest I do find this notion pretty unappealing. In order to counter the anti-car loonies we should be coming up with ways of getting those motorists who flout the rules off the road. With less of them on the road, that is more road space for me and you to practice Roadcraft. :-)


I think the underlying point I was trying to get at was that road safety depends on standards of driving. If we pursue purely technical offences then I presume that we have fewer resources left to deal with safety offences. I also suspect that millions of mistakes made by road users would be better dealt with by education rather than punishment.

[edited to fix quotes]

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Last edited by SafeSpeed on Thu Jun 10, 2004 00:01, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 23:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:55
Posts: 47
But Road Safety touches so many other areas. It needs to fit in with a properly developed, well thought out transport policy.

We need to get unsafe and illegal drivers off our roads.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 00:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
cra wrote:
But Road Safety touches so many other areas. It needs to fit in with a properly developed, well thought out transport policy.


I don't think I really agree - why shouldn't we be able to do "road safety" independently from any (general) transport policy?

In fact I might build other policy elements around road safety objectives. If one part of transport policy needs to be done first, it's road safety.

cra wrote:
We need to get unsafe and illegal drivers off our roads.


Then by way of a thought experiment: Suppose we have 20 drivers, 10 of whom are unsafe and the other ten are illegal in some technical sense. We have the resources to get 8 of them in the next 12 months. How should we target those resources?

[In my "unsafe group" I would include uninsured drivers because insurance seems to me to be a post-accident safety system.]

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 17:58 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Usually find that the illegals - are usually crap drivers anyway. Hoever, will concede that week out-of-date MOT and VED slip-up may have been oversight - and would probably give 7 day Vehicle Defect doo-dah to eable numpty to put it right! (ANPR - not as nice as me! :wink: )

However - will admit that training numpties to higher standard is better approach -

Would insist on HC test though for all minor offences - as vehicle documentation, maintenance etc are in the appendix! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 10, 2004 20:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:55
Posts: 47
SafeSpeed wrote:
cra wrote:
But Road Safety touches so many other areas. It needs to fit in with a properly developed, well thought out transport policy.


I don't think I really agree - why shouldn't we be able to do "road safety" independently from any (general) transport policy?

In fact I might build other policy elements around road safety objectives. If one part of transport policy needs to be done first, it's road safety.

cra wrote:
We need to get unsafe and illegal drivers off our roads.


Then by way of a thought experiment: Suppose we have 20 drivers, 10 of whom are unsafe and the other ten are illegal in some technical sense. We have the resources to get 8 of them in the next 12 months. How should we target those resources?

[In my "unsafe group" I would include uninsured drivers because insurance seems to me to be a post-accident safety system.]


That's a no brainer. But what is the point in trying to re-define whole swaths of road safety and/or transport policy, if all you really intend to do is tinker at the edges? Let's get the unsafe drivers off the road. But let us also get the illegal drivers off the road too.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.317s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]