Safe Speed Forums

Take peoples license at the roadside.

Well not quite so dramatic but how about this:-

For some offences - my bugbears are redlight jumpers, lane discipline,road positioning and fog lights could the cops be given the power to revoke someones license? My idea is that it would not be enforcable there and then and therefore the accused would be given say 6 months to resit thier test* and keep their license with no gap. If the test was not passed within that time then the license would be void.

I see the pros as:

It is a hassle re-sitting a test and therefpore a deterrent.

Re-sitting a test will bring back to mind the basics of driving and hopefully remind them what driving is "all about"

If their driving is below the standard they will fail and be taken off the road.

Cons:

People may well continue driving without re-sitting leading to more unlicensed/uninsured drivers.

*The statndard test could be substituted to some sort of advanced driving course/test geared more towards roadcraft than basic vehicular control.

BIG CON

Egotistical plods who just want to teach you a lesson. Sorry but it's too much like summary justice and there's too much of that already.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Fair point - but is this not the same cop that can say you were on your phone and take one quarter of your license for the next three years?

Phone records would prove that you were on your phone when the officer pulled you if you could contest the ticket. Other factors that you have suggested would require proof in a court I think; apart from the red light jumpers where cameras are installed.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

I can see where you are coming from however:-

If you were stopped by an egotistal cop would you rather have a 60 quid fine and 3 points for say speeding or whatever he can dream up - or have to spend around 50 quid and thats it done a dusted resitting.

Would you rather the tw@t sitting in the middle lane mile after mile or nearly t-boning you at the lights was actually forced to learn where he was going wrong or collect three points forcing him to go through gatsos at 25 for the next 3 years?

Im not having a go R1nut - just storming my brain

I cannot support this "Judge Dredd" suggestion. Where would you stop after the principle of summary justice was established with motoring offences?

Policemen are human and have their foibles and prejudices which would be acted out every day on the street.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I agree

This summary justice has the problem of the police being too close/emotional

Imagine this simplistic scenario -
I am on my bike and pass a police speedtrap at 36mph and then safely pass a lot of stationary traffic , The policeman in a car has to force his way past the inattentive traffic and takes ages to catch up with me - getting wound up in the process.

Would I get 3 points/£60 as now or would he take away my licence because he is pi**ed off with the traffic ?

I dont really think i have explained myself very well.

My idea is that if you get pulled over and issued with a slip stating that you have 6 months to sit a test and that dvla are notified. If you do not pass the test within 6 months dvla will contact you in and revoke your license.

I do not see this as a harsher punishment than 60 quid and 3 points since if you passed the test within the alloted time you would then have a clean license and not be out of pocket for much more than 60 quid.





Is this not the same type of cop that can, in the same scenario, up your offence to failure to stop or dwca with legislation right now?

The way i look at it I would personally rather have to do the test resit than get 3 points if i was stopped for an offence and that way keep my clean license.

Maybe, but in the current situation he has to prove these offences to the satisfaction of a magistrate and he may not care to do this due to the time and trouble involved. In your case "he is the law!" and he will impose the harshest penalty he can.

If a future Government allowed policemen to, for example, lock you up for up to 6 months if they felt you were committing a nuisance, would this be OK just on their opinion? Think Burma.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

There's an idea similar to this one already in the Safe Speed manifesto

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

Not quite the same. There is no automatic licence suspension and you can have your case tested by the legal system if desired. The police opinion is not taken as conclusive and a licence revoked.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

They effectively are already.

Having been stopped and having failed to show enough contrition for the cop he then asked me if I prefer a 'lack of due care and attention' ticket?
He had no evidence - it was a local patrol car, it was 1am on a deserted NSL DC and I hadn't broken the speed limit, just taken the roundabouts with a little more verve that you can during the day. To his clear surprise and disappointment I wasn't drunk, hadn't nicked the car and it was completely legal. Oh and I was old enough to be his Dad.

Having a mate in traffic in the Met I asked, given the circumstances, what would be the outcome if I pleaded not guilty? Put simply, in public vs plod you loose. Despite it being my word versus his the magistrates will always take the cops version.

So roadside justice, no thanks I've already had some of that.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

I don't support this. It is for Mags/Judges/Juries to determine guilt, not the police.

If the police want to pursue a certain course of action (i.e. refresher training, speedw-se course, etc..) then there needs to be compulsion, for that there needs to be a guilty verdict.

Giving police the power to determine guilt is simply wrong, IMHO.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.