Hi All,
I've been corresponding with Alan Wilkinson of
http://www.fastandsafe.org.nz . We've been discussing Alan's idea for protecting us from pointless speeding prosecutions. I've got Alan's permission to repeat the correspondence here.
=========================================
Alan:
> My working hypothesis has been to pursue a legislative change to the effect
> that a driver who can show that his/her driving was safe in the
> circumstances should have a valid defence to any driving charge. It seems
> to me this is simple, extremely effective at removing unnecessary
> prosecutions, and forces an absolute focus on provable road safety
> objectives. It also has the great advantage of complete flexibility as
> safety knowledge and technologies develop.
Paul:
I do so wish I believed that this could work. But I believe you're letting the
lawyers get involved in the definition of "safe". That's not good. In the UK
at least, I'm certain that case law would evolve defining certain speeds in
certain circumstances as being safe. Then complex court cases would take place
comparing this circumstance to that circumstance. The bottom line is I don't
think the courts have any chance at all of making the right judgements, and,
worse even than that, they would create their own standards of safety. Within
quite a short space of time we'd have 20 cases in higher courts that defined
what speeds were safe in what circumstances. Then we'd really have lost
control to the folk that know least.
Alan:
That is a reasonable concern, but I don't think it is overwhelming, nor do I agree we would lose control to those that know least. Court precedents set legal principles, not engineering or factual determinations. They would likely only determine what are valid and invalid safety considerations and what drivers should be expected to take into consideration. But this is an issue I will raise with my legal advisors.
Paul:
But that's not all. It would be incredibly difficult to find broad based
support for the idea because everyone would claim it'd lead to complex and
expensive arguments in court. The problem with this argument is that it's
probably right. Even if I thought it was a good idea, I might not shoot for it
because of the difficulty of actually getting anywhere with it.
Alan:
Currently court and fine costs over traffic infringements are astronomical. There can be little doubt that the consequence of my proposal would be a drastic reduction in both numbers and costs, although no doubt there would be a few expensive cases. But these expenses would actually be useful, allowing in depth and impartial investigation and publication of important safety issues. Currently the expenditure is almost entirely wasted and useless.
Paul:
I'm so sorry to pour cold water on an idea that has tremendous merit as a
matter of principle. As a matter of practice, however, I simply don't think it
works.
The speeding prosecutions method I'm recommending has worked very well indeed
for us in the past, and I know of no reason why it can't work again.
Alan:
I'm rather unclear what you are recommending other than leaving matters to the discretion of well-trained police officers? I think the police have been complicit in getting where we are today - they are motivated to increase budgets, equipment and staffing by ruthless scaremongering and slanted propaganda. You would have to find some way to change their motivation drastically.
Alan:
> I also believe that progress will be fastest and perhaps only possible if
> private enterprise is permitted to take a strong lead.
Paul:
That's a fascinating point. I shall give it very careful consideration. It's
pretty much new to me and will require thought.
======================================
Now the bottom line here is that I'd REALLY like to agree with Alan, but I don't trust our courts to either a) cope or b) make the right judgments.
Alan's view is in contrast with our view described at:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html
Comments? Could we make Alan's idea work?