Safe Speed Forums

Just been watching Speed Wars on the telly.

Two BiB stop this “suit” type in a Merc. His driving is appaling driving far to close to the vehicle in front, intimidating drivers in front of him not to mention unsafe speed.

The BiB pull him over ask why he is driving the way he was and describe to him what they have seen on camera ask if he is on a medical emergency. Man says no so the BiB starts of with dangerous driving should have seen his face, next its ‘OK we will call it careless driving and speeding’ driver is still looking very very scared loss of job etc so I guess he must have been on some points already. Driver is now almost in tears.

BiB says take this as a warning calm down and drive better in future. Driver looks very very relieved.

Voice over cuts in with BiB saying better to deal with it this way the lesson will be remembered for longer.

Now this is all very well by me an individual has used judgement although in his position I would have reported the driver for at least one offence as his driving was really bad and he was clearly endangering other road users.

The opposite of the coin someone doing 36 in a 30 mph zone whilst not endangering anyone is automatically done no ifs buts or excuses. No exercise of judgement. It is a crazy world.

I know the episode you are talking about and yes, the guy's driving was genuinely appaling; just the sort of behaviour that really pisses other road users off.
However, in this sort of situation it is my view that if the officers decide not to cite the individual for prosecution, the details of the driver should be recorded as 'warning/lecture/bollocking given'. If this same individual then appears at a later date commiting the same (or even similar) offence then he should be done.
Because, as far as I can see, there is no point issuing someone with a warning if there is no way of knowing in the future whether an errant driver has already been warned and is continuing to drive like a twat.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

That sounds like a good idea, and to make it even better the existing 'Police caution' fits the bill and makes the record.

But I never hear of Police cautions being issued for driving offences. I don't even know if it is an allowable procedure.

Any BiB care to comment?

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

Well, at least one scam partnership automatically issue a caution for speeds that are only a little bit above the limit, dunno if that counts.

Some Police forces abroad have this system .
I got Pulled in Canada (MPH/KPH mix up honest officer ). I watched him enter my details into his computer as a stop/warning and if I got stopped again I would definately get fined.

_________________
Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert

MANY years ago, I got a "written warning" (letter in post) for "opening a car door". Basically, despite looking in rear and wing mirror, AND opening the car door an inch and peering out, I still managed to knock an old boy off his bike (his handlebar hit the EDGE of my door, even though it was less than a foot open). He wasn't badly hurt, and my passenger - a local opthalmic - corroborated my story. The old boy said he had been very close to the car.

I bought him a new pair of specs (they got broken) - the opthalmic was useful there! I learned a useful lesson about blind spots though...

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

The idea of recording warnings does appear to have a lot of merit. Perhaps some more work could be done to develop a scheme to take this forward as a proper contribution towards road safety although this would still not get over the problem of a couple of miles per hour over a posted speed limit in otherwise perfectly safe circumstances if the scheme was strictly enforced by scameras rather than sensible BiB.

As a start first offence formal warning from a BiB.
Second offence driver improvement course at your own expense.
Third offence FPN and points
Fourth offence Off To Court You Go with the above cited as evidence of bad character.

Some offences drink driving dangerous driving would have to be outside of this scheme.

It's unfortunate that good ideas don't stick as often as they should, eh?

Here, in this Republic, the argument against goes something like,"If the officer gave him a warning, and later that same day, he managed to hurt anyone else, or damage anything else, it's the officer's fault for only warning him." As if a fine and/or points - they almost ALWAYS go hand in hand here - would suddenly decrease his risk to the point of preventing that hypothetical collision.

If everyone else who heard this argument would stop and think for a moment, they'd surely hear the sound of something loose rattling around inside the skull of the person who said it.

Still, most people would fail to note that same idiot lovingly stroking his wallet.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation