Safe Speed Forums

When I lived in the USA your licence was only valid if you had it with you in the car. Millions of americans managed to avoid being criminalised by doing just that. I don't see why UK drivers should be unable to do it as well. No one in the US seemed to object. I suspect they took the view that an officer would be better employed on the streets checking a number of drivers to ensure they had a licence than at the police station checking the ID of one person.

US licences used to have any special conditions printed on the licence, which enabled the police to catch those people who needed glasses to comply with the eyesight rules but were too vain to wear them.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I think the main problem is that the prevailing public perception is that the police and 'authorities' appear to be more interested in creating and enforcing petty rules that tend to impact on 'otherwise law abiding' peopel rather than getting their hands dirty and tackling 'real' criminals.

This sort of comment by the CC plays to that view.

The fuss about any proposed new law isn't because it might affect "otherwise law abiding people", as that applies to all law, even the ones universally approved of.

The fuss is because a small number of very vocal people feel they should be able to bypass the democratic process and do two things. One is to decide which laws they personally will, or will not, be exempt from. The other is to impose draconian penalties on people who break the laws they do approve of.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

In case you haven't seen this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7280495.stm

Also in the news today is a report about a record number of complaints about the police. A lot of these complaints are about the aggressive and overbearing attitude of officers. Perhaps "a nice tone of voice" would actually be an advantage.

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

What it all really boils down to is that nobody trusts the government (or its agents) any more.

Whatever proposals are made most peoples immediate response is to look for the dark motive. and I dont believe for one minit that people are wrong to do so.

(Even such innocent sounding proposals as free childcare for under fours positivly drips with dark undertones)

As for the US, I am not sure that I would consider the US Governments attitude towards Law, Justice and legal process, and police behavior as a particularly good role model. Nor do I feel that we should be pressured into "Harmoniseing" with other states just because our politicians wish to secure there nice cushy retirement jobs in Brussels.

In any case, I cant see how compulsary carriying would actually help. Within 6 months all those who, it is claimed, are meant to be targeted by this idea (You know, Unlicend, uninsured etc etc) will have forged/stolen cards in their possession. Which means that the valid ones cannot be trusted either. so guilty and innocent alike will all end up being given a hard time if they are stopped!

Perhaps a better solution to the "Unlicenced" issue is to look back and to try to work out why something that was a minor problem 15 years ago has assumed such proportions in today and to try to reverse the trends instead of papering over the cracks with ever more technology, laws, survalance and social controll.

But somehow I cannot see the government doing that!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

The problem isn't the laws. A law creates a boundary, but can never be more than a dividing line between one point and another. a law is an essential tool that gives a policeman the power he needs to pursue those doing wrong, not the definitive guide to what right and wrong, because you can never account for every situation and subtle variation. Of recent, the police/authorities have been using the legal boundaries, the tools they have to protect the public, as an offensive weapon to intimidate us, simply because they can. The meaning and spirit of the law is lost in it's target-driven application.

do you believe parking regulations were invented to prevent a delivery van from stopping on a resident-only bay to deliver a washing machine?

do you believe littering regulations were imposed to stop people dropping crumbs when they eat?

Government spy cameras are the best example of the difference between the proposed justication for new powers and what they'll be used for. Either that or parking infractions are indeed a terrorist threat to the nation.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I didn't suggest that it is. I merely pointed out that millions of US drivers remember to carry thier licence with them when driving. Something which some posters here seem to think is beyond the capabilities of UK drivers.


Driving without insurance has been unlawful for decades. I can't remember the last time I dealt with, or heard of, anybody charged with using a fake certificate. I am sure there will be some that have gone undetected, but courts still see lots of people with no certificate, real or fake.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I agree, which is why my previous post said exactly that. The problem lies with people who know better than those who currently make the laws but haven't bothered to prove their superiority by getting elected.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Ah .. but politeness still costs nothing and achieves good results. I find it a bit of a worry that complaints are increasing.. a alleged 10% rise complaining more of the manners or lack of them displayed. Complaints of "stop/search" have also increased .. but as the report said - I think this might be in line with the increased powers to do so. However, a lot of misunderstandings can be resolved just by adopting a polite, but professional attitude. I recall IG commenting on here and to us in person - that being rude - even if they were being aggressive towards him at the time, was counter-productive and could even undermine a case against the person arrested if he rose to their baiting.


It is a good job that we are related to and understand their professional stresses and need to let off steam at times though

When we post up something "negative" we find in the press - we are not necessarily BiB BASHING but giving chances to give their side. I have to say I do not buy the "exemption cop out" clause all the same
===============================
Anyway .. back to this thread's topic


I have lots of means to identify myself at any one time about my person. I have my ID card for the hospitals I work in. I have a pass to allow me to park in the staff car parks.. which I PAY for .. which all NHS staff INCLUDING NURSES AND PORTERS pay for I am more concerned for the staff than me.. It's a chunk oout of pay when all is said and done.. But that off topic sub rant apart ... I have a card in the car which identifies my car and me as "entitled to park in that bay"




The paper bits relating to our cars are in the safe with the all the other legal documents relating. . (Both me and Wildy have an expensive hobby .. we adore old cars - Moggies.. Stags and we also keep stuff for the family. We showed off a couple at Sizergh not so long ago ) I bought a neat folder to house such "family documents" from Lakeland in Windermere a couple of years ago. It was on their "bargain counter". Lakeland are an innovative company. They modify as constant - but you can get their older versions which are jolly good ideas at bargain snips. Folder houses all documents and is the size to put flat in a small safe (also bought as "end of season" )

I do not see why I need to have all the original paperwork relating to these cars on my person though. As Claire says .. a problem if wallets or bags or even cars with the documents in the glove compartment or under the seat .. are stolen

I have a card which allows me into a lurgy research lab.. as I do do some research work into the lurid lives of a "lurgy". This also identifies me to those who need to know such

My wife, Wildy carries similar documents.

I also have about my person .. a debit card. This identifies me as a person able to pay for stuff with this card .. which is supposedly safe because of its little chip and pin number.

Looking through my wallet .. I have cards which tell folk I am allowed to borrow from our local public library... hire DVDs from Blockbusters.. .. couple of receipts.. couple of letters addressed to me at home address.


In other words.. I have loads of stuff which identify me at any one time. I do not need any other card to worry about. I have enough already.


Incidentally .. my passport is also kept in the safe. I get it out when I need it. to travel.. abroad.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

RTA 1988 S164

The law is already there, they just need to remove the ability to produce at a later date (within 7 days)
Which can be done without a new law.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Do you happen to know the typical penalty for contravening the above law?

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

Isn't it advisory (if not compulsory ) for someone of this standing to engage brain before opening mouth ??

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Nope. It's called towing the party line in the hope of a "K" later Prerquisite seems to be able to squirm.. dress as Druids .. have something the press will tease out of you for a story designed to harm the rank and file more..

But the dafter or more "actually unworkable" or "lathering up" as a gimmick .the ore headline space and tighter puppet strings.. )

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

It may be poor reporting but it would appear Humberside Police Chief Constable Tim Hollis, does not know the law as it stands.

Before calling for a change wouldn't it be a good idea to understand the current system?

Your Honour, I object.

When I carry my license as a form of ID, it is because I choose to, because my credit cards require a photo ID, and my license is the only photo ID I have. (Since I don't carry any complicated technology with my credit info on it, or use it over the internet, oldfashioned pickpocketing is the only way to get at my credit info).

When I am pulled over for driving over the posted 'limit' (though I am pulled over monthly for 'speeding', it's the only thing I have ever been pulled over for more than once) I always give my address, my license number, and my insurance policy number upon request - yes, from memory; even if that information isn't mine, it is entrusted to me - regardless of whether or not I produce the documents that substantiate that information. I have a legal right to substantiate that information myself, on the condition that I provide either a notarized copy of same documents within five business days to the Traffic Violations Department by mail, or the actual documents in person; same timeframe.

The view taken is that, in and of itself, plus any traffic violation for which the officer is making a traffic stop that is less than a misdemeanor, failure to carry or produce a license is prima facie evidence of a traffic infraction, rebuttable by the method stated above.

It is not a misdemeanor, it certainly is not a felony.

I am not a criminal for choosing not to carry or produce a driver's license. No one is.
(If I gave the officer sufficient reason to suspect a misdemeanor or a felony was either recently, or in the process of, being committed, that's a horse of quite a different color, regardless of my ID ... unless I have diplomatic immunity ...)

I'm sick and tired of the word 'government'. Those in its direct employ do not consider the vast majority of the citizenry part of same; as I understand it, that is not supposed to be the case. They are also becoming increasingly comfortable with using the law as a tool to:
seek profit
dumb down the public at large
be wielded against the public generally

I regret that members of the government who say the above are generally 'disciplined' for doing so, but that doesn't mean they have any good reason to enjoy calling anyone a criminal when they are not even guilty of a traffic infraction.

I know someone knows how to say this in Latin: The good of good people, is the chief law.

Thank you, Your Honour.

_________________
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

[quote="jomukuk]
The law is already there, they just need to remove the ability to produce at a later date (within 7 days)
Which can be done without a new law.[/quote]

Now I would expect a person of this rank to be aware of time constraints :Quote from article ---
(FOR WHAT --7 ???? ) (my bold)

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Perhaps its way past time that our chief police officers had to be elected by the local electorate, on a fixed 4 year term.

If they do not meet the requirements and expectations of the local population, then they are OUT. The same could be said for the Judiciary. It works for the yanks (not a lot else does though )

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

I posted this based on personal experience of two years living in California while on exchange service with the US military. I am grateful to you for pointing out that this is no longer the case.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Having served in the USMC at Camp Pendleton, in San Diego, CA, in the mid 90's, I will admit I do not remember either San Diego's or California's stipulations, but I remember my Gunnery Sergeant's ...

However, here in New York, it's been as I stated in my previous post.

Don't misunderstand me, I have every right to compel myself to carry my license, and I do so. I am simply convinced that no other person or entity has the right to compel me to do so.

_________________
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

I have some very happy memories of visits there some 20 years or so before your time. I also remember the RN equivalent to your Gunny - the first thing he told us was that he would call us Sir, we would call him Sir. The difference being that we would mean it and he wouldn't.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.