Drivers' Union

We were totally opposed  to this proposal and submitted a full response to the DfT and urged other drivers to follw suit.

 

We know that the consultation was ideologically based and on the wishes of favourite charities who are not experts in road safety or driving yet who the DfT seem to think are qualified in these matters.

 

Uk's drivers are the safest in the world, and yet although the economy depends on them and people would die in their many thousands without drivers, they continue to be penalised like enemies of the State. After 300 billion driver miles a year there are more deaths from accidents in the home than from any cause on the road so  money, ideology and police lazyness can be the only real reasons for these ideas.

 

Fixed penalty was originally for parking offences only. With 'speeding' this was wrongly extended to NIP offences (Notice of intended prosecution) where this could lead to loss of employment and such like. Justice should always be available via our courts without coercion. But that is not happening. 'Speeders' are already being coerced to accept guilt by the prospect of much greater fines if they don't and even worse to sign up for costly courses run by private Ltd Companies for profit too. What expertise do these companies or their tutors have to run these courses? None! Now this coercion is to be extended to the very serious matter of careless driving? Although 'speeding' is based on arbitrary numbers and cannot cause accidents, at least it isn't subjective. Who decides careless driving? A policeman? If the driving was not considered bad enough to proceed by summons, then why is it suddenly bad enough to proceed at all? Then comes the coercion aspect. Plead guilt or pay a bigger penalty! Or take AA Ltds expensive course to listen to amateurs about driving.

 

All of this is very wrong. We urged drivers not just to say so in the consultation but to write to their MPs and tell them there are 38 million unhappy people out there.

 

 

Our submission to The Consultation:

 

1. Do you agree with the proposed approach to make careless driving a fixed penalty offence and open to the offer of remedial training? If not, please explain your reasons why. 

 

Disagree 

Comments:As an ex traffic police officer, you cannot allow careles driving be reduced to a mere ticket offence. It allows too much interpretation for police and needs to remain a court case offence. This is a very dangerous step.There is far more death from accidents in the home than from any cause on the road. Uk's drivers are already doing very well so why create further penalties for them? 

 

2. Do you agree that the FPN offence should carry three penalty points and a fine of £90? If not, please explain your reasons why. 

 

Disagree 

Comments:There should be no FP offence that can carry points without a court hearing as explained at 1) 

 

 

3. Do you agree with the criteria for the guidance on issuing a FPN or remedial training? If not, please explain your reasons why. 

 

Disagree 

Comments:Because the original alleged offence is subjective, and there should be no coercion to accept guilt in any offence including speeding. Having then coerced drivers they are handed, for profit, to Ltd companies with no expertise to courses. This is far too costly and comes from the economy, and is for private gain. There should be no such profit in these matters. 

 

4. Do you agree we should increase the penalty levels for most endorsable plus seat belt wearing fixed penalty offences to £90? If not, please explain your reasons why. 

 

Disagree 

Comments:Our accident history doesn't justify ever increasing penalties to drivers. We all depend on them. They are over-penalised already. Most of this ideologically based against drivers on whom our economy depends. This is a vote loser. 

 

5. Do you agree we should increase the levels for non-endorsable fixed penalties to £45 (excluding parking offences)? If not, please explain your reasons why. 

 

Disagree 

Comments:See answer 4 

 

6. Do you agree that we should increase the fixed penalty level for driving without insurance to £300? If not, please explain your reasons why. 

 

Disagree 

Comments:Because £300 is not enough. 2nd Offence they should be banned for life. 

 

 

7. Do you have any views on whether to increase the fixed penalty levels for the offence of keeping a vehicle without insurance? If so, or if not, please explain your reasons why. 

 

Comments:No. In fact I do not agree that merely keeping a vehicle on private land should require such insurance. Prior to this it was only drivers that were required to be insured. The act was only changed for admin reasons that the PNC could not identify an insured driver so the law was changed to fit the technology. This was wrong. 

 

8. Do you think graduated fixed penalties should be increased to the levels being proposed for the other motoring FPNs in 

the consultation document? If not, or if so, please explain your reasons why. 

 

Comments:No See answer 4 

 

9. Comments are invited on impact assessments for the proposals in this consultation, in particular, on the analysis costs and benefits, giving supporting evidence wherever possible. Also, please suggest any alternative methods for reaching the objective and highlight any possible unintended consequences of the policy, and practical enforcement or implementation issues. 

 

Comments:The road safety industry is already costing the country billions from profit without stopping one single accident. These proposals are the same. The DfT should focus more on accident causes when in many cases its policies create them. This will take billions more from the economy, not least the benefits bills when people lose their jobs.

 

Despite the expert advice, the Conservative led Coalition has introduced, for the first time in the history of fixed penalty, subjectivity. Before that, all transgressions of fixed penalty were absolute. Now the door has been opened for the lazy police to decide and  proceed with careless driving on a totally subjective and casual basis with the spin-off of yet more lucrative courses. This is a charlaton's charter for more mysery and exploitation of UK's drivers.