Another Drive/Speed Article in the Daily Wail

[253]

We've seen it all before, but anothefr article about speeding 10mph over the limit and you get no points/fine if you go on a course.

How many times does this have to do the rounds I wonder.

Link below for anyone who needs (cares) to read it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372630/Drivers-exceed-speed-limit-10mph-escape-points-fines-brings-speed-cameras.html

Bob
_________________
Triumph Tbird 1700. And now a Bonnie T100.

[legalspeed]

I agree, this has been doing the rounds for a while now. Possibly the article in the Daily Wail was a rehash of old news, but it seems that all the media are carrying this story today (Sat, 9th April) as if it's going to happen. Even if it's true, I have a problem that perhaps other members might help with. As I see it, we live (supposedly) in a democracy with certain rules. First is that Parliament enacts legislation, ie what is the offence, and the sanction for it if found guilty. If Parliament does its job well, there should only be one interpretation of the legislation, and if there is any ambiguity, then it is down to the courts, not the police, to carry out an interpretation, or recommend that Parliament has another go if it turns out to be unenforceable. As I understand the situation the police are only there to enforce the law in its current interpretation. Nowhere have I seen anything that allows the police, (or possibly ACPO) to change or vary legislation passed by Parliament without reference from Parliament. As I understand it, the penalties for exceedind speed limits include everything from a fine to a ban etc. Nowhere have I seen anything about being able to avoid the legally laid down penalties for an offence by paying the police some money to go on a so called speed management / awareness course. Perhaps someone out there knows better, and that the police can initiate a procedure not sanctioned by Partliament,or could it be that the police themselves are in danger of possible lawbreaking? Regards, Legalspeed.

[M8TJT]

Swapping three points for £40 seems like a good deal to me. Why hasn't someone tested the legality in court? Because they have just avoided the three points

[BigPerk]

I haven't looked up this particular area so far, but although legalspeed seems to describe the main situation ok, it's not the whole story - if it was it would be even more bureaucratic to get changes in the law.

But there is also "secondary legislation", including such things as Statutory Instruments and other Orders, which provide delegated legislation powers to the Government (including individual Departments, such as the Home Office) to make changes to the law using powers conferred by an Act of Parliament.

That is probably where these courses come from, assuming that legalspeed is correct in saying that they are not already provided for in the main Act of Parliament or amendments.
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

[Skippy]

[M8TJT]

Especially as they seem to have widened the speed gap within which you can get the course.

[legalspeed]

As Big Perk says, (and the Daily Wail article mentions proposals only at this point) It could possibly be introduced under secondary legislation, and, as M8TJT says, rightly or wrongly, people will vote with their cheque books to avoid possibly a critical 3 extra points. However, I am still at a loss to understand how a penalty and fine decided under Parliamentary legislation can be completely avoided (the sanction for having committed the offence in the first place) by paying the police some money to attend a so called awareness course. The money from speeding fines goes into government coffers, and if this proceeds, then government will receive nothing, and the police everything. I spoke to a colleague, who some time ago, fell foul of the driving over the limit legislation. (He didn't allow enough time between his last drink at night and his first drive next day.) The result was an automatic ban and a fine. It was however possible for him to shorten the ban time somewhat by paying money and attending the relevant course. The fine still had to be paid, and most of the ban time served whereas (and I know that these are perhaps not the best of comparisons), it seems that in this speeding case proposal, the offender carries nothing but a financial penalty, (the cost of the police course), thus escaping the penalty that Parliament laid down for the offence.(the points). It smacks, if my distant school history lessons are remembered correctly of the middle ages Catholic church practice of selling indulgences for money so that your sins wouldn't appear on your record and so your immortal soul, (or today, your driving licence) would be protected. Regards Legalspeed.

[Darren]

You only get offered a speed awareness course if you fall within the guideline speeds, and the offence did not take place on a motorway (there are more criteria as well).

But, as I mentioned in last week's newsletter, the cost was in the region of £60-70 and it has now been agreed that this will rise to £100 to accompany the widening of the scheme criteria.

So this can only be seen as an alternative way to raise funds. An alternative route to funding cameras now that the Govt aren't subsiding them as much. And the rather murky dealings identified between ACPO and ANDISP (Association of National Driver Improvement Course Providers) raises further concerns. One thing is for certain, the ANDISP members will be making a profit out of this.

As the legal position of these courses, this FoI request on the matter makes interesting reading. In reality, police are granted discretion over whether to instigate proceedings but it's still a confused situation.
_________________
Darren Griffin

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!