|
Zeeky
1,717 posts
81 months
|
Derek Smith said: ...Speeding is a nothing job. Its a regulation.... Which is why enforcement of limits by police officers is not ideal. Police officers, who are used to applying discretion to true crimes which are quite complicated naturally try to do the same with an offence that simply doesn't offer scope for discretion. Personally I would remove speeding from the criminal law altogether as it is an administrative rule and is best applied as one.
|
|
|
Zeeky
1,717 posts
81 months
|
cmoose said: Zeeky said: If you can suppress your laughter for one moment, I was not referring to the response by the driver.  The purpose of a speed limit is to prevent some of the adverse consequences of speed when combined with inevitable failures in judgement by the driver. This creates insignificant risks at an individual level but at a national level - that is when the risk occurs many millions of times - the risk becomes significant and requires regulation. Sorry, how is it not about the driver? Is someone else controlling the speed of the vehicle? I wasn't referring to the response by the driver. It appears you thought I meant that people don't learn from being stopped and 'told-off' rather than being given a ticket. I don't believe speeding is about education or good driving. Speed limits are merely the parameters within which licence holders are allowed to choose their speed. A bit like having to have insurance or a driving licence or an MOT. cmoose said: Zeeky said: Your argument seems to support the requirement of individual significant risk associated with speeding to justify enforcement. If that is the case it follows that individual significant risk should be part of the offence.
How does enforcing the law by implying phantom criteria that cannot be tested in court be good law? Why not just change the law? The speed limit is just a tool. There's also the offence of dangerous driving, which is rather more complex to prove. In some circumstances it's expedient to use the speed limit to secure a prosecution. In other instances, police officers observe speeding, judge it safe and do pursue prosecution. While this may sometimes be a resource issue, a lot of the time it isn't. I would present these as plain facts. Whether you like it or not, some police officers who are doing nothing but road policing and have the time and resource to prosecute speeding, choose not to, even when the breach of the limit is large. This appears to be less common, but it still happens. And in my view that is likely to be a neglect of duty. As is your claim that the speed limit is just a tool. There is nothing in the legislation or indeed Hansard records of the making of the law which suggests that the offence was created to prosecute cases of bad speeding without the opportunity of the driver defending himself against the allegation in court. The opinion of a police officer as to the appropriateness of the speed is irrelevant. Until of course the law is replaced by one that creates an offence of inappropriate speed. What I find difficult to understand is that you believe that a law which is broken, at least marginally, by the majority of the population if not a large minority is 'bad law' but that the law can be made 'good law' by implying criteria into enforcement decisions and treating the law as a 'tool' to discourage inappropriate speed. Putting aside what makes 'good law' I believe we should keep bad driving and speeding separate contraventions. You may agree with me on this. By doing so dealing with speeding doesn't become a substitute for dealing with bad driving.
|
|
|
skwdenyer
5,160 posts
109 months
|
At the heart of this debate is whether there is a widespread and earnestly-held belief that those to whom we (as society) have entrusted the setting of regulations (and the guidelines for punishing the breaking thereof) have the best interests of the country at heart, taken as a whole.
For the first time in decades, if not centuries, I don't believe that that belief is either widespread or earnestly-held.
That is the essence of the problem - with this, as with so many other parts of the criminal justice system - and is the issue which, I believe, must be addressed sooner rather than later.
Without that belief, even 'good law' will be seen as 'bad law'; without that belief, disregard for the law, even contempt, will become more and more of a problem, in turn prompting harsher and harsher retaliatory measures. I know precious few people who would, for instance, regard PCOJ in this context as morally abhorrent, merely legally risky; that was not true even 15 years ago.
Debates about discretion, limit-setting, appropriateness of speed, and so on are meaningless in this context; people have to believe that what is done 'in our name' is worthy of our attention. I'm not at all sure that that is so now.
|
|
|
cmoose
18,548 posts
98 months
|
Zeeky said: stuff I'm not saying speed limits are bad law, I'm saying the problem is with enforcement. You have all the hallmarks of someone who views the law as something eternal, almost supernatural. The reality is that it's a bunch of stuff cobbled together by men and women. It's the lesser of evils that should be constantly questioned and challenged. It's also something that's very complex and nuanced. In that sense I don't agree, for instance, that if you have a law there is no scope for interpretation or discretion. In fact, there's no scope for enforcing laws without interpretation and discretion. That happens every time the law is enforced. That's just life - it's complicated and messy and subject to human frailties and prejudice. The way you talk, it's as if life happens within the confines of a textbook. TL;DR - we can keep speed limits and just be more reasonable about how we enforce them!
|
|
|
fluffnik
17,279 posts
96 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: Honestly, it ain't rocket surgery. Instead of bleating about "draconian" punishments, just slow down, f.f.s. When you told the tale of the five foxes and the chicken voting on what to have for dinner I thought you must understand the essential quality of liberal democracy, it seems I was wrong. 
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
fluffnik
17,279 posts
96 months
|
Zeeky said: How does enforcing the law by implying phantom criteria that cannot be tested in court be good law? Why not just change the law? Exactly! Abolition is the only sensible change since DWDCA has the real offence covered.
|
|
|
fluffnik
17,279 posts
96 months
|
cmoose said: Sorry, but that's nonsense. When you've been chatting to the Filth at the side of the road for 20 minutes, it's not a lack of time or resources when they wave you on your way. Whether it's intelligent or not you'd have to treat on a case by case basis. But it's got absolutely bugger all to do with resource restraints. If you're not worth busting why waste 20 minutes of your time and my taxes telling you to attend to an arbitrary number on a stick even though real need to? Far better lose the limits and the fraction of trafpol time used enforcing them.
|
|
|
cmoose
18,548 posts
98 months
|
fluffnik said: If you're not worth busting why waste 20 minutes of your time and my taxes telling you to attend to an arbitrary number on a stick even though real need to?
Far better lose the limits and the fraction of trafpol time used enforcing them. Well, you might just be able to argue that part of that assessment (worth busting or not) involves an assessment of the vehicle and driver in question. A quick pull and chat to see if the car's pukka and the driver's a good egg etc I'm not sure what I think about it all, to be honest. A few of the officers I've encountered have reminded me of Ralph Fiennes in Schinlder's List - "I pardon thee". Idiots, but you just let them have their moment, play the respectful MoP role and give them ye olde Bart Simpson "sucker" as you drive off. Others have been entirely reasonable, had a look at the vehicle had a brief discussion to assess character and deportment, reminded me that my licence is at risk and sent me on my way without a pompous lecture. There's no easy answers to all this. But what I am sure of is that the solution isn't penalising people for safe driving over the posted limit while you ignore dangerous driving because it's within the limit. Especially when 95% of accidents involve cars driving within the limit. As Twig said, this ain't "rocket surgery".
|
|
|
aw51 121565
2,691 posts
102 months
|
skwdenyer said: At the heart of this debate is whether there is a widespread and earnestly-held belief that those to whom we (as society) have entrusted the setting of regulations (and the guidelines for punishing the breaking thereof) have the best interests of the country at heart, taken as a whole.
For the first time in decades, if not centuries, I don't believe that that belief is either widespread or earnestly-held.
That is the essence of the problem - with this, as with so many other parts of the criminal justice system - and is the issue which, I believe, must be addressed sooner rather than later.
Without that belief, even 'good law' will be seen as 'bad law'; without that belief, disregard for the law, even contempt, will become more and more of a problem, in turn prompting harsher and harsher retaliatory measures. I know precious few people who would, for instance, regard PCOJ in this context as morally abhorrent, merely legally risky; that was not true even 15 years ago.
Debates about discretion, limit-setting, appropriateness of speed, and so on are meaningless in this context; people have to believe that what is done 'in our name' is worthy of our attention. I'm not at all sure that that is so now. An interesting post - and if you're talking about politicians (no comment) and politics (after all, ACPO is a political organisation nowadays) then I can only tick the 'strongly agree' box. Further to your comment on the 'heart of this debate', some (not you ) on this thread seem unable or unwilling to see and comprehend the basic thrust of the title and first few pages of this thread - that people are nowadays apparently sometimes quite willing to commit PCOJ around speeding offences because it is perceived as a "low risk" action if done sensibly (I said this 30-odd pages ago) whereas, as you say, in the last millenium they wouldn't have dared to try to PCOJ for anything. (But they would also generally have been stopped by a police officer at the roadside and IDed, in the last millenium, thus negating the opportunity to later PCOJ by lying. Now, it is a risk that some choose to take because of the lack of personal interaction and need for the police officer to ID the miscreant - law of unintended consequences, anyone???). You also make an interesting point about increasingly harsh retaliatory measures, of which I guess 6 points for a "Section 172 offence" as opposed to 3 is a fine example . (Rhetorically , where do 'they' go from here???) [cynic]But still, if a government wants to control its people, isn't criminalising its people the first thing it needs to do? [/cynic]
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
4,002 posts
27 months
|
TwigtheWonderkid said: Where did I say I was a saint? I said I'd got 6 points for speeding. But for 18 months I didn't break the speed limit...anywhere. Why is that so difficult to accept. It was actually very easy to do. Living in London helps, most local journeys do not allow you to break the limit if you wanted to. A drive to Manchester was a bit tedious, but it had to be done. Putting my job and family ahead of my desire to go a bit faster. Not exactly martyrdom, is it?
I thought at the very least you must have moved to Damascus.
|
|
|
fluffnik
17,279 posts
96 months
|
cmoose said: fluffnik said: Far better lose the limits and the fraction of trafpol time used enforcing them. Well, you might just be able to argue that part of that assessment (worth busting or not) involves an assessment of the vehicle and driver in question. A quick pull and chat to see if the car's pukka and the driver's a good egg etc If there was no potential DWDCA I think we'd agree there's no good reason to bust... cmoose said: There's no easy answers to all this. Yes there is: Abolish blanket arbitrary speed limits. Job jobbed!
|
|
|
Zeeky
1,717 posts
81 months
|
cmoose said: You have all the hallmarks of someone who views the law as something eternal, almost supernatural. Hopefully I show the hallmarks of someone who both understands and believes that the only authority officers of the crown have is that vested in them by the law. You appear to advocate arbitrary power. You want a law that criminalises all speeding, both good and bad and for police officers to pick and choose who should be penalised for its contravention with reference to criteria that have nothing to do with the law. That is like passing a law criminalising "bad driving" and defining "bad driving" as "driving which, in the subjective opinion of a police officer deserves that label".You want police officers to penalise drivers for using inappropriate speed without them having to offer a shred of evidence that the speed was inappropriate. cmoose said: ...In that sense I don't agree, for instance, that if you have a law there is no scope for interpretation or discretion. In fact, there's no scope for enforcing laws without interpretation and discretion. That happens every time the law is enforced. That's just life - it's complicated and messy and subject to human frailties and prejudice. The way you talk, it's as if life happens within the confines of a textbook. Interpretation of the law is the role of the courts not the police. Powers are separated between the law makers, the courts and the law enforcers. Once parliament has made a law which criminalises speeding then speeding is the criterion for prosecution. Using the law to exercise arbitrary power over drivers and attempting to pass this off as 'discretion' or 'interpretation' is misconceived. Such misconceptions have no place in the practice of law regardless of the theory. cmoose said: ...Well, you might just be able to argue that part of that assessment (worth busting or not) involves an assessment of the vehicle and driver in question. A quick pull and chat to see if the car's pukka and the driver's a good egg etc Do you really advocate that the personal prejudices of police officers should determine who is subject to prosecution? What on earth is a "good egg"? Indeed what is a "bad egg"? cmoose said: There's no easy answers to all this. But what I am sure of is that the solution isn't penalising people for safe driving over the posted limit... Unless the police office who catches the driver doing so doesn't believe he is a good egg?
|
|
|
cmoose
18,548 posts
98 months
|
Zeeky, the "good egg" thing was tongue in cheek. Calm down, dear!
You're wilfully misinterpreting and over extrapolating my argument in order to fit your own prejudices. And you're being highly binary / academic about the subject.
In the real world, the police must exercise discretion on a routine, daily basis with regard to all manner of laws and enforcement of laws. This, simply, is reality.
The realist knows that there are limitations to law enforcement. The realist knows that while a law may broadly be desirable, it may not be desirable to enforce it universally. This might be due to making the best use of limited resources. Or it might be to do with maintaining good relations between the public and the police or respect for the law / its enforcement.
Much as you want it to be black and white, the real world is shades of grey. The choice is not simply between having no speed limits or total, zero-tolerance enforcement. There's a whole spectrum of choices in between.
|
|
|
fluffnik
17,279 posts
96 months
|
Zeeky said: Hopefully I show the hallmarks of someone who both understands and believes that the only authority officers of the crown have is that vested in them by the law. You appear to advocate arbitrary power.
You want a law that criminalises all speeding, both good and bad and for police officers to pick and choose who should be penalised for its contravention with reference to criteria that have nothing to do with the law.
That is like passing a law criminalising "bad driving" and defining "bad driving" as "driving which, in the subjective opinion of a police officer deserves that label".  Arbitrary is BAD.
|
|
|
Zeeky
1,717 posts
81 months
|
cmoose said: In the real world, the police must exercise discretion on a routine, daily basis with regard to all manner of laws and enforcement of laws. This, simply, is reality. It is a reality that is not logically connected to your assertion. What you advocate is a widely drafted offence that encompasses good speeding and bad speeding. You then want police officers to use this wide definition to pick and choose speeding offences to be prosecuted based on criteria that are irrelevant to the offence and which the driver has no opportunity to defend himself again. You can attempt to pass this off as discretion but it is manifestly arbitrary power. It is offensive to the rule of law and is not a practical necessity in law enforcement that justifies it's undesirability. cmoose said: The realist knows that there are limitations to law enforcement. Speed cameras address the lack of resources that limits law enforcement yet you oppose them. cmoose said: The realist knows that while a law may broadly be desirable, it may not be desirable to enforce it universally. I agree. What you advocate isn't non-absolute enforcement but a complete re-writing of the legislation to incorporate criteria in the enforcement process that are irrelevant to the offence. That is the distinction. If the law needs re-writing it should be done at the legislative stage, not the enforcement stage. cmoose said: ...it might be to do with maintaining good relations between the public and the police or respect for the law / its enforcement. I don't respect the use of arbitrary power. I suspect you don't either. What you find attractive about applying this power to speeding is it increases your chances of getting away with offending. That of course is desirable. It is to me. It isn't respect for the law. Speed cameras avoid the need for the police to worry about losing respect from the public. Indeed some of your argument seems to implicitly support the use of automated enforcement yet you are against it. This further raises my suspicion that you dislike of it is not based on principle but that you simply want more chance of speeding with impunity. That in itself is a position I can respect. It is the dressing it up as principle that I take issue with. cmoose said: ...The choice is not simply between having no speed limits or total, zero-tolerance enforcement. There's a whole spectrum of choices in between. Yes to the first sentence. No to the second, This is where your argument is misconceived. There is no broad spectrum. There is some scope for discretion, but little before it becomes neglect or the exercise of arbitrary power. If discretion is being exercised wholesale then abolish the legislation, change the legislation or enforce the law. Those are the only choices available in a society ruled by law and not by people.
|
|
|
cmoose
18,548 posts
98 months
|
Zeeky said: What you find attractive about applying this power to speeding is it increases your chances of getting away with offending
<snip>
This further raises my suspicion that you dislike of it is not based on principle but that you simply want more chance of speeding with impunity. I think this more than anything betrays your tendentious and probably disingenuous position. If this was just me being self serving, I'd be arguing for whole abolition of limits. On a personal level, I'd be happy with that - willing to take on board personally any increased risks posed by the speed of other drivers. But I'm not completely unrealistic about what most normal road users want. I also don't want to see idiots killing each other. So speed restrictions make sense. The question - and what we disagree on - is how you get the job done, how you use them. I'm afraid I do not believe the evidence is on your side on this one. The police exercise extensive discretion regarding many laws, it's part and parcel of good, pragmatic policing. It also reflects the the difficulties in codifying anything and the dangers of interpreting any law too literally and unthinkingly. So your assertion that this amounts to any tangible increase in arbitrary power is rather hysterical. In the end I think this comes down to basic dispositions. My default position is always to question authority and make my own judgements. I'm not an anarchist or anything like that, I just think authority has to be earned and re-earned, again and again. I'm also a pragmatist who realises the law is a fallible man-made construction that in turn is imperfectly interpreted and enforced. I also don't think my viewpoint is the only valid one, but I'm not going to be able to agree with someone who believes in laws as platonic ideals, as ends in their own right. They're just tools for getting a job done and I personally wouldn't get ideologically attached to using them in any specific manner. Some laws you enforce with no or very little exception. Others you're more flexible on. This, frankly, is reality. I also believe the obsession with speed is dumbing down policing and driving standards and in turn having unintended consequences regards road safety. Finally, I think more punitive speed enforcement along with associated 172-related PCoJ practices and prosecutions antagonises the public towards the police and courts and perverts the operation of the courts / undermines the delivery of justice, which is tricky enough as it is. Put it all together and that's why I'm happy to have a return to wider discretion regards speeding exercised by the police.
|
|
