It's coming - EU cross-border exchange of information
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
(Full disclosure: I have an unpaid Romanian parking ticket from 2012. When I found the ticket, I looked around and figured the parking signs in short order, even without speaking any Romanian. If I'd paid it in 24hr, it would have been the grand sum of €1. Move over, Robin Hood, the _real_ outlaw is here. I am SOOOO naughty.)
I too am an international criminal. Unpaid parking ticket from Holland in 2006...D'you think its safe to go back yet?
Section 56, 57 et seq. of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 allows mutual recognition of disqualifications imposed in Ireland. Whilst this does not apply to any other EU member state, it would be relatively easy to extend the list to all EU member states.
I can't see harmonisation of penalty points for a very long time, if ever. Other EU countries operate an entirely different system of demerit or penalty points.
In my view the Directive is motivated by money, not road safety. The French are pissed off because on busy weekends (they claim) up to 40% of offenders detected by speed camera can't be fined.
The list of applicable offences is a bit odd. The directive must envisage foreign police officers having immediate roadside access to the DVLA database.
I can't see harmonisation of penalty points for a very long time, if ever. Other EU countries operate an entirely different system of demerit or penalty points.
In my view the Directive is motivated by money, not road safety. The French are pissed off because on busy weekends (they claim) up to 40% of offenders detected by speed camera can't be fined.
The list of applicable offences is a bit odd. The directive must envisage foreign police officers having immediate roadside access to the DVLA database.
User33678888 said:
You can err on the side of caution all you like, but when the camera supposedly says X whilst you know this not to be the case, what then? And you are welcome to not visit any country which has corrupt policemen, but that isn't a solution to the problems raised for people that need to go there.
I suspect that this isn't quite as big an issue as you are making out. I suspect that corrupt police would rather extract cash from you there and then rather than send you a letter... 
agtlaw said:
Section 56, 57 et seq. of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 allows mutual recognition of disqualifications imposed in Ireland. Whilst this does not apply to any other EU member state, it would be relatively easy to extend the list to all EU member states.
I can't see harmonisation of penalty points for a very long time, if ever. Other EU countries operate an entirely different system of demerit or penalty points.
In my view the Directive is motivated by money, not road safety. The French are pissed off because on busy weekends (they claim) up to 40% of offenders detected by speed camera can't be fined.
The list of applicable offences is a bit odd. The directive must envisage foreign police officers having immediate roadside access to the DVLA database.
Of course it is just about the money. If the French actually wanted people to slow down they'd use actual policemen not scameras. If penalties start following offenders home then people will stop playing the "if it didn't flash I wasn't going fast enough" game, and so I'm not sure how much it will raise. It will undoubtedly pour more fuel on the euro-sceptic fire though. This really hasn't been thought through.I can't see harmonisation of penalty points for a very long time, if ever. Other EU countries operate an entirely different system of demerit or penalty points.
In my view the Directive is motivated by money, not road safety. The French are pissed off because on busy weekends (they claim) up to 40% of offenders detected by speed camera can't be fined.
The list of applicable offences is a bit odd. The directive must envisage foreign police officers having immediate roadside access to the DVLA database.
User33678888 said:
You can err on the side of caution all you like, but when the camera supposedly says X whilst you know this not to be the case, what then?
There was a thread on here about 10 years ago that ran to getting on for 300 pages about exactly this point.The trouble for this particular thread is that it was in the UK, not another EU member state
Put yourselves in the situation of Johnny Foreigner, as rs1952 so charmingly refers to him, arriving in UK, in what he thinks is a car derived van, susses out the law and the limits, but falls foul of a camera unit that thinks it isn't a car derived van. Even the Dept for Transport admits there is nothing in legislation to define a car derived van, and that "it's for the courts to decide."
JF thinks he has done everything he can to learn about the rules of the road but is now faced with fighting something in a foreign country, in a foreign language. He may be innocent, it's not unknown for the authorities to get this wrong. Equally the case with dual purpose vehicles.
Now apply a similar difficult situation away in outer wherever. The simple offences may be easy, there are others which are not. I gave an example of one, failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing. One very simple thing turn them from a cyclist into a pedestrian. It's not written down in any easily discovered legislation, but could get you in a whole heap of trouble. Then there is the issue of signs, I don't give a stuff about parking in Romania, it has been my experience that there ca be situations where the foreign text on a sign is everything. Maybe your experience hasn't been this, well so be it. Doesn't mean this situation doesn't exist, it does, maybe people haven't been looking properly.
The shallowness of the thinking of some on this thread takes my breath away. Clearly some of you drive about only knowing the most rudimentary stuff about where you are driving and trust to luck.
As for whoever asked if I wanted them to be deported, why don't you stop acting the fool.
Slippery slope fallacy, possibly. But as observed by the AA, simple monetary fines don't change behaviour. What's the next stage? As we have seen with mobile phone offences, behaviour not changed, rack up the penalties. This will, imo, be no different. Unless of course it is just about the money.
As for rs1952. no I don't believe that you did read my earlier post properly. Otherwise why your final para of:-
JF thinks he has done everything he can to learn about the rules of the road but is now faced with fighting something in a foreign country, in a foreign language. He may be innocent, it's not unknown for the authorities to get this wrong. Equally the case with dual purpose vehicles.
Now apply a similar difficult situation away in outer wherever. The simple offences may be easy, there are others which are not. I gave an example of one, failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing. One very simple thing turn them from a cyclist into a pedestrian. It's not written down in any easily discovered legislation, but could get you in a whole heap of trouble. Then there is the issue of signs, I don't give a stuff about parking in Romania, it has been my experience that there ca be situations where the foreign text on a sign is everything. Maybe your experience hasn't been this, well so be it. Doesn't mean this situation doesn't exist, it does, maybe people haven't been looking properly.
The shallowness of the thinking of some on this thread takes my breath away. Clearly some of you drive about only knowing the most rudimentary stuff about where you are driving and trust to luck.
As for whoever asked if I wanted them to be deported, why don't you stop acting the fool.
Slippery slope fallacy, possibly. But as observed by the AA, simple monetary fines don't change behaviour. What's the next stage? As we have seen with mobile phone offences, behaviour not changed, rack up the penalties. This will, imo, be no different. Unless of course it is just about the money.
As for rs1952. no I don't believe that you did read my earlier post properly. Otherwise why your final para of:-
rs1952 said:
Or do you perhaps think that other people’s laws shouldn’t apply to Brits when they are in other people’s countries? If so, do you think it is OK for Johnny Foreigner to come over here, break our laws, and be allowed to get away with it? Somehow I doubt it.
which doesn't fit in any way with almost the first thing written on the thread was that this would:-FiF said:
stop foreigners over in UK and UK drivers overseas completely taking the mick. That's not a bad thing.
As for what to do, a few more coppers on the roads wouldn't go amiss over here for starters.FiF said:
Put yourselves in the situation of Johnny Foreigner, as rs1952 so charmingly refers to him, arriving in UK, in what he thinks is a car derived van, susses out the law and the limits, but falls foul of a camera unit that thinks it isn't a car derived van. Even the Dept for Transport admits there is nothing in legislation to define a car derived van, and that "it's for the courts to decide."
You got to Foreignland in a van. You decide to investigate the speed limits, and find that your van might be either side of a breakpoint. What do you do? Do you assume everything's going to be just fine? Or do you play safe? ESPECIALLY if there were to be no points at play.B'sides, you might like to remember three other details...
1. Yes, it's a level playing field. You're British and get nicked for driving a British-registered might-be-might-not-be-CDV in that speed grey zone. Are YOU going to take it to court?
2. There really aren't that many <2000kg GVW vans about.
3. Type-approval has been standardised across Europe for many years now, and when an actual definition (other than "looks like the car it's based on" - which, yes, is grey with van-derived-cars about) comes, it'll apply across all EU countries.
FiF said:
One very simple thing turn them from a cyclist into a pedestrian.
I've always found it very easy to spot if somebody's riding a bike or walking.FiF said:
As for what to do, a few more coppers on the roads wouldn't go amiss over here for starters.
I like you. You're funny.2manyCvs another one who doesn't read posts properly. On your way numpty.
Trashbat. The basic problem why there is this belief that foreigners get away with it whilst residents don't is the imbalance between and increasing reliance on automatic electronic enforcement as opposed to the organic version.
Trashbat. The basic problem why there is this belief that foreigners get away with it whilst residents don't is the imbalance between and increasing reliance on automatic electronic enforcement as opposed to the organic version.
FiF said:
2manyCvs another one who doesn't read posts properly. On your way numpty.
Trashbat. The basic problem why there is this belief that foreigners get away with it whilst residents don't is the imbalance between and increasing reliance on automatic electronic enforcement as opposed to the organic version.
They're two completely separate issues, and it's tenuous at best to try and use cross-border enforcement in opposition to automated enforcement.Trashbat. The basic problem why there is this belief that foreigners get away with it whilst residents don't is the imbalance between and increasing reliance on automatic electronic enforcement as opposed to the organic version.
I'm sure everyone, including the rest of the EU, would rather see more human policing - although I'm less sure that you're so keen to pay the premium for it.
However that choice of policing model shouldn't have very much to do with the political problem of non-residents being treated differently - either let off or marched to a cashpoint - to residents. If you truly detest the EU then maybe you would rather have more disparity, not less, but I think most people appreciate this level of personal commonality.
is it a made up problem? Not sure what you mean by that really.
I'll keep it as simple as possible. My assertion, from real life experience, is that there are too many wrinkles, conventions and local interpretations across the EU, that for cross border enforcement to take place, then the only just way this can be done is if traffic law is integrated across the region.
2CVs scoffed at telling the difference between cyclists and pedestrians. Real life example.
Imagine an urban road 50 and 30 kph limits applicable. Either side a wide pavement which is shared pedestrian ^ cycle space. At various points the road surface is block paving. These are used as pedestrian crossing points, not marked or signed as such, but that is what their use is. Pedestrians have absolute priority. Not like the zebra only if the foot is on the crossing, but absolute, they can step straight out and do.
So person walking along pavement - pedestrian clearly. Has priorityy to cross.
Person sat on cycle pedalling along - cyclist clearly. Does not have priority to cross.
Person pushing cycle but on foot - pedestrian clearly.
Person sat on cycle but stationary foot on ground - at that point they are legally a pedestrian, and it depends on their next action whether they turn back into a cyclist or remain a pedestrian. Priority to cross.
Person on cycle one foot on pedals, one foot dabbing on the ground - even the locals can't agree are they a pedestrian or a cyclist. They and I play safe and give them precedence.
It was explained to me when a cyclist rode straight at a crossing, dabbed one foot on the ground and rode straight out that possibly they would have claimed priority, but were taking the mick.
Potentially serious consequences if you get it wrong, impossible to find out as a visitor.
LetPeople generally drive about not understanding the rules of the road in which they live. Evidence umpty thousands of threads on such as PH.
I'll keep it as simple as possible. My assertion, from real life experience, is that there are too many wrinkles, conventions and local interpretations across the EU, that for cross border enforcement to take place, then the only just way this can be done is if traffic law is integrated across the region.
2CVs scoffed at telling the difference between cyclists and pedestrians. Real life example.
Imagine an urban road 50 and 30 kph limits applicable. Either side a wide pavement which is shared pedestrian ^ cycle space. At various points the road surface is block paving. These are used as pedestrian crossing points, not marked or signed as such, but that is what their use is. Pedestrians have absolute priority. Not like the zebra only if the foot is on the crossing, but absolute, they can step straight out and do.
So person walking along pavement - pedestrian clearly. Has priorityy to cross.
Person sat on cycle pedalling along - cyclist clearly. Does not have priority to cross.
Person pushing cycle but on foot - pedestrian clearly.
Person sat on cycle but stationary foot on ground - at that point they are legally a pedestrian, and it depends on their next action whether they turn back into a cyclist or remain a pedestrian. Priority to cross.
Person on cycle one foot on pedals, one foot dabbing on the ground - even the locals can't agree are they a pedestrian or a cyclist. They and I play safe and give them precedence.
It was explained to me when a cyclist rode straight at a crossing, dabbed one foot on the ground and rode straight out that possibly they would have claimed priority, but were taking the mick.
Potentially serious consequences if you get it wrong, impossible to find out as a visitor.
LetPeople generally drive about not understanding the rules of the road in which they live. Evidence umpty thousands of threads on such as PH.
FiF said:
is it a made up problem? Not sure what you mean by that really.
I'll keep it as simple as possible. My assertion, from real life experience, is that there are too many wrinkles, conventions and local interpretations across the EU, that for cross border enforcement to take place, then the only just way this can be done is if traffic law is integrated across the region.
2CVs scoffed at telling the difference between cyclists and pedestrians. Real life example.
Imagine an urban road 50 and 30 kph limits applicable. Either side a wide pavement which is shared pedestrian ^ cycle space. At various points the road surface is block paving. These are used as pedestrian crossing points, not marked or signed as such, but that is what their use is. Pedestrians have absolute priority. Not like the zebra only if the foot is on the crossing, but absolute, they can step straight out and do.
So person walking along pavement - pedestrian clearly. Has priorityy to cross.
Person sat on cycle pedalling along - cyclist clearly. Does not have priority to cross.
Person pushing cycle but on foot - pedestrian clearly.
Person sat on cycle but stationary foot on ground - at that point they are legally a pedestrian, and it depends on their next action whether they turn back into a cyclist or remain a pedestrian. Priority to cross.
Person on cycle one foot on pedals, one foot dabbing on the ground - even the locals can't agree are they a pedestrian or a cyclist. They and I play safe and give them precedence.
It was explained to me when a cyclist rode straight at a crossing, dabbed one foot on the ground and rode straight out that possibly they would have claimed priority, but were taking the mick.
Potentially serious consequences if you get it wrong, impossible to find out as a visitor.
LetPeople generally drive about not understanding the rules of the road in which they live. Evidence umpty thousands of threads on such as PH.
What you're talking about is the consequences of not knowing the rules of the road in a foreign country. I'd suggest that if this was the case then a fine through the post is the least of your problems. In fact I'd suggest that if you don't feel confident that you know the local rules then you shouldn't be getting behind the wheel of a car at all. Your concern shouldn't be that this change now allows you to be persued after you've gone home, it should be that a lack of knowledge puts you at potentially a much higher risk of injuring yourself or others.I'll keep it as simple as possible. My assertion, from real life experience, is that there are too many wrinkles, conventions and local interpretations across the EU, that for cross border enforcement to take place, then the only just way this can be done is if traffic law is integrated across the region.
2CVs scoffed at telling the difference between cyclists and pedestrians. Real life example.
Imagine an urban road 50 and 30 kph limits applicable. Either side a wide pavement which is shared pedestrian ^ cycle space. At various points the road surface is block paving. These are used as pedestrian crossing points, not marked or signed as such, but that is what their use is. Pedestrians have absolute priority. Not like the zebra only if the foot is on the crossing, but absolute, they can step straight out and do.
So person walking along pavement - pedestrian clearly. Has priorityy to cross.
Person sat on cycle pedalling along - cyclist clearly. Does not have priority to cross.
Person pushing cycle but on foot - pedestrian clearly.
Person sat on cycle but stationary foot on ground - at that point they are legally a pedestrian, and it depends on their next action whether they turn back into a cyclist or remain a pedestrian. Priority to cross.
Person on cycle one foot on pedals, one foot dabbing on the ground - even the locals can't agree are they a pedestrian or a cyclist. They and I play safe and give them precedence.
It was explained to me when a cyclist rode straight at a crossing, dabbed one foot on the ground and rode straight out that possibly they would have claimed priority, but were taking the mick.
Potentially serious consequences if you get it wrong, impossible to find out as a visitor.
LetPeople generally drive about not understanding the rules of the road in which they live. Evidence umpty thousands of threads on such as PH.
In reality how much of a problem is this? Do tourists regularly get caught out because they are unsure of the local laws? Are foreign drivers frequently causing mayhem?
Quite how all this relates to the French police (or any other European force for that matter) being able to get your details in order to enforce a speeding ticket i'm not sure.
It seems very much like a case of you conducting a 'thought experiment' where you hypothesize a situation based on anecdote and personal experience and then try to use it as evidence as to why something is bad. However this is just a hypothesis and as such not evidence. You haven't demonstrated that there actually is a problem.
You haven't demonstrated that there won't be a problem. Seeing as the system isn't in place it's difficult to demonstrate that there is a problem because it's not occurred yet.
You can take my word on these wrinkles around the place or not. You think you're right, I know that I am right, so we're never going to agree. I also believe that ultimately, given proven history, the EU will want to harmonise legislation. Until then my position is that information should be made easily available in the official languages so that travellers can educate themselves. Or are you against that too?
Have given a few examples where it's not easy to find out the details in advance. How many more are there out there? Frankly I don't know and neither do you, no doubt next thing you'll be asking for evidential proof of what I don't know.
Rest my case. Out.
You can take my word on these wrinkles around the place or not. You think you're right, I know that I am right, so we're never going to agree. I also believe that ultimately, given proven history, the EU will want to harmonise legislation. Until then my position is that information should be made easily available in the official languages so that travellers can educate themselves. Or are you against that too?
Have given a few examples where it's not easy to find out the details in advance. How many more are there out there? Frankly I don't know and neither do you, no doubt next thing you'll be asking for evidential proof of what I don't know.
Rest my case. Out.
FiF said:
You haven't demonstrated that there won't be a problem. Seeing as the system isn't in place it's difficult to demonstrate that there is a problem because it's not occurred yet.
You can take my word on these wrinkles around the place or not. You think you're right, I know that I am right, so we're never going to agree. I also believe that ultimately, given proven history, the EU will want to harmonise legislation. Until then my position is that information should be made easily available in the official languages so that travellers can educate themselves. Or are you against that too?
Have given a few examples where it's not easy to find out the details in advance. How many more are there out there? Frankly I don't know and neither do you, no doubt next thing you'll be asking for evidential proof of what I don't know.
Rest my case. Out.
But you haven't made a case, at least not against the subject of the OP. You've made a case not to drive in a foreign country because you can't possibly know all the rules and so may be a danger to yourself or others. You can take my word on these wrinkles around the place or not. You think you're right, I know that I am right, so we're never going to agree. I also believe that ultimately, given proven history, the EU will want to harmonise legislation. Until then my position is that information should be made easily available in the official languages so that travellers can educate themselves. Or are you against that too?
Have given a few examples where it's not easy to find out the details in advance. How many more are there out there? Frankly I don't know and neither do you, no doubt next thing you'll be asking for evidential proof of what I don't know.
Rest my case. Out.
I don't think i'm right, I accept that I don't know, but given a lack of evidence to support your assertion that this is curretly a problem I am skeptical. Unless you actually have some data to back up your opinion then you may think you know but in reality you don't.
This has all the halmarks of someone who is catastrophizing about what might happen without any evidence to say whether it will or not.
What the hell are you on about. I have not made a case to avoid driving in a foreign country.
Shortish words simply put.
This should be a help to stop people taking the mick in foreign countries because they think they can get away with it. That's generally a good thing.
However the rules across the various nations differ. Some by not so much, some more so.
It's beholden upon people to find out what the rules are before they travel. It should be made easier to find out rules than is currently the case.
This is especially the case if there is an increased chance of cross border enforcement simply because of the complications and difficulty of raising a defence due to language and other difficulties.
Shortish words simply put.
This should be a help to stop people taking the mick in foreign countries because they think they can get away with it. That's generally a good thing.
However the rules across the various nations differ. Some by not so much, some more so.
It's beholden upon people to find out what the rules are before they travel. It should be made easier to find out rules than is currently the case.
This is especially the case if there is an increased chance of cross border enforcement simply because of the complications and difficulty of raising a defence due to language and other difficulties.
People were arguing that it was easy to understand the rules, a speed limit sign is the same, and just looking at very simple cases. Not understanding that there are complicated issues and differences that are not at all obvious. It was simply illustration of just one RL situation. Maybe it won't affect many, but simply an illustration that it's not that straightforward. We can see rules here that aren't obvious to figure out. Indeed we get threads on here that are obvious to figure out, but makes one wonder at what level people operate on our roads.
Also btw you were arguing repeatedly that people questioning it simply wanted to drive like idiots overseas but object to others dong it here. Not the case.
I felt that people didn't understand the points being made due to thinking at a shallow level. They're still free to disagree of course.
Also btw you were arguing repeatedly that people questioning it simply wanted to drive like idiots overseas but object to others dong it here. Not the case.
I felt that people didn't understand the points being made due to thinking at a shallow level. They're still free to disagree of course.
Devil2575 said:
So what was all that waffle about pedestrians bicycles and not understanding the priority then?
It was a total red herring.Apparently, it's OK to run people on bikes over if you aren't sure if they're pedalling or not, because they probably shouldn't be there. But only if they're foreign. I think.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff