Car confiscated for Speeding
Discussion
Deserved or dangerous precedent? should Police have this power?
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156403&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156151&home=yes&contentPK=12998235&localNewsNodeId=156133
ABUSE IT - YOU LOSE IT
10:30 - 12 August 2005
Drivers who break the law on Lincolnshire's roads could have their cars seized by police.
People who speed, tailgate or race their vehicles may have to fork out £105 to get them back.
The warning comes after officers impounded the car of a driver caught doing 50mph in a 30mph speed limit.
Officers caught him speeding before. But this time, using powers under Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, they were able to confiscate his Citroen Saxo.
The car is believed to be the first one to be seized in the county since the powers came into effect in 2003.
The owner now faces paying a release fee of £105 plus a £12 a day storage fee.
He could also face charges of driving without due care and attention and speeding.
Between April 2003 and March 2004, around 61,000 drivers were flashed by the county's 19 speed cameras, which rotate around 56 roadside boxes.
Of these, 31,621 people paid a fine or ended up in court.
PC James Bateman, of Lincolnshire Police, said the seizure of the car in Grantham sends a clear message that speeding and other such anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated.
"The vehicle was seen driving in a dangerous manner by exceeding the speed limit," said PC Bateman.
"When the vehicle was stopped and the driver questioned he stated that he was not paying attention to the speedometer or how fast he was going.
"As the vehicle had already been issued with a Section 59 warning, the driver was informed that his vehicle was to be seized."
Drivers or owners have 21 days in which to claim their vehicles before they are crushed.
Under the legislation vehicle owners or drivers are first issued with warning notices.
If they are involved in further anti-social behaviour within a year the police have the power to seize their vehicle.
The same applies if they are found acting in a similar way in a different vehicle.
So far this year 33 people have died on Lincolnshire's roads. Last year the total figure was 77.
Residents of Ellesmere Avenue, in Lincoln, claim boy racers regularly use their stretch of road as a racetrack.
The road is at the point where Monks Road joins Allenby Road.
In recent months there have been several accidents late at night.
Residents said today they believe the threat of having vehicles seized could prove to be a strong deterrent.
Care worker Angela Keningale (60) said she didn't think it would be long before someone was killed near her home.
"Fortunately, to my knowledge, there has not been a fatality but I think it is only a matter of time," she said.
"Threatening to seize these cars might be a deterrent. I don't know how else you're going to stop them."
Housewife Paula Hennell (33), who also lives in Ellesmere Avenue, said that she hopes speeding motorists will take notice of the powers available to the police.
"I don't think half of them know that the speed limit is 30mph," she said.
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156403&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156151&home=yes&contentPK=12998235&localNewsNodeId=156133
ABUSE IT - YOU LOSE IT
10:30 - 12 August 2005
Drivers who break the law on Lincolnshire's roads could have their cars seized by police.
People who speed, tailgate or race their vehicles may have to fork out £105 to get them back.
The warning comes after officers impounded the car of a driver caught doing 50mph in a 30mph speed limit.
Officers caught him speeding before. But this time, using powers under Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, they were able to confiscate his Citroen Saxo.
The car is believed to be the first one to be seized in the county since the powers came into effect in 2003.
The owner now faces paying a release fee of £105 plus a £12 a day storage fee.
He could also face charges of driving without due care and attention and speeding.
Between April 2003 and March 2004, around 61,000 drivers were flashed by the county's 19 speed cameras, which rotate around 56 roadside boxes.
Of these, 31,621 people paid a fine or ended up in court.
PC James Bateman, of Lincolnshire Police, said the seizure of the car in Grantham sends a clear message that speeding and other such anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated.
"The vehicle was seen driving in a dangerous manner by exceeding the speed limit," said PC Bateman.
"When the vehicle was stopped and the driver questioned he stated that he was not paying attention to the speedometer or how fast he was going.
"As the vehicle had already been issued with a Section 59 warning, the driver was informed that his vehicle was to be seized."
Drivers or owners have 21 days in which to claim their vehicles before they are crushed.
Under the legislation vehicle owners or drivers are first issued with warning notices.
If they are involved in further anti-social behaviour within a year the police have the power to seize their vehicle.
The same applies if they are found acting in a similar way in a different vehicle.
So far this year 33 people have died on Lincolnshire's roads. Last year the total figure was 77.
Residents of Ellesmere Avenue, in Lincoln, claim boy racers regularly use their stretch of road as a racetrack.
The road is at the point where Monks Road joins Allenby Road.
In recent months there have been several accidents late at night.
Residents said today they believe the threat of having vehicles seized could prove to be a strong deterrent.
Care worker Angela Keningale (60) said she didn't think it would be long before someone was killed near her home.
"Fortunately, to my knowledge, there has not been a fatality but I think it is only a matter of time," she said.
"Threatening to seize these cars might be a deterrent. I don't know how else you're going to stop them."
Housewife Paula Hennell (33), who also lives in Ellesmere Avenue, said that she hopes speeding motorists will take notice of the powers available to the police.
"I don't think half of them know that the speed limit is 30mph," she said.
Well deserved. The d*ckH**ds that think they can drive, but wouldn't be able to control a dinky toy, should have their transport taken off.
I ain't talking 'bout plain speeding (which is bad enough), I'm talking about tailgating, undertaking, lane hopping, etc., etc.,etc.
The sooner we start to criticise these wasters, and point out to them how badly they drive, the better. I'll start it off..."going around a corner fast, but over the line, isn't good driving, it's lack of control. So learn to control your car, or leave it to the rest of us who can".
I ain't talking 'bout plain speeding (which is bad enough), I'm talking about tailgating, undertaking, lane hopping, etc., etc.,etc.
The sooner we start to criticise these wasters, and point out to them how badly they drive, the better. I'll start it off..."going around a corner fast, but over the line, isn't good driving, it's lack of control. So learn to control your car, or leave it to the rest of us who can".
Big Fat F'er said:
Well deserved.
Maybe but who gets to decide? one mans minor speeding is anothers Dangerous Driving.
We all know that there are 'good' and 'bad' cops and even a 'good' cop can have a bad day.
If the Police are to act as Police, Judge, Jury and executioner, do you not find this, at least, a little worrying?
PC said:
"When the vehicle was stopped and the driver questioned he stated that he was not paying attention to the speedometer or how fast he was going.
"As the vehicle had already been issued with a Section 59 warning, the driver was informed that his vehicle was to be seized."
Whilst there may be some debate about the real authority and legality of some actions of this nature I think in this example the action may be reasonable.
In a residential area, not paying attention to his speed and had been warned (section 59) before - so presumably there could have been many other events of a similar nature.
The report suggests that this is a case of some people never learning?
That said it would be very easy for such powers to be abused, so they need to be monitored.
Yet again the law is an ass. There is no reason to confiscate property, unless you're a bunch of closet communist legislators who still believe at heart that property is theft. Why not 'confiscate' the prat at the wheel and save us from even wider exposure to cretinism, but leave their property alone. Separating the car and the person can be done two ways, the pinko-green legalised theft way, and the right way.
turbobloke said:
Yet again the law is an ass. There is no reason to confiscate property, unless you're a bunch of closet communist legislators who still believe at heart that property is theft. Why not 'confiscate' the prat at the wheel and save us from even wider exposure to cretinism, but leave their property alone. Separating the car and the person can be done two ways, the pinko-green legalised theft way, and the right way.
There is a good reason to confiscate porperty. It is called 'stopping these cretins from killing someone'. An earlier thread asked who will decide. Tell you what, I will. By the way, I don't need any explanation of the "innocent until proven guilty" hypothesis. If I look in my mirror and can't see his headlights, but I can see the reflection in his stupid thick d*ckh*ad eyes, then he's too close. If he's driving down the 30mph stretch at 50mph, overtaking on blind corners, etc,.etc.,etc, then he (or she) is a waste of space and a blight on society. If he's done it a few times, why not take his car away. Least my family and I will be safe until he gets to court.
The sooner we stand up and be counted, and condemn these idiots, the better. It is nothing to do with commie pinko fascist nationalist leftist rightist rubbish. It's a lot to do with doing whats right. Yes, we can decide whats right if we want. We don't need others to tell us. We don't have to be soft either. Being hard doesn't make you a communist, or a fascist, or anything else, it just makes you hard. You need to be more scared of these idiotic wasters than the police (and I aint no police lover before you start).
See, you've got me going now............
Big Fat F'er said:Legalised theft of property gets me going too. As a PHer you may be a sane judge to claim decision making rights but some of the plonkers in charge are clueless. Anyway you don't need to confiscate someone's car to stop them from killing someone, if what they did in their car was a sufficient risk that someone could have been killed, the car could be well and truly immobilised at their residence for a specified period of time. This is no worse a risk than confiscating someone's car as they could then buy, or borrow, or drive another car at any time. If this doesn't work and such a truly dangerous offence is repeated then lock the driver up. If travelling at 100mph+ can get you in jail then being one step away from manslaughter is fair game for stripey daylight.
There is a good reason to confiscate porperty. It is called 'stopping these cretins from killing someone'.
Or if as seems likely these confiscations are an attempt to force lentilist ideological lifestyle choices on people - like don't own a car, cars are evil, don't make a noise, don't move anywhere at more than walking pace, go by public transport, fart in a jar, trot around with a recycled orchid up your arse etc then the authorities should back off.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Friday 12th August 15:43
catso said:
Between April 2003 and March 2004, around 61,000 drivers were flashed by the county's 19 speed cameras, which rotate around 56 roadside boxes.
Of these, 31,621 people paid a fine or ended up in court.
I wonder what happened to the other 30,000.
PACE statements? Wrongly accused? Untraceable? CPS mistakes?
Yet another example of this Countries steady decline.
Middle class, middle aged company executive in his S type Jaguar, who may exceed the speed limit risks losing (however unlikely) his £25,000 car, whilst the unemployed, work shy scrote in his £100 MOT failure wont give a flyer, as it will cost more to pay the storage & recovery than the cars worth.
For a Society that deems everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, the constant assessment of peoples wealth etc, when for example setting fines for speeding/drink driving is getting (is ?) beyond a joke. Just because I may wish to study hard, get a good job, buy an expensive car & house, doesnt mean that I should be subject to a greater financial penalty than the aforesaid soap dodger, when we both commit exactly the same crime.
However, it is all too typical of New Labours Old hatred of anyone who dares to try & better themselves.
Middle class, middle aged company executive in his S type Jaguar, who may exceed the speed limit risks losing (however unlikely) his £25,000 car, whilst the unemployed, work shy scrote in his £100 MOT failure wont give a flyer, as it will cost more to pay the storage & recovery than the cars worth.
For a Society that deems everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, the constant assessment of peoples wealth etc, when for example setting fines for speeding/drink driving is getting (is ?) beyond a joke. Just because I may wish to study hard, get a good job, buy an expensive car & house, doesnt mean that I should be subject to a greater financial penalty than the aforesaid soap dodger, when we both commit exactly the same crime.
However, it is all too typical of New Labours Old hatred of anyone who dares to try & better themselves.
Big Fat F'er said:
...going around a corner fast, but over the line, isn't good driving, it's lack of control.
That is not evidence of lack of control. Being over the line is quite acceptable so long as you are not at risk of:
a) Coming into conflict with another road user, or
b) Causing concern to another person who might witness it but not understand what is going on.
I quite often 'borrow a bit' of the other side of the road and it presents no problem to anybody.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I honestly don't see what good this does apart from raising cash for the storage firm!
If he is quick he is back on the road the next day anyway, just a few quid less in his pocket. It is just seems like another way of issuing a fine.
I also bet many of the people driving like this will be driving cars they picked up for virtually nothing so will never collect anyway so pay sod all and cost the police. They just go out and buy another banger for £50.
What worries me more is that there can be an on the spot decision to take the car, although from the description there had been a warning issued so that seems to be less of an issue. Still not sure what this achieves apart from some column inches...
Rob
If he is quick he is back on the road the next day anyway, just a few quid less in his pocket. It is just seems like another way of issuing a fine.
I also bet many of the people driving like this will be driving cars they picked up for virtually nothing so will never collect anyway so pay sod all and cost the police. They just go out and buy another banger for £50.
What worries me more is that there can be an on the spot decision to take the car, although from the description there had been a warning issued so that seems to be less of an issue. Still not sure what this achieves apart from some column inches...
Rob
Errm, iirc this act is about inconsiderate yobs, the sort who do donuts outside your house for hours at a time, have a stereo that could drown out Heathrow airport and so forth. Generally - people who are winding the general public up with loutish behaviour.
As far as I can tell this was a chav who had wound up the Police on a number of occasions and had already recieved the warning not to misbehave ever again for the length of his life. Ever ever ever.
Unfortunately for him he went a bit far and the next time he dropped his trousers he got rogered by the Police.
So whilst its very bad that he had his car confiscated - he also had it coming.
As far as I can tell this was a chav who had wound up the Police on a number of occasions and had already recieved the warning not to misbehave ever again for the length of his life. Ever ever ever.
Unfortunately for him he went a bit far and the next time he dropped his trousers he got rogered by the Police.
So whilst its very bad that he had his car confiscated - he also had it coming.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff