Increased Hit 'n' Runs - Real Story BBC1 tomorrow
Discussion
According to article in todays' "Mail on Sunday" - there has been a staggering 62% rise in hit and runs - and RAC reckon this is due to rise in uninsured, untaxed, disqualified, and defective car drivers. They estimate 1.5 million on driving around with no insurance.
The "Real Story" is supposedly going to investigate the increase and focusing on how this phenomena has grwon with declines of trafpols and replacement by PC Scammer since 1996.
Should be interesting??
The "Real Story" is supposedly going to investigate the increase and focusing on how this phenomena has grwon with declines of trafpols and replacement by PC Scammer since 1996.
Should be interesting??
Link here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/3860183.stm
Real Story: BBC One, Monday 5 July 2004, 1930 BST and live on the Real Story website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/3860183.stm
Real Story: BBC One, Monday 5 July 2004, 1930 BST and live on the Real Story website.
ered about with. Again.WildCat said:
According to article in todays' "Mail on Sunday" - there has been a staggering 62% rise in hit and runs - and RAC reckon this is due to rise in uninsured, untaxed, disqualified, and defective car drivers. They estimate 1.5 million on driving around with no insurance.
The "Real Story" is supposedly going to investigate the increase and focusing on how this phenomena has grwon with declines of trafpols and replacement by PC Scammer since 1996.
Should be interesting??
Re Real Story tonight: notice how two thugs kill someone with a car, leave the scene and because when caught each says the other was driving, neither can be charged with anything.
So how the hell can it be that the same does not apply to Section 172 speeding offences when often no-one has even been endangered, let alone touched by the car?
A clueless judge said that in speeding cases, the public interest overrode the right to silence.
Now some loony who is caught by a speed camera can invoke his right to silence as long as he immediately mounts a kerb and kills somebody.
Then it's " Not me guv, it was 'im. Case closed.
Madness
WildCat said:
Should be interesting??
Caught the tail end of it and I thought it was rubbish. YMMV.
Young girl interviewer deliberately trying to bait a lawyer into saying something controversial.
Mandatory life sentences for hit & run - what a load of nonsense.
The prisons are full already. Never going to happen.
I could go on, but there's no point - sensational TV for the Sun readers amongst us.
6 out of 10 accidents in Manchester area are hit and run!!! Seems that all the sub £250 cars floating around are no tax, no MOT and no insurance.
I reckon it should be illegal to sell a car without 1 years MOT (Oh yes and tighten up on the issue of MOT Certificates). This would take a bunch of crap of the roads - lead to less congestion and stop us honest punters funding the low-life that drive without tax and insurance. That's what Police funding should be going towards, not catching motorists who speed in artifically reduced speed zones.
I reckon it should be illegal to sell a car without 1 years MOT (Oh yes and tighten up on the issue of MOT Certificates). This would take a bunch of crap of the roads - lead to less congestion and stop us honest punters funding the low-life that drive without tax and insurance. That's what Police funding should be going towards, not catching motorists who speed in artifically reduced speed zones.
hut49 said:
6 out of 10 accidents in Manchester area are hit and run!!! Seems that all the sub £250 cars floating around are no tax, no MOT and no insurance.
I reckon it should be illegal to sell a car without 1 years MOT (Oh yes and tighten up on the issue of MOT Certificates). This would take a bunch of crap of the roads - lead to less congestion and stop us honest punters funding the low-life that drive without tax and insurance. That's what Police funding should be going towards, not catching motorists who speed in artifically reduced speed zones.
Hear hear!
Not bad programme over all - and it was a magistrate the interviewer was pestering - not a lawyer! She was questioning him about the £83 fine for an untaxed, uninsured addict driving a defective motor who killed someone whilst the same magistrate fined a "law abiding" taxed and inured motorist almos £450 for colliding with a tree!
Six out of ten accidents in Manchester are due to hit and runs? Not according to our Emma Reynolds of the Manchester pratnership!
"It is speed and nowt but speed at just over a posted limit!" says our Emma on each interview! And what was noticeable - the programme said that the problem of hit and runs (usually uninsured drivers who are more likely to have accident than us law abiding ones
has increased over last five years Is that not a co-incidence?
In-line with increase in speed cameras and decrease in traffic police!
Speed cameras save lives eh!
Yes - and the moon is made of Swiss cheese as well!
hut49 said:
6 out of 10 accidents in Manchester area are hit and run!!! Seems that all the sub £250 cars floating around are no tax, no MOT and no insurance.
I reckon it should be illegal to sell a car without 1 years MOT
Thereby immediately killing banger racing and a lot of bottom end trackday & racing stone dead.
dcb said:
WildCat said:
Should be interesting??
Mandatory life sentences for hit & run - what a load of nonsense.
The prisons are full already. Never going to happen.
Do not read the StUN either, but "Bild" is right riveting read, Liebchen!
Punishment should fit the crime - and the guy who killed the 6 year old and caused life sentence of useless left arm for the baby girl was supposed to be serving two lifetime bans. He also had committed 89 other motoring offences as well! Do you really want to share a road with that type!
In cases such as this - there should be some reasonable deterrent - surely!
After all - we get "scammered" as result of the accidents they cause! These people are responsible for the 3600 KSIs the two million or fined for pinging a speed camera are supposed to be causing!
>> Edited by WildCat on Monday 5th July 22:02
hut49 said:
I reckon it should be illegal to sell a car without 1 years MOT (Oh yes and tighten up on the issue of MOT Certificates). This would take a bunch of crap of the roads - lead to less congestion and stop us honest punters funding the low-life that drive without tax and insurance. That's what Police funding should be.....
If there were less uninsured/untaxed vehicles on the road then would Speeding motorists be even more of a target to the few BiB left on patrol?
On the other hand if as much resources, as is put into Scameras, were directed toward the Scrotes in their 'Disposable' Scrote-mobiles and Appropriate (long custodial) sentences given to them (what's the point of banning from driving someone who's got no licence - as if they give a sh1t), whilst at the same time responsible motorists were treated Appropriately (i.e not worse than the scrotes
) then things might start getting better. As it is more and more people are being 'criminalised' for petty compliance offences whilst 'Scrotism' is on the increase.
New Labour, Tough on crime? (well, motoring offences for non-scroaty/Pikey people anyway
) Tough on the causes of crime - My Arse! 
Doesn't this all add to the argument that MOT and Insurance certs (smaller versions obviously) should be displayed on the vehicle. Also why not put them in the rear windscreen. After all the BiB tend to see the back of a car first not the front. If they were colour coded based upon their expiry they would be readily identifiable and give a cause for pulling the driver over rather than waiting for something to happen.
Next logical step of course would be to get rid of the road tax and put it (equitably) on to fuel. Thus introducing a choice as to how much tax you pay. Choice seemingly being the current political mantra of all parties. Then you don't have to worry about the extra tax for 4x4s debate.
The savings in beauracracy would be enormous. The money could then be spent on more of the non grey and yellow type traffic police.
Next logical step of course would be to get rid of the road tax and put it (equitably) on to fuel. Thus introducing a choice as to how much tax you pay. Choice seemingly being the current political mantra of all parties. Then you don't have to worry about the extra tax for 4x4s debate.
The savings in beauracracy would be enormous. The money could then be spent on more of the non grey and yellow type traffic police.
This programme only underlined what we've all been saying for yonks...get rid of Gatsos and put in more trafpol...only this way will we get rid of these scum on our roads (and coincidentally also the weakling politico arguments like the "speed Kills" lies at the same time!)
The system of showing MOT, Insurance etc on your plates/cars is effectively in use in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and a few other countries as well...and it makes life easier for the law abiding majority as well as BiB!!!
The system of showing MOT, Insurance etc on your plates/cars is effectively in use in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and a few other countries as well...and it makes life easier for the law abiding majority as well as BiB!!!
rustybin said:
Doesn't this all add to the argument that MOT and Insurance certs (smaller versions obviously) should be displayed on the vehicle. Also why not put them in the rear windscreen. After all the BiB tend to see the back of a car first not the front. If they were colour coded based upon their expiry they would be readily identifiable and give a cause for pulling the driver over rather than waiting for something to happen.
Road tax is already displayed on the windscreen, scrotes just do not bother, so what are the chances of them bothering to display an MOT??
rustybin said:
Next logical step of course would be to get rid of the road tax and put it (equitably) on to fuel. Thus introducing a choice as to how much tax you pay. Choice seemingly being the current political mantra of all parties. Then you don't have to worry about the extra tax for 4x4s debate.
Petrol is already expensive enough and as we all know public transport is very poor. I have to drive about 700 miles a week to/from work on our third world road network. Why should I pay more tax, just to get to/from work in order to earn money that I am taxed on? This would be completely unfair.
The number of people killed on the roads last year was about 3500 (not sure of the exact figure).
What I would like to see is breakdown of information about these statistics, i.e.
The number killed in hit and run
The number killed by uninsured drivers
The number killed by cars driven with no TAX
The number killed by cars driven with no MOT
The number killed by cars driven by drunk drivers
The number killed by cars driven by drugged up drivers
The number killed by cars driven by banned drivers
I am sure there will be a large amount of overlap, but the figures would certainly be interesting. I doubt this information will every be made available, since it would under mine Dictator Tony Blair's propoganda campaign.
What I would like to see is breakdown of information about these statistics, i.e.
The number killed in hit and run
The number killed by uninsured drivers
The number killed by cars driven with no TAX
The number killed by cars driven with no MOT
The number killed by cars driven by drunk drivers
The number killed by cars driven by drugged up drivers
The number killed by cars driven by banned drivers
I am sure there will be a large amount of overlap, but the figures would certainly be interesting. I doubt this information will every be made available, since it would under mine Dictator Tony Blair's propoganda campaign.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff