road safety bill - what happened?

[swisss]

last I heard was a second reading in parliament - is it an act yet?

[vonhosen]

swisss said:

last I heard was a second reading in parliament - is it an act yet?

Not yet.
Been bouncing for amendments between lords & commons.

Looks like there have been a few amendations (some that won't be liked here no doubt)

Have a read

[VIM FUEGO]

Mr David Kidney


Not selected NC3


To move the following Clause:—


‘(1)
Designated members of a relevant police constabulary shall, for the purposes of


this section, have the powers and rights of audience of a Crown Prosecutor in


relation to the prosecution of—


(a)
the offences listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the


Prosecutions of Offences Act 1985 (Specified Proceedings) Order 1999


(S.I. 1999/904);


(b)
specified offences that cease to be specified when a magistrates’ court


begins to receive evidence in those proceedings where a defendant does


not enter a plea.


(2)
A designated member of a relevant police constabulary shall not have rights of


audience when an offence ceases to be specified where the defendant enters a not


guilty plea and the case proceeds to trial.


(3)
A member of a relevant police constabulary shall be designated for the purposes


of this section if that member is a recognised designated court presentation officer


employed for that purpose.


(4)
A recognised designated court presentation officer must not also be a serving


member of a police authority.


(5)
In designating a member of a relevant police constabulary a court presentation


officer, the constabulary must have regard to any guidance issued by the


Secretary of State.


(6)
In exercising his role as a designated court presentation officer, a police officer


must have regard to any advice or guidance issued by the Secretary of State.


(7)
The Secretary of State may, by regulation, issue guidance on the recruitment,


training and operation of designated court presentation officers.


(8)
Before publishing such guidance, the Secretary of State may consult with such


organisations as he considers appropriate.’


i trust this means a designated member fo the constabulary acts as the cps for the revelvent offences

[711]

So in practice, what is giving the police CPS powers going to mean? Are you now judge and jury Von, or is that Daily Wail sensationalism?

[vonhosen]

[redacted]

[711]

Well, I can't imagine the VDRD stuff being too popular around here. I've not had a chance to read the full bill to compare these amendments with, but who are the license suspension powers applicable to? Does that wording mean licenses could be suspended immediately at the road side?

It's past my bedtime already, I'll have to read it all in detail tomorrow. Might be a bit more challenging than the News Of The World though

[tank slapper]

[redacted]

[Einion Yrth]

Then they will have got what they wanted, they will have turned me into a criminal - well done chaps.

[who me ?]

VDRD - black box full of electronics fitted in the most hostile environment known to electronics --- electronics don't like heat /cold / radiation ---- try using your door remote when a HIAB is operating.
But there'l be a back door ( always is in electronic /computing) ---whereby the right code from a laptop makes you someone else.

[esselte]

[quote=who me ?]VDRD - black box full of electronics fitted in the most hostile environment known to electronics --- electronics don't like heat /cold / radiation ---- try using your door remote when a HIAB is operating.
But there'l be a back door ( always is in electronic /computing) ---whereby the right code from a laptop makes you someone else.


[/quote]

Isn't a tachograph a VDRD?

[cptsideways]

esselte said:

Isn't a tachograph a VDRD?

Nope - this is the new black box technology, brought in through the back door - basically no one in the motoring public has been consulted on this, just manufacturers lobbying for waht they can, convincing minsiters this is what we need.


Time to get the vaseline out

[vonhosen]

Not seen any other interesting entries yet ?

[havoc]

vonhosen said:

That's not the most interesting entry in the document.

Nope...I'd have to agree.

Giving the SecState powers to implement legislation FORCING the public to fit black-boxes to their cars is frighteningly Orwellian even for this obsessive shower of sh't.

But I bet it gets through with barely a notice...

[herewego]

Does it say in there that on its third speed offence a car can be seized if the driver has not been identified?

[Zod]

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

That's not the most interesting entry in the document.

Nope...I'd have to agree.

Giving the SecState powers to implement legislation FORCING the public to fit black-boxes to their cars is frighteningly Orwellian even for this obsessive shower of sh't.

But I bet it gets through with barely a notice...

They tried to give themselves the power to amend or introduce any legislation by regulation last year, were found put and backed down. Now they are trying to do it bit by bit. Pure evil.

[vonhosen]

herewego said:

Does it say in there that on its third speed offence a car can be seized if the driver has not been identified?

Yep

RSB said:

(1)
Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on three or more occasions in a manner which contravenes section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 he shall have the powers set out in subsection (2).


(2)
These powers are—
(a) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(b) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be.


(3)
Subsection (2)(b) does not authorise entry into any private dwelling.


(4)
A constable in uniform shall have powers only where—
(a) the driver cannot be identified,
(b) the owner cannot be identified, and
(c) a court summons cannot be issued to the relevant owner or driver.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 15th October 21:30

[turbobloke]

Zod said:

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

That's not the most interesting entry in the document.

Nope...I'd have to agree.

Giving the SecState powers to implement legislation FORCING the public to fit black-boxes to their cars is frighteningly Orwellian even for this obsessive shower of sh't.

But I bet it gets through with barely a notice...

They tried to give themselves the power to amend or introduce any legislation by regulation last year, were found put and backed down. Now they are trying to do it bit by bit. Pure evil.

Same thing with the EU constitution, we're getting it through the back door, which amounts to the same as the back passage.

[7db]

Oh good. More legislation. Just what we need.

[Einion Yrth]

vonhosen said:

herewego said:

Does it say in there that on its third speed offence a car can be seized if the driver has not been identified?

Yep

RSB said:

(1)
Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on three or more occasions in a manner which contravenes section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 he shall have the powers set out in subsection (2).


(2)
These powers are—
(a) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(b) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be.


(3)
Subsection (2)(b) does not authorise entry into any private dwelling.

Have to park the motor in the lounge then.

[havoc]

Garage would be fine. Gated drive probably sufficient too, although you'd have to argue that one AFTER the fact, I suspect.

But as was said above...evil. Unnecessary evil.