Failing to wear a seat belt set to be an endorsable offence

[gently bentley]

I heard this in the news today. Have I picked it up right.

[supersingle]

How the heck are they going to enforce this?

[vonhosen]

gently bentley said:

I heard this in the news today. Have I picked it up right.

That's what it says in the Road Safety Bill. I posted a few amendments that were made this month in an earlier thread.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 29th October 19:39

[Balmoral Green]

supersingle said:

How the heck are they going to enforce this?

Rough guess, stab in the dark, by nicking folks not wearing a seat belt maybe?

[TripleS]

gently bentley said:

I heard this in the news today. Have I picked it up right.

All I heard was some reference to a proposal that the driver should be held responsible and penalised in some way if a rear seat passenger fails to wear a seat belt. It's becoming a full time job keeping pace with all these new rules the busybodies are dreaming up. I can't be bothered, life's too short for all this.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[jasandjules]

Balmoral Green said:

Rough guess, stab in the dark, by nicking folks not wearing a seat belt maybe?

Unless they set up Seat Belt Cameras, I think most people will carry on... I bet they have one or two days when it first comes into force nicking people, then that will be it..

[vonhosen]

Road Safety Bill amendment said:

To move the following Clause:—

‘In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts)—

(a) for the entry relating to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (driving or riding in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations requiring wearing of seat belts) in column (6) (Endorsement) insert “obligatory”; and

(b) in column (7) (Penalty points) insert “2-6”.

[The Hitman]

I thought it was already against the law for everyone else, other than the driver, in a vehicle to not be wearing seatbelts.

[vonhosen]

jasandjules said:

Balmoral Green said:

Rough guess, stab in the dark, by nicking folks not wearing a seat belt maybe?

Unless they set up Seat Belt Cameras, I think most people will carry on... I bet they have one or two days when it first comes into force nicking people, then that will be it..

Are you going to risk it ?

[vonhosen]

The Hitman said:

I thought it was already against the law for everyone else, other than the driver, in a vehicle to not be wearing seatbelts.

It's the offence becoming endorseable that's the change.

[Balmoral Green]

Why on earth would anyone NOT want to wear one anyway?

I can remember when it became law back in 1983, and so many folks were determined to fight it, which was bizzare to me, as I had already been wearing one for years without giving it a second thought.

[vonhosen]

There were lots of interesting little changes.
Examples:-

2nd No insurance offence, maximum penalty changed to 6 months imprisonment.

Failing to stop at accident, maximum penalty changed to 14 years imprisonment.

VDRDs.

Default speed limit changing from 30 to 20.

Reduction in drink drive limits.

[LongQ]

vonhosen said:

There were lots of interesting little changes.
Examples:-

2nd No insurance offence, maximum penalty changed to 6 months imprisonment.

Odd really when the prisons are allegedly full and many really serious crimes seem to have similar levels of penalty but result in a smacked wrist.

Why bother I wonder - unless the people drafting the rules are just bullies. (Isn;t bullying illegal?)

vonhosen said:

Failing to stop at accident, maximum penalty changed to 14 years imprisonment.

And the benefit of this is .... ?

vonhosen said:

VDRDs.

?

vonhosen said:

Default speed limit changing from 30 to 20.

So 20 everywhere or lots of extra 30 limits signs scattered throughout the cities and towns at huge cost to public purse, appearnace and pollution levels? And for what benefit?

vonhosen said:

Reduction in drink drive limits.

Is there a proven safety benefit from this? Are there a lot of serious accidents where drivers are just under the current limit? How would we know since the government have withdrawn the indicator from the published database on the basis of some spurious data protection excuse.

Oh well, they've done it again. Smoke and mirrors and deception and distraction whilst they slip in some pointless but totalitarian legislation to keep the serfs in thrall. At the same time setting up the police forces as their buffer zone to take all the incoming flak.

Nice people. Sad that the senior management in the police seem so keen to be sucked into it.

I expect they will re-iterate their demands for introducing a criminal offence for flag burning. Capital punishment for that crime anyone?

Is B'Liar's third term the equivalent of the Third Reich?

[dcb]

vonhosen said:

There were lots of interesting little changes.
Examples:-

UK gets more and more like Italy all the time.

Lots of laws, not much enforcement.

Coppers too busy doing other things.

[FortJefferson]

vonhosen said:

2nd No insurance offence, maximum penalty changed to 6 months imprisonment.

Should be 1st No insurance offence, minimum penalty 6 months.

[g_attrill]

vonhosen said:

Road Safety Bill amendment said:

To move the following Clause:—

‘In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts)—

(a) for the entry relating to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (driving or riding in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations requiring wearing of seat belts) in column (6) (Endorsement) insert “obligatory”; and

(b) in column (7) (Penalty points) insert “2-6”.

To explain for those unaware - when it says "move" they mean "remove", ie. the amendment was entered by an MP and was removed. What this means is that it is not going to be part of the final Road Safety Act.

[streaky]

g_attrill said:

vonhosen said:

Road Safety Bill amendment said:

To move the following Clause:—

‘In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts)—

(a) for the entry relating to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (driving or riding in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations requiring wearing of seat belts) in column (6) (Endorsement) insert “obligatory”; and

(b) in column (7) (Penalty points) insert “2-6”.

To explain for those unaware - when it says "move" they mean "remove", ie. the amendment was entered by an MP and was removed. What this means is that it is not going to be part of the final Road Safety Act.

No they don't. "To move" means to propose. The wordings elsewise are, "leave out" (to remove proposed owrding) and "insert" (usually qualified by "before", "after", or "at the end". Sorry, but this is an insertion in the Bill - Streaky

[supersingle]

Balmoral Green said:

supersingle said:

How the heck are they going to enforce this?

Rough guess, stab in the dark, by nicking folks not wearing a seat belt maybe?

Are they going to require the driver to name their passenger? What happens if a passenger cannot prove their identity? Will they be arrested? It is fairly easy to tie the driver's identity to the car, less so a passenger. I'd say that those willing to buck the system will get away with it. Usual story really.

[gently bentley]

supersingle said:

Balmoral Green said:

supersingle said:

How the heck are they going to enforce this?

Rough guess, stab in the dark, by nicking folks not wearing a seat belt maybe?

Are they going to require the driver to name their passenger? What happens if a passenger cannot prove their identity? Will they be arrested? It is fairly easy to tie the driver's identity to the car, less so a passenger. I'd say that those willing to buck the system will get away with it. Usual story really.

My understanding is it will be enforced the same as it is now except a conditional offer of £60 and 3 points. I find the concept ok but if a passenger over 14 is not wearing one they get the £60 fine. What happens if they don't drive or are sitting on 9 points on their own licence. How can two people in the same car be punished differently for the same offence?

I find that a problem.

[g_attrill]

streaky said:

g_attrill said:

[snip]

To explain for those unaware - when it says "move" they mean "remove", ie. the amendment was entered by an MP and was removed. What this means is that it is not going to be part of the final Road Safety Act.

No they don't. "To move" means to propose. The wordings elsewise are, "leave out" (to remove proposed owrding) and "insert" (usually qualified by "before", "after", or "at the end". Sorry, but this is an insertion in the Bill - Streaky

Ah yes, you are correct, but the amendment doesn't seem to have made it's way through though. It is listed as "NC8" which means "not called". I can't seem to find out what that means precisely. A lot of other crackpot amendments are also listed as not called.