£30 FPN for no seatbelt - fair or not?
Discussion
julianhj said:
As above really. Dished my first one out today and got an earful from the motorist. Water off a duck's back and all that, but it got me wondering what proportion of people agree with ticketing for this offence. (I'm very keen to educate via the FPN for no seatbelt)
Take what disposal action you think is right in the circumstances (& you did
) vonhosen said:
julianhj said:
As above really. Dished my first one out today and got an earful from the motorist. Water off a duck's back and all that, but it got me wondering what proportion of people agree with ticketing for this offence. (I'm very keen to educate via the FPN for no seatbelt)
Take what disposal action you think is right in the circumstances (& you did
) I have a zero tolerance policy in place for no seatbelt, mobile phone use and cyclists pi$$ing about with pavements/traffic signals/one-way streets etc. This is how I've been taught, and I can't see why I would ever change this.
Was done for it about 12 years ago and had to agree with it.
Did try to pull the "Ah yes but I'm making another delivery on the same street" line. Cunning copper asked where it was and deemed a five mile gap between stops as not being exactly within the realms of immediate multi-drop. Had to try though didn't I?!?! Never driven without a belt since.
Did try to pull the "Ah yes but I'm making another delivery on the same street" line. Cunning copper asked where it was and deemed a five mile gap between stops as not being exactly within the realms of immediate multi-drop. Had to try though didn't I?!?! Never driven without a belt since.
Julian - only thing that worries me is your feeling that given it's the way you were taught, why should you change? Not all tutor constables are as well rounded as we might like. As Vonhosen says, you have to judge each stop on it's merits, but discretion is allowed.
Personally, if it was an adult and they passed the attitude test they'd get a ticking off, assuing they were otherwise legit. However, if it was an unrestrained kiddie? Oooooh dear - FPN minimum!!
Personally, if it was an adult and they passed the attitude test they'd get a ticking off, assuing they were otherwise legit. However, if it was an unrestrained kiddie? Oooooh dear - FPN minimum!!
Are you all serious?
Assuming that we are talking about adults who can be held responsible for their own actions, how can it possibly be the State's business whether those adults choose to take a risk that does not endanger any other person or their property?
The other examples of minor law-breaking that have been offered are not analogous.
Talking on the phone whilst driving allegedly is distracting and, if so, could put other road users in danger.
Cycling on the pavement gets in other people's way and often does intimidate and even harm pedestrians, particularly the less mobile ones.
Altering number plates "substantially" can be a ready means of avoiding accountability
Whether you wear a seatbelt is YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS.
julianhj said:
vonhosen said:
julianhj said:
As above really. Dished my first one out today and got an earful from the motorist. Water off a duck's back and all that, but it got me wondering what proportion of people agree with ticketing for this offence. (I'm very keen to educate via the FPN for no seatbelt)
Take what disposal action you think is right in the circumstances (& you did
) I have a zero tolerance policy in place for no seatbelt, mobile phone use and cyclists pi$$ing about with pavements/traffic signals/one-way streets etc. This is how I've been taught, and I can't see why I would ever change this.
Hmmmm
Zero tolerance on Seat Belts, Phones, and crazy cyclists, do you happen to work in Yorkshire? Here it's a shame my local constabulary can't focus all your crime fighting spirit on the tw@ts that keep trying to break into my house and car.
H
flemke said:
Are you all serious?
Assuming that we are talking about adults who can be held responsible for their own actions, how can it possibly be the State's business whether those adults choose to take a risk that does not endanger any other person or their property?
The other examples of minor law-breaking that have been offered are not analogous.
Talking on the phone whilst driving allegedly is distracting and, if so, could put other road users in danger.
Cycling on the pavement gets in other people's way and often does intimidate and even harm pedestrians, particularly the less mobile ones.
Altering number plates "substantially" can be a ready means of avoiding accountability
Whether you wear a seatbelt is YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS.
Four of my friends lost their heads (literaly) in an RTA back in the seventies before the law was passed would probably argue your reasoning.
Edited by Purple AK on Tuesday 19th December 21:28
Purple AK said:
flemke said:
Are you all serious?
Assuming that we are talking about adults who can be held responsible for their own actions, how can it possibly be the State's business whether those adults choose to take a risk that does not endanger any other person or their property?
The other examples of minor law-breaking that have been offered are not analogous.
Talking on the phone whilst driving allegedly is distracting and, if so, could put other road users in danger.
Cycling on the pavement gets in other people's way and often does intimidate and even harm pedestrians, particularly the less mobile ones.
Altering number plates "substantially" can be a ready means of avoiding accountability
Whether you wear a seatbelt is YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS.
Four of my friends lost their heads (literaly) in an RTA back in the seventies before the law was passed would probably argue.
Were they killed by a 3rd party not wearing a seatbelt or their own choice not to wear one?
I'd prefer to see it made compulsory to have seatbelts fitted, but the usage be optional over the age of 16. I don't need a law to tell me it's sensible to always belt up.
flemke said:
Are you all serious?
Assuming that we are talking about adults who can be held responsible for their own actions, how can it possibly be the State's business whether those adults choose to take a risk that does not endanger any other person or their property?
The other examples of minor law-breaking that have been offered are not analogous.
Talking on the phone whilst driving allegedly is distracting and, if so, could put other road users in danger.
Cycling on the pavement gets in other people's way and often does intimidate and even harm pedestrians, particularly the less mobile ones.
Altering number plates "substantially" can be a ready means of avoiding accountability
Whether you wear a seatbelt is YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS.
I agree in prinicipal but someone else has to pick up the pieces after a nasty accident & it's not nice. I was party to the aftermath of a serious RTA on the A303 not long ago, ended up giving resuss to the occupant who was in a very bad way, it was not a nice experience at all. No seatbelt it turns out, they died later that day in hospital.
If your seatbeltless in an accident would you rather it be left to your next of kin to remove your body from the vehicle after recovery? I'm sure most coppers would agree this might be a good idea to save them or other emergency services doing it!
You only need to speak to any paramadic, fireman or trauma doctor to convince yourselves otherwise.
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Anyone who does not wear a seatbelt is a tithead.
excepting medical circumstances etc etc
excepting medical circumstances etc etc
Anyone who smokes might be called a tithead, as well as anyone who drinks a lot, anyone who is obese, anyone who rides a pushbike, anyone who doesn't exercise, anyone who stays in their house and is sedentary, anyone who stays in their house and climbs the stairs, anyone who leaves their house and crosses the street, ad nauseum.
If I make choices that only affect me, it's not Tony's business, it's not Gordon's business, it's not anyone else's business.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff