Cops to name and shame speeders
Discussion
Cops to name and shame speeders
Alan Salter
WATCHING: Now your boss will know SPEEDING drivers caught on camera while at work are being named and shamed to their bosses in a bid to slow them down. Van and lorry drivers and sales reps travelling during company time are responsible for up to a third of all accidents, latest figures show.
And although Notices of Intended Prosecution are sent to firms to identify the driver of a speeding company vehicle, the news does not always reach the top.
But now in Greater Manchester, managers and company directors of firms whose staff are caught speeding are being sent a pack of warning leaflets called Give Your Staff a Brake to make sure they know what has happened.
It urges them to "Remind your staff of the dangers of speeding in company vehicles and you could save your business time and money".
And the pack even invites bosses to send their staff on a one-day driving improvement course organised by Bury council's road safety unit.
Planning
Also included in the pack are posters reminding staff that 20 road deaths a week involve people at work ,as well as Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents leaflets on speeding, drink and drugs, mobile phones, using personal vehicles for work, and planning safer journeys for company drivers.
The pack tells bosses: Senior managers, from the head of the organisation down, should lead by example and follow the guidance in these leaflets.
It asks them to review work targets and performance-related pay to make sure staff are not pressured into breaking the speed limit, as well as allowing enough time to complete trips.
Latest figures for Manchester show almost 500 casualties within eight months were driving for work – more than a fifth all people injured. Another 258 involved commuting drivers.
Claire Wightman, of the %Greater Manchester’s Drivesafe camera partnership said:
Driving is the most dangerous work activity people do, with company car drivers, and people who do a high annual mileage at work, up to 50 per cent more likely to crash than private motorists.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/221/221094_cops_to_name_and_shame_speeders.html
IMO a total waste of time... most bosses will have nothing but sympathy for staff caught in the great money making scheme. Also its a joke that the Scam Prats think drivers will be shamed because it is speed kills/cash camera campaign that has TOTALLY removed any stigma that used to be associated with the act of speeding. The comments already posted after the article are right on the ball too - more evidence that the truth is getting through to Joe Public?
Alan Salter
WATCHING: Now your boss will know SPEEDING drivers caught on camera while at work are being named and shamed to their bosses in a bid to slow them down. Van and lorry drivers and sales reps travelling during company time are responsible for up to a third of all accidents, latest figures show.
And although Notices of Intended Prosecution are sent to firms to identify the driver of a speeding company vehicle, the news does not always reach the top.
But now in Greater Manchester, managers and company directors of firms whose staff are caught speeding are being sent a pack of warning leaflets called Give Your Staff a Brake to make sure they know what has happened.
It urges them to "Remind your staff of the dangers of speeding in company vehicles and you could save your business time and money".
And the pack even invites bosses to send their staff on a one-day driving improvement course organised by Bury council's road safety unit.
Planning
Also included in the pack are posters reminding staff that 20 road deaths a week involve people at work ,as well as Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents leaflets on speeding, drink and drugs, mobile phones, using personal vehicles for work, and planning safer journeys for company drivers.
The pack tells bosses: Senior managers, from the head of the organisation down, should lead by example and follow the guidance in these leaflets.
It asks them to review work targets and performance-related pay to make sure staff are not pressured into breaking the speed limit, as well as allowing enough time to complete trips.
Latest figures for Manchester show almost 500 casualties within eight months were driving for work – more than a fifth all people injured. Another 258 involved commuting drivers.
Claire Wightman, of the %Greater Manchester’s Drivesafe camera partnership said:
Driving is the most dangerous work activity people do, with company car drivers, and people who do a high annual mileage at work, up to 50 per cent more likely to crash than private motorists.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/221/221094_cops_to_name_and_shame_speeders.html
IMO a total waste of time... most bosses will have nothing but sympathy for staff caught in the great money making scheme. Also its a joke that the Scam Prats think drivers will be shamed because it is speed kills/cash camera campaign that has TOTALLY removed any stigma that used to be associated with the act of speeding. The comments already posted after the article are right on the ball too - more evidence that the truth is getting through to Joe Public?
cliffe_mafia said:
Cops to name and shame speeders
Alan Salter
...........
It asks them to review work targets and performance-related pay to make sure staff are not pressured into breaking the speed limit, as well as allowing enough time to complete trips.
............
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/221/221094_cops_to_name_and_shame_speeders.html
IMO a total waste of time... most bosses will have nothing but sympathy for staff caught in the great money making scheme. Also its a joke that the Scam Prats think drivers will be shamed because it is speed kills/cash camera campaign that has TOTALLY removed any stigma that used to be associated with the act of speeding. The comments already posted after the article are right on the ball too - more evidence that the truth is getting through to Joe Public?
Alan Salter
...........
It asks them to review work targets and performance-related pay to make sure staff are not pressured into breaking the speed limit, as well as allowing enough time to complete trips.
............
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/221/221094_cops_to_name_and_shame_speeders.html
IMO a total waste of time... most bosses will have nothing but sympathy for staff caught in the great money making scheme. Also its a joke that the Scam Prats think drivers will be shamed because it is speed kills/cash camera campaign that has TOTALLY removed any stigma that used to be associated with the act of speeding. The comments already posted after the article are right on the ball too - more evidence that the truth is getting through to Joe Public?
I'd agree with you. I have only quoted part of the article as this shows the insanity of it. Reduce targets etc, so reduce productivity etc, so increase costs to business. Hmmm who pays for this?
cliffe_mafia said:
Van and lorry drivers and sales reps travelling during company time are responsible for up to a third of all accidents, latest figures show.
Wow - so people who are on the road the most are only responsible for up to 33% of accidents. Shouldn`t they be looking at the "part timers" who are responsible for twice as many?
And how do you get a figure of "up to" a third? Either the figures are accurate, or they`re not, What a pointless exercise.
They should be looking at the cause of the accidents rather than making a blanket assumption about speed.
article said:
Van and lorry drivers and sales reps travelling during company time are responsible for up to a third of all accidents, latest figures show.
This is meaningless unless the %age of miles driven by these people is also quoted.It's fairly obvious that during business hours most of the drivers on the road will be from the above sections?
Strangely enough, I pay our drivers a bonus for speeding.
Punters want their kit quick, progress is directly proprtional to speed so why on earth would anyone want to reverse the furtherment of man?
Oh yes, I forgot...a rather rampant proclivity of the state, the description of which ends with an 'ism.'
I despise this train of thought, as should anyone with a liking for the rather convenient benefits of base modernity.
Punters want their kit quick, progress is directly proprtional to speed so why on earth would anyone want to reverse the furtherment of man?
Oh yes, I forgot...a rather rampant proclivity of the state, the description of which ends with an 'ism.'
I despise this train of thought, as should anyone with a liking for the rather convenient benefits of base modernity.
derestrictor said:
Strangely enough, I pay our drivers a bonus for speeding.
Punters want their kit quick, progress is directly proprtional to speed so why on earth would anyone want to reverse the furtherment of man?
Oh yes, I forgot...a rather rampant proclivity of the state, the description of which ends with an 'ism.'
I despise this train of thought, as should anyone with a liking for the rather convenient benefits of base modernity.
Punters want their kit quick, progress is directly proprtional to speed so why on earth would anyone want to reverse the furtherment of man?
Oh yes, I forgot...a rather rampant proclivity of the state, the description of which ends with an 'ism.'
I despise this train of thought, as should anyone with a liking for the rather convenient benefits of base modernity.
This could be how many firms view it... Not getting done for speeding? Slacker.My work are under pressure to deliver goods on time and would not be best pleased when every run in the building comes back an hour later than normal due to sticking to 30 at 4am...I also reject the notion that a speeder needs shamed...Over the top IMO...Is it needed to be branded a killer /dangerous driver just down to speed alone...We know speed DOES kill IF involved in a collision but it is a proper criminal act these days..like assault...
I`ve seen some court cases where the assault cases fines were half that of some poor sod who was speeding ....
I`ve seen some court cases where the assault cases fines were half that of some poor sod who was speeding ....
matt.m said:
personally I think that any driver caught speeding or driving dangerously should be named and shamed in your local rag. however I would agree affecting businesses as has been suggested is wrong.
Get caught speeding/driving dangerously then by all means name and shame them!!
Get caught speeding/driving dangerously then by all means name and shame them!!
Or find something more interesting to do, like the manufacture of sleeping bags for the common garden earth worm?
said:
Van and lorry drivers and sales reps travelling during company time are responsible for up to 
a third of all accidents, latest figures show.
a third of all accidents, latest figures show.Errrm, I reckon that van and lorry drivers and sales reps travelling during company time are responsible for [up to] a third of all traffic – so what?
Statistics + bollox = Statesticles
(I claim credit for this word) actually rereading my post - I think that dangerous driving should be named and shamed as regards speeding I think that speeding in the correct conditions and right time etc is ok. but the suggestions to business is silly. i used to have a job that required me to drive miles to each job. I would never have done all my work and got home at a sensble hour if I had to obey all the limits all the time. I did obey those that were in built up areas or around schools etc.
matt.m said:
actually rereading my post - I think that dangerous driving should be named and shamed as regards speeding I think that speeding in the correct conditions and right time etc is ok. but the suggestions to business is silly. i used to have a job that required me to drive miles to each job. I would never have done all my work and got home at a sensble hour if I had to obey all the limits all the time. I did obey those that were in built up areas or around schools etc.
I was just going to pull you up on this - if the 'name and shame' was in the local newspaper it would read as 10 pages of articles/10 pages of adverts/20 pages of speeders -I can't see anyone bothering to read through a list of hundreds if not thousands
derestrictor said:
Strangely enough, I pay our drivers a bonus for speeding.
Hope your drivers are well (company) trained and the vehicles employed are equipped with proper brakes then (actually, there´s a small but growing numbers of delivery drivers out there running Mov´It brake conversions, apparently - seems to make solid economic sense with some types of delivery van (that´s you, Mercedes Sprinter) as they only need their discs and pads changed at 150,000 kms instead of every service with the stockers...).
It´s kind of disconcerting to sit at a lepton plus with nowhere to go than the lane you´re in, and find Wayne in his elongated high-roof Sprinter jobby clinging to your rear bumper, one hand loosely holding steering wheel...
I´ve had a very short stint as a parcel delivery van driver right after graduating from uni, and was supposed to pick up the hand held phone at any time - which could be bl__dy dangerous at the best of times. On another occasion, I was driving a Citroën AX when a van driver travelling at a high rate of knots failed to give priority from a side street. Had he hit me, would the employer have paid for medical costs and the bereavement of 35 years´worth of productivity from a young graduate, or would ´society´ have to pick up the tab?
Well done, you can run along now and join the wiberals now.
Nobody's encouraging dangerous driving but I'll be damned before accepting the spoon fed drivel aganist speeding per se which the lazy hippies who legislate these days seem hell bent on feeding ad nauseum to an audience of willing gibberers of the genus imbecilum.
For the sake of Uncle F@ck!
Nobody's encouraging dangerous driving but I'll be damned before accepting the spoon fed drivel aganist speeding per se which the lazy hippies who legislate these days seem hell bent on feeding ad nauseum to an audience of willing gibberers of the genus imbecilum.
For the sake of Uncle F@ck!
Most company directors I know, and I'll include myself and my co-directors in this, are vehementally anti-camera to the point that if they can be of any assistance to employees caught by the cash-cameras they will. This sometimes extends to help with the fines, although not allowed as a business expense by the IR. The cash-camera scheme is a threat to business for no real return in safety terms, so it's no surprise that companies are very 'anti'.
Some larger companies won't name the driver and one of my clients, who sends teams out on business in company cars to fix airliners, just names (by letter, not by filling out the NiP) the members of the teams in each case and invites the Pratnerships to send a police officer to interview the employees concerned in company time on the company premises. The letters are sent on the US parent company letterheads with the UK address at the bottom for reference. This has resulted in absolutely no further action ever - they just give up. It seems as though registering your vehicle to a Limited Company is a good first step to sheltering from the entire scam. It would appear that the CPS are reluctant to prosecute a limited company under s.172 as they don't know to whom to address the summons. After all, the Managing Director, the Technical Director or the Sales Director would not be likely to see an NiP and that would be their defence. An NiP could 'float around' the admin dep't for a while before being brought to the attention of the department manager who has no legal responsibility to reply. He might then contact the manager responsible for transport who may or may not have a record of who was driving and who may decide to respond or not. After all, he could easily deny receiving the NiP, especially if the driver concerned was already on 6 or more points and was an important employee.
Who remembers the Chief Constable of Hampshire who didn't know which of his CID officers was driving and received a summons under s.172? His organisation was fined, but no points were awarded to anyone. I mean, to whom would the points be awarded. If points were threatened to an M.D. of a company who may well never have seen the NiP he/she would be likely to use the company lawyers, at company cost, to fight this all the way, I know we would. The scammers would get now't from it and if the CPS lost it would be 'egg-on-face' and expensive for them (nothing new there, then!).
I suspect that sending this sort of paperwork to the directors will just 'fan them up' to be as obstructive to the scam prats as possible - it would in the case of my colleagues and me.
Some larger companies won't name the driver and one of my clients, who sends teams out on business in company cars to fix airliners, just names (by letter, not by filling out the NiP) the members of the teams in each case and invites the Pratnerships to send a police officer to interview the employees concerned in company time on the company premises. The letters are sent on the US parent company letterheads with the UK address at the bottom for reference. This has resulted in absolutely no further action ever - they just give up. It seems as though registering your vehicle to a Limited Company is a good first step to sheltering from the entire scam. It would appear that the CPS are reluctant to prosecute a limited company under s.172 as they don't know to whom to address the summons. After all, the Managing Director, the Technical Director or the Sales Director would not be likely to see an NiP and that would be their defence. An NiP could 'float around' the admin dep't for a while before being brought to the attention of the department manager who has no legal responsibility to reply. He might then contact the manager responsible for transport who may or may not have a record of who was driving and who may decide to respond or not. After all, he could easily deny receiving the NiP, especially if the driver concerned was already on 6 or more points and was an important employee.
Who remembers the Chief Constable of Hampshire who didn't know which of his CID officers was driving and received a summons under s.172? His organisation was fined, but no points were awarded to anyone. I mean, to whom would the points be awarded. If points were threatened to an M.D. of a company who may well never have seen the NiP he/she would be likely to use the company lawyers, at company cost, to fight this all the way, I know we would. The scammers would get now't from it and if the CPS lost it would be 'egg-on-face' and expensive for them (nothing new there, then!).
I suspect that sending this sort of paperwork to the directors will just 'fan them up' to be as obstructive to the scam prats as possible - it would in the case of my colleagues and me.
Yeah, but paying out bonuses for speeding is morally as dubious as the action discussed here IMO.
Simply put, whether I am in a hurry or not should not make any difference on how fast I drive (within or outside the speed limit) in the boss´ time given that I already make as good progress as I deem sensible given the circumstances. Recompense me for speeding tickets I attract (which in my case -would- make a not inconsiderable difference in disposable income), fine, but - judging by what I see on the roads daily - I can see how a bonus system for speeding, especially given that your drivers won´t be earning anything like six figure sums, so they´ll be well up to earning small ´extras´, can interfere with proper judgement of what is appropriate speed for the circumstances.
Simply put, whether I am in a hurry or not should not make any difference on how fast I drive (within or outside the speed limit) in the boss´ time given that I already make as good progress as I deem sensible given the circumstances. Recompense me for speeding tickets I attract (which in my case -would- make a not inconsiderable difference in disposable income), fine, but - judging by what I see on the roads daily - I can see how a bonus system for speeding, especially given that your drivers won´t be earning anything like six figure sums, so they´ll be well up to earning small ´extras´, can interfere with proper judgement of what is appropriate speed for the circumstances.
derestrictor said:
Well done, you can run along now and join the wiberals now.
Nobody's encouraging dangerous driving but I'll be damned before accepting the spoon fed drivel aganist speeding per se which the lazy hippies who legislate these days seem hell bent on feeding ad nauseum to an audience of willing gibberers of the genus imbecilum.
For the sake of Uncle F@ck!
Nobody's encouraging dangerous driving but I'll be damned before accepting the spoon fed drivel aganist speeding per se which the lazy hippies who legislate these days seem hell bent on feeding ad nauseum to an audience of willing gibberers of the genus imbecilum.
For the sake of Uncle F@ck!
Edited by 900T-R on Monday 21st August 12:12
matt.m said:
actually rereading my post - I think that dangerous driving should be named and shamed as regards speeding I think that speeding in the correct conditions and right time etc is ok. but the suggestions to business is silly. i used to have a job that required me to drive miles to each job. I would never have done all my work and got home at a sensble hour if I had to obey all the limits all the time. I did obey those that were in built up areas or around schools etc.
Just as speeding can vary in severity and 'dangerousness', so can Dangerous Driving.
Just bear in mind that crossing a solid white line can sometimes get the CPS reaching for their Dangerous Driving proforma pads.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff