Road Traffic Bill
Author
Discussion

woof

Original Poster:

8,456 posts

307 months

Wednesday 23rd November 2005
quotequote all
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/033/06033.i-iii.html


Whilst checking out any ammendments to the bill (still no mention of banning laser jammers/detectors etc)

But notice that anyone holding an old paper driving licence, will have to change them in for a photo ID style one

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

274 months

Wednesday 23rd November 2005
quotequote all
Look at Section 16 Woof.

Thereby they lay down the authority to bring in by Statutory Instrument a ban on speed detecting devices which they are going to do.

Recent amendment put forward during discussion:

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a device that can—
(a) reveal or indicate the prevailing speed limit to the driver of a vehicle;
(b) provide a warning if the prevailing speed limit is being exceeded; or
(c) automatically prevent the driver from inadvertently exceeding the prevailing speed limit."

dvd

Peter Ward

2,097 posts

286 months

Wednesday 23rd November 2005
quotequote all
But nothing in that amendment that would permit something to indicate by GPS the presence of a camera/accident black spot. Should we be paranoid?

>> Edited by Peter Ward on Wednesday 23 November 18:39

icamm

2,153 posts

290 months

Wednesday 23rd November 2005
quotequote all
DVD, the way I read that is that detectors will be legal if you are not speeding?

Or is that the ammendment that will allow them?

>> Edited by icamm on Wednesday 23 November 21:34

_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Wednesday 23rd November 2005
quotequote all
icamm said:
DVD, the way I read that is that detectors will be legal if you are not speeding?

Or is that the ammendment that will allow them?



I read the ammendment that detectors are legal all round?

BigBob

1,471 posts

255 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
woof said:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/033/06033.i-iii.html


Whilst checking out any ammendments to the bill (still no mention of banning laser jammers/detectors etc)

But notice that anyone holding an old paper driving licence, will have to change them in for a photo ID style one



I've written to my MP complaining about the prospect of being forced to change to a Photo License - which IIRC, isn't the license anyway.


Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

274 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
Maybe this will help:

Clause 17: Speed assessment equipment detection devices

60. Clause 17 amends section 41 of the RTA ("the RTA". Section 41(1) of the RTA is an enabling provision empowering the Secretary of State to "make regulations generally as to the use of motor vehicles and trailers on roads, their construction and equipment and the conditions under which they may be so used". The amendment means that it will be possible to PROHIBIT a vehicle being FITTED WITH, or a person USING A VEHICLE CARRYING "speed assessment equipment detection devices" by means of regulations under section 41 of the RTA. The amendment defines a "speed assessment equipment detection device" as "a device, the purpose, or one of the purposes, of which is to detect, or interfere with the operation of equipment used to assess the speed of motor vehicles". The precise subset of the devices which will be prohibited will be identified in the regulations made under section 41 of the RTA but it is not intended to include in the prohibition those devices that only contain information about camera site locations.

61. A person who breaches a speed assessment equipment detection device requirement shall be guilty of an offence and liable to the same penalty as if they had been convicted of exceeding a prescribed speed limit, which means that the financial penalties will be higher if the offence is committed on a special road.

The Bill itself is still under discussion and whilst the above gives some iundication what they have in mind we will only know what the outcome is when it gets royal assent. It is without doubt a rat bag of bits and pieces.

dvd

timf

369 posts

274 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
Dwight VanDriver said:
Look at Section 16 Woof.

Thereby they lay down the authority to bring in by Statutory Instrument a ban on speed detecting devices which they are going to do.

Recent amendment put forward during discussion:

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a device that can—
(a) reveal or indicate the prevailing speed limit to the driver of a vehicle;
(b) provide a warning if the prevailing speed limit is being exceeded; or
(c) automatically prevent the driver from inadvertently exceeding the prevailing speed limit."

dvd



does that therefore mean that we have to remove our speedos as it may warn me that i am exceeding the speed limit and will therefore be deemed illegal

egomeister

7,603 posts

293 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
BigBob said:

I've written to my MP complaining about the prospect of being forced to change to a Photo License - which IIRC, isn't the license anyway.


This is one thing that really pisses me off. We're not obliged to carry the license, and a 2 part photocard license serves no puropse unless both parts are present so whats the point? ID cards by the back door anyone? How long before it becomes compulsory to carry the photocard part when driving? (which is most journeys due to the ineffective public transport system). Before long most of the adult population will be walking round with an ID card...

g_attrill

9,082 posts

276 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
timf said:
Dwight VanDriver said:

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a device that can—
(a) reveal or indicate the prevailing speed limit to the driver of a vehicle;
(b) provide a warning if the prevailing speed limit is being exceeded; or
(c) automatically prevent the driver from inadvertently exceeding the prevailing speed limit."


does that therefore mean that we have to remove our speedos as it may warn me that i am exceeding the speed limit and will therefore be deemed illegal


Nope - that list is a *restriction* on what they can ban at a later date, it is effectively making sure that (say) should somebody develop a device which displays the current limit on the dash, it won't be inadvertently banned by any order under this Act.

Gareth

tvr 3x

1,233 posts

297 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
So if I build a device that senses a Gatso or laser device and then uses a GPS fix to determine the local speed limit and then checks that I am at or below the local speed limit and beeps me if I am not - this device would appear to be OK.

james_j

3,996 posts

285 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
I believe the government want to ban any device that will warn you of the presence of a sneaky mobile trap. Guess whether or not there'll be an increase in this type of trap. I wonder.

echo

178 posts

272 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
tvr 3x said:
So if I build a device that senses a Gatso or laser device and then uses a GPS fix to determine the local speed limit and then checks that I am at or below the local speed limit and beeps me if I am not - this device would appear to be OK.

Just to let you know you've been caught you mean?

Surely the NIP tells you the same?

tvr 3x

1,233 posts

297 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
echo said:
tvr 3x said:
So if I build a device that senses a Gatso or laser device and then uses a GPS fix to determine the local speed limit and then checks that I am at or below the local speed limit and beeps me if I am not - this device would appear to be OK.

Just to let you know you've been caught you mean?

Surely the NIP tells you the same?


If the device was miscalibrated it might indicate on the approach to a Gatso or if somebody else was being lasered!

Richard C

1,685 posts

287 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
This Bill really is a rat bag of sheer control freakery isn't it ?

22 Breach of duty to give information as to identity of driver etc.
Section 172 offences are to be upped to 6 points from 3. Scumbags the lot of them. Good job that the vehicles are registered in a company name and the Co Sec is an internet company eh !

23
Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements
Looks like our lords and masters are arranging another nice earner for themselves - £ 100 FP for allowing your insurance to lapse for even a day while your car is safely off the road. All dreamed up by a Noo Labour zealot Prof Green and a large insurance company based in East Anglia.



_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
Actually just read this as I was worried it meant you had to insure a car at all times even if you had SORNed it.

road crapshit act said:

144B
Exceptions to section 144A offence

snip
(5)
The fourth condition is that—
(a) the registered keeper is at the relevant time the person keeping
the vehicle,
(b)
at the relevant time the vehicle is not used on a road or other
public place,


Which is thankfully means if a car is SORN'ed then it doesn't need to be insured.

Richard C

1,685 posts

287 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
There are plenty of circumstances when you would garage a car and not insure it and not SORN it.

For instance I keep rally car taxed at garage of prep co and who can test it on their own insurance. Most rally cars are taxed but not insured all year round taking out on event insurance only.

_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Thursday 24th November 2005
quotequote all
If you can fathom all the subsection (2) paragraphs (a) (ab) (b) (c) (de) crap I read it that you don't have to insure it even if it's not sorn'ed.

streaky

19,311 posts

279 months

Saturday 26th November 2005
quotequote all
98A is part of the drive to the National ID Card. Likely that the Order will follow very shortly on the heels of the Bill receiving Royal Assent - Streaky