Traffic - RTA Laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter Baz
  • Start date Start date

Baz

Baz

Baz

Soldato
Joined
9 Dec 2002
Posts
4,376
Location
Peterborough
Spinning on from this thread , I got looking at the CPS link I posted and wondered why the police don't pull more people for "unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause!"

Everyday I see people who (and not always close to the car in front!) are braking everytime they see a corner, catseye, the car in front braking because they are too close...

Besides that law, I wonder what other silly laws there are about, like the one about a man having to walk in front of a woman driver... (should really still have that one :p *don's flameproof coat* :)


EDIT: just read this on there as well!
cps said:
The following factors are not relevant when deciding whether an act of driving is careless or dangerous:
--the age or experience of the driver
--the fact that the defendant has previous convictions for road traffic offences
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is just wrong :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Drivers that don't make reasonable progress for the conditions should be banned from life.
 
Baz said:
Originally Posted by cps
The following factors are not relevant when deciding whether an act of driving is careless or dangerous:
--the age or experience of the driver
--the fact that the defendant has previous convictions for road traffic offences
Click to expand...
Baz said:
Sorry, but that is just wrong :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No - that is right. Offences should be judged in their own right. Past records should have no bearing on the guilty/not guilty verdit - only the sentence.
 
laissez-faire said:
No - that is right. Offences should be judged in their own right. Past records should have no bearing on the guilty/not guilty verdit - only the sentence.
Click to expand...

Of course they should, if someone gets arrested for Drink driving and gets banned for 12 months, then gets pulled again, it should be put against them, or he will just get another 12 month ban instead of being stoned!
 
That would probably affect the sentence.

Not whether he is guilty or not guilty.

You agreed with him basically.


Edit: I don't know the sentences for drink driving, but I would imagine the above is true and that repeat offenders would be sentenced harder. However, just because they have committed before, this should not affect the verdict.
 
Last edited:
Sure there was one up until recently that required london cabbies to carry a bale of hay in the boot of their cab.
 
On a pedantic note they are called RTCs rather than RTAs, as the PC brigade have deemed them to be collisions, an there is no such thing as an accident in this country any more.

Remember "Where there`s blame, there`s a claim" :(
 
Baz said:
Of course they should, if someone gets arrested for Drink driving and gets banned for 12 months, then gets pulled again, it should be put against them, or he will just get another 12 month ban instead of being stoned!
Click to expand...


you've missed the point

the above CPS quote only relates to deciding if driving was dangerous or not

you cant say that because a driver was convicted 2 years ago of drunk driving, him driving in the back of the bus is more likely to have been his fault because of this incident 2 years ago

it doesnt say that he should get off 2nd time round drunk driving. it states that if a person has an accident, deciding if that accident was caused by dangerous or carless driving should have no influence on past convictions.

Thats what crash investigators are for, to find out what caused the accident and if the driver was driving dangerously/carelessly at the time.
 
Baz said:
Of course they should, if someone gets arrested for Drink driving and gets banned for 12 months, then gets pulled again, it should be put against them, or he will just get another 12 month ban instead of being stoned!
Click to expand...


They give you free drugs in court? Cool.:D
 
Foiled said:
On a pedantic note they are called RTCs rather than RTAs, as the PC brigade have deemed them to be collisions, an there is no such thing as an accident in this country any more.

Remember "Where there`s blame, there`s a claim" :(
Click to expand...

Agreed on the "PC Brigade" front.

Get folk asking me "Been busy at work?".

"Yeah, we had a couple of RTC's last week".

"RT-Whats?......You mean RTA's?".

"Errr, aye.....thats the fellas".

Gets annoying, so if I'm talking to someone who is "in the job" I use "RTC", if its someone else, then its "RTA".

Just confuses matters. And already they are talking about calling them something else completely, heard it on the rumour mill.

Anyway, back to the thread matter......sorry for hijack. :cool:
 
laissez-faire said:
No - that is right. Offences should be judged in their own right. Past records should have no bearing on the guilty/not guilty verdit - only the sentence.
Click to expand...

It's not right at all. A 17 year old doing 100mph down a dual carriageway 35 minutes after passing his test is dangerous.

A 55 year old doing 100mph down a dual carriageway following 35 years of impeccable driving is not so dangerous.
 
[TW]Fox;10448190 said:
It's not right at all. A 17 year old doing 100mph down a dual carriageway 35 minutes after passing his test is dangerous.

A 55 year old doing 100mph down a dual carriageway following 35 years of impeccable driving is not so dangerous.
Click to expand...

Is speeding classed as careless or dangerous driving?

I thought it had it's 'own' offence.
 
[TW]Fox;10448190 said:
It's not right at all. A 17 year old doing 100mph down a dual carriageway 35 minutes after passing his test is dangerous.

A 55 year old doing 100mph down a dual carriageway following 35 years of impeccable driving is not so dangerous.
Click to expand...


Depends entirely upon the situation and road conditions at the time.
I would be inclined to say there could be several situations where the former may well be safer than the latter.

The former doing 100 hundred down a deserted DC at 3 in the morning is far safer, than the latter doing 100 down the same road at rush hour on a rainy friday evening.

The latter may just have been very lucky and never been in any accidents , but seen plenty in the rear view mirror.
 
You can't deny somebody who has been driving many years has a higher chance, through experience, of being safer than Kevin fresh out of his test.
 
Yeah, most of the time, not all of the time, that is all I'm saying.

Age does not always ensure wisdom, as my wife keeps pointing out to me!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom