Just to let you know, and to the best of my knowledge this is being rolled out across the country, Fixed Penalty Tickets are being withdrawn in my force area and being replaced by
Traffic Offence Reports (TORs).
So instead of being dished out a ticket as you would at the moment the TOR will be completed. The process that follows is the same as being pinged by a Speed Scamera - letter in the post , name the driver, conditional offer of a fine etc.
This will make the appropriate Ticket Offices responsible for disposal so there MAY be more awareness courses, driver improvement schemes offered.
However where I see this process potentially being more impactive is for such offences as 'No seat belt' or 'using mobile phone' as the TORs can be submitted without having spoken to the driver and the offence will be followed up by post. On regular occasions the offence is witnessed but it is not possible to get to the offender.
Now I also see that offences other than speeding could also be dealt with by camera.
I'm not privy at this point to the specifics.
|
|
they'll have a hard job to prove Mobile phone use and seatbelt use by camera evidence.
|
Agreed, but if the camera was zoomed in close enough it may well provide clear enough evidence.
Maybe more appropriate for visual sighting where other evidence could be introduced supporting the offence.
|
I was dictating a joke on my 'phone.
Bye.
|
Its an offence to use a phone.
" I was dictating notes on my dictaphone"
should do it.
|
|
I doubt it is beyond the plod to cross reference a camera and phone records.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 19 Feb 13 at 22:09
|
>> I doubt it is beyond the plod to cross reference a camera and phone records.
That unregistered PAYG phone with the number they dont know you mean? Not only that you'll not get a warrant to check mobile phone records for a 60 quid FPN.
|
|
Why does that not work with a fixed penalty notice then?
|
The answer is completely obscure to me, but the first question that springs to mind is, will this change in the regulations result in fewer thieving attempts to get money out of innocent motorists, or more, or about the same number as now? Were I a betting man I'd put my money on more.
:o}
Oh dear....
|
|
Or more importantly will this lead to Constabulary being more identified as an integral part of the Community, or an integral part of the State.
|
|
Its just an excuse to loose more officers on the street.
|
Pedant alert!
>> Its just an excuse to loose more officers on the street.
>>
Z, I know that you disagree with some of the pedantry on here, but this is a prime example of why it is important to use English correctly.
This sentence means the exact opposite of what you intended to say.
"loose" means to release.
"lose" is the verb associated with lost.
|
>>"loose" means to release.
"lose" is the verb associated with lost.<<
How can it be important, you understood perfectly what Z meant.
Pat
|
How can it be important?
Of course it's not important in the context of this thread.
The point I am making is general.
Zero says that he thinks "correct" English is not important, because we all know what is meant.
I'm pointing out that it is important, since on this occasion what he said is the exact opposite of what he meant.
In a different context, this could be vital - so it is important.
(I know, I only started because I'm an irritable pedant!!)
8o)
|
>>(I know, I only started because I'm an irritable pedant!!)<<
Well, you got that bit right even if the rest of the post is rubbish:)
Pat
|
>> >>"loose" means to release.
>> "lose" is the verb associated with lost.<<
>>
>> How can it be important, you understood perfectly what Z meant.
>>
I understood him to mean it was an excuse to turn out more police onto the streets, as in
"Loose the dogs of war".
That would make much more sense than simply pushing them into the street to get lost.
+1 to Zero, I think.
|
>> Constabulary being more identified as an integral part of the Community, or an integral part of the State.
Both of course, depending on circumstances... ooh, ah, Grunwick, God that was annoying, the Left at its most heartless and idiotic.
|
>> Were I a betting man I'd put my money on more.
>>
I'm with you.
FPN = Pay this and that's it.
TOR = "Right, let's look at this closely and see what else we can squeeze him for while we're at it."
Additional revenue without adding expensive Constables, just backroom staff to review each form for pip squeaking opportunities.
|
>>they'll have a hard job to prove Mobile phone use and seatbelt use by camera evidence.
Usually they won't have to bother - the conditional offer will sort most of them out.
Seems to me it might make people driving and telephoning less common. Worse case it'll cost them money.
Seems fair.
|
Surely there will be an evidential problem if their observations are challenged. Their word against mine.
Even if they're in pairs I forsee them being made to squirm by a half competent cross examiner.
|
>> Surely there will be an evidential problem if their observations are challenged. Their word against
>> mine.
>>
>> Even if they're in pairs I forsee them being made to squirm by a half
>> competent cross examiner.
>>
Try disputing a photo.
|
>>Try disputing a photo.
No seatbelt on: Does the photo prove the car wasn't stationary or performing a manoeuvre than included a reversing component.
Holding a mobile phone to the ear: Does the photo prove the driver was talking to another person on the phone or texting?
Photo shows a dead girl full of holes and a guy with no legs holding a gun: was it murder?
Disputing is what the game is about.
|
|
Disputing what the game is about.Off the subject like the legless bloke in South Africa killing his girlfriend allegedly.
|
Traffic Offence Reports - Zero
