Ticketed!

Well, it finally happened.  I got pulled over as part of Norfolk's seat-belt enforcement campaign which is running this month to coincide with the new child seat laws.

This is my first belt ticket in something like 7 or 8 years, and only the second in over 10 years.     I know there'll be some people here waiting to say "I told you so....." 

You know what's unfuriating?   On the way back some maniac came blasting down the wrong side of the road, passing about ten cars at once, and nearly smashed headlong into a car coming the other way.   Not a cop in sight then, of course.   

Bloody typical!! 

Paul, knowing you are a libertarian, are you one to attempt to fight these things in court?  I mean, depending on your degree of commitment over in the States, many libertarians attempt to fight these type of "stupidity laws".  Several friends I know are either lay lawyers or know someone who is.  What is the "scene" like in the UK in fighting these type of things?

Not that I personally want to, but I just tend to find the whole thing quite interesting and never really mind seeing people "screwing with" the government based upon their own laws and rules.

In many ways I feel as though I should take the option of going to court and putting my case.  The part of me which objects strongly to these sort of laws wants to stand up and say dogmatically that I'll fight this all the way, to the highest court in the land if need be, etc.

From a more practical point of view, I'm in exactly the position the fixed-penalty system was designed to place me in.  I know that if I go to court there's almost no chance of having the case dismissed at the first hearing.  Once the process is started, one has to be prepared to follow it through to at least a first or second appeal to achieve anything worthwhile, and that means huge amounts of time trawling through legal documents for possible arguments, not to mention the cost of attending court and other expenses.   

The pragmatic approach is to just pay the £30 fixed fine to remove the legal ax from above one's head and then write some more letters to the police chief, local M.P., transport secretary, etc. with renewed vigor.    I don't feel entirely comfortable with such a course of action, and in fact given my very strong opposition to the law in the first place I can't help feeling as though refusing to stand up for one's principles  in court is somewhat hypocritical, but the practicalities of the situation are very compelling.   

The system is designed to discourage people from fighting these things, even if they are in the right.  Your choice is to pay the fine or perhaps incur significant expense in fighting it.  Knowing that you are up against a limitless source of money, I can see that the easiest and probably best thing to do in this situation is to bite the bullet and pay it.

This does not make you a hypocrite, I assure you.

There will be other battles, Paul, and the others we will win!

 

Vicky

Paul, I'm curious as to why you don't want to wear a seat belt.  I don't see a negative to wearing one, for example, it costs extra to fit your car with one or it's difficult to use or it prevents someone from driving competently.

While I can understand the "It's my body/life I'll do what I want with it as long as it doesn't harm anyone else" philosophy, I can see an argument for wearing one because of the highly increased risk of bodily harm when in an accident, ie people being chunked through their windscreen when not wearing one, and this having a drain on the NHS for having to throw resources are saving lives and helping the severely injured.

It'd be interesting to hear your take on this.

^ Try Pettifog....there is a huuuge discussion about seatbelts in there.

Yep, all 14 pages of it: 

http://talk.uk-yankee.com/index.php?topic=16800.0

I'm not wishing to evade the question Matt, but my posts in the Pettifog thread pretty much cover my reasons and it's probably better if we don't get into another argument about it here.  (Feel free to PM or e-mail me privately if there's anything you want to take up.)

The system is designed to discourage people from fighting these things, even if they are in the right. 

Ain't it just?        If I'd been ticketed for something that I hadn't done, then I would definitely be going to court to argue the case, no matter what.  But I can see how even in those circumstances there's a very strong incentive to just pay the £30 to avoid all the hassle.

Ain't it just?        If I'd been ticketed for something that I hadn't done, then I would definitely be going to court to argue the case, no matter what.  But I can see how even in those circumstances there's a very strong incentive to just pay the £30 to avoid all the hassle.

I recently got my first ticket in about a decade.  I was going to turn left (in the States) and traffic was a bit back up, so I went on the median, which was not raised or anything, to get into the left lane before it was marked on the road.  There was no oncoming traffic and and I went very slowly to make sure no one else pulled out in front of me.  As I started to pull forward, I saw a bunch of cop cars on the side of the road and a big sign that said "Seat Belt Check".  I was wearing my seatbelt so I wasn't worried, but just about as I thought "I wonder if this is technically legal what I am doing" the cop walked right out in front of me and made me stop, pull over to the side of the road and TICKETED ME for "disobeying a no passing zone".

Well, I had to show up in court, because of the type of violation.  But if I wanted to fight it I would have had to sit there all day, wait for all the other tickets to be taken care of and then argue my case and might very well lose.  So I paid my $50 and went on my way for a ticket I didn't really feel I deserved.  "No passing zone" my a$$.

I'll have to read through the thread, Paul.  Might take me a while as there are 14 pages!  Looks like there was some interesting debate.

I'll have to read through the thread, Paul.  Might take me a while as there are 14 pages!  Looks like there was some interesting debate.

Oh yes.....      

I was going to turn left (in the States) and traffic was a bit back up, so I went on the median, which was not raised or anything, to get into the left lane before it was marked on the road.  There was no oncoming traffic and and I went very slowly to make sure no one else pulled out in front of me. 

{.....}

 and TICKETED ME for "disobeying a no passing zone".

I guess they'd argue that if you crossed the yellow lines then technically you were violating the law.  It seems that a little discretion wouldn't go amiss though.

That's where traffic policing these days seems to be losing touch with reality.  If you'd crossed the median area to jump the line of traffic then cut back in or something like that, then fair enough.  Edging out cautiously to get into the left turn lane isn't quite the same thing though, is it?    Even if the cop thought he should stop you for it, he could have just told you that what you did is technically a violation, please be more careful if future Sir, etc. and sent you on your way.    There seems to be a tendency these days to want to issue tickets no matter what. 

I think this is an area where "policing by camera" is also causing a lot of anger.  Look at the speed cameras.    I'm all for stopping those sort of willful speeders who blast through villages at excessive speeds or drive in a fast and intimidating manner on the motorways, etc.    The problem is that the cameras make no distinction between those and the person who has just momentarily exceeded the limit for a second or two, say while passing another vehicle.   

The old-time cop could look at the circumstances and use his discretion, stopping and ticketeing the driver who was obviously driving too fast deliberately and ignoring (or just giving a few words of caution) to the one who accidentally strayed over for a moment.  The cameras have no such discretion:  You were doing 57 in a 50 zone at the second it checked your speed, so that's £60 and 3 points please (or whatever it is), and the circumstances have no effect on the penalty.

Sadly, it seems as though we're getting a breed of cop now who works by the same principle.

Yes, I agree that cameras are quite big brotherish, plus I still think there is a lot of better things for the cops to worry about then someone having a minor traffic violation.

There seem to be two factors in policing these days.  First there is the "we are going to only go after what is easy for us" mentality.  If all they need to do is setup a camera and rake in the money, or catch people with drugs on them and seize their assets, then they are all for it, but it seems that not enough resources are going after the real segments of society that cause problems.  Good policing doesn't seem to be in fashion, cheap, quick and easy seem to be the types of things they go after.

The other thing is the sort of disproportionate punishment for minor things simply because they figure "If I caught you this time, you must either be doing more bad things or this isn't the first time you have done this."  Again instead of real policing and investigation, they just throw the book at people assuming that everyone is a hardened violator.

Obviously I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet and it is probally more relevant to things other than traffic "crimes" but the whole system seems to operate this way in my view.

First there is the "we are going to only go after what is easy for us" mentality. 

I think that's a growing concern these days, caused in no small part by the government "targets."    How much easier is it to go after the minor violators so that the statistics show an X percent increase in successful convictions rather than spend time on the serious issues?     

The other thing is the sort of disproportionate punishment for minor things simply because they figure "If I caught you this time, you must either be doing more bad things or this isn't the first time you have done this."  Again instead of real policing and investigation, they just throw the book at people assuming that everyone is a hardened violator.

What I can't understand is the way the penalties for violating some obscure or relatively minor law seem to be getting more and more harsh, while fines or sentences handed out for serious crimes are getting more lenient.   

There's something seriously wrong with the system when we reach the point at which a person who gets drunk and nearly kills somebody with his car gets a lighter penalty than someone who is two days late with his car tax renewal.

There's something seriously wrong with the system when we reach the point at which a person who gets drunk and nearly kills somebody with his car gets a lighter penalty than someone who is two days late with his car tax renewal.

Oh don't even get me started on that...  Admittedly I was young and stupid, but over 10 years ago, I got pulled over for having expired registration tags (in the US obviously) and only for that.  I wasn't speeding, etc.  Well I didn't take care of it and three years later, I get pulled over again only for the same thing (I really had a problem with taking care of what I considered minor details).  Again I wasn't speeding.  Well I found out that my drivers license had been suspended because I hadn't paid the earlier fine.  She copy actually makes me exit the car and have my sister who was riding with me drive me home!  I had to go to court, take care of all of it and it ended up costing me >$1000 in fines and fees all because I wasn't giving the government what they were do!

Now like you said, if I had been drink driving, I would have probally have gotten a slap on the wrist, paid a few hundred dollars in fines been drivin home by my sister still and had to show up in court a couple of times and take a drink driving class and been done with it.

If you are caught drink driving they will put you in a jail cell overnight (in the US, I assume the same in the UK).

While having an expired car registration is not on par with drink driving or excessive speeding there are laws in place.  Forgetting to register your car and being a few days late with your registration having made an honest mistake is one thing but to have willfully ignored it AND having been pulled over again some time later for the same thing seems kinda negligent.  What's the point of having laws, if they're continually broken?