Newsbot Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 More than 150 drivers are stopped by Manx police who are working to make the island's roads safer. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7022928.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Now I am one of the first to criticise driving standards here, but really, stopping drivers for anti-social driving? Stop them for unsafe driving, and call it that, not anti-social. Next they will be stopping drivers wearing vile purple jumpers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 So far motorists have been stopped for using mobile phones whilst driving and for failing to wear seatbelts. And no fines issued? Nice work chaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamplemousse Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I am presuming they named the Operation after the Guns 'n' Roses song Mr Brownstone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 He said the unmarked cars were here to stay and will help reduce casualties and collisions on the island's roads Is he referring to the three Ford Focuses with the big alloy wheels you can spot a mile off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopsticks Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I am presuming they named the Operation after the Guns 'n' Roses song Mr Brownstone? Yes, they are specifically hoping to catch drivers who are being anti-social by being smacked out of their heads on heroin whilst driving. (Which, going off form to date, will earn them a stern talking to!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Is he referring to the three Ford Focuses with the big alloy wheels you can spot a mile off? Three? I have seen the blue one and the silver one. Have they got one of those tasteful bright orange ones too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grianane Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 What an absolutely pointless exercise, another round of wrist slapping when whats needed is a few convictions. The article relates to 31 cases of mobile phone use and 100 seat belt offences. These acts are illegal, presumeably because they are considered to be dangerous and to contribute to accidents - SO PROSECUTE. 131 potential accidents with god knows how many potential innocent deaths. Its about time the police were set the task of getting a few of these offenders in court, issuing fines, dolling out penalty points, banning people for driving in a fashion which the law says is dangerous, instead of trying to promote themselves as an understanding, friendly and easy going force. What's the point of giving them the [toys] tools to catch these drivers with if they aren't going to achieve prosecutions. This isn't supposed to be a friendly society - its supposed to be a law enforcement agency. I'm damn sure that if the papers were filled with prosecution details for R plate speeding, mobile phone use and not using seat belts there'd be a lot less people prepared to chance their arms on these offences. On the subject one of the fast cars responded to a RTA the weekend before last on the mountain road, it was a good 2 minutes behind a marked police vehicle which had already attended the scene (car slid off road no injuries, driver walking), and going like stink, I almost met it on my side of road on way to keppel gate, had I been driving at 10mph faster, or using all my side fo the road there might have been 2 RTA's..). I can't see the point in having 2-3 police vehicles pouncing on the opportunity to race to every minor RTA, and there's no point whatsover in sending an unmarked car intended for covert monitoring of traffic to the scene - all right we all know what it looks like but surely its more effective when it isn't flashing blue lights and hurtling over the mountain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 On the subject one of the fast cars responded to a RTA the weekend before last on the mountain road, it was a good 2 minutes behind a marked police vehicle which had already attended the scene (car slid off road no injuries, driver walking), and going like stink, I almost met it on my side of road on way to keppel gate, had I been driving at 10mph faster, or using all my side fo the road there might have been 2 RTA's..). I can't see the point in having 2-3 police vehicles pouncing on the opportunity to race to every minor RTA, and there's no point whatsover in sending an unmarked car intended for covert monitoring of traffic to the scene - all right we all know what it looks like but surely its more effective when it isn't flashing blue lights and hurtling over the mountain. Having been involved in an RTA years ago, I'd rather have more help than was required - if it happened to be in the area. A minor RTA on the mountain is only a minor RTA once it's been assessed properly. Even people 'walking' can have quite serious injuries, and minutes can make a difference to any 'life and death' situation up there, especially if a car has gone off the road. One police car might contain only the driver, whereas cars in an RTA can each contain 5 (or even more) people. If I'm driving along a road and hear a siren, I always pull in, and once it's past, keep to a reasonable 'be aware' speed as one siren is more often followed by another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grianane Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Indeed, but in this case the driver was actually up on the road, the first car was there and would have assessed the situation and ccould have called of the awaiting pack. I always pull right over whenever I hear a siren and have done so for over 25 years of driving - even before it was common practice to do so, on this occassion driving at 50mph car approaching estimated at 70mph+ from round a bend, there was no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Not wearing a seat belt isn't that "anti-social" is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dames Aflame Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I am presuming they named the Operation after the Guns 'n' Roses song Mr Brownstone? Erm, I get the feeling you don't really know what that song is really about.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Getting people into court for such offences as using a mobile phone or not wearing a seat belt is a waste of everyone's time. The police taken off the road to complete all of the form-filling, then having to waste time hanging around court to give evidence while advocates make a few more quid representing clients who can't be arsed to turn up and face the charges. On the spot fines would be quicker and easier. After all, these 'undercover cars' have the ability to provide video evidence so there shouldn't be any need for further proof. I'd suggest £100 for not wearing a seat belt (the only person they're likely to hurt is themselves) and £250 for mobile phone use while driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 What an absolutely pointless exercise, another round of wrist slapping when whats needed is a few convictions. The article relates to 31 cases of mobile phone use and 100 seat belt offences. These acts are illegal, presumeably because they are considered to be dangerous and to contribute to accidents i don't think not wearing a seatbelt contributes to accidents. it does increase your chances of premature demise if you are involved in an accident, but that is retrospective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Getting people into court for such offences as using a mobile phone or not wearing a seat belt is a waste of everyone's time. The police taken off the road to complete all of the form-filling, then having to waste time hanging around court to give evidence while advocates make a few more quid representing clients who can't be arsed to turn up and face the charges.On the spot fines would be quicker and easier. After all, these 'undercover cars' have the ability to provide video evidence so there shouldn't be any need for further proof. I'd suggest £100 for not wearing a seat belt (the only person they're likely to hurt is themselves) and £250 for mobile phone use while driving. i'd have to agree, fixed penalties for such 'crimes' would be the answer. and if you don't pay, then its court. but if plod has you on video yapping to your phone or seatbeltless, where's your defense? it's did you do it, not why did you do it. perhaps a mandatory ban for non fine payers who are later found guilty in court ( remeber the video ) should keep the courts unclogged? and/or get the don'tgiveafucks off the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.