Epsom
| TOP STORIES |  | | | | | | | FEATURES | | | | | | MAYOR NEWS | | | | BIZARRE LONDON | | | TRAVEL | | | | COMPETITIONS | | |
|
|
|
Cars and bikes seized during road safety op
Surrey Police seized 20 motorbikes and two cars as park of a crackdown on law-breaking motorists.
During the operation officers spotted one motorcyclist riding at 102mph in a 50mph zone on the A24 southbound from Leatherhead towards Box Hill.
That rider was reported and is due to be summonsed to court.
The operation was carried out over the bank holiday weekend by Surrey Police and the Surrey Safety Camera Partnership which patrolled sites around the county.
In total 112 endorsable fixed penalty notices were issued for offences including speeding, failing to have insurance, failing to have a driving licence, or using a mobile phone.
Of those 91 were issued to car drivers and 21 to bikers.
Chief Inspector Stuart Sang, head of Surrey's Roads Policing Unit, said: "The majority of riders out over the bank holiday were supportive of police activity and travelled safely through the county. In fact it should be noted that more than two thirds of those caught breaking the speed limit were car drivers.
| “Despite our warnings however a significant number of bikers failed to have valid insurance or a proper driving licence and as a result their vehicles were seized.” | | Chief Inspector Stuart Sang |
|
"Despite our warnings however a significant number of bikers failed to have valid insurance or a proper driving licence and as a result their vehicles were seized."
According to Surrey Police despite accounting for just one per cent of road users, around a quarter of those who die each year on Surrey's roads are motorcyclists.
To try and educate bikers about the dangers, officers handed out safety advice at popular motorcycle meeting points including Box Hill and Newlands Corner.
7:32pm Friday 9th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Bernie, The Road to Hell on 11:26pm Fri 9 May 08
I don't know about the rest of you people who read this, but when it becomes apparent just how many offences are caught in a single weekend, I find it more than a little scarey the number of offences drivers and riders are clearly getting away with when there isn't an active crackdown in progressthe the other 362 days of the year.
It's sad to see road safety has declined so baddly over the last ten or so years and the law held in such obvious contempt leaving the rest of us law abiding citizen in such obvious danger when all thats left on the street is a handful of aging speed cameras and these officers are draughted off to another country for a similar couple of day crackdown elsewhere.
Alistair Darling has a lot to answer for when he signed us up to the speed camera program.
I don't know about the rest of you people who read this, but when it becomes apparent just how many offences are caught in a single weekend, I find it more than a little scarey the number of offences drivers and riders are clearly getting away with when there isn't an active crackdown in progressthe the other 362 days of the year.
It's sad to see road safety has declined so baddly over the last ten or so years and the law held in such obvious contempt leaving the rest of us law abiding citizen in such obvious danger when all thats left on the street is a handful of aging speed cameras and these officers are draughted off to another country for a similar couple of day crackdown elsewhere.
Alistair Darling has a lot to answer for when he signed us up to the speed camera program.
Posted by: Bernie, The Former United Kingdom. on 11:36pm Fri 9 May 08
Sorry, I meant, these officers are draughted off to another 'County'
With policys like these it's little wonder the government took such a good drubbing the other week.
Disgusting, give us back our traffic police Ms Smith, you given in trying to police the yobs by proxy, have the deceny to admit it was a failure on the roads as well.
Sorry, I meant, these officers are draughted off to another 'County'
With policys like these it's little wonder the government took such a good drubbing the other week.
Disgusting, give us back our traffic police Ms Smith, you given in trying to police the yobs by proxy, have the deceny to admit it was a failure on the roads as well.
Posted by: Jock, London on 1:01am Sat 10 May 08
Bernie, I could not agree with you more. It is frightening. I remember getting into a minicab one night. The driver, who admitted he'd only arrived 2 days previous pulled out an A to Z, and asked me to direct him. Apparently, a "Patel" licence operates in some minicab firms, where all the drivers are "Patel", and work under copies of the same licence.
Nightbus, or proper hackney cab for me. Put your life in your hands with any other, just don't complain when something goes wrong, cos you've been warned in a poster campaign.
Bernie, I could not agree with you more. It is frightening. I remember getting into a minicab one night. The driver, who admitted he'd only arrived 2 days previous pulled out an A to Z, and asked me to direct him. Apparently, a "Patel" licence operates in some minicab firms, where all the drivers are "Patel", and work under copies of the same licence.
Nightbus, or proper hackney cab for me. Put your life in your hands with any other, just don't complain when something goes wrong, cos you've been warned in a poster campaign.
Posted by: Shez, Croydon on 1:14am Sat 10 May 08
Weren't the partnership people patting themselves on the back in the press recently, because convictions were going down, therefore less people were speeding and they're doing a great job?
This blows that pile of cattle manure out of the water a bit, doesn't it.
Weren't the partnership people patting themselves on the back in the press recently, because convictions were going down, therefore less people were speeding and they're doing a great job?
This blows that pile of cattle manure out of the water a bit, doesn't it.
Posted by: Hazel, chessington on 8:01pm Sat 10 May 08
I'm sorry but anyone who finds this scarey is quite frankly naive to everyday life in England. If you dont believe me stand outside St Mary's school in Chessington on a week-day morning for 5 minutes, you'll need more than 1 pair of hands to count the offences being committed. Theres plenty of rules & regulations but no-one to police them!
I'm sorry but anyone who finds this scarey is quite frankly naive to everyday life in England. If you dont believe me stand outside St Mary's school in Chessington on a week-day morning for 5 minutes, you'll need more than 1 pair of hands to count the offences being committed. Theres plenty of rules & regulations but no-one to police them!
Posted by: Bernie, Home of the tax fiddle. on 10:10pm Sat 10 May 08
I think we're more or less singing from the same hymn sheet if you read my post again Hazel.
Would you prefer for me to call the absence of traffic police officers since speed cameras were set free on the roads 'terrifying' to keep you happy?
The government obviously haven't provided targets or funding to deal with the everyday offences you speak of, thats why nobody is dealing with them and nobody can argue with the self righteous propaganda of the speed camera people because no matter what you can see with your own eyes, they won't accept it as proof that their strategy simply doesn't work.
Also, no politician is going to risk his or her career to stand against this tax making regime all the time this government are in office.
Nothing more than a sub standard solution to a serious problem that happens to save a lot of money on real police as well as pay for itself in fines while doing nothing to catch the hardcore illegal drivers as these crackdowns clearly show.
Gordon Brown, you got your butt kicked a couple of weeks ago, this is one of the reasons why.
I think we're more or less singing from the same hymn sheet if you read my post again Hazel.
Would you prefer for me to call the absence of traffic police officers since speed cameras were set free on the roads 'terrifying' to keep you happy?
The government obviously haven't provided targets or funding to deal with the everyday offences you speak of, thats why nobody is dealing with them and nobody can argue with the self righteous propaganda of the speed camera people because no matter what you can see with your own eyes, they won't accept it as proof that their strategy simply doesn't work.
Also, no politician is going to risk his or her career to stand against this tax making regime all the time this government are in office.
Nothing more than a sub standard solution to a serious problem that happens to save a lot of money on real police as well as pay for itself in fines while doing nothing to catch the hardcore illegal drivers as these crackdowns clearly show.
Gordon Brown, you got your butt kicked a couple of weeks ago, this is one of the reasons why.
Posted by: Pete, Surbiton on 10:17am Sun 11 May 08
If you see that many traffic offences in Chessington that the police aren't doing anything about, then you should log them on:
http://www.betterdri
vingplease.com
That way, we can find out if it's lots of different vehicles, or if it's the same few vehicles over and over again.
Out of the 12,000+ incidents that have been reported so far, only two of them have been in Chessington.
If you see that many traffic offences in Chessington that the police aren't doing anything about, then you should log them on:
http://www.betterdri
vingplease.com
That way, we can find out if it's lots of different vehicles, or if it's the same few vehicles over and over again.
Out of the 12,000+ incidents that have been reported so far, only two of them have been in Chessington.
Posted by: Colin on 3:55pm Sun 11 May 08
Personally, I don't approave of sites like www.betterdrivingple
ase.com, they're far too open to abuse where someone who's fed up with the height of his neighbours hedge could with just a group email to all his buddies and work mates, potentially get someone in a lot of trouble when in reality, that person has done nothing.
It is sad to see this almost vigilante style retribution being allowed to poliferate in the UK, mainly due to the lack of adequate policing since the surveilence nation went a bit mental.
Personally, I don't approave of sites like www.betterdrivingple
ase.com, they're far too open to abuse where someone who's fed up with the height of his neighbours hedge could with just a group email to all his buddies and work mates, potentially get someone in a lot of trouble when in reality, that person has done nothing.
It is sad to see this almost vigilante style retribution being allowed to poliferate in the UK, mainly due to the lack of adequate policing since the surveilence nation went a bit mental.
Posted by: Jock, London on 11:01am Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]Colin[/bold] wrote:
Personally, I don't approave of sites like www.betterdrivingple ase.com, they're far too open to abuse where someone who's fed up with the height of his neighbours hedge could with just a group email to all his buddies and work mates, potentially get someone in a lot of trouble when in reality, that person has done nothing. It is sad to see this almost vigilante style retribution being allowed to poliferate in the UK, mainly due to the lack of adequate policing since the surveilence nation went a bit mental.[/quote] Colin, the site is called "BetterDrivingPlease
", not "WhyAreYourHedgesSoH
igh".
I'm glad I know about the site now, I've been constantly angered by all sorts of careless drivers in Balham. Now I'm off to photograph my first batch of offenders =)
Colin wrote:
Personally, I don't approave of sites like www.betterdrivingple ase.com, they're far too open to abuse where someone who's fed up with the height of his neighbours hedge could with just a group email to all his buddies and work mates, potentially get someone in a lot of trouble when in reality, that person has done nothing. It is sad to see this almost vigilante style retribution being allowed to poliferate in the UK, mainly due to the lack of adequate policing since the surveilence nation went a bit mental.
Colin, the site is called "BetterDrivingPlease
", not "WhyAreYourHedgesSoH
igh".
I'm glad I know about the site now, I've been constantly angered by all sorts of careless drivers in Balham. Now I'm off to photograph my first batch of offenders =)
Posted by: ric, kingston on 11:35am Mon 12 May 08
clearly the police were wrong when they decided that spending billions on cameras would save lives. it hasnt. and its not only cost us for the cameras. the fines have cost us as well.
the speed limits are out of date. they were made when you could buy a 3 litre jag that had no brakes.
this day and age cars are safer. they accelerate faster. stop quicker and are safer in a crash.
and if thats wrong. why do they sell bikes and cars that do 180mph?
if they care so much about safety they could just limit everyones car.
they dont care about safety. thats a smoke screen.
dont even get me started on your pathetic little grass people up website. honestly get a life.
clearly the police were wrong when they decided that spending billions on cameras would save lives. it hasnt. and its not only cost us for the cameras. the fines have cost us as well.
the speed limits are out of date. they were made when you could buy a 3 litre jag that had no brakes.
this day and age cars are safer. they accelerate faster. stop quicker and are safer in a crash.
and if thats wrong. why do they sell bikes and cars that do 180mph?
if they care so much about safety they could just limit everyones car.
they dont care about safety. thats a smoke screen.
dont even get me started on your pathetic little grass people up website. honestly get a life.
Posted by: G.Virr., Sunbury Common on 3:06pm Mon 12 May 08
Vehicles may have improved but people certainly have not.
The most important factor in road safety remains the quality of the "nut behind the wheel".
Vehicles may have improved but people certainly have not.
The most important factor in road safety remains the quality of the "nut behind the wheel".
Posted by: Barnaby Rudge, Cheam on 3:38pm Mon 12 May 08
I love people like ric, they seem to believe that now cars are safer for passengers, that speed limits should be raised. For the last time, at 30mph you had an 80% of killing a pedestrian in the 1950's, the same still applies today, so tell me, where's the difference? We need police back on traffic patrol actually sorting offenders out rather than relying on cameras, ditch the PCSO's and spend it on something more worthwhile like traffic police.
I love people like ric, they seem to believe that now cars are safer for passengers, that speed limits should be raised. For the last time, at 30mph you had an 80% of killing a pedestrian in the 1950's, the same still applies today, so tell me, where's the difference? We need police back on traffic patrol actually sorting offenders out rather than relying on cameras, ditch the PCSO's and spend it on something more worthwhile like traffic police.
Posted by: Colin on 5:00pm Mon 12 May 08
Exactly my point Jock, when did you gain the qualifications to become a police officer or has taking the law into your own hands become acceptable practice in the 21st century?
If you couldn't see my point using the hedge to represent any number of things that could annoy someone enough to complain on one of these websites, then I really do despair about the rest of the population and feel sad that I'm actually a member of the same species.
This is a step back into the dark ages and next thing we'll know, we'll have regular witch hunts for anyone who doesn't conform to the view of the very narrow minded.
Jock, without the right equipment you can't possibly know if someone is speeding or not, you can only surmise and thats where you fall down, even with an LTI20:20 like the police use you're more likely to get it wrong than right.
Bad policy, promoting bad feelings in towns and villages across the country where there was none before speed cameras and self righteous do gooders.
However, I agree with Barnaby Rudge and hope most people aren't quite so keen to jump on the bandwagon as Jock is.
Thats the point jock, no amount of cameras can replace a viable traffic police force, as can be shown clearly in the above article.
Exactly my point Jock, when did you gain the qualifications to become a police officer or has taking the law into your own hands become acceptable practice in the 21st century?
If you couldn't see my point using the hedge to represent any number of things that could annoy someone enough to complain on one of these websites, then I really do despair about the rest of the population and feel sad that I'm actually a member of the same species.
This is a step back into the dark ages and next thing we'll know, we'll have regular witch hunts for anyone who doesn't conform to the view of the very narrow minded.
Jock, without the right equipment you can't possibly know if someone is speeding or not, you can only surmise and thats where you fall down, even with an LTI20:20 like the police use you're more likely to get it wrong than right.
Bad policy, promoting bad feelings in towns and villages across the country where there was none before speed cameras and self righteous do gooders.
However, I agree with Barnaby Rudge and hope most people aren't quite so keen to jump on the bandwagon as Jock is.
Thats the point jock, no amount of cameras can replace a viable traffic police force, as can be shown clearly in the above article.
Posted by: Colin on 5:26pm Mon 12 May 08
And Ric, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the speed limits we've got except that I think they need simplifying, there should only be three limits, 30 and 60 rural and 70 on the motorway.
In other words, if it's not safe to do 60, then it's 30.
70% ofconvictions in the country would disappear over night if they made it simpler, but then, thats the last thing they want to do, otherwise cameras would suddenly start costing an awful lot of money if there were no fines to support them.
And Ric, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with the speed limits we've got except that I think they need simplifying, there should only be three limits, 30 and 60 rural and 70 on the motorway.
In other words, if it's not safe to do 60, then it's 30.
70% ofconvictions in the country would disappear over night if they made it simpler, but then, thats the last thing they want to do, otherwise cameras would suddenly start costing an awful lot of money if there were no fines to support them.
Posted by: Bernie, Is it dinner time on 6:19pm Mon 12 May 08
I don't think it was the police who got it wrong Ric, it was our good mate Alistair, ever so slimey, how on earth did I get to be chancellor, Darling, who signed us up to the conman, (I mean salesman) who sold speed cameras.
CPO's simply follow government guidelines and if they haven't got targets or funding for road casualty reduction from Westminster, then it simply doesn't get done, there are no targets or funding because the goverment see the number of fines, rub their mitts together in times of financial incompetence like now and kid themselves it must therefore be working.
Speed cameras, supported by easily lead simpletons and bean counters, yes, the same people, who negate on police wages and who're closing post offices, accident and emergency centres across the country, you know them as the labour government.
Don't blame the police, there was a time they were a force that was the envy of the world.
At least the Australians are starting to get a little uncomfortable taking all that money in revenue from it's citizens whilst having no significant effect on casualty reduction, as recent question in their parliament show.
I don't think it was the police who got it wrong Ric, it was our good mate Alistair, ever so slimey, how on earth did I get to be chancellor, Darling, who signed us up to the conman, (I mean salesman) who sold speed cameras.
CPO's simply follow government guidelines and if they haven't got targets or funding for road casualty reduction from Westminster, then it simply doesn't get done, there are no targets or funding because the goverment see the number of fines, rub their mitts together in times of financial incompetence like now and kid themselves it must therefore be working.
Speed cameras, supported by easily lead simpletons and bean counters, yes, the same people, who negate on police wages and who're closing post offices, accident and emergency centres across the country, you know them as the labour government.
Don't blame the police, there was a time they were a force that was the envy of the world.
At least the Australians are starting to get a little uncomfortable taking all that money in revenue from it's citizens whilst having no significant effect on casualty reduction, as recent question in their parliament show.
Posted by: ric, kingston on 3:27pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote]For the last time, at 30mph you had an 80% of killing a pedestrian in the 1950's, the same still applies today[/quote]
but we're not talking about the speed in which you hit someone. a car these days travelling at 50mph will stop quicker and safer than a 1950's car doing 30mph.
i agree with the 30mph limits in most places but 70mph on a motorway is way to slow. its should be at least 90mph
you want to make the tests harder and re takes when you hit a certain age. get the people who cant drive off the road.
i'd be happy to have harder tests carried out year after year. because i know i wouldnt be someone who would fail it.
i mean whats the point of having any speed limits if the people driving cant actually control their car. they are the people causing the accidents. not the people doing 100mph down the motorway, who happen to be confident drivers.
For the last time, at 30mph you had an 80% of killing a pedestrian in the 1950's, the same still applies today
but we're not talking about the speed in which you hit someone. a car these days travelling at 50mph will stop quicker and safer than a 1950's car doing 30mph.
i agree with the 30mph limits in most places but 70mph on a motorway is way to slow. its should be at least 90mph
you want to make the tests harder and re takes when you hit a certain age. get the people who cant drive off the road.
i'd be happy to have harder tests carried out year after year. because i know i wouldnt be someone who would fail it.
i mean whats the point of having any speed limits if the people driving cant actually control their car. they are the people causing the accidents. not the people doing 100mph down the motorway, who happen to be confident drivers.
Posted by: Bernie on 9:44pm Tue 13 May 08
The problem with confident drivers is that they have accidents, that's why they're called accidents.
The problem with raising the speed limit to 90 is the desparity between the speed of vehicles travelling at 90 and those around them travelling as low as 50 such as caravans and lorrys.
The argument between the 'pro speed' and 'anti speed' camps, has hindered and blinded everyone to one essential, unavoidable problem on Britains roads today, the question of policing.
Speed cameras are no substitute for qualified police officers, because as soon as the 'apprehension' of a driver potentially behaving in an illegal fashion was removed, the safety of our roads began to deteriorate, right now on our roads there is an epedemic of illegal driving which, as can be seen in the story above, is leaving those of us using the road legally in serious danger, this isn't going to change until both the pro speed and the pro camera people get over their pathetic little argument and wake up to the bigger picture.
Prosecuting an OAP at 35 is not making the roads safer when that same camera isn't catching the bloke on the bike at 102.
It is an absurd policy and needs to be reviewed at top level by men wise enough not to be tempted by the revenue.
The problem with confident drivers is that they have accidents, that's why they're called accidents.
The problem with raising the speed limit to 90 is the desparity between the speed of vehicles travelling at 90 and those around them travelling as low as 50 such as caravans and lorrys.
The argument between the 'pro speed' and 'anti speed' camps, has hindered and blinded everyone to one essential, unavoidable problem on Britains roads today, the question of policing.
Speed cameras are no substitute for qualified police officers, because as soon as the 'apprehension' of a driver potentially behaving in an illegal fashion was removed, the safety of our roads began to deteriorate, right now on our roads there is an epedemic of illegal driving which, as can be seen in the story above, is leaving those of us using the road legally in serious danger, this isn't going to change until both the pro speed and the pro camera people get over their pathetic little argument and wake up to the bigger picture.
Prosecuting an OAP at 35 is not making the roads safer when that same camera isn't catching the bloke on the bike at 102.
It is an absurd policy and needs to be reviewed at top level by men wise enough not to be tempted by the revenue.
Posted by: ric, kingston on 9:34am Wed 14 May 08
[quote]The problem with confident drivers is that they have accidents, that's why they're called accidents.
[quote]
im sorry but thats the biggest loads of b*llocks i have ever read on this website.
so now your saying that all accidents are down to speeding. rubbish. none come from anyone else? rubbish.
most accidents are down to hesitation. thats something that comes from drivers who are not confident.
confident drivers speed because driving for them is easy. un confident drivers spend to much time concetrating of things like changing gear. instead of looking at the road and in there mirrors.
you dont get any experienced police drivers who pass there advanced driving courses for being timid and hesitant. no the best police force drivers are confident ones.
doing 102 mph on a superbike isnt as bad as it sounds. its just over 50% of its top speed. a speed that was passed by UK governements as 'safe' to sell to the public.
you give someone power. they will use it.
The problem with confident drivers is that they have accidents, that's why they're called accidents.
im sorry but thats the biggest loads of b*llocks i have ever read on this website.
so now your saying that all accidents are down to speeding. rubbish. none come from anyone else? rubbish.
most accidents are down to hesitation. thats something that comes from drivers who are not confident.
confident drivers speed because driving for them is easy. un confident drivers spend to much time concetrating of things like changing gear. instead of looking at the road and in there mirrors.
you dont get any experienced police drivers who pass there advanced driving courses for being timid and hesitant. no the best police force drivers are confident ones.
doing 102 mph on a superbike isnt as bad as it sounds. its just over 50% of its top speed. a speed that was passed by UK governements as 'safe' to sell to the public.
you give someone power. they will use it.
Posted by: Bernie on 3:31pm Wed 14 May 08
Actually ric, I didn't say what you're trying to make out I said, therefore, I can't be bothered to answer your points.
The only thing that matters to me is that easily avoided speed cameras are inadequate to the task they're being deployed for. We need more police on the road to stop people like ric who thinks it's not as bad as it seems to drive at 102mph, when all the speed camera people can do is regularly catch people less than a couple of miles an hour over an arbitrary limit.
95% of all people caught speeding by camera are less than 10mph over that limit, while it is only the few remaining police on the roads during crackdowns like these who catch the actual dangerous drivers who flout the law and ignore other peoples safety.
Speed cameras are a license for people like ric to drive like an idiot and convince himself its alright. It's a bit like getting heavy on someone who drops an apple core, while leaving the murderers and rapists to get on with it because they're not as easy to catch.
Actually ric, I didn't say what you're trying to make out I said, therefore, I can't be bothered to answer your points.
The only thing that matters to me is that easily avoided speed cameras are inadequate to the task they're being deployed for. We need more police on the road to stop people like ric who thinks it's not as bad as it seems to drive at 102mph, when all the speed camera people can do is regularly catch people less than a couple of miles an hour over an arbitrary limit.
95% of all people caught speeding by camera are less than 10mph over that limit, while it is only the few remaining police on the roads during crackdowns like these who catch the actual dangerous drivers who flout the law and ignore other peoples safety.
Speed cameras are a license for people like ric to drive like an idiot and convince himself its alright. It's a bit like getting heavy on someone who drops an apple core, while leaving the murderers and rapists to get on with it because they're not as easy to catch.
Posted by: Pete, Surbiton on 6:45am Thu 15 May 08
[quote][bold]Colin[/bold] wrote:
Personally, I don't approave of sites like www.betterdrivingple
ase.com, they're far too open to abuse where someone who's fed up with the height of his neighbours hedge could with just a group email to all his buddies and work mates, potentially get someone in a lot of trouble when in reality, that person has done nothing.
It is sad to see this almost vigilante style retribution being allowed to poliferate in the UK, mainly due to the lack of adequate policing since the surveilence nation went a bit mental.[/quote] That's the reason why BetterDrivingPlease.
com allows drivers to defend themselves, by making comments on any reports made against their own registration numbers.
BetterDrivingPlease.
com absolutely isn't indended to be a replacement for policing; it's intended to complement it. An entry in the database by itself is absolutely [italic]not[/italic] enough evidence to charge or convict someone with a traffic offence. So what's the problem?
If the occasional fruitcake comes along and uses the site to moan about a neighbour dispute, it really doesn't matter. As long as your driving is clean, you've got nothing to worry about.
But despite that, it's still useful for the individual members of the public to know whether or not they're the only person who is unhappy about the driving safety of a particular vehicle registration, or other people have noticed the same problem. And it's also useful for the police and the authorities to know where they should be concentrating their resources.
Colin wrote:
Personally, I don't approave of sites like www.betterdrivingple
ase.com, they're far too open to abuse where someone who's fed up with the height of his neighbours hedge could with just a group email to all his buddies and work mates, potentially get someone in a lot of trouble when in reality, that person has done nothing.
It is sad to see this almost vigilante style retribution being allowed to poliferate in the UK, mainly due to the lack of adequate policing since the surveilence nation went a bit mental.
That's the reason why BetterDrivingPlease.
com allows drivers to defend themselves, by making comments on any reports made against their own registration numbers.
BetterDrivingPlease.
com absolutely isn't indended to be a replacement for policing; it's intended to complement it. An entry in the database by itself is absolutely
not enough evidence to charge or convict someone with a traffic offence. So what's the problem?
If the occasional fruitcake comes along and uses the site to moan about a neighbour dispute, it really doesn't matter. As long as your driving is clean, you've got nothing to worry about.
But despite that, it's still useful for the individual members of the public to know whether or not they're the only person who is unhappy about the driving safety of a particular vehicle registration, or other people have noticed the same problem. And it's also useful for the police and the authorities to know where they should be concentrating their resources.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
