On the beat: It isn't always 'boy racers' who flout the law
This week my 17-year-old daughter passed her driving test. Waiting for her to come through the door after she had finished so we could find out how she had fared was nerve racking and I found myself pacing the floor like an expectant father.
Once we had learned of her success, and the text messages had all been sent, the stark reality set in that, within days, she would expect to be driving around in her first car, purchased no doubt by her mum and dad, while the search for cheap car insurance using all the comparative websites would have been completed.
With her parents X amount of pounds poorer she would drive off into the sunset as free as a bird.
In stark contrast, only this week myself and a colleague, while out on mobile patrol, had cause to stop a vehicle because it was being driven without lights. In the belief that the driver may have been drinking we decided to give it a tug.
Sitting behind the steering wheel was an elderly male who felt that we were unjustified in stopping him and after the usual conversation about us "having nothing better to do" we explained our reasoning.
It was simple: when driving at night put your headlights on and there wouldn't be a problem. Only after we had made the request did he acknowledge that his headlights were faulty and not working correctly, a fact that he knew before he decided to go out that evening.
A further check of the vehicle revealed that his tax was outdated and even more incredible was that he was driving without insurance.
Powers given to us now mean that we can seize vehicles that are being driven without insurance and following the issuing of the relevant documentation allowing us to seize his vehicle, along with two fixed penalties for no tax and a vehicle defect, he went on his way complaining of the injustice of it all. This was a rant that wasn't lost on me, especially after my daughter's test success, as it is because of people like him that all our premiums are sky high in the first place.
I begrudge paying for road tax and huge amounts for insurance as well as the next person, but it's a fact that if we want to drive our vehicles on the road, we have to pay the price to do so, along with the protection it affords us should we have our vehicle stolen, have an accident or injure someone.
The fact that this male was elderly and should have known better also made me realise that it isn't always the young "boy racers" who flout the law. If they believe they can get away with it, even the elderly are trying it on, probably in the hope that their age will mean they don't get stopped as often.
6 Comments
View all
by Grahame P, Central Bristol
Thursday, November 26 2009, 1:39PM
“Uninsured drivers are ten times more likely to drink and drive and three times more likely to be convicted of driving without due care and attention. They also cause one accident every six months. One in twenty motorists regularly drive without insurance and one in ten motorists have been involved in an accident with an uninsured driver, risking their no-claims bonus, paying the excess and generally suffering major inconvenience.
But if one in twenty drivers is uninsured, how hard can it be to detect them when there's a database of registered vehicles and another which shows which vehicles are actually insured. Both are available to the police.
We need more effort put into catching them, and sanctions effectively and consistently applied. The fact that so many motorists are uninsured is testimony to the fact that penalties are derisory and detection so low, it's worth running the risk. The public will continue to endure the problem for as long as the police and courts fail us.”
by hannah, bristol
Friday, November 20 2009, 4:50PM
“Agree with all these comments below, Whats needed is stronger deterrents ie: harsher penalties for crimes and not just motoring crimes, its time all softly softly treatment with criminals stopped,then maybe people think twice about offending, the police do have too much to deal with, and as the old saying goes prevention is better than a cure is definately relevant here.”
by hannah, bristol
Friday, November 20 2009, 4:49PM
“Agree with all these comments below, Whats needed is stronger deterrents ie: harsher penalties for crimes and not just motoring crimes, its time all the pussy footing around with criminals stopped,then maybe people think twice about offending, the police do have too much to deal with, and as the old saying goes prevention is better than a cure is definately relevant here.”
by John, Bristol
Friday, November 20 2009, 3:39PM
“"Powers given to us now mean that we can seize vehicles that are being driven without insurance".
So why insn't this done on every occasion! You have just confirmed the police have these powers yet don't use them. Why should law abiding motorist have to pay £40 additional insurance per annum to pay for those who flout the law. We now live in a country where there is little or no sanctions, punishments or consequences for crimes such as these. The courts ludicrously only fine such people £200 when the law abiding have to pay double that to insure their car. What incentive is there for the law abiding to tax and insure their cars when the police do not arrest these drivers and have their cars crushed. I don't care whether they are young or old, not making an example of such people simply ecourages others to act the same. Even worse it inceases the risks of even more road accidents. Drivers without tax or insurance should automatically have their cars crushed.”
by A mum, Kingswood
Thursday, November 19 2009, 1:40PM
“Totally agree with Juliet Bravo. The police have a really hard job which is made worse by all the human rights arguments every criminal seems to call on if they are in trouble and all the paperwork etc etc without the court system letting off the people that the police have worked hard to catch and bring to court.”