by TheJusticeofthePeace @ 01.
Dec. 2010. – 11:49:05
Major changes in road traffic legislation by and large usually are arrived at by consensus. They are rarely a subject of fundamental disagreement by whatever party is in opposition. The introduction of compulsory wearing of seat belts, a scientific drink drive standard, a test for learner drivers increasing in complexity as our road space per driver decreased in direct proportion to the numbers of cars and drivers and of course the required attachment of a red L plate front and back on cars driven by those on provisional licenses. Of course there have been a few occasions when the consensus was stretched; the 70MPH limit was resisted by some as was the use of seat belts, arguments being that the loss of these freedoms could perhaps inhibit a driver`s ability to save him/herself in extreme moments. However apart from the Magistrates` Association and the North Report there is not much clamour to reduce the current drink/drive disqualification to a minimum of six months from the current twelve. It would seem unlikely that any government in the current climate would seek to introduce such legislation. Indeed political goodwill will be rationed for those areas where costs can be saved with an emphasis on reduced government involvement rather than more. Why then did the aforesaid Magistrates` Association write to the Transport Minister a couple of months ago seeking the introduction of a compulsory green P Plate for newly qualified drivers? In my blog on November 13th I wrote that I could find no mention of the letter on the M.A. website. I have no knowledge when it appeared but there is now contained within the minutes of the Road Traffic Committee`s meeting of June 3rd earlier this year the following;
2455 NEW DRIVERS
A revised discussion paper prepared by the Chairman on new drivers was considered. Tony Smith pointed out that speed was the key reason for new drivers having accidents and that the best way forward would be to introduce strict penalties on speeding for this age group as a strong deterrent was required. The Committee discussed whether a top speed of 50mph should be introduced for new drivers but although some members supported this suggestion, the majority felt that it would be difficult to enforce and would slow up motorway traffic.The Committee looked at ways of improving the situation and agreed the following:
The Committee confirmed its policy that it should be a legal requirement for new drivers to display a P Plate on their vehicles for the first 12-months after passing the driving test. Failure to do so should result in 6-penalty points being put on the licence which, in turn, would lead to the licence being revoked. No fixed penalty notices for speeding offences should be given to new drivers for the first 12-months after passing the driving test so that these offences could be dealt with by the courts. It was agreed that the Chairman should include these proposals in his letter to the Minister.
At this meeting no statistics have been argued. So the “committee confirmed its policy”. Where and when did this policy first appear? What counter arguments were made if any? What other organisations were consulted in order to present a stronger case? How many other such policies previously have been suggested in letters to the Minister? Was no consideration given to the fact that major proposals were on the table re court closures subsequent to the government`s publication of its discussion document and that all efforts should be put in that direction and not diluted by such an irrelevance at this time?
As another indication of its unfitness to represent 28,000 J.P.s the M.A.`s own Council cannot even agree road traffic policy on road safety with its own Committee of that name as the extract below indicates.
2460 DRINK/DRIVE THRESHOLD
It was noted that Council reached a different decision to the Committee over the question of what should be the penalty range for the offence of driving over the limit with an alcohol/blood result of between 50 mg to 80 mg per 100 millilitres of blood, should the government introduce the lower threshold.
The majority of the Committee had been in favour of a discretionary sentencing option if this offence was established whereas Council had expressed a clear preference for a mandatory disqualification period shorter than 12 months. The Committee observed the decision of Council which would now formulate Magistrates’ Association policy. The Committee would consider the issue of drink driving further once Sir Peter North’s Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law was published that was due out soon.
The M.A. held its AGM two days ago. It will be interesting to read the minutes of that meeting but I`m afraid it will probably be quite some time before we, the members, will be allowed that privilege.
The issues of the P Plate and North are typical of the dysfunction that continues in an Association oblivious to its own shortcomings. Democracy and representation within the M.A. is as much a façade as they were a façade of many trade unions in the 1970s. On paper everything seems rosy but the reality is much different. Until the so called branch system is abandoned as being unfit for the 21st century and the organisation revolves around benches this Mickey Mouse self serving medal seeking collection will continue to misrepresent the views of hard working intelligent men and women doing a great deal for no reward in order to do justice in the 95% of criminal cases which begin and end at the magistrates` court.
