Britannia Radio

CARELESS DRIVING PENALTIES CONSULTATION -

INCREASED ROAD SAFETY

Dear Ms G

Your recent proposals for raising Britain’s road safety standards are misconceived and highly illegal. Misconceived, because road accidents are caused by carelessness and inattention, not by wilful intent. Illegal, because spot fines and fixed penalty notices are contrary to Constitutional Law. Magna Carta 1215 and The Bill of Rights 1689 (both extant Higher Law which cannot be impliedly repealed by Statute Law) state that we cannot suffer any fine or forfeiture unless we have been found guilty of an offence in a court of law. Moreover, such fines imposed by the court shall not be excessive and no cruel or unusual punishments be inflicted.

Other than mobile phone use which is difficult to detect and prevent and invariably leads to driver distraction with potentially serious consequences, the acts you now propose to incriminate are not so much life-threatening as repressive additions to an already authoritarian regime. Let me explain.

Choosing a wrong lane at roundabouts can result from mistake or confusion from the plethora of misleading road signs. Why criminalise a mistake ? In any case, the Highway Code makes clear that multiple lanes may be used depending upon the exit point. Prosecution for inappropriate speed is entirely subjective, wide open to exploitation and undermines the point of speed limits. Pedestrian crossing offences often arise from wayward pedestrians whose accountability is never questioned. Undertaking is fully legal and safe in other countries. Just because somebody has decided, why is it dangerous in Britain ? A judge in court will determine the law and the jury will determine what is fair. So making the police both judge and jury in such cases as these, is not just wrong but leading to a totalitarian police state.

Tail-gating often results from poor lane discipline in others. In not threatening life, surely lane discipline warrants a warning, not criminalisation. Red light offences result from the mandatory saturation with traffic lights. As these produce congestion and are often shown not to be strictly necessary, removing the traffic lights will reduce congestion and lessen any risk of driver impatience. “Speeding” is still erroneously considered the most evil act known to man. Yet depending upon where displayed, can be entirely safe. Why is 78mph unsafe on an empty motorway at the dead of night ?

It is abundantly clear that the aim of your new proposals is purely to raise more cash from easily targeted motorists. Hugely increasing the spot fines from £60 to £90 and broadening the scope for their implementation when Government refuses to control its irrational spending of £33 billion on the EU and plans for £11 billion on foreign aid is not the drivers’ fault nor is it just, considering the non-life threatening nature of the above acts. It is entirely inequitable, unjust and just plain repressive to force motorists to fund Government's austerity measures when immense sums could be saved from foreign expenditure.

By long established law, it is illegal to impose spot fines, penalties or confiscations without a court appearance. As the judge will decide the law in each case (and will doubtless throw out many of your newly proposed “misdemeanours”, removing the need for courts just to save their expense when massive savings could so easily be achieved as above, is tantamount to treason by removing a major part of the judicial system from British people’s rights. Many of the “offences” you plan to criminalise are indeed minor when viewed alongside so many other injustices we see on a daily basis.

By implementing your proposal, you will be acting highly illegally and with intent to commit treason.

(I do not wish to receive recited departmental policy from your Department)

Yours sincerely,

R