What do you think?

What do you think?

The Government are this month rolling out a system where Motorists can enter their guilty or not guilty plea online when charged with “minor” motoring offences.

It only relates to matters that go to court rather than the challenge of the NIP that we do for all DriveProtect Members to try to find any procedural errors, road furniture issues etc.

The idea is to free up the court system to “concentrate on more serious offences”.

My first reaction was what a cheek!

If the government insist on prosecuting us for these “minor offences” then why should they be able to bail out of the administration work involved?

But then when I thought about it further, I wondered if perhaps is is actually a good thing from our point of view, in terms of wasting less of our time in turning up at court or having to send a physical letter to plead guilty or not guilty.

Of course my real thoughts are why bother prosecuting “minor offences” in the first place?

With these proposed zero tolerance HADECS 3 cameras and the introduction of this new online system, it’s starting to feel like the start of a highly systemised approach to extracting cash to me...

But I’d like to find out what you and other Members think?

Please share your thoughts below!

All the best,

Adam

102 Comments

  1. Keith Burns

    Hi Adam
    I think it is probably a good thing as it will be far quicker, easier and hopefully cheaper for the motorist (but I doubt it). Perhaps we should campaign to have online guilty pleas accepted at a reduced fine level? Surely, the Government is not using speeding as a revenue generator????
    I’m all for online stuff if it is to our benefit.

  2. Richard

    In some respects I can see how time and money is being saved. However, for me personally I want the option of ‘having my day in court’where I can look them in the eye and convey my plea with feeling.

  3. jeremy zimmerman

    Magistrates don’t read the letters sent in mitigation,why would they read the e-mails?

  4. Mark Allenby

    I believe that the system is up to its neck in paperwork and red tape and they are looking to ease the congestion by making the motorist do some of the work

  5. Jim

    Why should we, the persecuted driver, help them prosecute us. Make them work for their “results”. Don’t help those that cannot be trusted to sit the correct way on a toilet, and to whom honesty is an unknown concept.

  6. Nick

    If it’s a minor offence, then I tend to agree issue a reprimand or something similar.
    Either it’s important or it isn’t.
    However realistically and seeing how these things usually work out in the long term, my personal suspicion is that this is the start of a new and easier (for the authorities that is), way of extracting money from the already over penalised motorist.

  7. John

    The probation service is already in an utter mess because of reorganisation so I am sure this system of convictions online is not going to work . The trouble is if Capita get their grubby hands on this then it is doomed to fail big time even more . Watch this space ???

  8. GEOFF MOIR

    We know that Speeding offence matters are dealt with by processing clerks. They will probably deal with processing for these minor offences, also. These people may do a proper administrative job but it removes the person charged further from the issue of justice. Money and efficiency will again be the driver of the practical tasks involved – not judgement.

  9. Adrian Robbins

    I would want my day in court they just want people to plead gulity and get easy money just another tax on us in Bristol where I live they have put in 20 MPH speed limits on nearly every road which come in to force soon they will be racking up fines how can you drive around a big city and stick to 20 MPH at all times!

  10. jeff

    What a cheek NO NO NO block the courts up
    Why make their lives easier
    Recently I received va letter saying one of my staff was arrears in their council rent and they asked me to take it from their wages .I replied that she no longer worked for me and that if they had an issue with her to get off their fat butts and go see her
    How many slaps in the face do we brits take before we fight back. we really are a spinless bunch

  11. Corrie

    My thoughts are what about those people who don’t have a computer. Looking at the confused faces when I go into a bank there are many who still can’t use technology!

  12. Martin

    Will this give the Government a chance to increase sending out bills quicker and easier for them on minor offences, we’ll be getting billed for the slightest error caught on CCTV.
    If they roll this out and make it only possible to plead online in the future, how will non computer savvy people get on?

  13. Kevin

    If these are minor offenses which are clogging up the court system, then do the same as they are doing for “minor” drug offenses – nothing! The bottom line is that speed limits are unrealistically low. Locally I’m seeing adequate 40mph limits in rural villages reduced to 30mph and the interconnecting roads national speed limits reduced to 40mph. Couple that with local village busy bodies hiding behind bus shelters with mobile speed signs recording reg numbers just proves that this is all noting more than a cash generation ruse. We all need to stand firm against ever reducing speed limits and get reduced limits restored… There is no longer any joy in driving.

  14. Andy

    Never enter into a plea. When anyone enters into a “guilty” or “not guilty” plea, they give the courts the jurisdiction to be judged. If courts have no plea on their system they cannot prosecute as any prosecution without consent is an act of fraud. This happened to one of my friend. I told him not to fill any plea papers. The court then made a guilty decision behind his back. When I challenged the court by telling them they’ve committed fraud, they then dropped the case. My friend never paid them a penny.

  15. Owen

    The system has been set up for the convenience of the authorities.It will lead to complete automation where a computer program will dish out the fine collect the money and give you your points.Big brother intruding with ever increasing vigilance.Connecting the car to the system is next

  16. George Woodcock

    If there is no get out of your offence then i think it could be a good thing and convieniance.

  17. Bill

    Not so much a comment as a question really, what are minor offences nowadays ? (please excuse my genuine ignorance on these offences).

  18. Ray

    It is obviously thier way of cutting cost but as with everything involving this government what are the implicated costs to the public? Less jobs, less understanding of mitigating circumstances?
    Just smacks of less choice pay up!

  19. ANDREW JAROSZ

    The situation on “minor offences” is that you are presumed guilty – why should we help them collect revenue further?
    Are they going to reduce fines for speeding – if they did, that might be acceptable- but I’m sure they won’t.
    I once had my day in court, and magistrates would not listen to any mitigation.
    My wife has just been caught on a two sided camera – which only shows up on talex and being northbound, and not both. She tried appealing by saying that the time on the camera was at least 40 minutes out, and there was no calibration certificate – the fine was re-issed ahowing that it had been calibrated 11 months and three weeks, before she was photographed – but the only reply from the clerks was – tell it to the court. Even legal advice was pay up and let it go – so I wouldn’t let them simplify the system unless there is a payback to us!

  20. Terry Crofton

    This is nothing more than a cost saving exercise, without any consideration to justice.

  21. Philip

    Anything which reduces the burden on the authorities will only encourage them to go after more and more. Owen hit the nail on the head, it’ll end up automated with zero tolerance and one civil servant responsible for collect billions in fines as a rather badly disguised tax. Don’t stop campaigning Adam!

  22. Robert Mair

    NO NO NO Simple!
    If the courts are snowed under tough luck!
    I would do anything to obstruct the court(s) (legally) in any prosecution towards me not make things easy for them, period!
    The traffic police and the courts when it comes to the motorist are the enemy!

  23. Eileen

    If you go to court you have a chance to speak, but online you’re not going to get that chance.

  24. Alan

    If you are “banged to rights” a guilty plea on line would save you time if you worked etc.If you are pleading not guilty it’s probably best to go and make sure you are heard correctly and yes a reduced fine as said before.

  25. Paul darrell

    What an absolute sham, there is never any sincerity from any authority, they have no interest at all in helping genuine bona fide motorists who happen to make a minor indescretion. What you do receive is akin to someone reading a script sheet of automated answers.Another backdoor way of this government obtaining money form the public with little chance of fairness or integrity taking place.

  26. Paul Foulkes

    I do not want to help the authorities although if we don’t help fines may go up.
    They will need to sort out the issue of the technically challenged.
    Finally if this goes ahead I want to buy a copy of the emails. Could be a good book in there.

  27. David Green

    As it has been shown in several places that 20mph has CAUSED MORE accidents
    then this is another layer
    of “Guilty unless YOU CAN PROVE TO BE OTHERWISE”
    Eventually the matter will be “Computerised”
    Another obstical to try
    to get the Motorist to price them off the road.

  28. Philip Caygill

    NO. For years these cameras have been an easy way for the authorities to cream off money from us. This will make it it much easier and on a huge scale, especially with the advent of the new cameras.

    If anything, the system needs to be clogged up as much as possible and less people ‘putting nooses around their own necks’!

  29. John

    Provided it is entirely voluntary, then it could be a convenience if one is guilty and it was ‘a fair cop’ (see Alan’s point at 1.27 pm 6 March). Otherwise I agree with Eileen (1.25 pm, 6 March) and Jeremy Zimmerman (12.45 pm, 6 March) who says “Magistrates don’t read the letters sent in mitigation,why would they read the e-mails?”
    Keep up the good work!

  30. Alan

    Another step in favour of big brother. We are already in a police state and the motorist is already a soft target to increase revenue.

  31. Graham Wroe

    I am not averse to online pleas but I would like us to come in line with other European countries and remove the endorsements for minor offences. I believe a fine is sufficient for most offences and I would have no objection if the fines were raised (but not by too much!)if the endorsements didn’t exist as I feel money could be saved on insurance, etc.

  32. Chris Hoffland

    The motorist is the softest target anyway so I would not wish to make collection of the inevitable fine any easier. Online is not for me. Have to say that in my neck of the woods mobile cameras are a much rarer sight; perhaps more motorists have detectors fitted and the revenue stream is being squeezed. Hallelujah!!

  33. Ian Williams

    Why dont the authorities just admit that cameras and now this plea automation are just means to raise money as fast as possible. Road safety is irrelevent to them and just their lame excuse to justify their installation with no effort put into Road Engineering to solve problems, just lower the limit and plant a camera. So why not just cut the pretence and fine for offences caught by cameras but NO points on a licence unless +15mph over or stopped by a Police Officer with potential to make it DWDC&A.

  34. Angus robertson I RE Bsc

    As we all say we are guilty till proven not guilty
    this was y we are giving in but it cou r t time and lawyers fees we will save in this manner.
    I have my reservat
    ions on this good or bad?
    That’s up to you if you think your guilty and that you can’t turn the clock back.

  35. Michael

    1. One needs to understand the ‘bigger picture’ here. 2.Eventually all the cameras and IT infrastructure will be linked/combined so that anybody’s movement, what they talk about, watch on TV, driving and shoping habits etc will be monitored. We are not so far off!(Suggested reading ‘1984’ by George Orwell-he was just out by 30 years or so).
    3. The ruse that the courts are clogged up can easily be resolved. Just reduce, remove or decommission the multitude of speed cameras that have been enabled just for collecting cash and not for accident prevention. Data analysis will identify the cameras that are truely helping reduce accidents.
    4. Suggest asking your MP why the Govt has allowed such increases in camera controlled areas and ask their support in obtaining a reduction. There is an election soon!
    5. The vast majority of motoring offences are still I believe criminal offences. Penalty point offences now remain on a licence for I believe up to 5years. So I would advise anyone thinking of pleading guilty, and
    on-line, to think very carefully about doing so.
    6. Whatever decision is taken, it is every accused person’s right to have access to all the evidence so make sure it has been received..is valid and complies with legal requirements..calibration etc.
    7. I can envisge that the next steps for the Criminal Justice system will be that matters will only be dealt with on-line, so perhaps it’s time to make effective challenges now or in the near future.
    8. Motorists and the general public really need someone to champion their cause.
    Good luck-hope this helps.

  36. John Hall

    It seems to me that it is probably a good thing ….. but I’ll withhold judgement until I can see how it works.
    I have to wonder though, given the recent acknowledgement that burglary and robbery are now pretty much decriminalised and get pretty much no Police time in investigation and identification of the perpetrator, why they are bothering. Oh, wait a minute – who pays – we do!!

  37. Paul

    Hi Adam,my first thoughts were that it seems quite easy and time saving with minor offences so long as there are no stealth priorities to be revealed at a later date.

  38. anthony saunders

    A good idea–would save a lot of wasted time taken up for a court case on both sides. And enable you to word your plea carefully rather than in the atmosphere of a courtroom. But would this system allow fora two way discussion?
    It is still a cash cow for the police and much easier than catching bad drivers who are not speeding.

  39. Dave B

    Obviously most people are not effected, but when it is ‘your turn’this will make it less dramatic and therefore the entire process will be less of a deterrent, just another on line tax form.

  40. Rod

    (1) If the idea is to safe the government (us) money then surely the savings should be passed on – lower fines and/or lower costs.
    (2) If there is any sort of argument against your not guilty plea, will you be given the chance to counter it or will a verdict be reached purely on your original argument?

  41. Terry F

    I agree with Kevin that the biggest deception is the way speed limits have been progressively reduced to totally inappropriate levels, especially the the many stretches of 3 lane dual carriageway reduced to a ridiculous 40 mph. I now have no respect for speed limits at all, and just slow down at cameras, because I know they have been set by morons with an anti-motorist agenda. As a driver of 40 years I know perfectly well what a safe maximum speed is under any given conditions.

    That said, I have always thought, as Michael articulates, that ‘1984’ is just a decade or two away when our every move will be monitored. By then there will be no such thing as a “plea” as indisputable evidence of a “breach of regulations” will be held on record. It is inevitabale and will gradually evolve into a totalitarian state as technology advances. We can however delay this doomsday for as long as possible by not cooperating with mew procedures such as discussed here.

  42. Chris Hayward

    All pleas are a waste of time, nobody takes into account a drivers good driving record,good experience, additional training and qualifications, time of day,vehicle type etc; we are just screwed for cash at every available opportunity. What this government needs to realise is that we, the relatively few, hard working tax paying over worked public cannot easily get around the country to do our jobs due to the excessive speed restrictions and temporary traffic lights set up at every opportunity, the UK road infrastructure is so underfunded and the roads too overcrowded. I spend much of my time in Eire and France where, although there are speed restrictions the roads are easy to drive on, people get around without much delay so there is no need to rush. I will vote with my feet and retire away from the UK and spend my money/tax and life where all is more pleasant! UK tax revenues will lose out.
    Luckily I have choice!

  43. Terry Dormer

    BAD ! Idea
    At present you can drag out proceedings by asking questions etc
    A few years ago I got caught in Brockenhurst, but by sending lots of letters asking for various bits of information ( calibration certs etc) The proceedings timed out.
    Letters take TIME !
    If you can drag things out for 6 months the prosecution automatically times out

  44. Adrian French

    We must not make things easier for the police to rob us, the highwayman of old is now the traffic police. The whole speeding situation is merely to make easy money.

  45. Ray

    Everyone is entitled to see what the evidence is against them, no matter what the offence.
    This assumes that ALL motorists will blindly plead Guilty without first ensuring that it is a correct prosecution, with the correct evidence and legal procedures having been followed.
    I’m a member of Drive Protect and no way would I entertain this matter without having first sought legal advice. I urge ALL drivers to ask for a copy of ANY evidence against them, to verify that the times,dates,area etc are all correct and that the legal statute quoted is also the correct one. For too long drivers have blindly pleaded Guilty and paid up. If it clogs up the system then so be it, make them work for the money.

  46. H

    Justice on the cheap for our benefit? – maybe! Justice on the cheap for ‘them’ – probably not in our best interest!

  47. anthony

    Bit like eBay system, they mean well but can and is often unfair to one side or the other.
    Difficult for some to express exact meaning in words, and the all important body language will be missing.
    Suspect it will mean loads of rubber stamped verdicts
    It will save time money, but will it be justice ?
    Personaly prefer fairness to money saving.

  48. peter martin

    I don’t think we should help to prosecute ourselves, if they decide to fine us let them do the work. It will slow the system down, and we all know that they can’t cope and then it might stop them being so keen to find us for doing a few miles over the limit.

  49. Dan bowles

    No way anyone should subscribe to this. Everyone should use their opportunity to block the courts up.

  50. Harry MacLean

    Short answer is no, a friend was leaving a local hospital following the unexpected death of her sister and was ‘caught’ on camera at wait for it 26 mpg in the new friendly speed limit, you can imagine the joy of the establishment, Bickys all round. Old bill would possibly listened and spoken words of wisdom, and sent her on her way.

  51. Terry F

    I agree with Kevin that the biggest deception is the way speed limits have been progressively reduced to totally inappropriate levels, especially the the many stretches of 3 lane dual carriageway reduced to a ridiculous 40 mph. I now have no respect for speed limits at all, and just slow down at cameras, because I know they have been set by morons with an anti-motorist agenda. As a driver of 40 years I know perfectly well what a safe maximum speed is under any given conditions.

    That said, I have always thought, as Michael articulates, that “1984” is just a decade or two away and our every move will be monitored. By then there will be no such thing as a “plea” as indisputable evidence of a “breach of regulations” will be held on record. It is inevitable and will gradually evolve into a totalitarian state as technology advances. We can however delay this doomsday for as long as possible by not cooperating with mew procedures such as discussed here.

  52. John Scuillo

    Clearly a scheme to enable us to fall in line with the web – again. As if there is not enough information on the web without the poor motorist giving ammunition. The Government should simply be honest. Ask us to set up variable direct debits for fines. Before the oil shortage in the 1970’s there was no speed restrictions on top end. Cars are safer, far more responsive than ever, even have collision avoidance. Speed is not a problem in itself, especially on ‘safer’ motorways. It is not driving to conditions that may present difficulties. My answer – especially in view of 1215 the Great Charter; every one of us should be in court pleading our case to our peers.

  53. Phil Johns

    This is the government we’re talking about. It’s certain that there will be absolutely NO advantage to the motorist in this. However, there is very likely to be an enormous benefit to some government departments.

  54. Vic Harris

    I am against pleading on line. I have a long unblemished driving history and do not wish to accept a decision with out the chance to appeal.

  55. quidnibuoy

    Absolutely not. Don’t even give them what they ask. I had an NIP some while ago and told them that either their equipment was faulty or the vehicle was a clone of mine. Guess what? They dropped the case. Why? Because it was only a money grabbing exercise and the cost of trying to prosecute me wasn’t worth what they’d get out of it. It’s their job to prove me guilty, not mine to admit my guilt without the production of IRREFUTABLE evidence, which no camera can possibly give.

  56. Bill

    BAD idea. This gives some court clerk jurisdiction over the motorist. They have enough unwarranted power anyway.

  57. Mark stevenson

    I think, if you acknowledge on line, then it is an admission of guilt.
    On line is a bad idea.

  58. Nigel

    This is proof that it is another tax on motoring it\s like filling your tax return on line. No one should use this non justice system everyone should go to court and clog the system up.

  59. Eric

    If the computer system for this scam is up to the standard of the NHS computer systems, then Drive Protect will get you off every time for several years by spotting the ineffective technology. Bring it on!
    Of course, if they ever get it right then it will become a cash cow the same as the rest of the driving legislation.

  60. David

    If these are minor offenses which are clogging up the court system, then do the same as they are doing for “minor” drug offenses – nothing! The bottom line is that speed limits are unrealistically low. Locally I’m seeing adequate 40mph limits in rural villages reduced to 30mph and the interconnecting roads national speed limits reduced to 40mph. Couple that with local village busy bodies hiding behind bus shelters with mobile speed signs recording reg numbers just proves that this is all noting more than a cash generation ruse. We all need to stand firm against ever reducing speed limits and get reduced limits restored… There is no longer any joy in driving.

  61. Will

    We should fight this and make it as difficult as possible for the revenue raisers to take more money from the motorist. So much for the end of the war on motorist promised by the Prime Minister!

  62. sandie Wingvist

    I am not sure either way, I think it is ‘1984’ big brother watching, they will be watching that each person doesn’t take too many breaths per minute soon. What about people who do not have access to computer or internet? why should be make it easier for them, although reading some of the other comments I am thinking different, it may well be a good idea to continue to clog the system as everything the government introduces involves less work for them and more work for us (the motorist, general public.

  63. dave

    I feel it is a good thing so that a person has a point of entry to complain.Wheteher any one will listen is another matter.

  64. Frank Hollis

    I have had 4 tickets during my long driving life.Two I appealed and got off, one I paid and for the last one I received 3 points, that was 7 years or so ago….bought myself a Talex and a watch with an alarm for when I park in finable areas and haven’t had a fine since. So the only advice I can offer is keep within the law!

  65. Dave

    If the government were a little more honest and admitted that it was about revenue rather than “safety” perhaps there would be a case for these “minor” offences to be dealt with by fines ONLY with points reserved for more “serious” cases.
    Nobody intentionally does 34 in a 30 limit so fine only. Equally nobody does 50 in a thirty limit by accident, it is a conscious decision to go fast! Fine and points etc!

  66. Christopher Yellop

    What they consider minor and I consider minor could be two different things.I think they could offer both options with us deciding if we want to go to court or not (depending on what sort of case we could present)vs filling in a form on line

  67. Lorna

    Is this in preparation to smart motorways where speed cameras are going to be the main crux of how to keep traffic at an average speed? So experiment on the lesser offences now to roll it out as par of course further down the line?
    Personally I think it is all a waste of time and offences should be brought down to fines no points and in certain areas speeds should be reevaluated as many are causing problems tha resolving them!
    And any journey that 20 years ago used to Take 15 mins now takes on average an
    Hour!
    Anyone else interested though in a camera avoidance sat nav now that would be good to be able to boycott roads with cameras on that to me would beat all the odds in one go! As so many are avoidable! In fact probably all
    Are and if there was a way of
    Rerouting journey without the cameras I think
    Would be brilliant!

  68. Peter Williams

    It’s just to get money in quicker and not spend money on magistrates and wages for court clerks
    so that the ones in government can fiddle more money themselves

  69. dicky trump

    big brother let us police ourselves next time i do 35 in a 30 zone i will ring my local police station and tell them and please remember once you have admitted to it online (any little motoring offence that is) you cant go back so stay stum and have your day in court it is your right never never admit to anything we agree to the laws of the land let the law work as it should by due process

  70. Charles Batchelor

    Motorists are the country’s fattest milk cow so why not milk them for more. As with any venture it’s always the bottom line that counts, i.e. extract as much as possible at as little cost as possible.
    If they want my money I would like to think they have as much trouble as possible in getting it. I can remember driving on the M1 at 90 mph and being overtaken by a coach travelling at his scheduled speed of 100 mph. What went wrong since and why are we no longer allowed to drive using due care and attention?

  71. Bandsman Jim

    If you have been flashed at a point 100 moles away from home it will cost you more in fuel/time to defend or mitigate the action because the court is held local to the offence. So I’m in favour of the idea.

  72. wil eynon

    As you say just an easy quick way to get money out of motorists as if they do not make enough all ready.Only easy for the really bad drivers who persistently pass me and others at high speed and never seem to be penalised

  73. GORDON JONES

    I feel the court system should what ever method hey see fit to reduce the back log of petty motoring crimes and then have there working contracts reduced to save us all money on our tax bill so that way they wont have to fine petty motoring crimes to fund there wages, WIN WIN DEAL

  74. Wayne

    It’s all about them making more money by having less expenses for themselves , Simple !

  75. Hugh Gundersen

    Make it easy and everyone will take the easy route and plead guilty even if there is no reason to. It bypasses the checks on the equipment used to monitor speed thus entrapping the innocent. They only need to set the cameras etc at 44mph in a 50 limit and book you for speeding. if you plead guilty = job done no checks and £££ in the till.

  76. Toni B

    Hi Adam
    Like you first thoughts in two minds. However it does seem that it is an easy way of obtaining revenue without due process of law, unless of course we accept that the evidence of a motoring or other offence is irrefutable? Of course in future there will be less traffic and other Police officers on the roads or available to attend courts to give evidence so it is an easy opt out to save money. If that is the end result fine, but the system has to allow on-line challenges to be made as well to ensure fairness and with a guarantee these challenges will be properly examined and accepted or otherwise without increase in penalty values or fines.

  77. Al

    I’m not quite sure what these ‘minor offences’ are that they are referring to, but if they significantly increased the fines and penalties for such offences, then that would deter the vast majority of people from committing them in the first place.

    I DO know that those caught speeding excessively (which I would hardly classify as a ‘minor offence’ anyway) have to go to court, so if the penalty for exceeding any given speed limit by 15mph were an automatic one year ban, for example, then it would deter the vast majority of boyracers and speedfreaks in the first place, and the few remaining psychopath nutters would soon be off the roads.

    And I have no doubt it would save thousands of people each year from being killed or permanently crippled and/or braindamaged or otherwise seriously injured.

    What is the point in having deterrents if they don’t deter the vast majority! What we need are deterrents that are 99.9% effective, NOT 50% or 75% or even 90%. And NO, there’s nothing ‘draconian’ about it whatsoever, and it really is criminal that such deterrents – ie REAL deterrents – weren’t put in place decades and decades ago.

  78. Vic Harby

    There are such a lot of minor offences in this day and age, why make it easy for the law makers to have the easy way out. Vic H.

  79. Andrew Atkinson

    Late last year I received a NIP from London Borough of Sutton stating that I had illegally parked on a RED route providing photos of the alleged offence. The option was to pay up etc. etc. but had the chance to challenge the NIP on line. This I did in that this leads you onto an on line form which I duly completed stating that they were wrong (longer story). An acknowledgement was quickly received via email. Furthermore the payment time criteria for the fine would be extended until the challenge was reviewed. A formal letter was subsequently received stating that as it was my first offence blah blah blah they would cancel the NIP.

    So if this is how it will work generally I am in favour of rolling this out as, albeit time consuming was reasonably easy and gave more time to pay if just a fine etc and was unsuccessful.

    Any help from Adam and his team will always be advisable if it was a more challenging charge etc.

  80. chris taylor

    if all the alligations of motoring related afencies are based on non compelling evidence you should plead not guilty and if the penalty is based on monies the case should be heard in a county court.

  81. Ian Henderson

    I hate this idea with a passion!
    Anything which removes the human involvement and renders us subservient to the power of a computer system is to be opposed MOST strongly at EVERY possible juncture.
    what happens to the person who loses their internet connection? what happens when the system “loses” their plea and they are then further accused of not replying, presumably equivalent to being found guilty of “being in contempt of court”.

    JUST keep the human in at every possible step of the way! Please.

  82. Bill

    This will move the Police even further from accountability to the public. The current system is repressive and in need of rigorous reform: this measure will make it worse.

  83. David T

    The system will be geared to extract as much money as quickly and with even less work for the Govt as is possible. Minor motoring offences should be challenged to the full to clog up the system as there seems to be a many cases where the motorist can be proved innocent if he could only afford to challenge the establishment

  84. John gregory

    Why don’t you get a campaign going for everyone to have their day in court. Very soon the system would be so clogged up that it would come to s shuddering halt. They can’t keep adjourning cases indefinitely, they can only do it so many times. (I think it may be three) and then they have to discharge you.

  85. simon

    I thought it was a basic principle of British law that you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself. So surely entering a guilty plea is self incrimination and therefore illegal? This feels more like a simplistic tax raising scheme than the administration of law and justice – OK if it’s a speeding tax, but with points attached that’s serious. I bet there is no option to claim any mitigation, it will just be a process of raising yet more cash out of the motorist. PS – What happened to Cameron’s pre election pledge to raise the artificially low motorway speed limit? If he’s so keen on the EU, wht not implement one EU standard that might be useful – an 80mph (130 kph) max speed limit? And let’s have coppers on the road – there’s plenty of bad driving that has nothing to do with speed – less armchair policing with the sole aim of tax revenue.

  86. Al

    PS (Re my previous post): And if they are caught a second time – once their ban is finished – then they should be automatically banned for five years, and if then caught a third time an automatic lifetime ban. And no exceptions. But you would have to be stupid beyond words to ever get to a second ban!

    As for driving on a motorway in the early hours of the morning when there is very little traffic around – Yes!, that old chestnut the anti-camera brigade always cite – well if you knew what the penalty would be (if such penalties were in place), then you’d be completely barmy to risk getting banned for a year (or five years…). It would be just fine in my book if the speedfreak nutters only killed or crippled themselves, but all too often they end up killing their friends – ie other passengers in the car (or van etc) – because they lost control of the vehicle, and they lost control precisely because they were driving much too fast.

    I don’t know what the percentage is now, but about five or six years ago, single vehicle collisions accounted for 40% of car occupant fatalities (on all road types). And the point I’m making about motorways is that the faster you’re driving the more likely it is that the injuries will be fatal or very serious in the event of a crash.

    And just one last point: Personally I would reduce all 20mph limits to 15mph (and said limit would be applied in and around all town centres), and anyone caught driving at more than 10mph above the limit – and I mean 24/7 – would receive a one year ban, at more than 15mph above the limit a five year ban, and 20mph over the limit a lifetime ban.

    But sad to say none of the above is ever likely to happen, and thousands each and every year will continue to be killed and crippled and otherwise seriously injured as a consequence. It really is criminal, it REALLY is!

  87. mohammed manir

    Basically maximizing profits.
    Since the courts are biased towards those who pay them! these are ploice courts. Unless you have a legal representation you won’t stand a chance. Most people will plead on line hence more revenue.

  88. Anthony Cutting

    The Magistrate Courts in this Country are a complete joke, especially if you are fighting against the police who are always “right” so a “guilty” plea on line would save a lot of trouble for everyone with the same outcome. If your plea is “not guilty”, without a good solicitor, the outcome will be the same in any case so you may as well plead guilty on line to save time and trouble.My Solicitor once said to me “forget that you are not guilty, and remember that principles are expensive” Magistrates generally have no real knowledge of the law and will always believe what a police officer tells them. There should be a fundamental change in our system and it’s about time that “minor” offences, especially motoring ones, are dealt with as they once were with a “clip round the ear” by the local bobby !

  89. archie clare

    It would teach them a lesson if everyone pleaded not guilty they would never be able to cope at all, most would not even get taken to court and so get away with it,. they would probably soon have to withdraw it then.

  90. archie clare

    I just hope al gets caught speeding before he accidentally runs over his red flag bearer. please confirm he`s not running for any kind of office.

  91. Alan Smith

    This means a conviction is untouched by human hands and not reviewed at all. Dont agree with this at all Smacks of BIG BROTHER to me

  92. J F Simpson

    On paper and a first impression it looks like a good idea – but for who?
    Nobody can really believe
    the powers to be especially our beloved tax collectors are going to consider a driver’s plea with mitigating circumstances with the chance they may lose money. This is nothing other than a ruse to collect more money for minor traffic offences with have to go to court. The driver is going to be screwed one way or another by any new government.
    Watch this space.
    Regards JFS

  93. Mike

    I don’t agree with it as they are always out to target the motorist for money in any way they can, this is just an easy option for them ,they are the enemy and always will be. they should spend some time fixing the craters and holes in the roads which has given me a broken spring and damaged shock
    absorbers to the cost of over £1000-00 and causing danger to all road users.

  94. David Goodwin

    I am totally against this move to make the motorist convict him/her self without due process, and by doing so ease the way for more and more cash grabbing.
    I find myself alarmed and outraged by the anti motorist rantings by a certain contributor to this website spouting the typical propoganda of the un-informed,(leads me to recall the old adage-There are more outside the institution than in!).
    I seem to recall that at one time there was need for authorities to satisfy a requirement for cameras to be installed,what happened?.The next worry of course is who will be sold or able to access and use your details regarding this prosecution?.Will there be a permanent record of your plea?.Will you
    start receiving spam
    e-mails offering legal(or otherwise)
    ‘protection’?.I believe Drive Protect needs to take a strong stand against this ‘convict yourself’ measure.

  95. Harry

    No I do not agree with doing anything to help the police or the courts. The more problems we can create for them the better as far as I’m concerned.

  96. Trevor williams

    I say make them work for their money,several years ago my wife got a ticket but rather than just accept it I bombarded them with paperwork that they had to reply to ,make it as tedious as possible for them I say.

  97. dave jones

    never plead guilty, just do your best to clog the system, they are against you, be against them!

  98. Micklemus

    The speed Camera on A52
    Clifton Boulevard has a new position right over the railway line going towards Clifton bridge.
    It is targeting drivers within 250 metres of the 50 but in the 40 limit.
    The repeater signs are not compliant with the DFT legislation so lets all get together and substanciate the fact.
    All drivers nabbed at that site should be found not guilty.

  99. John Frewen-Lord

    To those who say that clamping down on speeding will save thousands of lives a year – a total of around 3000 people are killed on British roads annually, of which excessive speed (not necessarily even breaking the speed limit) accounts for 6 or 7%. That’s about 200 lives a year. Yes, that’s 200 too many, but NO human activity of any kind is risk free. And, as many 20 mph limits have shown, speed limits that are too low can cause as many deaths as being too high. Sanity is required, sadly missing from those who set and enforce the current limits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *