Young Scots Drivers Need Big Brother Cameras In Cars

From a recent report in the Glasgow Herald it is apparent that a new mind set and perhaps new technology could help young Scots become safe drivers.

We now have the technology to put video cameras and black box devices into cars to track how cars are being driven and when linked to Insurance premiums it can have a dramatic effect upon attitudes and driving styles of youngsters.

A recent survey by road safety charity Brake revealed that 57% of 17 to 24-year-olds have been endangered by their friends’ driving while travelling as passengers.

The findings, released yesterday to mark the launch of Road Safety Week, also showed that half of young people often fear for their lives when travelling with a young driver at the wheel.

Brake is now calling for changes to driver legislation, including “graduated driver licensing” which would see a minimum learning-to-drive period and restrictions for novice drivers.

The charity claims that this could save 200 deaths and thousands of serious injuries each year.
Young drivers aged 17 to 24 are involved in a disproportionately high number of crashes which often result in death and serious injury.

What we really require here is not just a Government initiative but real genuine premium discounts from the insurance companies that reward young driveers for allowing “Big Brother Technology” to ride in their cars with them. If young drivers can see the financial benefits then there will be a real incentive for every young driver to change attitudes and driver performance. No young driver thinks it will be him or her that is involved in a road traffic accident but the sad fact is that the statistics show a real need for change. Every young driver knows how expensive it is to insure them to drive and every individual could make an informed decision about the use of new technology to monitor their driving and push down premiums.

If you need proof of the need for change just look at the statistics produced by BRAKE.

Every week in Scotland a young person is killed in a road traffic accident, while serious injuries – including brain damage, paralysis or loss of limbs – occur every 19 hours.

UK-wide, young drivers account for one in four road deaths and serious injuries – 17 deaths or injuries a day – despite making up just 12% of licence holders.

Brake claims that changes to the legislation would prevent 22 deaths a year in Scotland alone and save the economy £80 million.

The majority of the 933 young Scots questioned in the survey supported a tougher regime, with 81% in favour of at least one type of licence restriction such as a zero-tolerance alcohol limit or tougher penalties.

The study, carried out in partnership with QBE Insurance, also revealed that 22% of young people have been a passenger with a young driver who had been drinking or taking drugs.

One quarter admitted to not wearing a seat belt, while 55% said they have been a passenger when speed limits were breached by more than 10mph.

Drink Driver- Electronic tags

The Glasgow Herald ran a story today regarding the electronic tagging of alcohol related offences.  Although the article relates to violent crime I wonder if the Scottish Government will consider using such devices for drink drivers. Does this mean that drink drivers will have the added stigma of wearing an ankle device that tells the world they are convicts?

The Glasgow Herald article stated..”Offenders with alcohol-related problems in the west of Scotland will be fitted with electronic tags that can detect whether they have broken a ban on drinking while serving a community sentence.

The “sobriety bracelets”, which are usually tagged to the ankle, record the wearer’s alcohol intake by measuring air and perspiration emissions from the skin every 30 minutes.

They detect blood alcohol levels as low as 0.02% and can tell when the alcohol was consumed before electronically transmitting that information to a base monitoring station.

The equipment is to be introduced to the west of Scotland if funding is secured from the Scottish Government and will be used as part of a pilot scheme for violent offenders receiving community sentences to be undertaken by Strathclyde Police’s Violence Reduction Unit (VRU).

A study of prisoners by Strathclyde Police in 2007 found approximately two-thirds of those arrested at the scene of a crime were under the influence of alcohol, with the VRU spending the past year exploring ways to restrict alcohol consumption by offenders.

As part of the study, 200 offenders would be placed on a period of complete sobriety for 120 days, with an additional month dedicated to a “stepwise” programme to introduce moderate alcohol consumption, if the offender requests it.

The Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor, or Scram, hit the headlines when Freaky Friday star Lohan was fitted with one last year after she failed to show up for a probation hearing relating to a 2007 drink-driving case because she was in France.

American courts have ordered Scram devices on thousands of defendants released on bond and awaiting trial for alcohol-related offences, those on probation, and under-age drinkers.

Criminal justice professionals in the US report high compliance rates, at least while these people remain in the court system, and have claimed it has an impact on the size of the prison population.

However, many lawyers have argued that, despite widespread use, scientific information is lacking on the device’s reliability and believe false positive readings are also a risk.

Some have claimed baked goods such as sourdough English muffins can cause the body to produce its own alcohol, while online bloggers recommend “scamming the Scram” by placing luncheon meat, tape or paper between the ankle and the sensor or plunging the leg into an ice-cold bath to prevent perspiration.

Alcohol Monitoring Systems Inc, which manufactures the device, insists such ploys do not work. A spokeswoman has described the devices as “like a breathalyser for your ankle”.

Details of the plans for Scotland emerged this week during a meeting of Strathclyde’s governing body, where Chief Constable Steve House said the force had applied for around £150,000 from the Scottish Government for the technology to run the scheme, adding it was “an exciting development” but without ministerial monies they would not be purchased.

Mike Nellis is emeritus professor of criminal and community justice at Strathclyde University and has a particular interest in electronic tagging devices. He said the authorities in the Netherlands and Sweden had considered similar schemes but this was the first he was aware of in Europe.

Mr Nellis said: “I welcome the fact this experiment is going to take place even though I don’t think the science is at all certain. It’s an extremely useful tool but not foolproof.

“There’s bound to be court cases in Scotland where any lawyer worth his salt will challenge the science. But the link between alcohol and violence is cast iron and we’ve got to be imaginative and adventurous.

“Electronic monitoring is only part of a strategy, but in this case I’ve got to question expectations of keeping hardened drinkers away from alcohol for 120 days.”

Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, co-director of the VRU, said: “Alcohol-related violence is a huge problem for Scotland and the VRU are fully supportive of all measures to tackle it.”

Drink Drive Law Reform In Scotland

Highlanders pay £2m In Speed Camera Fines

I am just off to Inverness for a case involving a local business man. I often hear clients claim that the speed cameras are just a method of taxing the motorist and wondered what the truth was in that assertion.
A recent article by Laurence Ford in the Highland News gives us all food for thought
In the article he stated the following

Parked vans are catching and dishing out penalties at a rate of around 95 per week, according to figures from the Northern Safety Camera Partnership.

SPEEDERS in the Highlands have been hit for fines totalling a massive £2 million on trunk roads across the region.

That’s the shock figure the Highland News has gleaned from statistics provided by the organisation responsible for conducting speed checks in the region.

Mobile speed camera vans are a regular feature on all main roads, and although the Northern Safety Camera Partnership says its aim is to promote safe driving, many view the cameras as cash cows intent on milking motorists’ hard-earned cash.

The partnership, which was formed in 2004, has issued an amazing 32,235 fixed penalty notices – which equals around 95 every week – over the last seven years .

With a minimum fixed fine of £60 a hit, that totals £1,934,100.

Many drivers, however, fail to pay the statutory penalty and are hauled before the courts where fines running as high as £500 are not uncommon, pushing the income for the Treasury till to past the £2 million mark.

Partnership manager Dougie Bennion confirmed: “The Northern Safety Camera Partnership does not receive any monies from the detection of individuals speeding on the roads in this area.

“The money in respects of fines is paid directly to the courts and goes to the Treasury.”

Not surprisingly the A9, dubbed Scotland’s killer road, is the most lucrative “hotspot” for cameras catching out motorists suffering from heavy pedal syndrome.

Between Inverness and Dalwhinnie, the Northern Safety Camera Partnership website identifies nine favoured speed van locations, and a further six on the A9 north of the city.

The statistics, obtained under a Freedom of Information request by the HN, reveal that 15,015 speeders were issued with tickets in Badenoch and Strathspey, 12,436 in the Inverness area, 2,110 in Ross and Cromarty and 1,855 in Lochaber.

Highlands and Islands SNP MSP John Finnie backed the use of the speed cameras from a road safety viewpoint.

He said: “I do not think there is any doubt that the evidence suggests it is not road design, rather than that it is driver error, that is responsible for the large number of tragic accidents, particularly on the A9.

“Given that, I do realise that some members of the public need some convincing why speed cameras are deployed, particularly when they are seen on straight stretches of road.”

Regarding the £2 million-plus the speed cameras had pulled in since the inception of the NSCP, Mr Finnie said: “This is a significant sum of money that has gone to the UK Treasury and clearly these are funds which could be accrued to the Highlands where it could certainly be utilised.”

Last month, one of the NCSP vans was transferred from its base in Dingwall to a new home in Lochaber where it will be put into full-time operation to allow for increased deployment at sites in the west Highlands.

Embarrassingly for the safety partnership, one of their camera vans was itself the subject of photographic evidence when it was pictured parked “dangerously” according to Inverness reader James Sim at the side of the A9, and featured on the front page of the Highland News.

When Mr Sim expressed his concerns to the police and showed them the photos to back up his claim, he got a follow-up call from the boys in blue a few days later.

But they were not there with regard to the camera van, they said they were there because he had no insurance.

A search of his house turned up the necessary insurance documents but it left James (27), of Inshes, feeling it was a form of police “payback”.

AA road safety spokesman Andrew Howard said a survey of members found that 70 per cent thought safety cameras were acceptable, and that the lowest figure they had recorded for this was 69 per cent.

He said: “I always like to make the point that they catch 100,000 motorists a year for drink driving, but no-one ever asks how much their fines makes for the Treasury.

“But as soon as it comes to speed cameras for some reason that is their first thought.”

My own view is that there is room for less speed cameras and MORE police officers on patrol. Speed cameras are part of the answer to reducing speeding behavior and making the A9 a safer place to drive but there is room for police discretion rather than an over dependence on automatic fine generators
After all these machines have no discretion and if you exceed the limit at 1:00am on a dry, clear road then surely that should be different than speeding at a busy time of day in wet conditions?

Using a Mobile Phone while driving – Expert Legal Advice

Graham Walker from Roadtrafficlaw.com offers some expert advice on using a mobile phone while driving. View the video and please leave any questions or comments below!

Charged With Speeding In Scotland? We can help…

We offer expert advice:

• We subscribe to Lexis Nexis, and Westlaw the biggest searchable law databases in the UK. We have 24/7 access to every piece of legislation applicable in the UK and we have access to every influential case that has ever been decided.
• We have our own, exclusive, in house Knowledge Base, with recent, unreported cases.  We do all of this to keep our team ahead of the competition.
• We are the only firm in the UK to have ever visited the GATSO Camera factory in Holland.
• We have the experience, skill and expertise to enable us to win your case and we know that results speak louder than words. Please see what our clients have said about us recently.

Please do not hesitate to telephone or e-mail us regarding your case.

SPEEDING

The flash of a GATSO camera in your rear view mirror is often the start of that sinking feeling that lets you know that your licence may be jeopardy. That is probably when the worry sets in. If no formal notice, termed a Notice of Intended Prosecution is received within 14 days. (Exceptions being where it is a company car or a hire car) then you can stop worrying as you are required to receive such a notice within 14 days of the contravention.

In the event that the Procurator Fiscal’s office seek to initiate proceedings in the absence of any NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) then objection should be taken at the first calling of the case. Successfully defending a charge of “speeding” in Scotland is a technical job and it needs someone with the knowledge, experience and court craft to win.

The NIP can be issued verbally by Police Officers if you have the misfortune of being stopped by the Police at the time. In cases where injury or damage to property has occurred then the requirement for an NIP does not apply.

We often advise clients to make no comment when questioned by the police, beyond the formal details, of name, address and sometimes, date of birth.

In road traffic cases, the accused person, if required under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is obliged to give information, within his knowledge about the identity of a driver of the vehicle involved in any such incidents. Failure to provide such information constitutes a separate offence. The European Court of Human Rights decided that drivers do not have a right of silence and ARE required to answer the identity question in terms of Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. “Failure to provide”, attracts a 6 penalty point endorsement.

After the “speeding” matter has been reported to the Procurator Fiscal’s office, proceedings are likely to be initiated by way of summary complaint. (Citation) The validity of a complaint depends upon a number of  factors.  Typographical errors can generally be disregarded, however more fundamental errors can bring the case to an abrupt end if challenged at the correct stage of proceedings.  A fundamental nullity such as the particular court having no jurisdiction in the case or the case being “time barred” cannot be amended and will vitiate proceedings. Issues such as jurisdiction, time bar and competency can be complex and can have a significant bearing on how the case proceeds. Therefore the knowledge of an experienced solicitor is invaluable at this stage.

The dramatic rise in speeding prosecutions and the increasing number of speed cameras and traps peppered around the country means that we now have more people than ever before with live penalty points on their licence. Points are relevant from date of offence to date of offence.

Mistakes can be made at the most basic level. In one of our cases, it became apparent that the distance allegedly travelled had been underestimated by approximately one third, thus producing an enhanced speed measurement. We sent out our trainee solicitor, Martin Black to measure the  distance and were amazed that indeed this was the case. The Crown deserted the case on the basis of the evidence that we could then present to them. No need for the time, inconvenience and expense of a trial!

Avoiding disqualification

Where a driver, accumulates 12 or more points in 3 year period, he /she will be liable for a mandatory disqualification period of 6 months.

If you have  9 points on your driving licence and they were imposed within three years of the present offence (From date of offence to date of offence) then you are liable to be disqualified under the “Totting Up Procedure”.

However, all is not lost. You may be able to argue that “Exceptional Hardship” would occur if you lost your licence.

The hardship must be “exceptional”. If you can persuade the court that others, not just you, would suffer badly. For example, that they would lose their job or business, or be unable to pay their mortgage, then you might persuade the court to impose the points but refrain from disqualification. It is extremely difficult to persuade the court not to impose the disqualification. A proof is normally set and you would require to bring evidence of the exceptional hardship to court. This may be the evidence of an accountant, an employee, medical records etc etc. We would suggest that you really need experienced legal assistance to successfully present such cases.

If you have a speeding case pending please call 0800 612 9597 or email gw@roadtrafficlaw.com for FREE advice and an online case consultation

Road Traffic Law Solicitors Just for the Rich and Famous?

Specialist Road Traffic Law Solicitors are definitely not just for the rich and famous. Those are just the cases you get to hear about.

Very often the general public are under the misapprehension that only celebrities and footballers, get the services of, or are able to afford a speialist road traffic lawyer.

This misconception is understandable as its only the celebrity cases that tend to get large amounts press and media coverage. But we deal with people from all walks of life… and if your licence is important to you… we are able to help.

Graham Walker explains in the following video…

You are eligible for a free consultation… in confidence… with a specialist road traffic law solicitor scotland

Stuck in Europe Driving Advice

Although we specialise in road traffic cases in Scotland it is clear that many of us will require assistance in Europe due to the flight chaos that is currently closing airports all over Europe.
Many people have decided to hire cars in an attempt to get home therefore we have set out some of the laws that affect drivers in Europe.

We DO NOT specialise in road traffic cases in any other country except Scotland but we do hope that this information may be of use to drivers frantically trying to get home.
Here we look at how offences and penalties compare:

GERMANY
We would consider the blood/alcohol limit in Germany to be zero. Actually it is 0.5mg/ml and this is for any trace elements of alcohol left in your system.
If you break this law expect suspension for up to three months even for a first time offence. In Scotland you face a 12 month ban even for a first offence but the level of alcohol accepted here is higher
Don’t fall out with the cops or show your displeasure with a hand gesture as you can expect an on the spot penalty for nearly £500
No seat belt offences will attract an on the spot penalty in the region of £25

SPAIN
Don’t speed in Spain as the fines can be crippling. Approx £250 to £1300 for exceeding the limit by 30kph over the speed limit;
One of our clients exceeded the speed limits through out Spain and France in an attempt to deliver a top of the range Audi to London. He failed to stop for the police so thought he would be free of the on the spot fines. His Audi was taken from him in Calais and he is still involved in a legal wrangle about how to get it back to the UK.
Don’t fill the car with more passengers than seats as you will face a fine for doing so. It may be tempting to pick up the distressed hitch hikers that are trying to make their way home but they will not get the fine. You will.
Careless driving and parking in dangerous spots will also attract fines of up to £250 and a possible licence suspension for 30 days.
They are hot on use of a mobile phone so don’t be tempted to phone home whilst at the wheel. Pull over and be safe.

ITALY
It can be a nightmare to be stopped for a driving offence in Italy as they will press for payment and if you fail to pay any fine you can expect to be arrested the next time you venture into their country,
The fines can seem inordinately expensive with fines handed out for speeding that are hundreds of pounds and for some offences even several hundred pounds. Up to about £1500

FRANCE
There is a common misconception that drink driving is ignored by the police in France. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whilst the French do not have as many traffic policemen able to patrol their vast country they do deal with drink driving in some cases with a prison sentence.
The misconception probably comes about because they also deal with low level alcohol consumption by way of fines and low level driving suspension but be aware that this relates to a very low level blood alcohol. 0.5mg/ml compared to the 0.8mg/ml in Scotland.
If you have more than 0.8mg/ml in your system you could face a two-year prison term and a much steeper fine.
Speed limits are 50kph (31mph) in towns; 90kph (56mph) on main roads; and 110kph (68mph) on dual carriageways. On motorways the speed limit is actually 130kph (81mph).

The above is a guide and not legal advice. We specialise in road traffic law in Scotland and not the countries listed but at this present time of flight crisis maybe this information will be of assistance to at least one of the poor souls abandoned by the airlines in Europe.
Contact www.roadtrafficlaw.com on 0800 612 9597 or tweet @roadtrafficlaw

Traffic Offence Scotland

Sentencing Guidelines Scotland

Every case depends upon its own facts and circumstances and the personalities in the court where your case will be heard. For an informed discussion and advice on what you may expect by way of sentence in your own case just call us on 0800 612 9597 or go online to www.roadtrafficlaw.com/ask_a_lawyer.htm

o There are no sentencing guidelines currently in existence in Scotland. In other jurisdictions like England the Magistrates are issued with guidance on sentencing.

o Sentencing is a matter for the judge at first instance, who will consider each case on its own merits.

o The judge’s discretion is tempered by statute which may provide for particular sentencing options, and occasionally, mandatory sentences and the decisions of the Appeal Court.

o Section 197 of the 1995 Act, headed, “Sentencing Guidelines, provides: Without prejudice to any rule of law, a court in passing sentence shall have regard to any relevant opinion pronounced under section 118(7) or section 189(7) of this Act. Sections 118(7) and 189(7) empower the Appeal Court, when disposing both solemn and summary appeals, to pronounce an opinion on the sentence or other disposal or order which is appropriate in any similar case. The Appeal Court has apparently seldom used this power to issue advisory judgments on sentencing matters.

Why

o The sentencing system in Scotland has the advantage of being flexible and fair: each sentence will be tailored to the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender. The sentencing process is wholly undertaken by an independent judge who will have heard all the relevant evidence.

Developments

o Recent research has found that although there is little evidence of widespread inconsistency in sentencing in Scotland, there is nonetheless a general perception of inconsistency.

o Consistency in sentencing is seen as an essential part of fairness and justice: like cases should be treated alike. Consistent sentencing which is transparent and predictable is said to be important to maintain public confidence in the justice system. It also allows practitioners to provide better advice to their clients.

o The Scottish Government has produced a consultation paper, Sentencing Guidelines and a Scottish Sentencing Council: Consultation and Proposals (September 2008) in which the establishment of a statutory sentencing advisory body a Scottish Sentencing Council (SSC) is proposed. The SSC’s main function would be to prepare draft sentencing guidelines for approval by the Appeal Court. Consultation closes on 21 November 2008. This paper followed a report by The Sentencing Commission for Scotland, The Scope to Improve Consistency in Sentencing (2006), which had made similar recommendations.

The Position In England

General

o The Sentence Guidelines Council (SGC), advised by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, is responsible under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for producing sentencing guidelines. Before the SGC was established, the Court of Appeal had responsibility for producing sentencing guidance.

o Guidelines are produced for particular offences and classes of offences as well as on overarching principles, and issues such as reduction in sentence for a plea of guilty.

Road Traffic Offences

o Most of the relevant SGC guidance on road traffic matters is contained in the current Magistrates Guidelines (also produced by the SGC), which has a section on motoring offences (pp 117-140).

o Each offence (or class of offence) has its own separate guideline which charts the reasoning process that magistrates should follow when sentencing as well as giving a suggested appropriate range of sentences depending on the circumstances of the particular offence.

o The guidelines are generally structured as follows:

1. Name of offence and statutory provision

2. Statement of statutory minimum or maximum; whether statute provides any mandatory sentence

3. Reasoning process to be followed

 Form preliminary view of the appropriate sentence

o Appropriate starting point

  Circumstances of the offence’s starting point range

o Effect of aggravating/mitigating factors

  Non-exhaustive lists of factors indicating higher or lower culpability

  Consider offender mitigation (circumstances of offender)

Consider guilty plea reduction

 Consider ancillary orders

 Decide sentence and give reasons

The full version of the Guidelines is available at: http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/magistrates_court_sentencing_guidelines_update.pdf

Extracts from Magistrates Guidelines Road Traffic Offences

The following tables are extracted from the current Guidelines and show starting points and ranges for common road traffic offences according to the circumstances of the offence. They do not reproduce the guideline for any particular offence in full. Reference is made to bands of fines: the approach to financial penalties is dealt with in detail in the Guidelines at pp 147 et seq.

Excess alcohol (drive/attempt to drive) (s 5(1)(a) RTA 1988)

Dangerous driving (s 2 RTA 1988)

Speeding (s 89(10) RTRA 1984)

Police Stations Procedures for Requests for Blood or Urine Samples in Drink Driving Cases

Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides the procedure which must be followed by the police when samples of blood/urine are taken.

The admissibility of those specimens as evidence against a motorist depends upon the procedures being followed correctly. We always seek the 4:8:1 form that should be a record of the procedures followed and often therefore acts as the cornerstone of our cross examination in such cases. We will also seek sight of the EC/IR intoximeter log to ensure that it was working properly on the day of the given sample.

As a suspected drink driver you have a legal obligation to provide a laboratory sample when one of the four reasons set out at section 7(3) occurs. BUT before such a sample is taken the driver needs to be provided with certain information by the police:

• he has to tell the motorist the reason under terms of s.7(3) why breath specimens cannot be taken or used in this matter;
• he should tell the driver that in those circumstances he is required to give a sample of blood or urine, but that the officer will decide which. Many drivers believe that they have the choice but this is wrong, the choice is with the police officer dealing with the case.
• he must warn the driver that a failure to provide the sample required may result in prosecution;
• and if he has asked for a sample of blood,
• he should ask the driver if there is any medical reason why a specimen cannot or should not be taken by a doctor.

When, in the circumstances set out at section 8(2), a driver may choose to replace a breath specimen by supplying a laboratory sample,

The officer should inform the driver of the nature of the option open to him and what will be involved if he exercises it;

• he must inform the driver that the specimen of breath which he has given containing the lower proportion of alcohol exceeds the statutory limit; but does not exceed 50 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath;
• he should inform the driver that in the circumstances he is entitled to claim to have this specimen replaced by a specimen of blood or urine if he wishes; We have heard countless tales of drivers claiming that the police officer told them not to bother as it would serve no real benefit to them this is rubbish, you should, where the opportunity arises ask for a blood sample to be provided. If there are medical reason why you cannot give blood then make sure that these reasons are stated and recorded.
• The police officer should ask the driver if there are any medical reasons why a sample of blood cannot or should not be taken. Having read the above if you think the procedures for you were any different then get in touch and we may be able to win your case and save your driving licence.