Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Can I be fined
or cautioned by the police for not wearing my seatbelt in a supermarket car park?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by samuel23. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.The scenario was this ~ there is a large Sainsbury's near where I live. In the top end of the car park are several recycling bins. After emptying my boot into the recycling bins, I drove 200 - 300 yards to the first available parking space without my seatbelt on. I got out of the car and a police officer that was walking around the car park called me over to her and stated that she had seen me driving without a seat belt. I explained I had been wearing it whilst I was driving on the road, had only taken it off to unload my recycling and then had driven to the parking space. She told me that I could be fined for not wearing it even in the car park. Now, I was under the impression that a supermarket owns the land the car park is built on, therefore it is private property and exempt from road legislation. if you had a car without tax on private land (as long as you have completed a sorn) there is no legal problem. I have a field that my father owns and we regularly use it for bike and quad trials, again exempt from road laws. Did she have a right to dress me down or has she exceeded her authority?
-- answer removed --
I found this regarding seat belt legislation:
Exemptions from seat belt wearing
The legislation provides for a number of specific exemptions from the seat belt wearing requirements on medical and other grounds. Please consult your doctor if you think you should not wear a seat belt on medical grounds.
As for the others these include:-
"(b) the driver of or a passenger in a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for carrying goods, while on a journey which does not exceed 50 metres and which is undertaken for the purpose of delivering or collecting any thing;
(c) a person driving a vehicle while performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;
(d) a qualified driver (within the meaning given by regulation 9 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1987) who is supervising the holder of a provisional licence (within the meaning of Part III of the Act) while that holder is performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;
(e) a person by whom, as provided in the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1987, a test of competence to drive is being conducted and his wearing a seat belt would endanger himself or any other person;
(f) a person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption);
(g) the driver of�
(i) a licensed taxi while it is being used for seeking hire, or answering a call for hire, or carrying a passenger for hire, or
(ii) a private hire vehicle while it is being used to carry a passenger for hire;
(h) a person riding in a vehicle, being used under a trade licence, for the purpose of investigating or remedying a mechanical fault in the vehicle;
(j) a disabled person who is wearing a disabled
Exemptions from seat belt wearing
The legislation provides for a number of specific exemptions from the seat belt wearing requirements on medical and other grounds. Please consult your doctor if you think you should not wear a seat belt on medical grounds.
As for the others these include:-
"(b) the driver of or a passenger in a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for carrying goods, while on a journey which does not exceed 50 metres and which is undertaken for the purpose of delivering or collecting any thing;
(c) a person driving a vehicle while performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;
(d) a qualified driver (within the meaning given by regulation 9 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1987) who is supervising the holder of a provisional licence (within the meaning of Part III of the Act) while that holder is performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;
(e) a person by whom, as provided in the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1987, a test of competence to drive is being conducted and his wearing a seat belt would endanger himself or any other person;
(f) a person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption);
(g) the driver of�
(i) a licensed taxi while it is being used for seeking hire, or answering a call for hire, or carrying a passenger for hire, or
(ii) a private hire vehicle while it is being used to carry a passenger for hire;
(h) a person riding in a vehicle, being used under a trade licence, for the purpose of investigating or remedying a mechanical fault in the vehicle;
(j) a disabled person who is wearing a disabled
Thanks to all for your answers, and, yes, I know that you should always wear a seatbelt. lol. I took the dressing down badly because it was handed out in such a condescending manner.
Pippa68, I have just checked with the council and have been assured that Sainsbury's is NOT classed as a public car park, it is owned by the company and, as such, is private land. If it were a public car park, it would be controlled by the local council.
I also phoned the police station. The desk sergeant was surprised I had been pulled on it, asked if I had been seen by the officer coming into the car park from the road not wearing a seatbelt and then told me that it was very unlikely that any action would be taken, even if I was racing around the car park and doing handbrake turns and wheelspins, unless I actually (god forbid) hit someone, damaged property or the store complained. Seems dangerous driving isn't as important as being on the public highway putting your own neck at risk.
Pippa68, I have just checked with the council and have been assured that Sainsbury's is NOT classed as a public car park, it is owned by the company and, as such, is private land. If it were a public car park, it would be controlled by the local council.
I also phoned the police station. The desk sergeant was surprised I had been pulled on it, asked if I had been seen by the officer coming into the car park from the road not wearing a seatbelt and then told me that it was very unlikely that any action would be taken, even if I was racing around the car park and doing handbrake turns and wheelspins, unless I actually (god forbid) hit someone, damaged property or the store complained. Seems dangerous driving isn't as important as being on the public highway putting your own neck at risk.
It's not whether it's a private or public car park that is the issue - what matters is that the public have access to it, not the ownership.
The field you referrred to is private land to which the public do not have access - no problem with doing what you like within reason.
Sainsburys car park may be private land but the public have access - keep to the rules.
The field you referrred to is private land to which the public do not have access - no problem with doing what you like within reason.
Sainsburys car park may be private land but the public have access - keep to the rules.
You were technically breaking the law but the way some police officers treat very minor offences is, as you say condescending and arrogant which immediately gets people's back up. The police know you will not fight back because if you do they will try and throw the book at you.
Your right on dangerous driving, this is hardly an offence now, speeding 1 or 2 mph hour over the speed limit is much more dangerous and thousands of drivers a week pay fines and get points for this heinous crime.
Sorry, rant over.
Your right on dangerous driving, this is hardly an offence now, speeding 1 or 2 mph hour over the speed limit is much more dangerous and thousands of drivers a week pay fines and get points for this heinous crime.
Sorry, rant over.
The officer was right because the car park was a public place. It is not unlikely that a child would run out between cars, or someone drives the wrong way. Toureman is wrong because any malicious action by the police would be put right. And nobody is fined or receives points for driving 1 or 2 mph over the limit.