20 New Rules to Remember for Spanish Road Users

One point mentioned about "snitching" on someone, "you have to be sure about your facts before getting someone in trouble". Obviously it is important to act in good faith but it is a human duty to help and look after another person in danger. Just taking the drink-driver as an example, who would let their friend drive home after drinking? How would you feel the next day to be told that the friend misjudged a corner and is now dead or seriously injured? Knowing I could have prevented it I would find it hard to live with myself. There are knock on effects as well. Too many times in my career I had to go to a family home and inform the wife-husband-father-mother-son-daughter that one of their family was dead because of drink driving, sometimes along with one or two friends with them out having a good time.

Everyone knows right from wrong and snitching, does not get anyone into trouble. The person got themself into trouble.

Mickeyfinn - I quite agree - in fact, that's what I used to do before I exported my car permanently.The ones I rant about are the ones which do not display a UK tax disc, obviously have not been back to the UK to get an MoT, so any local insurance they may purchase is null and void. For instance, the elderly Mercedes parked less than 200 metres from where I sit now, the black BMW estate, Land Rover Discovery, Volvo coupe and ancient Nissan to name but a few, all of which I see on an almost daily basis in and around Almoradi.

These owners seem to get away with it because the Guardia around here are far more relaxed than they are further down the coast from what I read on these forums. In the main, these are quality cars, not cheap old bangers, and so are worth converting properly and making legal. I and hundreds of others have done it - why do so many think that they are above the law?

I confess - after over 45 years as a professional driver, this is my pet rant, along with drinking and driving - if they have no problem with driving an illegal car, then you can bet they will have no second thoughts about drinking and getting behind the wheel. Who is going to suffer if (or when) they have an incident and run into someone? Don't forget, it could be YOUR wife, offspring, or grandkids - or mine!

Anyway, rant over for today - sorry if I've offended anyone, but it is a situation which needs attention. And if the above applies to any of our readers, then I hope the law catches up with you; over 3,000,000 miles on the roads of Europe and I have seen enough accidents and gruesome sights to teach anyone a lifetime's lesson!

The bottom line is simple those expats who decide to move obver to Spain and ignore the rules are simply stupid or ignorant or even both!!!

Ther are so many options when bringing a UK car to Spain

1. Transfer to Spanish plates - it is simple as many have done it

2. Sell you car in UK and buy a Spanish car when you get here

3. If you wish to drive your UK car to Spain with your posessions etc  then ther are many car sales who will part ex your Brit car for a Spanish car and they sell it on to someone returning to the UK

There is NO justification or valid excuse for anyone to continue to drive an expat car illgally in Spain

Thanks Mariedav.  I was always aware of the six month rule for non residents and always made sure we did not overstay.  So just to confirm are you saying the situation for non residents has not changed following the latest legislation?

The new regulations are for those who keep their car in Spain. As you take yours back to the UK before the 6 months is up, and you are not a resident, they don't apply to you.

There are a lot of people who keep a foreign car in Spain and use it on visits. These are the ones that now have to be put on Spanish plates.

I would, however, keep your return ferry ticket if going that way.

Thanks a lot Mariedav.  That's a bit of a weight off my mind!  However, I do know what you mean about people who leave a foreign car permanently in Spain and have been getting away with it for years.  I appreciate your advice about the ferry ticket but quite often we don't book our return passage till a week or two beforehand.  Thanks again.

Hey johnzx (former policeman). Have you ever applied your ethical stance to 'snitching' on fellow police officers ? - thought not. As a member of an organisation that covered up illegal activity for 30 odd years in the Hillsborough scandal, I think glass houses and stones come into play.

I also know police officers, who told me 15 years ago about Jimmy Savilles 'activities', and that, plus numerous other issues where the police and its officers have been shown to be less than ethical leaves any police officer on thin ice when it comes to the moral high ground on this issue.

Otivar,  yes you are correct I never snitched on any police officers,  however, I did investigate a number of them, arrested them, and prosecuted them in court just as I did with others, from all walks of society. Bent coppers are only ever arrested police officers !

As for your apparent expectation that Police officers should be perfect.  They are just members of the public who do that job.  That does not make them any better or worse than most, and in general they reflect society, just like postmen, teachers and road sweepers.

johnzx

I am confused (on a lighter note) - I thought police officers can investigate and arrest but they cannot prosecute or send to jail or fine as these are the jobs of the CPS and the courts not police officers.

Maybe you were a magistrate, CPS lawyer or judge as well as a police officer - but surely not the same time

Or maybe you were simply judge, jury and executioner

Tadd,   I retired in 1987. The CPS did not exist until 1986.  Until then, in criminal matters, the CID officer in the case took the decision, based on his/her knowledge of criminal law,  whether to charge.  In the Met, in very exceptional cases where there was any doubt, they would consult Solicitors Branch at Scotland Yard.  In many cases the CID officer would prosecute (call witnesses, cross examine etc) at Magistrate’s court, but of course if the case was committed to Crown Court, the officer would write a legal aid report to solicitors branch, who would instruct counsel.  The CID officer i/c of the case, would sit behind Counsel during the trial and ‘assist’.

In the mid 1980's the Met changed their previous policy of having only career CID officers, under CID command, and introduced ‘interchange’ upon promotion between CID and uniform branch and put the CID under uniform control. Since then the professional ability of CID officers declined and is now very poor compared with previously, hence the increasing number of spectacular  ‘cock ups’ seen, with the Stephen Lawrence case one of the first.

This message was last edited by johnzx on 30/03/2014.

johnzx

technically you are correct but any police officer making a prosecution had to do it as a private citizen (as all prosecutions were back in the day) and they could not hand down sentences or fines

Sorry Tadd, you are wrong.  (I have edited my earlier report.)

You may find this interesting;:

Historically, in England, with no police forces and no prosecution service, the only route to prosecution was through private prosecutions brought by victims at their own expense or lawyers acting on their behalf. From 1829 onwards, as the police forces began to form, they began to take on the burden of bringing prosecutions against suspected criminals.

In 1880, Sir John Maule was appointed to be the first Director of Public Prosecutions, operating as a part of the Home Office; the jurisdiction was only for the decision as to whether to prosecute, and just for a very small number of difficult or important cases; once prosecution had been authorised, the matter was turned over to the Treasury Solicitor. Police forces continued to be responsible for the bulk of cases, sometimes referring difficult ones to the Director.

In 1962, a Royal Commission recommended that police forces set up independent prosecution departments so as to avoid having the same officers investigate and prosecute cases though, technically, the prosecuting police officers did so as private citizens.

However, the Royal Commission's recommendation was not implemented by all police forces, and so in 1978 another Royal Commission was set up, this time headed by Sir Cyril Philips. It reported in 1981, recommending that a single unified Crown Prosecution Service with responsibility for all public prosecutions in England and Wales be set up. A White Paper was released in 1983, becoming the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which established the CPS under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, consisting of a merger of his old department with the existing police prosecution departments. It started operating in 1986.

johnzx

Wikipedia is great is it not

Where am I wrong?

Historically, in England, with no police forces and no prosecution service, the only route to prosecution was through private prosecutions brought by victims at their own expense or lawyers acting on their behalf. From 1829 onwards, as the police forces began to form, they began to take on the burden of bringing prosecutions against suspected criminals.

In 1962, a Royal Commission recommended that police forces set up independent prosecution departments so as to avoid having the same officers investigate and prosecute cases though, technically, the prosecuting police officers did so as private citizens.

Tadd, not that it is really relevant to anything here, but I was a copper for almost 30 years in the Met Police, all but 2 years of that as a CID officer . I really do know what I did during that time, but if you think you know better, that’s OK with me. 

I   'rest my case'. I may though post about  "20 New Rules to Remember for Spanish Road Users"

johnzx

I do not doubt you know what you did all I am doing is quoting what was found on Wikipedia which I would trust over your views

Also pointing out that as a police officer or even a prosecutor or head of CID you cannot pass a sentence (sent them to jail) as you have said in your other postings as this lies with the magistarte or judge

Here is an great quote from someone's employment apprasial (search on line and I am sure you will find it) which says "this person would argue with a signpost"

I like your comments as some are good, informative and some would suggest .....................

Private reply sent, as too boring for here !

** EDITED - Inciting - Against forum rules **

To get back on thread - I was astonished to read about the rule regarding cancer patients.  I was diagnosed with cancer in January and, although my treatment doesn´t start until this Friday, I am therefore a cancer patient.  If I cannot drive I cannot work, as I live in a village without public transport (well there is one bus a day but it doesn´t go near my office!).  I have no symptoms which would affect my driving, in fact I have no symptoms at all, and wouldn´t have any idea I had cancer if I hadn´t had a routine colon cancer test sent through the post!

I was quite prepared that I would not be able to drive for a few weeks after my op, but I now don´t have a clue what the rules are.  I have tried to find info on the internet in both Spanish and English and have only found reports on this particular story.  I looked on the Traffico website but could not find anything relevant.

Can anyone enlighten me and tell me what the current rules are?

Hi Claire, 

I did a search on Google under "cancer permiso de conducir"  and got a number of result, which may be of use to you.

I had cancer in 1967. I was fortunate that I just had an operation to remove it and did not need any other treatment. I drove, as until this thread, saying they are going to improve the situation, I had not heard of it.

Best of luck with your treatment

          John