thanks, lets hope not[msnsmile]
thanks, lets hope not[msnsmile]
If I or anyone else had been coming towards you on the opposite side of the road, I don't think I would have seen the funny side of your 'JOKE'......[V]I for one have seen to many people who unfortunatly for no fault of there own will not be able to visit Florida, and it not because they can't get a Visa.
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by ste1010
I am following this thread with interest. I recieved a fixed penaly notice for a minor motoring offence. The offence was a joke. I passed a parked car on a road with a single solid white line. [/quote]
Jen & Amy
www.onlinefloridavillas.com/villas/1481.aspx
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by amy
If I or anyone else had been coming towards you on the opposite side of the road, I don't think I would have seen the funny side of your 'JOKE'......[V]I for one have seen to many people who unfortunatly for no fault of there own will not be able to visit Florida, and it not because they can't get a Visa.
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by ste1010
I am following this thread with interest. I recieved a fixed penalty notice for a minor motoring offence. The offence was a joke. I passed a parked car on a road with a single solid white line. [/quote]
[/quote]
Amy, I cannot understand what you are upset about. If the other car was parked on the road, what was Ste1010 supposed to do? Stop behind it all day because there was a solid white line on the road? I am sure that he took adequate precautions to check if another vehicle was approaching from the opposite side before going past the stationary car.
ste1010, if it indeed happened that way, I agree with you entirely that the penalty was a joke - and a stupid one at that.
Nostromo
amy, give you head a shake. Joke is the correct word. How can you comment. Do you know the road , the circumstances. No you dont. Have you read the highway code. Obviously not!
Well I will quote to you
"Solid white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"
I overtook a stationary car to access a side road. As it was on the approach to a railway crossing and the barriers were down I overtook one car in front of me to access a side road which was before the railway crossing. It was clearly visiable no other vehicles were coming the other way.
The magistrate even admitted to performing the same maneovre herself. The police's argument was that the highway code is only advisory and not law and that apparently I broke a law in the RTA sect 36. A law even the magistrate didnot know about. She admitted she had to find us guilty but also insisted the police arranged with the highways agency to put signs up and paint a second solid white line. these signs/Lines appeared 2 weeks after the hearing.
So next time please do not come the high and mighty and lecture me about road safety because I know what a dangerous place roads are through personal experience.
Thank You
So much passion! I never dreamed I'd stir up such a hornets' nest.
To update you on my current situation. Today my wife went to the embassy and got her Visa application approved. The experience was exactly as described by Bezza in his post on 27 Jan. The only thing she would add is that it appeared to be a waste of time to arrive early. (All that would accomplish would be an extra wait out in the cold). She arrived at the allotted time but still had a wait outside for 45 mins. Her total time took from 11.a.m to 3.15 p.m. By the way, you're not allowed to use your mobile in the embassy, so if you want to warn people you're running late or whatever, you can't.
No-one batted an eyelid at her applying as a result of a minor driving conviction; no-one suggested she didn't need a Visa for such a trivial offence and she got the impression they were doing Visas wll the time for this specific problem. The overall issue was "there was a conviction so we want the details". Unfortunately, despite clear instruction from me she didn't specifically ask the major question, which was "do I really need a Visa for this or could I have used the waiver?"
Tchah! If you want a thing done properly.... All I can say is that she very much got the impression that the Visa was needed. Sorry if that upsets Robert, or sends the 400 odd people who have read this into a stampede to the embassy for Visas, but there you have it.
Tonish
Tonish
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Unfortunately, despite clear instruction from me she didn't specifically ask the major question, which was "do I really need a Visa for this or could I have used the waiver?"
Tchah! If you want a thing done properly.... All I can say is that she very much got the impression that the Visa was needed. Sorry if that upsets Robert, or sends the 400 odd people who have read this into a stampede to the embassy for Visas, but there you have it.
[/quote]
Tonish,
Thanks for the update. As you say it is a pity your wife did not ask the $64,000 question as it has not moved the ‘debate’ forward.
My stance is absolutely clear and I have stated it clearly enough in previous posts. The regulations and the relevant question on the I-94W are absolutely clear, and have been explained in many posts by a number of contributors.
However if anyone wishes to examine those regulations to see if there is an obscure way that the regulations can be interpreted such that a minor traffic offence might disqualify you from the Visa Waiver Scheme; that is their prerogative. If they wish to spend the money for a Visa, visit London and spend hours hanging about the US Embassy that is also their choice.
For the many people who visit this forum for advice it would be helpful to give them a single piece of substantive evidence why they need a Visa for a minor traffic offence.
Robert
To save you looking it up the relevant wording is:
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Robert, I think I see what you are saying but correct me if I am wrong. It was an "and/or" If it resulted in a conviction then they may not travel visa free? It is a very grey area I think. Maybe it would be easier if our American friends amended it to read criminal and ignore Civil cases. Would that be better?
Steve
Steve & Dawn
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers with minor traffic offenses which did not result in an arrest and/or conviction for the offense may travel visa free, provided they are otherwise qualified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/quote]
Robert, I think I see what you are saying but correct me if I am wrong. It was an "and/or" If it resulted in a conviction then they may not travel visa free? It is a very grey area I think. Maybe it would be easier if our American friends amended it to read criminal and ignore Civil cases. Would that be better?
Steve
.................................................. ..................................
Steve, I'm in agreement with you on this. The "and/or" is all important here when referring to a conviction. Like Robert, I believe it is absolutely not the intention of the authorities to include people with minor driving offences, but unfortunately the wording immediately following that phrase means that any conviction will lead to the necessity of a Visa application.
I believe a wording which would better satisfy their intent would be : Travellers with minor traffic CONVICTIONS which were not as the result of an arrest may travel Visa free. Or, as you suggest, differentiate between criminal and civil offences, although I'm not certain of the difference myself. The fact is that in my wife's case, it DID result in a conviction so, following the wording, we felt we had no choice but to apply for a Visa.
I'm certain that the US embassy is putting itself to an awful lot of trouble and expense interviewing people like my wife and it would surely be better to reallocate that resource to concentrate on those people where there may be genuine cause for concern. I don't mind in the least being inconvenienced if I felt there was a useful reason for it and it was reducing a terrorist threat, but for the life of me, I can't see the need to interview everyone with a speeding conviction.
Tonish
Tonish
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Tonish
quote:
Steve, I'm in agreement with you on this. The "and/or" is all important here when referring to a conviction. Like Robert, I believe it is absolutely not the intention of the authorities to include people with minor driving offences, but unfortunately the wording immediately following that phrase means that any conviction will lead to the necessity of a Visa application.
I believe a wording which would better satisfy their intent would be : Travellers with minor traffic CONVICTIONS which were not as the result of an arrest may travel Visa free. Or, as you suggest, differentiate between criminal and civil offences, although I'm not certain of the difference myself. The fact is that in my wife's case, it DID result in a conviction so, following the wording, we felt we had no choice but to apply for a Visa.
I'm certain that the US embassy is putting itself to an awful lot of trouble and expense interviewing people like my wife and it would surely be better to reallocate that resource to concentrate on those people where there may be genuine cause for concern. I don't mind in the least being inconvenienced if I felt there was a useful reason for it and it was reducing a terrorist threat, but for the life of me, I can't see the need to interview everyone with a speeding conviction.
Tonish
[/quote]
My own deduction from this is that all the confusion revolves around interpretation of the word "conviction" in relation to fixed penalty offences. There is no doubt that drivers who received fixed penalty fines and paid those promptly (like I have done twice), do NOT require a visa and can use the VWS. Yet, the US Embassy wording seems to suggest that a driver with any traffic conviction, however minor, needs to apply for a visa. This can only mean that the US Immos (some of them at least) do not consider the offer of a fixed penalty fine as a conviction as long as it is undisputed and a prompt payment made.
Nostromo
Succinctly put, Nostromo.
That was definitely the impression I got when talking to the embassy helpline staff - normal fixed penalty notices and points weren't an issue, but once it had gone to court it was a different ball game.
Tonish
Tonish
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks