Speeding Fines
I was just reading about the new proposals on the BBC web site, and although the overall intent is good, in detail they just don't seem to make sense. It is proposed that the maximum fine is increased from 100 to 150 percent of weekly income, although the upper maximum remains fixed as before. However the thing that I find odd is that someone caught doing 51 in a 30 can only be fined a maximum of £1000, whilst someone doing 101 on a motorway can be fined £2500. Clearly neither should be doing those sort of speeds, but why the disparity. 101 on a fairly empty motorway at 10 pm at night has got to be safer than 51 through a housing estate at the same time. Whilst I appreciate it is not always possible to make laws seem totally logical, this in my opinion seems to defy logic.
Comments
-
This is an interesting one. We all I would think at some time or other go over the limit usually by accident and a few mph over the limit and we know what we are doing is wrong, but then there are those who think that the speed limits are some sort of guide and need to 'keep the traffic moving' and/or judge their driving skills to be able to drive at higher speeds.
I would actually say that both are equally dangerous. At 50 mph the stopping distance is around 170 feet or 53 meters. At 101 its 500 feet (different websites give different figures). Added to the extra momentum with larger lorries, it all adds up.
You have quoted 50 and 100 on 30 and 70 mph limits, what are they for doing 40 mph in an 30 zone?
0 -
t all comes down to money - some councils/politicians have studied the stats and decided that they can make more money that way. Believe me, there is no danger that our roads will be safer as a result of the higher fines. Those who speed will always do so!
1 -
I have too agree the roads wont be much safer as a result of this action.Speeding is habitual with some drivers and i cant see many of them changeing.As regards the financial penalty most seem to be prepared to risk it.More points on the licence would be better.As said higher fines is just a way of getting more money.
v9
1 -
Any harsher deterrent has to be a good thing, but catching those who habitually break the speed limits is the problem. Cameras can only do so much, and police services are fully stretched.
Driving dangerously in any circumstances is a problem. Where this results in deaths and serious injury, there is no excuse and custodial sentences, very long bans and harsh financial penalties need to reflect general societies unwillingness to tolerate such behaviour. Our laws and sentences are very complex, but need revising and revisiting to reflect changing behaviours.
1 -
Any form of speeding is of course dangerous. However, it did not seem logical to me to have a potential fine 1.5 times larger because it was a motorway. Speeding on normal roads where people may be crossing, there are numerous junctions, people cycling etc. Would seem to carry a much higher risk of injury to others. Personally I would have the higher rate for both. As far as I could see the 40 in a 30 would not allow the court to impose these higher fines.
1 -
As I said yours was an interesting post and made me think quite a bit and probably now agree with you that both should have the higher rate. I wonder who sat and wrote down the 'tariffs' for motorways and 30 mph roads like this and what was their reasoning. I personally think that 'housing estates roads' should be all 20 mph anyway. Thanks for your reply on the 40 mph question
2 -
Not exceeding the limit was not the point I was making. I was just highlighting the apparent disparity in fines for different types of speeding. Speeding is wrong.
As to using technology as you suggest. Many cars do not have it. One of ours a small automatic does not have CC. Whilst our manual tow car does, but it is not particularly effective at slower speeds. I just make sure I am aware of what speed I am doing.
0 -
Me too. I have a large clocklike device and I make sure that pointer on it does not exceed the road's speed limit. Works rather well.
Incidentally there is current research that suggest cruise control actually makes drivers less safe.
http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130808-is-cruise-control-dangerous
The less work the driver has to do, the less alert he will be behind the wheel
(sorry for the sexist language not my words)
The study indicated that by automating control of the vehicle, there is a decline in drivers’ attention and control, which reduces their ability to respond to hazards.
For example, when cruise control and speed limiters were used, drivers showed reduced ability to merge into traffic due to greater difficulty in modulating vehicle speed. The aids also caused drivers to remain in the overtaking lane for longer periods of time and to move back into the slow lane less often. Drivers straightened their vehicles less often when using these devices, and had substantially slower reaction times, especially in emergencies.
These behaviours grew more pronounced with the duration of travel, especially when using cruise control. Generally, the reduction of alertness and control was greater when using cruise control than with speed limiters, the researchers saidAny comments?
Speed limiters for all cars then? (I am not suggesting this just throwing it open for discussion)
0 -
Interesting thread SL
, I'm with Corners on the 20mph on all urban roads. Speeding is speeding, it WILL take life at some point due to the reaction times. As much as I 'get' the disparity point I do think it can be too complicated as in-if on a quiet road in the wee small hours it should be classed differently. Big fine to start with re exceeding accepted speed, then Doubling & tripling etc after that. It needs to hit everyone hard.2 -
The prime objective with this sort of change is to allow a jobsworth somewhere to tick a box and claim that they have fixed a problem, which they haven't.
Without providing sufficient resources to catch, prosecute and punish at least the majority of offenders the status quo prevails but it looks good in someone's annual report.
1 -
It would be impossible to monitor the speeds on all roads and all road users on a regular basis. Fines should be higher for repeat offenders and significantly higher for truely excessive speeds. It's just a shame that deterents have to be used rather than folk respecting the laws of our land and the lives and health of other people. It's all to easy to inadvertently creep about the road speed, I know that to my expence, thankfully my Nav system shouts at me when I do, I just wish it was a little more reliable and quick to alert me particularly when I'm in unfamiliar territory.
0 -
So it seems that you can drive as dangerously as you like just as long as you don't exceed the (sometimes ) arbitrary speed limit .... a bit like the clown in front of me earlier today .... swapped lanes half a dozen times (dual carriageway) cutting people up, but eventually ended up one car in front.
0 -
I don't think anyone has said that MM? We're just talking about exceeding the speed limit. If you drive dangerously you could get convicted of dangerous driving, there's also careless driving, inconsiderate driving, driving without due care and attention. Of course you have to get caught first and unless there was a police car about in the situation you describe it is unlikely, so it's probably easier to get caught for speeding with all the speed cameras.
0 -
Hey, this thread appears in the ask the expert section. I've been promoted at last!
Post edit, it appears in the CT homepage of discussions under Ask the expert but actually in it. Oh at least I had one minute of fame
0 -
Every new post takes the thread into Ask the Expert, Corners. This will be there now until someone else posts. Good, eh?
0 -
everyone should have a few minutes of fame.
Agree though it seems a bit silly, must be too difficult to fix I assume?
0 -
well it certainly increases the chances?
Yes I see your point, all forms of dangerous driving should be stopped, or try to stop it
0 -
It increases the chances massively too Mickey, the drivers chances of reacting to a problem with the vehicle like a blow out will be reduced, personal reaction times too. I view roads as a means of getting from A to B not a race track. I have no issue with folk having a death wish, unfortunately their attitude often puts innocents at risk, that is not acceptable.
0 -
The law on Speed Limits is perfectly clear. If caught breaking the law--you are fined and can lose your driving license. End Of ---- This is right and proper, no matter the spin that people who believe in breaking the law put on it.
Cheers.....................K
0 -
I dont have a income, how would they do 150% of nothing
0 -
Not according to our local paper tonight. £333 fine, £150 costs , £33 victim surcharge and 6 points.
My son was caught speeding and received a 28 day ban, £300 fine, £150 costs and £35 victim surcharge. Totally irresponsible driving. Could have lost his job as a MovCon in the RLC.
0
