Speed Penalties to Rise -Deaths Down

[Satch]

Always need to look at the source material, not the press nor the executive summary, to get the full picture

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/compliance/

Now the "summary" blurb says:


"We therefore propose to introduce a graduated fixed penalty of 6 penalty points for drivers who exceed the speed limit by a very large margin – 20 mph in most speed limits. "

Well that is not entirely correct if you look at the table on page 27 of the main document.

Also worth noting there is no intention to introduce downward graduation of penalties, only upward, on the basis that you have to be in excess of the ACPO guidelines for "suggested" enforcement to happen: which is of course not the experience of many. (Oh and by the way: Cost: £1m Benefit: £165-£275m.)

Other thing worthy of note:

Careless driving – our priorities

6.13 Table 6.4 shows that the number of convictions for bad driving has reduced in number by 77 per cent over the past two decades. This is mainly due to a large fall in the number of proceedings brought, although there has also been a steady fall in the rate of conviction. There is a similar pattern for written warnings, of which there were 4,500 in 2006. It seems unlikely that any improvements in driving standards over this period could account for a drop on this scale. So the level of enforcement is steadily dropping, and it seems likely that this means an increasing number of cases of careless driving are going unenforced.

Good Lord above! Who would have thought that would happen as a result of chopping traffic Police numbers!

"The process of charging a driver with careless driving involves a heavy burden of paperwork and is resource-intensive for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and, where a case reaches trial, the Courts Service. This leads to a heavy financial cost for careless driving, for which in the majority of cases the offender pleads guilty. In addition, there is anecdotal evidence that the heavy resource implications lead to police not charging drivers in the first place. This would suggest that there are careless drivers who are currently ‘getting away with it’, an idea that is supported by a steady downward trend in the prosecution of careless driving."

"6.19 We propose to make careless driving (but not dangerous driving or any of the ‘causing death’ offences) a fixed penalty offence. This would mean that, instead of going to court, drivers could be given the option of accepting a fixed penalty of £60 and 3 penalty points. The driver would still retain the option instead to challenge the offence in court."

If that helps clamp down on numpties fair enough but no increase in traffic police numbers though.

 

[Rovinghawk]

They clearly state that fixed penalties for offences are to reduce the cost of enforcement. So it's not about the money, then.

Also the fine for not wearing a seatbelt is to double; again, it's not about the money.

RH

 

[oldcro]

They clearly state that fixed penalties for offences are to reduce the cost of enforcement. So it's not about the money, then.

Also the fine for not wearing a seatbelt is to double; again, it's not about the money.

RH

Yes it is about money. Taking your (fines) money is a form of punishment designed to make you think twice about breaking the law.

What alternative forms of punishment do you suggest?

 

[raymont]

For me, and I suspect quite a few others, it's the points that I care about.

The fine for most people is about the cost of a tank of petrol, not that much of a deterrent.

Losing your licence, and perhaps increased insurance costs, is the bit that hurst.

 

[scumbag]

£10k a point, and a point for every mile above the speed limit you were.

watch the lack of the speeders reduce the number of cameras as the income stems rapidly. And think of the enviromental benefit not to mention the ceasing of all threads related to the unfair speed cameras.

Tell you, this could work really well.

There are only good sides here.

 

[chord]

With respect, don't you consider speeding poor driving, I do. We all fail to see the solution, why do we speed? If we didn't, no revenue. So although you may call them revenue earners, it is our own faults we keep paying. Most cars, as far as I know have a brake pedal, maybe we should use it more. Again, there are certain sectors who are up in arms over the new proposals, who if they abide by the law, the proposals will have no effect on them, it does make you wonder

Speeding inappropriately is poor driving But to be fair you are right if we didn't speed there wouldn't be a problem.

I'd say the crrent system makes for no allowance of a momentary lapse of concetration which can happen.

I find poor driving: poor lane discipline, cutting up, lack of use of indiacators, tail gaiting etc much more dangerous than speeding. I think like most people I get fed up with the view that if we got rid of speeding everything would be rosy.

 

[oldcro]

For me, and I suspect quite a few others, it's the points that I care about.

The fine for most people is about the cost of a tank of petrol, not that much of a deterrent.

Losing your licence, and perhaps increased insurance costs, is the bit that hurst.

Good point. But if your job relies on being able to drive it could result in loss of job to defaulting on mortgage payments to loss of home. Compared to someone who works from home or works near home and uses the car for pleasure runs only. So the crime is the same and the punishment is the same, but the resulting hardships on the people and their families is vastly different.

As we are all individuals and our circumstances are different it is almost impossible to apply a fair punishment that fits the crime every time. So the only answer seems to not break the law in the first place, regardless of ones opinion of a particular law.

Sorry to sound like I am preaching as there is nothing wrong with speeding, it is the inability to stop in time or navigate that bend that kills.

 

[edthedead]

Yes it is about money. Taking your (fines) money is a form of punishment designed to make you think twice about breaking the law.

What alternative forms of punishment do you suggest?

Public flogging... it's too good for 'em!

I think I can see where this thread is going... my only comment - the cost of dealing with and investigating a fatal collision is huge (wages for those investigating, the disruption to the local comunity/economy, even down to the loss of the taxes that the 'victim' would pay in the future) so IMHO anything that can reduce that cost has to be good, not to mention the human and emotional cost.

If financial penalities are the most effective way to encourage people to reduce the risk they put themselves under then sounds good to me!

 

[RoseTattoo]

With respect, don't you consider speeding poor driving, I do. We all fail to see the solution, why do we speed? If we didn't, no revenue. So although you may call them revenue earners, it is our own faults we keep paying. Most cars, as far as I know have a brake pedal, maybe we should use it more. Again, there are certain sectors who are up in arms over the new proposals, who if they abide by the law, the proposals will have no effect on them, it does make you wonder

Quite.
The general position being taken here is arguing about the imposition on the motorist rather than the fact that 3000 people die each year and far more are injured causing a ripple effect of grief, loss and possibly economic consequences, yet we are involved in nit picking arguments regarding the rights of the motorists.
Of course motorists have rights but they are a subset of citizens, of whom we lose 3000 per year. Does anybody seriously think that we shoudl put people's right to speed before people's right to live.
I too wonder when I read some of these responses.
Perhaps everybody as part of 'improved' driver training, shoudl be sent out with the ambulance crews and police to deal with these accidents, inform the relatives and help to pick up the social pieces.

 

[Mr E]

I'd say the crrent system makes for no allowance of a momentary lapse of concetration which can happen.

Neither does life - and inappropriate speed exacerbates that too.

 

[Rovinghawk]

Does anybody seriously think that we shoudl put people's right to speed before people's right to live.

Leaving aside the fact that nobody has claimed a 'right to speed', much of the protest is not about penalties for killing people (note:this is totally different to speeding & NOT killing someone).

Much of the protest is about the government increasingly wanting to rule every aspect of our lives with zero regard to privacy or freedom. Is this more important than the right to live? I'd answer by saying that many people have died in the cause of protecting freedom, only for others to have it gradually reduced by ever-increasing beureaucratic interference.

On a separate note with regard to speeding and 'what if I'd killed someone', surely the trial & penalty should be about what happened, not what might have happened but didn't.

RH

 

[kikkthecat]

I think everyone knows my feelings about this, I'm with Geoff and Scumbag and speaking as one who has a NIP on my desk in front of me I wouldn't care if a fixed penalty was put up to £1000 1st offence and 2 resulting in a ban. That would stop speeding overnight. Of course it wouldn't raise much money after the first couple of weeks but it would cure the problem.

But is it all going to be about speed ? what about all the other, in my view, far worse offences that we all see every day. All the reckless overtaking, the cutting across 3 lanes of traffic 50 yards from a motorway exit, the uninsured or drivers with no licence etc etc ? The cameras are never going to catch those people, you need officers on the roads because I'm certain if I see them constantly day in day out I'm sure a police car would too. I drive the motorways every single day and it's the norm to see people shaving, putting on make up or even reading books and sometimes it looks like about 1 in 4 is on the phone. Oh and all the tailgaiters and those who overtake or undertake dangerously. But because they are all within the speed limit they have little to worry about.
You'll never get the bad drivers with a speed camera that only covers a 10-20 yard stretch of road.
What we need is several hundred more like UnMarked because lets face it, unless you're Pammy, one's no good

 

[bigbobs cl]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5vfs5-TO5ro :bannana: :bannana:

 

[pammy]

What we need is several hundred more like UnMarked because lets face it, unless you're Pammy, one's no good

One might argue one's more than enough

 

[Dieter]

Hi,

Whilst I tend to agree that many speed cameras are primarily sited to raise revenue a system which punishes 'reckless' speeding significantly more than 'mild' speeding is OK by me.

Going over 45mph in a 30 limit can hardly reflect a momentary lack of concentration and if 'you' are...and...'you' can't/don't spot the camera imo the sooner 'you' are off the road the better.

I also agree that road safety would be better served by more police presence on our roads.....but little chance of that

Cheers,

 

[Donza]

I dont understand these "so-called" safety campaigners..

If they were goign to book everyone speeding and impose harsher limits. Why dont they just open up police stations by the side of the M6 and M1 corridor?

Speeding does cause deaths in some respects. But you simply cant stop everyone speeding..

I barely see a copper car on the motorway, and sometimes they are the ones who are speeding.

 

[st4]

I dont understand these "so-called" safety campaigners..

If they were goign to book everyone speeding and impose harsher limits. Why dont they just open up police stations by the side of the M6 and M1 corridor?

Speeding does cause deaths in some respects. But you simply cant stop everyone speeding..

I barely see a copper car on the motorway, and sometimes they are the ones who are speeding.

Aye, a police van shot past me in Dumbarton today. I was travelling at 40mph and the limit was 40 and it was going more than 40. Then it turned into the police station.

Even if everyone kept to the speed limits people would still die out there. The human body isn't designed to collide into obstacles at greater speeds than it can generate with its own propulsion. So erm, that would be 10mph. You might say people walk away from accidents at 30mph, but what if you hit a lorry travelling at 30mph and your doing 30mph. Chance are its game over.

To quote clarkson, its not the speed that kills, its the rapid slowing down.

To pretend that if speeding was eradicated and we'd all be safe out there is dillusional and people need to wake up and be awere that driving carries a risk that you may very well be killed, if you don't accept that don't drive.

 

[hawk20]

To pretend that if speeding was eradicated and we'd all be safe out there is dillusional and people need to wake up and be awere that driving carries a risk that you may very well be killed, if you don't accept that don't drive.

Yes there will always be some risk associated with cars. But we also need to accept that the risk goes up with speed. To take an extreme example to make the point, if we all did 2 mph very few people would be killed by cars. Driving faster increases the risk of collision (less time to avoid) and hugely increases the force of the impact. Hit a child at 30 it has an 80% chance of living. Hit a child at 40 and it has an 80% chance of dying. Speeding kills.

 

[st13phil]

One of the issues with stepped graduated penalties and automatic trigger points for those steps is that fractional differences in speed have vastly different consequences regarding punishment while those same speed differences have little or no consequence on the risk. A good example is the policy of short term bans for speeds of 100mph and above on a motorway vs 3 points and a fine for 99mph. It amazes me the number of speeding "worthies", such as Harriett Harman, who are magically reported for 99mph rather than 100mph...

The means of detection and the accuracy of any devices used therefore assume a far greater importance than they warrant.

 

[Birdman]

With respect, don't you consider speeding poor driving, I do. We all fail to see the solution, why do we speed?

Until 1904 the offence of 'speeding' comprised travelling faster than four miles per hour.

There is no honest impartial science behind any given speed limit and there never was; only custom & practice.

And politics. And money raising.