Speeding drivers face victim levy
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
- Status
Kinky
MB Enthusiast
It's OK Steve.
The only people who will pay it are those honest folk who are the easiest targets - ie - you and me.
The f
g scum bags.
It's time to stand up to this - this is really one step to far
K
The only people who will pay it are those honest folk who are the easiest targets - ie - you and me.
The f
It's time to stand up to this - this is really one step to far
K
New Labour : Car driver = criminal
Well, this Labour Party really is taking the p**s! f**k em all!!!!!!
Did anyone see that smug faced transport muppet on the news? Blandly stating that as car drivers 'kill' thousands of people on the roads it seemed only reasonable to her that we should be made to compensate victims of crime!
So it would seem that 'Tonys Cronies' have now formalised what they see as the reality of car ownership, car owner = killer!!! They've been straying down this road for a long time, but I never thought they would have the nerve to say it outright!
I know we shouldn't be political on this forum but I think now we have to vote Tory just to keep the wolves from our door.
What next? Well it's actually no secret that the road safety clowns that seem to drive this bunch of clowns thinking are already pushing for speed limiters, after all as one of their prats said, 'the speed limit is 70mph on motorways, so why are cars sold that exceed this speed'
I mean it! If those 6 numbers ever come up i'm leaving this police state!
Andy
Well, this Labour Party really is taking the p**s! f**k em all!!!!!!
Did anyone see that smug faced transport muppet on the news? Blandly stating that as car drivers 'kill' thousands of people on the roads it seemed only reasonable to her that we should be made to compensate victims of crime!
So it would seem that 'Tonys Cronies' have now formalised what they see as the reality of car ownership, car owner = killer!!! They've been straying down this road for a long time, but I never thought they would have the nerve to say it outright!
I know we shouldn't be political on this forum but I think now we have to vote Tory just to keep the wolves from our door.
What next? Well it's actually no secret that the road safety clowns that seem to drive this bunch of clowns thinking are already pushing for speed limiters, after all as one of their prats said, 'the speed limit is 70mph on motorways, so why are cars sold that exceed this speed'
I mean it! If those 6 numbers ever come up i'm leaving this police state!
Andy
Last edited:
Motard
Active Member
[QUOTE=vito113
I mean it! If those 6 numbers ever come up i'm leaving this police state!
Andy,
It might be difficult to escape it, where would you go?
Reasonable property prices here, less people, lots of wine and oysters. Beach patrol can be taxing in the summer, just have to grin and bear it
Bob
I mean it! If those 6 numbers ever come up i'm leaving this police state!
Andy,
It might be difficult to escape it, where would you go?
Reasonable property prices here, less people, lots of wine and oysters. Beach patrol can be taxing in the summer, just have to grin and bear it
Bob
andy_k
MB Enthusiast
"'the speed limit is 70mph on motorways, so why are cars sold that exceed this speed"
all in all a reasonable question after all there is no reason to exceed 70 mph in this country is there ?
personally I think that before long cars will be sold with satellite based systems in them that limit the cars speed according to area etc. They've trialled systems (I think it was Derby University) that immediately cut your cars speed to 30mph in the test areas.
when i lived in the south of France I found it terribly tedious, all that lounging around on the beach, drinking loads of good cheap wine and eating terrific food. Never mind the fact that the summers were so hot and dry you never needed anything more than a T shirt and shorts. Man was I glad to get back to a cold wet place
Andy
all in all a reasonable question after all there is no reason to exceed 70 mph in this country is there ?
personally I think that before long cars will be sold with satellite based systems in them that limit the cars speed according to area etc. They've trialled systems (I think it was Derby University) that immediately cut your cars speed to 30mph in the test areas.
when i lived in the south of France I found it terribly tedious, all that lounging around on the beach, drinking loads of good cheap wine and eating terrific food. Never mind the fact that the summers were so hot and dry you never needed anything more than a T shirt and shorts. Man was I glad to get back to a cold wet place
Andy
Ian B Walker
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2003
- Messages
- 7,668
- Location
- Freckleton
- Car
- 300-24, saloon and coupe, E300 24 valve diesel estate
"Blaire the cretin", will never be happy until we all ride push bikes and then he will probably tax any bike that has more than 6 gears. Someone wants to get this Muppet out of office. Why not form a Mercedes Party. Just think of all the fun we could have banning inferior cars from the roads therefore allowing us true ownership of OUR roads.
This is getting pathetic, what next? we will be charged for having our radio on?
Ian B Walker
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2003
- Messages
- 7,668
- Location
- Freckleton
- Car
- 300-24, saloon and coupe, E300 24 valve diesel estate
Kinky said::bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana:
First thing I'd do .... tax silver cars at double the rate
King Krankenhoffen.
You got my voteMotard
Active Member
andy_k said:"'the speed limit is 70mph on motorways, so why are cars sold that exceed this speed"
all in all a reasonable question after all there is no reason to exceed 70 mph in this country is there ?
personally I think that before long cars will be sold with satellite based systems in them that limit the cars speed according to area etc. They've trialled systems (I think it was Derby University) that immediately cut your cars speed to 30mph in the test areas.
when i lived in the south of France I found it terribly tedious, all that lounging around on the beach, drinking loads of good cheap wine and eating terrific food. Never mind the fact that the summers were so hot and dry you never needed anything more than a T shirt and shorts. Man was I glad to get back to a cold wet place
Andy
I agree with you Andy, it is going to happen. How long before we have someone suing a car manufacturer because a car is too fast? Maybe those interested in speed should accept the inevitable and buy track cars.
My long haired one made a comment today that is quite enlightening. She says our old (broken) 124 250TD is the best car we have ever had in her opinion. She likes it for how I drive it! The thing won't go fast and it isn't chuckable so I just poddle along which she likes.
She also pointed out that my stress levels are much lower driving it. Old age creeping up on me? Only bought the thing to transport my sons music gear!
Bob
Bit of a b****r though if you do a lot of miles abroad.
Bit of a b****r though if you do a lot of miles abroad. Can you imagine driving a car that did 70mph max on an Autobahn or Autostrada? that would way too exciting in a 'slowest thing on the road' style! Everything, including the trucks would be overtaking you.
But you are right, speed limiters will come eventually!
Andy
andy_k said:all in all a reasonable question after all there is no reason to exceed 70 mph in this country is there ?
Bit of a b****r though if you do a lot of miles abroad. Can you imagine driving a car that did 70mph max on an Autobahn or Autostrada? that would way too exciting in a 'slowest thing on the road' style! Everything, including the trucks would be overtaking you.
But you are right, speed limiters will come eventually!
Andy
ChrissyBoy
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Messages
- 65
vito113 said:
I'll give you an argument for not having speed limiters. Because they're downright dangerous - it's generally accepted amongst experienced drivers that acceleration is as valuable a tool as braking in the disaster avoidance stakes. What are you going to do when that HGV crosses the central reservation and your car refuses to exceed the speed limit, because Blair has dictated that it should be so?
What else is going to happen? Do joggers get fitted with neural speed limitation devices because there's evidence that excess speed on pavements causes tripping? One step further - will we in the future be fitted with satellite fed embedded behaviour control mechanisms linked back to number 10, so that we can all conform to what the goverment deems to be acceptable social activity?
I think we should impose a tax on our idiot home secretary for letting in thousands of asylum seekers, increasing crime, unemployment and council tax, without asking ME, the tax payer first. Where's the democracy?
Conclusion: we shouldn't be surprised at this latest bout of speeding fine lunacy - it's totally in line with the rest of their ill informed ideas. Let's just get the monkeys out ASAP before they destroy what was "Great" Britain.
kikkthecat
MB Enthusiast
Is anyone really surprised by this ?
Just another nail in the coffin of the decent (usually) law abiding motorist.
On my political views, no comment, but that does not mean no opinion, and is voting a different party in on the basis that you're fed up with the present bunch true democracy anyway ? You can be sure that any fines/levys put in place now will remain long after the next election whoever wins it as no government will readily give up any source of revenue.
I just wish I had the skills. knowledge or whatever it takes to organise something on the lines of the fuel tax protests or the poll tax protests so those on high could see just how the brow beaten motorist really feels.
Just a thought, I understand that the million or so uninsured drivers out there are costing legal drivers £30 a year on the average policy to cover the cost of claims made against them, does this entitle me to some of the victim compensation that is being levied ?????
Just another nail in the coffin of the decent (usually) law abiding motorist.
On my political views, no comment, but that does not mean no opinion, and is voting a different party in on the basis that you're fed up with the present bunch true democracy anyway ? You can be sure that any fines/levys put in place now will remain long after the next election whoever wins it as no government will readily give up any source of revenue.
I just wish I had the skills. knowledge or whatever it takes to organise something on the lines of the fuel tax protests or the poll tax protests so those on high could see just how the brow beaten motorist really feels.
Just a thought, I understand that the million or so uninsured drivers out there are costing legal drivers £30 a year on the average policy to cover the cost of claims made against them, does this entitle me to some of the victim compensation that is being levied ?????
sym
MB Enthusiast
Kinky said::bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana: :bannana:
First thing I'd do .... tax silver cars at double the rate
King Krankenhoffen.
pammy
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2003
- Messages
- 7,468
- Location
- North Yorkshire
- Car
- hers - slk 320, his - dull diesel BMW fleet :/, Xtrail, Honda CBR 1100xx, Yamaha YZF600, Ribble Road
My two penn'orth -
while I don't agree with simply adding £5 to speeding motorists fines to finance this venture, I don't think you can argue the ethos behind it. Why should law-abiding taxpayers pay for the criminals doings? - because we are also the innocent victims
The reality is that the majority of those who should pay end up in prison and unfined. If it was a blanket, all law breakers will contribute - and that includes those who speed, park illegally as well as burglars, rapists, the whole shebang as everyone of them has broken the law and the act of breaking the law puts innocent people at risk, it would probably be nore acceptable. As I understand it, the motorist is just one source for the finance, not the only one.
Like it or not, if you speed, you might feel you are in control, but another person, say a child crossing the road, may not be able to judge the speed you are doing and be unable to get of the way even though they shouldn't have to. Thiose who say Speed doesn't kill are deluding themselves - it does, although if you want to more pedantic, it is the driver driving too fast that kills.
I'm not preaching, I like to have a blast when I "think" it's safe. None of us can say that on a public highway with a speed limit that we know we are safe going faster - we do not know what might just jump out of the hedge be around the corner etc etc. When we do go over the speed limit though we do it full in the knowledge that we are breaking the law and should accept the consequences. If it's going to be a higher fine, then you have the right not to pay it by not speeding in the first place.
As for is this a democracy, of course it is - we all have the right to vote for the party whose policies we feel support our own personal values and beliefs the best. To expect to be canvassed on every piece of proposed new government policy is unreasonable and impracticle - no policy would ever get passed as we would never agree as a nation.
I found the comments on assylum seekers offensive - nothing to do with this debate and racist.
Oh and btw - Mr K - ooooooooh you silverist you
while I don't agree with simply adding £5 to speeding motorists fines to finance this venture, I don't think you can argue the ethos behind it. Why should law-abiding taxpayers pay for the criminals doings? - because we are also the innocent victims
The reality is that the majority of those who should pay end up in prison and unfined. If it was a blanket, all law breakers will contribute - and that includes those who speed, park illegally as well as burglars, rapists, the whole shebang as everyone of them has broken the law and the act of breaking the law puts innocent people at risk, it would probably be nore acceptable. As I understand it, the motorist is just one source for the finance, not the only one.
Like it or not, if you speed, you might feel you are in control, but another person, say a child crossing the road, may not be able to judge the speed you are doing and be unable to get of the way even though they shouldn't have to. Thiose who say Speed doesn't kill are deluding themselves - it does, although if you want to more pedantic, it is the driver driving too fast that kills.
I'm not preaching, I like to have a blast when I "think" it's safe. None of us can say that on a public highway with a speed limit that we know we are safe going faster - we do not know what might just jump out of the hedge be around the corner etc etc. When we do go over the speed limit though we do it full in the knowledge that we are breaking the law and should accept the consequences. If it's going to be a higher fine, then you have the right not to pay it by not speeding in the first place.
As for is this a democracy, of course it is - we all have the right to vote for the party whose policies we feel support our own personal values and beliefs the best. To expect to be canvassed on every piece of proposed new government policy is unreasonable and impracticle - no policy would ever get passed as we would never agree as a nation.
I found the comments on assylum seekers offensive - nothing to do with this debate and racist.
Oh and btw - Mr K - ooooooooh you silverist you
Last edited:
andy_k
MB Enthusiast
Good points there Pammy and I suspect ones that many people would take on board if they were the ones driving that little bit too fast and hit somebody.
The one and only time I was in that situation was when I was doing less than 10 mph and a child ran out from between two cars. Both of us were lucky, me because I was going so slow between the parked cars and the kid because I was awake enough to stamp on the brakes quickly and she ended up sitting on my bonnet but it could have been different, another 5 mph would have probably meant injury another 10 mph - well it doesn't really bear thinking about. despite what we may think, when driving on the roads we are never in full control, there are too many variables and to think otherwise would be deluding ourselves.
The laws concerning speed are not new ones and in reality neither is the enforcement of them. There have been speed traps etc for many years so anyone getting caught has very little defence.
At the end of the day speeding is against the law and that makes it a crime if we choose to break the law we deserve to be treated as criminals not innocent victims. The fact that the government is hammering people who speed is the fault of the motorist. We all tend to see speeding as a minor crime because WE are the ones comitting it and we are not the victims. Let's consider this, shoplifting is seen by shoplifters and the courts as a "minor" crime because there are no "real" victims, nobody is hurt and at the end of the day the big stores can afford it. Except they can't, well, they don't, the cost of their losses is passed onto us, the customers who pay for the goods we want so we are already paying for other peoples crime. As Ian rightly pointed out we already pay extra for our insurance because people drive around with none but because we all have insurance we regard these people as criminals - are they any worse than someone doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone?
Interesting thought, if the revenue from speeding fines disappeared, i.e. everyone decided to be law abiding then the legislators wouldn't see any need for the "nanny state" we all complain about and would be forced to look elsewhere for their money.
At the end of the day a speeding motorist is not a "soft target" he or she is someone who is breaking the law and as such is a "legitimate target"
Nobody is perfect and nobody who regularly commits any crime has any right to look down on or judge any of their other "criminal associates"
The police and government target motorists but they don't ever target motorists who are driving legally and I suspect that any potential government that suggested they would not give a damn about law and order would never get elected.
As the old saying goes "If you can't do the time then don't do the crime"
As to the other points, I stand by the comment I made that there is no real need to have a car that will exceed 70 mph in this country. few, if any vehicles on the road offer that "snap acceleration" at 70 mph to accelerate your way out of trouble and in the case of a truck crossing the centre reservation and heading straight for you evasive action and braking would surely be better than accelerating into it's path.
Speed limiters will inevitably be fitted and it will not be the governenments fault it will be ours. If we are too arrogant to accept and abide by the legislation that is currently in place it will be forced upon us.
I also agree with you about the asylum seekers commment. What next? single mothers? the unemployed? it's all sounding a bit Maggie Thatcher here
Andy
The one and only time I was in that situation was when I was doing less than 10 mph and a child ran out from between two cars. Both of us were lucky, me because I was going so slow between the parked cars and the kid because I was awake enough to stamp on the brakes quickly and she ended up sitting on my bonnet but it could have been different, another 5 mph would have probably meant injury another 10 mph - well it doesn't really bear thinking about. despite what we may think, when driving on the roads we are never in full control, there are too many variables and to think otherwise would be deluding ourselves.
The laws concerning speed are not new ones and in reality neither is the enforcement of them. There have been speed traps etc for many years so anyone getting caught has very little defence.
At the end of the day speeding is against the law and that makes it a crime if we choose to break the law we deserve to be treated as criminals not innocent victims. The fact that the government is hammering people who speed is the fault of the motorist. We all tend to see speeding as a minor crime because WE are the ones comitting it and we are not the victims. Let's consider this, shoplifting is seen by shoplifters and the courts as a "minor" crime because there are no "real" victims, nobody is hurt and at the end of the day the big stores can afford it. Except they can't, well, they don't, the cost of their losses is passed onto us, the customers who pay for the goods we want so we are already paying for other peoples crime. As Ian rightly pointed out we already pay extra for our insurance because people drive around with none but because we all have insurance we regard these people as criminals - are they any worse than someone doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone?
Interesting thought, if the revenue from speeding fines disappeared, i.e. everyone decided to be law abiding then the legislators wouldn't see any need for the "nanny state" we all complain about and would be forced to look elsewhere for their money.
At the end of the day a speeding motorist is not a "soft target" he or she is someone who is breaking the law and as such is a "legitimate target"
Nobody is perfect and nobody who regularly commits any crime has any right to look down on or judge any of their other "criminal associates"
The police and government target motorists but they don't ever target motorists who are driving legally and I suspect that any potential government that suggested they would not give a damn about law and order would never get elected.
As the old saying goes "If you can't do the time then don't do the crime"
As to the other points, I stand by the comment I made that there is no real need to have a car that will exceed 70 mph in this country. few, if any vehicles on the road offer that "snap acceleration" at 70 mph to accelerate your way out of trouble and in the case of a truck crossing the centre reservation and heading straight for you evasive action and braking would surely be better than accelerating into it's path.
Speed limiters will inevitably be fitted and it will not be the governenments fault it will be ours. If we are too arrogant to accept and abide by the legislation that is currently in place it will be forced upon us.
I also agree with you about the asylum seekers commment. What next? single mothers? the unemployed? it's all sounding a bit Maggie Thatcher here
Andy
Last edited:
andy_k
MB Enthusiast
fuzzer said:It all comes down to the fact that anyone who votes for Labour again is officially an IDIOT.
Over the last wee while they have shown their true colours
and the alternative would be?
A party so corrupt that several of it's top members have ended up in jail or are on "the run"?
A party that would be so PC that nothing would ever get done?
hmmm - kinda stuck for choice really aren't we ?
Sadly every party will campaign on the "law and order" ticket and that will invariably hit the motorist who chooses to think that he/she is above the law as they are a guaranteed source of income.
Andy
Andy
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
