erol_h Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Ive been hearing on the news today they are thinking of raising the speeding fine from 3 to 6 points two strikes and we are out. What the hell are these lot on it really frustrates me i wonder what they will come with next to screw us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I think that's only if you do 20mph over the limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erol_h Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 heard it a fews times on the news they didnt mention that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordy07 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I think that's only if you do 20mph over the limit. Most people do at some point;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 This obsession with speeding is doing my head in! Can we fine stupidity? Then maybe we could get some of our money back of these idiots!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzi Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 That police officer 'supposedly' speed testing his car down a country lane and killing a pensioner... did he get 6 points?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Ive been hearing on the news today they are thinking of raising the speeding fine from 3 to 6 points two strikes and we are out. What the hell are these lot on it really frustrates me i wonder what they will come with next to screw us. Well if you insist on doing 50 in a 30... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiceRocket Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Well if you insist on doing 50 in a 30... My Dad nearly achieved that (47) and he's a slow driver (Renault Scenic). Oh how I laughed when he announced in shock when reading the NIP- "I've been caught speeding...!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 They said in the news report "a quarter of all fatal crashes was caused by speeding". Why aren't they targetting the other 75%? Answer its easy, no need for police officers. So if your drunk, high on drugs with no insurance or road tax, your more likely to get away with it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n boost Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Gov't trying to make money again, i mean 6 points will make your insurance premuims higher than having 3 points so more in tax for them fools. This was what the public really needed in times like these.........well done gov't, great thinking NOT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 So if your drunk, high on drugs with no insurance or road tax, your more likely to get away with it!! There is a separate bill that is also coming in specifically to combat the problem of 'drug driving' just like we currently have 'drink driving'. There are already laws against no insurance or road tax, so how does that make you "more likely to get away with it" if you're caught speeding whether by camera or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 All that they are saying is that it is punishable by a 6 point penalty rather than 3 points if you're caught 20mph or more over the limit. What is wrong with that. Do you think it's OK to go 50mph in a built up area with a 30mph limit? Personally I think the whole system should be revamped. Discretion should play more of a part eg clear road, good weather, no traffic, no accidents/claims in 20 years - why shouldn't I be able to have a short burst of speed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n boost Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 All that they are saying is that it is punishable by a 6 point penalty rather than 3 points if you're caught 20mph or more over the limit. What is wrong with that. Do you think it's OK to go 50mph in a built up area with a 30mph limit? Personally I think the whole system should be revamped. Discretion should play more of a part eg clear road, good weather, no traffic, no accidents/claims in 20 years - why shouldn't I be able to have a short burst of speed? I agree with 50 in a 30 is wrong as it is most likely built up areas and also about discreation but some one doing say 90 in a 60mph deserted A road late at night dry, well lit up area, no children/people/traffic etc, does that desreve the same punishment? The law needs to be changed and these so called gov't experts banned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 They said in the news report "a quarter of all fatal crashes was caused by speeding". Why aren't they targetting the other 75%? Answer its easy, no need for police officers. So if your drunk, high on drugs with no insurance or road tax, your more likely to get away with it!! There is an advert for a car (could be Renualt) at the moment that says that 80% of accidents happen at under 20mph in the UK. Hogmaw, no one is defending 50 in a 30 (even if some 30's are just daft) but 90 on the motorway and getting 6 points? I don't know of any part of the motorway network where you couldn't stop from 90 in the roadspace you can see, even in a 1.0 treehugger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 There is a separate bill that is also coming in specifically to combat the problem of 'drug driving' just like we currently have 'drink driving'. There are already laws against no insurance or road tax, so how does that make you "more likely to get away with it" if you're caught speeding whether by camera or not? And how are they going to police it then when traffic cop numbers are down. I was making a comparison about drink and drug drivers against speeding. A topic which is high in the news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 This will help - as long as they can find the manpower to administer it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/motorists-to-face-roadside-drug-tests-1028241.html New technology that can test drivers for illegal drugs in as little as 90 seconds will be ready for police use as early as next year... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieran Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 ...but 90 on the motorway and getting 6 points? This is the bit that concerns me the most to be honest, as I would expect to get 6 points if I was caught doing 50 in a 30 etc. I work with a lad who's dad retired from being a traffic cop last year and he said that they didn't bother stopping people until they went above 87mph on the motorway (unless it was dangerous) as they'd have to stop pretty much everyone on the road, so going by that example, you would have a 3mph window between getting 3 points and 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 How about stolen cars and joy riders? People with no tax, insurance or even a licence? Who cares how many points they get, they'll just steal another car and drive illegally anyway. I see them doing more damage than your average motorist, who just so happens to be taxed, insured and have a full licence - which means they'll get f00ked. If they want cars off the road, then why no give instant life-time bans to drunk drivers, car theives and people with no tax/insurance/licence. Bet the numbers will drop then, and there will be less chance of people getting hit by uninsured drivers... Because they'll all be off the road. Repeat offenders will have their hands cut off to prevent further offences It's harsh, but I'd rather car theives walked around with no hands rather than innocent people losing their lives because of them. If you can't be trusted to obey the rules, then you can't be trusted to have a car, simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supra Size Me Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 It's the 6 points for 90 on the motorway bit that is going to screw the infrastructure of this country even further, as 70% of motorists regularly exceed this limit. The motorists are from all walks of life including bankers, judges, teachers, off duty plod ..... you get the idea. So, and I do hope someone from government or similar gets to read this, there needs to be an overhaul of this madness before it goes too far and we end up with decades of recession. My proposal is 20 MPH in urban areas instead of 30, this is the critical area of focus to reduce fatalities, but in order to compensate a new limit of 90 MPH on motorways, as the 70 MPH limit was brought in at a time when not many cars could even reach 70 MPH. Since those times many new safety features and improvements have been made to motor vehicles including antilock brakes, power steering and airbags to name a few. Which enable the safer travel at higher speeds, the 90 MPH is of course optional and a lot of people would be perfectly within their right to travel at whatever speed suits them most, as long as that speed is not in itself so slow as to cause accidents in itself. This would more than compensate for the slower speed in urban areas and would free up congestion, the police efforts in enforcement should be concentrated on urban areas in particular in the vicinity of schools. Anyone caught drink/drug driving should have an instant 10 year ban, any repeat offence would involve a detention centre where every day they are forced into hard labour in the form of repairing the roads, removing potholes etc to make the road surfaces safer to travel along. Effectively it would be a jail sentence of sorts that would put the worst offenders to good use for varying amounts of years depending on the severity of the offence. Anyone caught killing someone while DUI would receive a minimum of 15 years of road repairs, this would remove them from the opportunity of driving another vehicle in that time, and give payback to society in the one neat package.... just my 2 pennorth Andy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendor Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 This was bound to happen. Speeding is absolute and can be proven (like DUI) so technology is the obvious answer. Once driving patterns adapt to circumvent the technology such as slowing for Gatsos then new technology such as SPECS takes its place. People argue that speeding is not dangerous because the penalties are affordable and financial rather than affecting your liberty. ie four strikes in three years. Motorists argue that speeding affects the law abiding. If you have a legal car then you can be caught. If you clone a plate etc the law is very hard to apply and mostly depends on in car ANPR and sus'. Motoring laws generally only affect the law abiding and this adds weight to the 'tax' on the motorist arguement. In my opinion the government had no choice about doing this. It drives home the message that they consider speeding to be dangerous and answers a lot of the criticism they faced. However, it does open up a whole new can of worms. What about setting speed limits that are appropriate to the roads and the conditions so the motorist feels that the system is evened up a little. One thing is for certain - it will not stop any accidents at all. Accidents are caused by crap drivers plain and simple and there is a world of difference to doing 90mph on a clear motorway to some idiot half asleep or pissed in control of two tons of steel going past a school. edit - I also consider the other bill to include DUI with drugs a major step forward. This is one area that should have been tackled a lot more forcibly several years ago. If you DUI with drugs or drink you are the worst sort of driver in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhawk Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 In their own recent study, a government report stated that speed was the primary factor in only 7% of accidents. I'm not saying that speed isn't an issue, or shouldn't be reduced, especially in towns etc., but it does bug me that it has been seized upon as the main culprit of all accidents. It is a factor, yes, but a much larger factor (14% as I recall from the same report) is a lack of driver observation (not seeing the other vehicle or not assessing speed correctly). However, speed can be easily detected and punished; actually training people to a higher standard would cost the government money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhawk Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Sorry, my mistake is was 6%: 'The TRL Report 323 puts excessive speed as a definite factor in only six per cent of occasions' The rest of the 30% they claim is where speed is recorded as a 'contributary factor' along with drink, drugs, loss of control etc.; however, the 'other' factors are largely ignored in the publicity, leaving speed as primary demon. There lies, damn lies and statistics.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.