New Speeding fines / punishments have been introduced.

[Sidney1st]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/23/new-speed ... w-6592386/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like I need to start being sensible...

[starting_11]

Just don't get caught... all be reet!

Have you? Btw

[Sidney1st]

I haven't been caught speeding for a few years now, my current points are due to be taken off this year.

I fully expect to see more police trying to catch speeding drivers though for the next few weeks, like they did with drivers using their phones.

[cricketfieldclarets]

What a surprise. Its a money making scam.

Speeding doesnt kill, bad driving does.

Massive fines and severe punishment for using your phone yes. Drink driving yes. Drug driving yes. etc etc

Speeding doesnt kill though. There are times where it is perfectly safe. 150% of someones livelihood for driving fast FFS

[tim_noone]

What a surprise. Its a money making scam.

Speeding doesnt kill, bad driving does.

Massive fines and severe punishment for using your phone yes. Drink driving yes. Drug driving yes. etc etc

Speeding doesnt kill though. There are times where it is perfectly safe. 150% of someones livelihood for driving fast FFS

Police are trained to deal with all sorts of situations..and are permitted to drive at speed killing lots of people on the high speed chases so bad driving is responsible? Tell me how many bad drivers do you see on a journey? Fu..ing loads. High speed kills.

[Mrpotatohead]

What a surprise. Its a money making scam.

Speeding doesnt kill, bad driving does.

Massive fines and severe punishment for using your phone yes. Drink driving yes. Drug driving yes. etc etc

Speeding doesnt kill though. There are times where it is perfectly safe. 150% of someones livelihood for driving fast FFS

Whilst I agree that on occasions, the police and other authorities simply park up with their camera out in order to catch some innocent motorists going a mere 4 mph over the speed limit, saying speeding doesn't kill is simply incorrect. In 2013, 3064 people were killed or seriously injured in accidents in which speed was a factor. Yes there are times when speeding isn't dangerous, I'm not disputing that, but there are more times when it isn't safe. The 150% of your weekly wage fines are for band C offences which is 41mph or above in a 20, 51mph or above in a 30 and 100mph or above on a motorway. There are very very few places where you could say driving at 51mph in a 30 zone is safe, in fact 99 times out of 100 it would be totally irresponsible.

[smudge]

What a surprise. Its a money making scam.

Speeding doesnt kill, bad driving does.

Massive fines and severe punishment for using your phone yes. Drink driving yes. Drug driving yes. etc etc

Speeding doesnt kill though. There are times where it is perfectly safe. 150% of someones livelihood for driving fast FFS

Speeding doesn't kill.
Surely your not being serious.

[dsr]

There are very very few places where you could say driving at 51mph in a 30 zone is safe, in fact 99 times out of 100 it would be totally irresponsible.

I reckon that if they ever added up the stats, which they won't, you would find that a lot more than 1% of the fines for driving at more than 51mph in a thirty zone are in areas where the speed limit is 50 all along and then changes to 30 for no apparent reason. That's the big problem people have with speed cameras - they are so often used purely as traps, not as genuine attempts to increase safety.

[Sidney1st]

My main issue with a 30mph limit is that most cars aren't designed to be driven at that speed.

Its usually just to high for one gear and too low for the next one up.
I think its 3rd and 4th, resulting in your cars revs being high or so low it doesn't like it.

Speed does kill and cause accidents, whether its someone going to slow resulting in other drivers having to slow down very quickly or people driving faster than their abilities are capable of.

[wilks_bfc]

There's no change tho in what you will and won't get "done for" just the penalty.

Although they say 31-40 is a band A fine of 3pts nobody caught doing 31-35 will be fined
Speedometer aren't accurate enough for that to be enforced

[THEWELLERNUT70]

What a surprise. Its a money making scam.

Speeding doesnt kill, bad driving does.

Massive fines and severe punishment for using your phone yes. Drink driving yes. Drug driving yes. etc etc

Speeding doesnt kill though. There are times where it is perfectly safe. 150% of someones livelihood for driving fast FFS

So you think doing 50mph in a 30mph zone is acceptable (this was one of the examples given as to how the new type of fine would kick in)

I think it's a long overdue measure tbh

[evensteadiereddie]

As a teacher for more years than I care to mention, the schools I have worked in have inevitably lost a few ex-pupils, always male, in car crashes.
Every single one of them was at high speed.

[Diesel]

Vehicles, all of them, should be fitted with tracking devices, simple, available technology and anyone that exceeds the speed limit is instantly issued a fine.

This would create so much revenue that we could then genuinely look at 0% taxation on the working mans wage.

[ClaretAndJew]

What about people on 0 hour contracts? What % will they take off them? In fact, what are they going to do? Have people show how much they earn and then take a % off? Or is that just tall? Like a comparable thing. It'll be % of a wage - I.E a big fine?

[dsr]

As a teacher for more years than I care to mention, the schools I have worked in have inevitably lost a few ex-pupils, always male, in car crashes.
Every single one of them was at high speed.

There's a difference between driving at 90 mph on an empty motorway because you think it's safe, and driving at 90 mph on a winding country lane because you think it's safe.

Speed limits are not the best guide as to what speed is safe. There are many 60 mph roads (eg. those winding country lanes) where you would be mad to drive at 60; there are others where it is safe but illegal to go at 80. There are two guides to what speed you should be driving at; road conditions, and speed limits. And of course you should use the lower of the two figures, but if you are going to break one of the limits, it's safer to break the legal speed limit that it is to drive faster than is physically safe on the road.

The problem with the law is that it doesn't take into account the road conditions. 41 mph on an empty dual carriageway on a clear day, is worse in law than 40 mph outside a school at chucking-out time on a dark and wet winter day.

And the problem with the police is that they are after convictions more than they are after road safety. Which is why the speed camera in the above situation would be on the dual carriageway, because they might get 5 drivers at 40 mph on the empty dual carriageway, where they would only get one driver doing 40 past the school. There might be more dead children, but there'd be more speeding convictions too.

[Mrpotatohead]

My main issue with a 30mph limit is that most cars aren't designed to be driven at that speed.

Its usually just to high for one gear and too low for the next one up.
I think its 3rd and 4th, resulting in your cars revs being high or so low it doesn't like it.

Speed does kill and cause accidents, whether its someone going to slow resulting in other drivers having to slow down very quickly or people driving faster than their abilities are capable of.

Sid, I think you're one of the more reasonable posters on this forum. However, believing that most cars aren't designed to drive at 30 mph is rubbish. I drive a number of different cars at work, from a HGV to a Ford Ranger pick up to Vauxhall Astra estates to my own VW, I have never struggled to get a car to drive comfortably at 30mph, be that in 3rd or 4th gear.

[Foulthrow]

What about people on 0 hour contracts? What % will they take off them? In fact, what are they going to do? Have people show how much they earn and then take a % off? Or is that just tall? Like a comparable thing. It'll be % of a wage - I.E a big fine?

It's an average of your wage. So they'll probably look at what you earned in - say - the last 12 months. I'd guess.

[ClaretAndJew]

So we'd have to supply the courts with our P60? I assume the fine given isn't numerical then? And will have to be paid within a longer time frame than usual? As they need to collate the wage average and then issue you with a total?

Sounds a little bit complicated to me


Unless they just straight up already know and will hand out on the spot fines.

[Commy]

How can someone pay 150% of 100%

[Blackrod]

Money making scheme. People that drive without insurance/ drink drivers/ phone users should face longer bans. People that kill should be banned for life. More points in 30 zones could be a good idea but none of this makes money.

[happyclaret17]

there is a difference between over the speed limit and dangerous speeding....that should be taken into account if this law is a genuine attempt to help road safety....also if the fines are related to pay then people like drug dealers etc will be laughing...their tax free gains wont show and their shop that makes no money will be what the fine is judged on.....bearing that in mind...if the person caught speeding is in a 40 grand motor but shows earnings of 200 quid a week then perhaps a small percentage of the book price of the car would be a better way of fining them.....where I live the biggest problem with dangerous drivers is the group mentioned and the new law would be a joke.

[Jimscho]

If you say drive at 36 mph in a 30 zone you now get a fixed penalty fine plus points I think.I don't drive any more.Are you now going to have to go to court and produce evidence of income?

[Diesel]

Women drivers are really good.

[tim_noone]

Women drivers are really good.

At what.....?

[Spiral]

It's a money making scam and it doesn't take into consideration that I, me, I am amazing at cars. If only there were a way to avoid these fines. If only.

[aggi]

It's a money making scam and it doesn't take into consideration that I, me, I am amazing at cars. If only there were a way to avoid these fines. If only.

I believe that, when the police stop you, if you just explain that you're a much better driver than average (as I believe 80% of drivers are) they'll understand and send you off on your way. Same thing applies to red lights, if you explain that you looked at the road conditions and decided that going through the red was within your capabilities then they'll say no more about it.

[cricketfieldclarets]

If youre unemployed and earn 0 you will effectively be fined nothing for going 90 in a 60.

If you are employed you will be fined 150 percent of your weekly wage for going 40 in a 30.

The workig man penalised for a lesser crime.

[Mrpotatohead]

If youre unemployed and earn 0 you will effectively be fined nothing for going 90 in a 60.

If you are employed you will be fined 150 percent of your weekly wage for going 40 in a 30.

The workig man penalised for a lesser crime.

No you won't. If you are doing 40 in a 30 you'll be given a band A fine which is 50% of your weekly income.

[ten bellies]

There are occasions when 20mph is too fast and others when it is too slow. Driving requires constant decision making. The speed limits and the way they are policed allow the authorities a broad brush approach and not to treat each situation on it's merits. Speeding fines are a cash cow, as are parking fines. Cars have never been safer, particularly with modern braking systems, yet the authorities have, on the back of selective statistics, reduced speed limits. It is irresponsible driving in relation to the conditions which is dangerous, as is taking away the responsibility of the driver to make those decisions. It is easy to let your speed wander above the speed limit by a few miles an hour, particularly on an open road, where the speed limit is inappropriate, which will now cost some people a relatively large amount of money.

[ablueclaret]

The ridiculous thing is the irrationality of the speed limits 35, 45' etc can't be used,
And why there isn't a blanket 45 mph speed limit on narrow country roards I'll never know.
Add to that the fact that cars are manufactured to radically exceed the speed limit and you've got all you need to get serious accidents.
Anecdotally my experience is that fast drivers rely on the rest of us taking avoiding measures to prevent their stupidity having serious consequences.
It's those who think they are good drivers who are generally the most dangerous.

[FactualFrank]

So does this now do away with the speed limit + 10%? So you'll literally get fined for going 31 in a 30?

[dsr]

It's always been illegal to do 31 in a 30 zone, but historically the equipment wasn't accurate enough to justify prosecution, and also a magistrate wouldn't give more than a slap on the wrist if his time had been wasted with that sort of case. Now, the equipment is no doubt considered to be more accurate, and they don't trouble magistrates with this sort of thing anyway, so who knows? It'll give police the chance to raise more money / make roads safer by enforcing it so strictly. From memory at least one chief constable (can't find the link) has said that he wants speed limits enforced to the letter so that the speed limit becomes de facto 25 mph, because you can't risk driving at a steady 30 which becomes 29-30-31.

[Sidney1st]

Anecdotally my experience is that fast drivers rely on the rest of us taking avoiding measures to prevent their stupidity having serious consequences.
It's those who think they are good drivers who are generally the most dangerous.

I've never relied on someone else taking avoiding measures when I break the speed limit.

Who's the more dangerous, someone who sits in the middle lane at 50-60mph or someone who's driving at 80mph in the correct lane?

[FactualFrank]

I live just off a main road and you get people doing 100mph down a 30mph. They're missing a trick not putting a camera up around here.

[Sidney1st]

They don't tend to install speed cameras until x amount of accidents/deaths I've been told.
I might be wrong on that one though.

[keith1879]

I believe that, when the police stop you, if you just explain that you're a much better driver than average (as I believe 80% of drivers are) they'll understand and send you off on your way. Same thing applies to red lights, if you explain that you looked at the road conditions and decided that going through the red was within your capabilities then they'll say no more about it.

Absolutely - and as we all know, erecting cameras and warning signs and setting up systems and procedures for sending out paymemnt requests for fines and covering the court costs for the cases where people don't pay up is a fantastically profitable money-making scheme - especially when you consider that (unlike every other form of taxation ever invented) it is completely voluntary because simply by reducing your speed slightly you actually don't have to pay. (And yes I have had speeding tickets and I have deserved all of them). To those who say speed doesn''t kill - it is a well established fact that being hit by a car doing 30 mph usually doesn't kill you - whereas being hit by one doing 4o nearly always does.

[keith1879]

I've never relied on someone else taking avoiding measures when I break the speed limit.

Who's the more dangerous, someone who sits in the middle lane at 50-60mph or someone who's driving at 80mph in the correct lane?

It depends on the circumastances of course. But generally speaking somebody doing 50 mph in the middle lane is NEVER dangerous - annoying yes but not dangerous. (The danger comes from the guy behind who doesn't notice them until too late - or the guy who undertakes them).

[dsr]

It depends on the circumastances of course. But generally speaking somebody doing 50 mph in the middle lane is NEVER dangerous - annoying yes but not dangerous. (The danger comes from the guy behind who doesn't notice them until too late - or the guy who undertakes them).

It causes people doing 55-60 to occupy the outside lane unnecessarily which causes large numbers of cars to bunch together. It's safer if cars are spread out evenly over the length of the motorway rather than all queueing up at fairly high speeds for the chance to get past the slow lawbreaker.

[dsr]

Absolutely - and as we all know, erecting cameras and warning signs and setting up systems and procedures for sending out paymemnt requests for fines and covering the court costs for the cases where people don't pay up is a fantastically profitable money-making scheme - especially when you consider that (unlike every other form of taxation ever invented) it is completely voluntary because simply by reducing your speed slightly you actually don't have to pay. (And yes I have had speeding tickets and I have deserved all of them). To those who say speed doesn''t kill - it is a well established fact that being hit by a car doing 30 mph usually doesn't kill you - whereas being hit by one doing 4o nearly always does.

The point isn't that speeding doesn't make things more dangerous. Driving at 40 is more dangerous than driving at 30 is more dangerous than driving at 20 is more dangerous than driving at 10 is more dangerous than driving at walking pace. We all know that.

The point is that according to the way the law is policed now, you are more likely to get punished for driving at 40 on an empty dual carriageway with no footpaths than you are to get punished for driving at 40 past a busy school on a single carriageway. Why? Because they concentrate on the area where they raise the most money, not the area where speeding is the most dangerous.

And the other point is that they try to trap you - like on Grane Road a few years back, where they changed the limit from 40 to 30 and didn't tell anyone at all, they just removed the 40 signs that had been there for yonks. No big signs warning of the new limits, just speed cameras waiting to catch the unwary drivers who didn't realise the most important aspect of driving was to watch out for speed signs that have been there for years just in case they've moved; rather than watching out for unexpected hazards in the road.

The way the system is set up now is that people who regularly and deliberately speed, but watch out for speed cameras and have a camera detector thingy, don't get caught; people who accidentally speed because they've drifted over the limit on an open road or because they missed a sign, get caught. The police are targeting the wrong drivers.

[ten bellies]

It depends on the circumastances of course. But generally speaking somebody doing 50 mph in the middle lane is NEVER dangerous - annoying yes but not dangerous. (The danger comes from the guy behind who doesn't notice them until too late - or the guy who undertakes them).

I cannot agree with your comment. The rules of the motorway are simple. Lane one is for driving, lanes 2 and 3 for overtaking. By remaining in either 2 or 3 when not overtaking you are creating a hazard to other road users and potentially reducing the flow of traffic causing slow moving traffic behind you, particularly if travelling slower than 56mph, the speed at which LGV's are limited, which cannot use lane 3. Hence the change in the law where police can prosecute.

[Chobulous]

The way the system is set up now is that people who regularly and deliberately speed, but watch out for speed cameras and have a camera detector thingy, don't get caught; people who accidentally speed because they've drifted over the limit on an open road or because they missed a sign, get caught. The police are targeting the wrong drivers.

No they aren't, they are targeting those drivers who exceed the speed limit. It doesn't matter whether they have exceeded the limit intentionally or because they are just careless. They have exceeded the limit and therefore they have broken the law. Why is that so difficult to understand?

[Sidney1st]

No they aren't, they are targeting those drivers who exceed the speed limit. It doesn't matter whether they have exceeded the limit intentionally or because they are just careless. They have exceeded the limit and therefore they have broken the law. Why is that so difficult to understand?

It isn't difficult to understand, I just don't worry about breaking the speed limit like some do.

I also don't understand why it's never seemingly an issue when people drive at a speed well below the limit, like 15-20 in a 30mph zone or 45-50 on a motorway.

[Sutton-Claret]

I drive York to Shipley via the A59 everyday - everyone who drives that road will agree there are some dangerous areas along the route - especially around the Pannal / Spofforth crossroads. However the mobile camera units insist on setting up on a quiet area where the road is wider with no adjoining side roads. Clearly, without question, to catch speeding motorists....... and making more money. They don't setup in the danger areas...... cos people don't speed there.

I've spotted a few vans now pointing cameras, out of a flap above the windscreen, at almost stationary traffic on the run down into Shipley centre. I'm guessing these are catching people using phones. If I was checking my phone whilst looking down with the phone out of site - how would they know what I was doing??

[dsr]

No they aren't, they are targeting those drivers who exceed the speed limit. It doesn't matter whether they have exceeded the limit intentionally or because they are just careless. They have exceeded the limit and therefore they have broken the law. Why is that so difficult to understand?

It isn't difficult to understand. I understand perfectly. In law, it is the same offence if you accidentally drive at 40 mph on an empty dual carriageway in broad daylight as it is if you deliberately drive at 40 mph past a busy school on a dark winter day. I understand that perfectly. It's the same offence, it's the same penalty. We both agree those are the facts.

The bit where we disagree is that I reckon they shouldn't be the same punishment, because I reckon that deliberately speeding in poor conditions where children are present is a worse offence than accidentally speeding on a good wide road with no pedestrians. You perhaps don't agree - that's fine. But it's not my understanding of the law that you disagree with, it's my assessment of how the law should be applied.

[Chobulous]

I have never said that they shouldn't be dealt with differently, but I do say that they should be both dealt with. In both instances that you quote the driver is breaking the law. Maybe you can argue that the offences are different but at the end of the day they are both offences that have been committed. The argument put forward by some on here seems to be that there is an acceptable form of speeding. That is what I disagree with. By all means give a punishment commensurate with the circumstances, but at the end of the day all instances of speeding, when discovered, should be dealt with.

[cricketfieldclarets]

No you won't. If you are doing 40 in a 30 you'll be given a band A fine which is 50% of your weekly income.

OK I was out on the percentage. But what is 50% of 0?

[Mrpotatohead]

OK I was out on the percentage. But what is 50% of 0?

I've just posed the question to a mate of mine who is a police officer. The answer was '50% of their weekly benefits I suspect'.

[Rileybobs]

For those who say they don't min speeding and that speed doesn't kill - do you speed when your children in your car?

[Sidney1st]

For those who say they don't min speeding and that speed doesn't kill - do you speed when your children in your car?

Yes, next question.

[cricketfieldclarets]

For those who say they don't min speeding and that speed doesn't kill - do you speed when your children in your car?

Nope.