RE: Six points for speeding

RE: Six points for speeding

Friday 9th November 2007

Six points for speeding

Drivers could be banned for breaking limit twice under new proposals


Two strikes and you're out?
Two strikes and you're out?
Motorists could be banned from driving for only two speeding offences under new proposals, it has been reported.

If a driver is caught doing 45 mph or above in a 30 mph zone they could get six points, double what is dished out now, and a £100 fine.

According to the Times newspaper ministers are keen to further clamp down on speeding and are prepared to ban drivers for six months even quicker for breaking limits.

It is said that 1.1 million drivers have six or more points on their licences and, under the new law, they would be banned immediately for one more offence.

The new penalties are also believed to be planned for drivers travelling 57 mph or over in a 40 mph zone and 94 mph or above on a motorway.

However the Government is thought to be preparing to drop an earlier proposal to introduce a lower penalty of two points for those travelling at a few mph over the limit.

Jim Fitzpatrick reportedly told the Times that the two point system would undermine the Government’s ‘speed kills’ message.

Author
Discussion

kentmotorcompany

Original Poster:

2,471 posts

209 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
This needs a government online petition. This is something that will get as big a response as the road pricing one.

spoonoff

361 posts

197 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
If you are doing over 45 in a 30 zone you deserve what you get.

schnellbomber

26,140 posts

213 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
No, it just needs a new government.

SS2.

14,455 posts

237 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
spoonoff said:
If you are doing over 45 in a 30 zone you deserve what you get.
That's a bit sweeping, isn't it ?

schnellbomber

26,140 posts

213 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
spoonoff said:
If you are doing over 45 in a 30 zone you deserve what you get.
Great, another keyboard warrior.

Welcome rolleyes

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
You know I kind of agree with it, apart from 94 in a 70.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
schnellbomber said:
spoonoff said:
If you are doing over 45 in a 30 zone you deserve what you get.
Great, another keyboard warrior.

Welcome rolleyes
I agree with him (spoonoff) - how on earth do you not realise that you're doing 45 in a 30???

If it was 65 or 70 in a 60, yes that's pretty harsh, but 45 in a 30? Tough, read your speedo and slow down. If not, accept the consequences.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 9th November 10:54

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

216 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
It looks to me like less of a change than the headlines suggest. It appears more like you'll get a 6 point fixed penalty and larger fine for higher speeds, rather than going to court as you do now.

ashes

628 posts

253 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
I thought 94 on a motorway was brown-trouser territory (ban) anyway. I would have thought over 85 as more likely.

Scary one I heard is '31 or over in a 20' At 20 analog speedos are a bit inaccurate - width of the needle on mine covers 2-3 mph. Are lasers accurate enough at 20?

Anyway - it's only a matter of time before we have limiters on cars

schnellbomber

26,140 posts

213 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
JimSuperSix said:
schnellbomber said:
spoonoff said:
If you are doing over 45 in a 30 zone you deserve what you get.
Great, another keyboard warrior.

Welcome rolleyes
I agree with him (spoonoff) - how on earth do you not realise that you're doing 45 in a 30???

If it was 65 or 70 in a 60, yes that's pretty harsh, but 45 in a 30? Tough, read your speedo and slow down. If not, accept the consequences.

Edited by JimSuperSix on Friday 9th November 10:54
So, if for example you found yourself on one of the many stretches of dual carriageway that are limited to 30mph for no apparent reason at 3.00am you wouln't feel compelled to travel a little faster?

PhantomPH

4,043 posts

224 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
Who is Jim Thingy? It's stated like I should know. :shrug:

BTW - I know of at least one road on my route to work that is legally classified as a 30mph limit. It's half a mile long - has fields on the right and industrial units set back on the left. I have never been along there at anything like 30mph - and nor have any cars around me - but we would all be banned within 1 day of a journey to and from work.

30mph limits are there for a reason and should be adhered to - but I think that before people start getting sweeping about their statements, it should be acknowledged that not all 30 limits are appropriate for the road.

BTW, this introduction of a 2 point thing - does that mean I will suddenly start getting 2 points for doing 32 in a 30? That is a serious question.

P~

Fetchez la vache

5,568 posts

213 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
schnellbomber said:
JimSuperSix said:
schnellbomber said:
spoonoff said:
If you are doing over 45 in a 30 zone you deserve what you get.
Great, another keyboard warrior.

Welcome rolleyes
I agree with him (spoonoff) - how on earth do you not realise that you're doing 45 in a 30???

If it was 65 or 70 in a 60, yes that's pretty harsh, but 45 in a 30? Tough, read your speedo and slow down. If not, accept the consequences.

Edited by JimSuperSix on Friday 9th November 10:54
So, if for example you found yourself on one of the many stretches of dual carriageway that are limited to 30mph for no apparent reason at 3.00am you wouln't feel compelled to travel a little faster?
The thing is, as ever, there is more than on issue.
a) 30mph zones that shouldn't in fact be 30 mph
b) people doing more than 30mph in an area which should be 30mph - built up areas with street parking etc..

as far as b) goes, throw the book at them, ban them and chop their goolies off, as far as I'm concerned.

flame away

march

6 posts

197 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
How much would this cost the government though, I for one could not get to work without driving, so I would have to either quit and get a job nearer to home with less pay probably therefore more getting more tax credits, or just go on the dole and get everything paid for by the government that banned me.
Of the two I know which one would be easiest.

Egbert Nobacon

2,835 posts

242 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
schnellbomber said:
spoonoff said:
If you are doing over 45 in a 30 zone you deserve what you get.
Great, another keyboard warrior.

Welcome rolleyes
His spelling isn't bad for a 12 year old though smile

spoonoff

361 posts

197 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
Obviously in residential areas it's a no-brainer.
Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.

So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???

Dunk76

4,350 posts

213 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
ashes said:
I thought 94 on a motorway was brown-trouser territory (ban) anyway. I would have thought over 85 as more likely.
No - it's still fixed penalty. Least it was for me back in September.

I actually agree with double the points for 45/30, but the whole set up is chronically wrong.

If you want to dissuade dangerous speeding (i.e. 45 in 30mph zones) then surely the penalty should be higher than 95 in a 70?

After all, 45 in a 30 is generally regarded as dangerous - especially as it's 50% above the limit. Yet 95 in 70 is 33% over the limit.

It only follows the current scheme in it's inequality of punishment. My SP30 was at 97 (IIRC) in a 70 - 27mph over the limit. Which is exactly the same fine/points as I'd have got for doing 57 in 30mph. Which is more dangerous?


sospan

2,469 posts

221 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
Serial offenders getting stiffer punishment?
I am all for that but shouldn't it be applied to ALL offenders and not just speeding drivers?
I think that if this does start to happen for all offenders i will buy shares in prison construction companies.
Again thios seems to be good at face value but with the complexities and poor running of the speed camera business then its not a really good thing.
For instance -
siting of cameras
appropriateness of speed limits
Information overload due to too many roadsigns etc etc etc
lack of driver training and knowledge
This last one is a good one -- i recently had a call from someone asking about road speed limits - he didnt know what the Nationsl Speed limit sign was and he was middle aged ! I advised him to buy a copy of the Highway Code and read it. ( I work as civvy for police at comms centre)

kippax

2,788 posts

248 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
spoonoff said:
Obviously in residential areas it's a no-brainer.
Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.

So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???
Ah but if you do it at 90+ you will be able to turn round come back then go again at the speed limit thus satisfying your need for fun as well as obeying the law at least once wink

H

vallers

1,285 posts

196 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
but its the start (well, not the start, quite a long way in now) ... next 'proposals' laws or whatever will be more and more draconian, up to the end-game, which will not allow us to have any control over our cars at all ... we're getting there. My guess is speed controlled cars in, what, 2 years for company cars, followed by new volvos, then the rest within 5 years?

What amazes me is how these people can stand up and make speeches damning all these 'anti-social' offences, and commit the self-same ones on their way home .. we are not outraged enough about this hypocrisy!

ffelan

637 posts

252 months

Friday 9th November 2007
quotequote all
Surely the answer is to drive an untaxed, uninsured stolen car. Cameras hold no fear then

What few police cars there are now wont be around - their drivers will be banned or they will be limited to 22mph for eco reasons....

What a great country... New Labour Same old cr4p.