Speeding - Sentencing Guideline consultation

[Truffs]

agtlaw said:

Truffs said:

This, to me, looks like a good thing for drivers. Especially if you have been caught before.

Am I right?

Finally, its an admission that the robots are very effective and the humans are, well, human!

Good call.

The middle sentencing bracket - not so good. Spot the difference?

Hmm, this time they are considering a ban before points. Hopefully, the choice when to ban won't be in the hands of the over zealous or I suspect there will be lots of 7 day bans and more profit all round for the economy.

Edited by Truffs on Saturday 21st May 10:58

[agtlaw]

The Consultation document says this:

"This guideline has been revised and updated to reflect the Sentencing Council format. The changes are not intended to have any impact on sentencing outcomes. The degree to which the offender’s speed exceeds the relevant speed limit is the lead factor in assessing offence seriousness under this guideline. Therefore the draft guideline follows a slightly compressed format, not providing additional culpability and harm factors save the speed. It does provide sentencers with additional aggravating and mitigating factors to consider."

Strange that the order - points/ban or ban/points (which I believe has been written deliberately in the existing guideline) has been amended. I'll respond to the consultation - if only to query this.

Edited by agtlaw on Sunday 22 May 12:58

[4rephill]

I suspect the thinking is that if the driving ban part of the middle band becomes the primary punishment rather the the points part (as it is currently), then drivers will take the offence of speeding more seriously.

At the moment there is a prevailing thought that the consequences of speeding in that band range are trivial, the attitude being: "Don't worry about it - It's only points and a fine normally, they very rarely ban you for that speed!".

If drivers are more likely to face a ban rather than "only points and a fine", perhaps they might take more care not to speed.

[Pete317]

4rephill said:

I suspect the thinking is that if the driving ban part of the middle band becomes the primary punishment rather the the points part (as it is currently), then drivers will take the offence of speeding more seriously.

At the moment there is a prevailing thought that the consequences of speeding in that band range are trivial, the attitude being: "Don't worry about it - It's only points and a fine normally, they very rarely ban you for that speed!".

If drivers are more likely to face a ban rather than "only points and a fine", perhaps they might take more care not to speed.

Right, we've done for the speeders, now what to do about pedestrians stepping on the cracks?

Edited by Pete317 on Sunday 22 May 11:54

[Impasse]

If they hand out bans willy nilly then the opportunity for attracting income from fines will be diminished in their numbers, so instead of numerous £100s trickling in to the coffers there'll be fines of greater monetary value coming in but less often.
Possibly.

[JumboBeef]

What would happen if you were higher than those guidelines, ie: 61 in a 30?

[ScoobyChris]

Is this just if it gets to court?

Earlier this year I was offered 3 points for 94mph on a motorway - my understanding from Googling was that 95mph is the threshold for not being eligible for offers and it being referred to the courts?

Chris

[simoid]

There's something wrong with the courts when thieving scrotes get £5 per week fines for stealing thousands of pounds worth of stock, either side of someone getting £300 for 70 in an empty 50 dual carriageway. Feel free to insert your own examples.

[agtlaw]

JumboBeef said:

What would happen if you were higher than those guidelines, ie: 61 in a 30?

There isn't a national guideline for 61+ in a 30 limit or 111+ in a 70 limit. In Yorkshire courts, the aforementioned may attract a ban of 56+ days and a Band C fine. Apart from totting up bans, the longest ban I've ever had for speeding is 3 months - where the offender was way 'off the chart.'

[agtlaw]

ScoobyChris said:

Is this just if it gets to court?

Earlier this year I was offered 3 points for 94mph on a motorway - my understanding from Googling was that 95mph is the threshold for not being eligible for offers and it being referred to the courts?

Chris

It's a court guideline.

95/70 is usually a £100 fixed penalty and 3 points. 96 and above is usually a Postal Requisition / Single Justice Procedure Notice / Summons - which means a court hearing and an income based fine, 3-6 points or a ban.

[agtlaw]

simoid said:

There's something wrong with the courts when thieving scrotes get £5 per week fines for stealing thousands of pounds worth of stock, either side of someone getting £300 for 70 in an empty 50 dual carriageway. Feel free to insert your own examples.

70/50 does not usually involve the court - because it's a £100 fixed penalty with 3 points.

[simoid]

agtlaw said:

simoid said:

There's something wrong with the courts when thieving scrotes get £5 per week fines for stealing thousands of pounds worth of stock, either side of someone getting £300 for 70 in an empty 50 dual carriageway. Feel free to insert your own examples.

70/50 does not usually involve the court - because it's a £100 fixed penalty with 3 points.

Usually. However, it does involve a court if you do it in Aberdeenshire. They consider themselves extra special.

[RichieRuss1]

simoid said:

There's something wrong with the courts when thieving scrotes get £5 per week fines for stealing thousands of pounds worth of stock, either side of someone getting £300 for 70 in an empty 50 dual carriageway. Feel free to insert your own examples.

Unfortunately the authorities can collect a lot more money from the driving public rather than the thieving scrotes who usually have nothing!