'Fairer' speeding fines proposed
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3616422.stm
Motorists caught speeding slightly above the limit could receive a reduced penalty under government proposals for fairer fines.
Transport Secretary Alistair Darling will announce a consultation on the proposals on Wednesday.
Penalties could range between £40 and two penalty points for the less serious offences up to £100 and six points for the most serious.
The changes would replace the 'one-size fits all' approach, Mr Darling said.
The lower penalty would not apply to people speeding in 20mph speed limit areas.
These are usually located outside schools, hospitals and areas where other "vulnerable road users" are likely to be, the Department for Transport says.
On the one hand it says 'speed kills' ... but on the other that it's okay to speed a bit
Robert Gifford, Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety
"We want to ensure that the level of the penalty fits the severity of the offence - including a crackdown on the most dangerous offences," Mr Darling said.
"The police would continue to enforce speed limits rigorously and motorists will always need to be aware that speeding is highly dangerous and if they are caught they will face a fine, points on their licences and disqualification if they persist."
The consultation includes police plans to hold "speed awareness courses" nationwide, after successful trials by several forces.
These would be offered to first-time offenders in the lower speeding category - at their own expense - in lieu of the two-point penalty.
At the moment, drivers are automatically fined £60 and get three points on their licence for each speeding offence.
Once they have accumulated 12 points, they are liable to be disqualified.
Mixed signals
Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, told Radio 4's Today programme the government was sending a mixed message to motorists.
PENALTIES
Lower penalty: Two points and £40 fine
Medium penalty: Three points and £60 fine
Higher penalty: Six points and £100 fine
"On the one hand it says 'speed kills' ... but on the other that it's okay to speed a bit," he said.
He said a vehicle's speed when it struck a pedestrian determined whether they suffered injury, which made it just as dangerous for drivers to creep above the speed limit as it was to exceed it by a wider margin.
"The penalty should match the risk," he said.
But Andrew Howard, the AA's head of road safety, said the plan would not alter the danger to pedestrians from speeding drivers.
"I don't think the person who slips accidentally over a speed limit is going to be less deterred by two points than he would be by three," he said.
"I think there'll be a much bigger threat there for the person who wilfully disobeys speed limits," he told BBC Breakfast.
He said many drivers who slipped over the speed limit were "distressed and mortified" at having a criminal record.
"In a way this tackles it by punishing [them] less viciously than we punish the people who ignore speed limits and go way, way over the limit regularly."
He said it could help address the view in some areas that speed cameras are merely used to raise revenue.
Motorists caught speeding slightly above the limit could receive a reduced penalty under government proposals for fairer fines.
Transport Secretary Alistair Darling will announce a consultation on the proposals on Wednesday.
Penalties could range between £40 and two penalty points for the less serious offences up to £100 and six points for the most serious.
The changes would replace the 'one-size fits all' approach, Mr Darling said.
The lower penalty would not apply to people speeding in 20mph speed limit areas.
These are usually located outside schools, hospitals and areas where other "vulnerable road users" are likely to be, the Department for Transport says.
On the one hand it says 'speed kills' ... but on the other that it's okay to speed a bit
Robert Gifford, Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety
"We want to ensure that the level of the penalty fits the severity of the offence - including a crackdown on the most dangerous offences," Mr Darling said.
"The police would continue to enforce speed limits rigorously and motorists will always need to be aware that speeding is highly dangerous and if they are caught they will face a fine, points on their licences and disqualification if they persist."
The consultation includes police plans to hold "speed awareness courses" nationwide, after successful trials by several forces.
These would be offered to first-time offenders in the lower speeding category - at their own expense - in lieu of the two-point penalty.
At the moment, drivers are automatically fined £60 and get three points on their licence for each speeding offence.
Once they have accumulated 12 points, they are liable to be disqualified.
Mixed signals
Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, told Radio 4's Today programme the government was sending a mixed message to motorists.
PENALTIES
Lower penalty: Two points and £40 fine
Medium penalty: Three points and £60 fine
Higher penalty: Six points and £100 fine
"On the one hand it says 'speed kills' ... but on the other that it's okay to speed a bit," he said.
He said a vehicle's speed when it struck a pedestrian determined whether they suffered injury, which made it just as dangerous for drivers to creep above the speed limit as it was to exceed it by a wider margin.
"The penalty should match the risk," he said.
But Andrew Howard, the AA's head of road safety, said the plan would not alter the danger to pedestrians from speeding drivers.
"I don't think the person who slips accidentally over a speed limit is going to be less deterred by two points than he would be by three," he said.
"I think there'll be a much bigger threat there for the person who wilfully disobeys speed limits," he told BBC Breakfast.
He said many drivers who slipped over the speed limit were "distressed and mortified" at having a criminal record.
"In a way this tackles it by punishing [them] less viciously than we punish the people who ignore speed limits and go way, way over the limit regularly."
He said it could help address the view in some areas that speed cameras are merely used to raise revenue.
Or 'they' could instantly disprove the theory that the government are only in it for the money...
By applying only a small admin charge (£10?) and relying purely on points for the punishment (as that is what most people are bothered about - the fine is at most an inconvenience for most people).
pfffft... Oh I do make myself laugh sometimes
By applying only a small admin charge (£10?) and relying purely on points for the punishment (as that is what most people are bothered about - the fine is at most an inconvenience for most people).
pfffft... Oh I do make myself laugh sometimes
It's a shame - they've missed the point again. Safety bears little relationship to numerical speed and every relationship to the circumstances.
Problem is, the bureaucrat at his desk can't see and control the circumstances... but he can control the limit and the penalties you get for exceeding it.
When you couple today's announcement with the number of "artificially" low new speed limits that local authorities are imposing, it means even less. You're still likely to be (safely) a way over the limit and get a stiffer penalty than you would before.
Just a little context - I went to see a relative in Surrey this weekend. I drove from Farnham, through Eltham to Chiddingfold where she lives. From Farnham to C'fold the limit never rose above 40, even though the roads would have been perfectly safe at 60+. I stuck to the limit.
The fuming, angry, frustrated queue behind me grew and grew. I pulled over to let the first queue past, but soon built up another. I was flashed, tailgated, sworn at, had w-anchor signs flicked at me, and finally a driver went for an overtake on a blind bend and missed an oncoming car by a foot or so.
I would argue that whoever set that speed limit was almost criminally negligent - they had no idea whatsoever how it would work in the real world and how dangerous it would be.
But that's how road safety thinking works in the UK - be a limit limpet and you'll be safe, because it's all about magic numbers. The last people to believe magic numbers worked also believed in devils, demons and lucky charms against the plague.
Problem is, the bureaucrat at his desk can't see and control the circumstances... but he can control the limit and the penalties you get for exceeding it.
When you couple today's announcement with the number of "artificially" low new speed limits that local authorities are imposing, it means even less. You're still likely to be (safely) a way over the limit and get a stiffer penalty than you would before.
Just a little context - I went to see a relative in Surrey this weekend. I drove from Farnham, through Eltham to Chiddingfold where she lives. From Farnham to C'fold the limit never rose above 40, even though the roads would have been perfectly safe at 60+. I stuck to the limit.
The fuming, angry, frustrated queue behind me grew and grew. I pulled over to let the first queue past, but soon built up another. I was flashed, tailgated, sworn at, had w-anchor signs flicked at me, and finally a driver went for an overtake on a blind bend and missed an oncoming car by a foot or so.
I would argue that whoever set that speed limit was almost criminally negligent - they had no idea whatsoever how it would work in the real world and how dangerous it would be.
But that's how road safety thinking works in the UK - be a limit limpet and you'll be safe, because it's all about magic numbers. The last people to believe magic numbers worked also believed in devils, demons and lucky charms against the plague.
cliffe_mafia said:
[url]
"I don't think the person who slips accidentally over a speed limit is going to be less deterred by two points than he would be by three," he said.
Duh! Slipping accidentally over the speed limit can't be deterred as it's an accident! What can happen is people spend more and more of their attention on their speed rather than safety.
As pointed out above - the % tolerance on 30 and 70 is madness. Someone more eloquent than me should point this out to them but they'd be likely to lower the tolerance on the 30 thatn raise it on 70!
Iain
Zod said:
What's the betting that they lower the trigger points so that 32 in a 30 gets you 2 points?
I think you could practically gaurantee it.. afterall, whats the point of bringing in a "lower" tier, and not catching people in it. This looks to me like a way of making a 33 in a 30 ticket more paletable to the general public. People will be less likely to revolt against a 2 point penalty, and the lentalists will love it..
>> Edited by M@H on Wednesday 1st September 10:37
Apache said:
Does this make any difference to someone hooning up an empty motorway in the small hours less of a criminal than someone doing 50 in a 30mph highstreet?
criminal and proud of it
That makes two of us. They have to catch me first. You will never take me alive copper. I will continue to drive safely within my ability as I see fit and if that involves breaking some speed limits sometimes then tough.
Fat Audi 80 said:
Does this make any difference to someone hooning up an empty motorway in the small hours less of a criminal than someone doing 50 in a 30mph highstreet?
criminal and proud of it
That makes two of us. They have to catch me first. You will never take me alive copper. I will continue to drive safely within my ability as I see fit and if that involves breaking some speed limits sometimes then tough.
Well I'm right with you on that so that makes three of us (unless someone has beaten me to it) except that I totally refuse to accept that I'm a criminal merely on the basis of my having exceeded a speed limit.
It's all a load of *
Best wishes all,
Dave.
* insert your own choice of rude words at this point.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff