New law adds 'victim levy' to speeding fines
It's a stealth tax, says Safe Speed
The Government has legislated to add a levy to motoring fines to support victims of violent crime. Contained within the "Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill" is legislation to permit increased fixed penalties for motoring offences, including speeding. The House of Commons voted yesterday to allow the victim levy to be added to speeding fines in the future, by 290 to 175.
Safety campaign organisation Safe Speed considers that this provision is nothing more than a stealth tax. In days gone by, says the body, motoring laws were used with intelligence against those causing road dangers, but these days normal responsible motorists at safe and responsible speeds are being issued with speeding tickets at the rate of three million each year.
Safe Speed considers that the Government has not produced anything approaching a convincing case to demonstrate that the modern deployment of speed cameras is making the roads safer, especially since road deaths are now showing a true rising trend for the first time since the 1960s.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign says, "It is abhorrent for the Government to require motorists to contribute to a victims of crime fund on routine speeding tickets. Violent crime has nothing to do with exceeding a speed limit. The government obviously considers motorists to be an easy target."
Paul continues, "But it's far worse than that because forging this false link between minor motoring offences and violence sends a misleading message to road users. Misleading messages cause false priorities. When road users' priorities are distorted they pay attention to the wrong things and danger increases. Road safety absolutely depends on each individual focusing on the most immediate dangers. At its simplest, this gives drivers one more reason to concentrate on their speedometers instead of the road ahead."
Paul adds, "British road safety is the best in the world. Accurate information has been the absolute foundation of our superior performance. But we are going very badly wrong and are squandering our world lead. We have been world leader for 25 years but we are now the slowest improving country in Europe. I am absolutely certain that false and muddled road safety messages are causing our recent bad performance."
The bill is here: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/134/2004134.pdf
vetteheadracer said:
Not quite sure where I am supposed to be looking.
Only part I found relating to speeding fines says that repeat offenders maybe charged a higher fine than first offenders.
Same here. I didnt see anything in the bill about a victim levy? I usually agree with Paul/Safespeed however, this smells a bit like propaganda to me (though please correct me if I'm wrong).
In the bill title it mentions "making provison of surcharges by offenders" but it doesnt say anywhere what these surcharges are for. Indeed all it says re motoring offences is that if you commit a second endorsable motoring offence within three years, the fixed penalty fine will be increased (no mention of surcharge here)
The only reason you may get a motoring surcharge is if you receive a conditional offer (ie through the post) and they subsequently realise its your second offence within three years, in which case you'll recieve a surcharge to bring your fine upto the higher fixed penalty amount.
Basically, I think what they're doing is sneaking this fine increase (along with other fine increases for disorderly behaviour) in with another bill about Domestic Violence.
>> Edited by jam1et on Thursday 28th October 12:18
When are the motorists going to start paying for the NHS and Pensions! I for one feel so outraged by it all I would certainly join any demonstration or even start demolishing speed cameras. What ever you do, don't mention the congestion charge!
Where are our civil rights!
So the goverment are diverting police away from eliminating violent crime, to further tax the motorist. But to make it up to the victims whose crimes now wont be solved, the extra money raised will be given to them as compensation.
What a f**d up country!
Mind you, you have to admit that in terms of return on investment it makes sense.
Why should the government waste their time trying to solve complex problems like crime, health, education, poverty, drugs, murder and all the other things, when they can take the easy way out. Oh, yeah, I forgot, amnesty and all the other do good organisations would be up in arms if the government tried to change the law to make it easier to prosecute the real criminal.
Come on everybody, let's vote the parasites out next election. Maybe they will know what it is like to be on the receiving end eventually.
I am certain that we will reach a point when motorists wont stand for it any more and revolt against the government.
We are the largest group of voters yet we are treated as the enemy.
I'm seriously considering starting my own political party and aim to win the votes of motorists. All policies would be common sense and i would actually do something for the country, instead of wasting tax payers money on public enquires and feasibility studies, then 5 years later realising there's no money left to actually do anything, so having to resort to tax increases!
It's time the Great is put back into Britain
The only reference to the road traffic act is;
16 Higher fixed penalty for repeated road traffic offences
(1) The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 53 (amount of fixed penalty), after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) In particular, in relation to England and Wales an order made under subsection (1)(a) may prescribe a higher fixed penalty in a case where, in the period of three years ending with the date of the offence in
question, the offender committed an offence for which—
(a) he was disqualified from driving, or
(b) penalty points were endorsed on the counterpart of any licence held by him.”
(3) At the end of section 84 (regulations) (which becomes subsection (1)) insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that where—
(a) a conditional offer has been issued under section 75 of this Act,
(b) the amount of the penalty stated in the offer is not the higher amount applicable by virtue of section 53(3) of this Act, and
(c) it subsequently appears that that higher amount is in fact applicable, the fixed penalty clerk may issue a further notice (a “surcharge notice”) requiring payment of the difference between the two amounts.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) above may—
(a) provide for this Part of this Act to have effect, in cases to which the regulations apply, with such modifications as may be specified;
(b) make provision for the collection and enforcement of amounts due under surcharge notices.”
Mark
M-G said:
Having just searched the document for all manner of motoring related words. I can find no mention of adding a levy to fixed penalty fines.
The only reference to the road traffic act is;
16 Higher fixed penalty for repeated road traffic offences
(1) The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 53 (amount of fixed penalty), after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) In particular, in relation to England and Wales an order made under subsection (1)(a) may prescribe a higher fixed penalty in a case where, in the period of three years ending with the date of the offence in
question, the offender committed an offence for which—
(a) he was disqualified from driving, or
(b) penalty points were endorsed on the counterpart of any licence held by him.”
(3) At the end of section 84 (regulations) (which becomes subsection (1)) insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that where—
(a) a conditional offer has been issued under section 75 of this Act,
(b) the amount of the penalty stated in the offer is not the higher amount applicable by virtue of section 53(3) of this Act, and
(c) it subsequently appears that that higher amount is in fact applicable, the fixed penalty clerk may issue a further notice (a “surcharge notice”) requiring payment of the difference between the two amounts.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) above may—
(a) provide for this Part of this Act to have effect, in cases to which the regulations apply, with such modifications as may be specified;
(b) make provision for the collection and enforcement of amounts due under surcharge notices.”
Mark
Got to agree with Mark here.......not busy today Mark? See you Saturday, looking forward to a blast in the new Tuscan.
Later
Mike
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff