New speeding fines announced

[Dog Star]

Ayahuasca said:

What about the self employed with no salary, or the company owner with a low salary and high dividends?

Or what about the cunning company director of a one man limited company who gives himself a P45 the week before going to court, signs on down the JobCentre then goes to court and can say they are unemployed - minimum fine. (This means tested fines lark has been about for at least 16 years).

I know someone who did that.

[Munter]

sidicks said:

Some people just don't want to understand the issue!

We need more income into the budget? So anybody who wishes can pay a velocity tax.

I don't really see the issue in understanding that.

Don't want to pay more tax? Drive within the law. Simples.

[sidicks]

Munter said:

We need more income into the budget? So anybody who wishes can pay a velocity tax.

I don't really see the issue in understanding that.

Don't want to pay more tax? Drive within the law. Simples.

The discussion was whether the law is sensible - plainly it is not in this area.

[zygalski]

sidicks said:

zygalski said:

This is a nightmare for those of us compelled to do 50 in a 30.
I don't see that we have any alternative but to pay these totally unjustified fines.

Point missed - presumably deliberately. Why am I not surprised?

That's not very constructive, is it?
Many of us would like to know how best to avoid these ridiculous speeding fines which are totaly unjustified.
No one has yet answered this question which is at the heart of the matter.

[sidicks]

zygalski said:

That's not very constructive, is it?
Many of us would like to know how best to avoid these ridiculous speeding fines which are totaly unjustified.
No one has yet answered this question which is at the heart of the matter.[

No it isn't.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

pablo said:

1. I agree, speed isn't a community factor in many accidents

Contributory? Indeed. Which should make you question why the focus on speed to the exclusion of most other causes...

pablo said:

2. Yes they are, learn what the limit is for different roads and pay attention to temporary signs. If you don't know assumee it's lower than you think.

Wrong! Plenty of evidence to contradict your claim.

pablo said:

3. This is irrelevant. It's the limit.

You've missed the point.

pablo said:

4. This too is irrelevant. In this example, they would have been others identifiers indicating a change in limit, street lights etc. There is no need to drive everywhere at the limit. The limit starts at the sign, reduce your speed before you reach it.

And again!

Don't think I have, he posted what the authorities position is followers by his reality in brackets. His reality is based on ignorance though.

It's fairly obvious why its attractive to the authorities though, I mean it's hard to point a camera at a car and tell if the driver is drunk...

[sidicks]

pablo said:

Don't think I have, he posted what the authorities position is followers by his reality in brackets. His reality is based on ignorance though.

It's fairly obvious why its attractive to the authorities though, I mean it's hard to point a camera at a car and tell if the driver is drunk...

The authority's position is often based on ignorance, that's the point under discussion!

[Moonhawk]

Munter said:

We need more income into the budget? So anybody who wishes can pay a velocity tax.

I don't really see the issue in understanding that.

Don't want to pay more tax? Drive within the law. Simples.

And when that law becomes unreasonable?

With speed limits it's not a simple case of the law being enforced - the goal posts are constantly being moved often due to lobbying and pressure from people with an agenda. More and more limits are becoming unreasonably low and are therefore leading to more people creeping over them.

Many speed limits have been reduced for no good reason (case in point is my village which was reduced from 40mph to 30mph - and funnily enough - is now much more heavily enforced after the change). The 40mph limit was more than sufficient for the road.

Interestingly - one of the methods the authorities uses (or at least that is what the white paper implies) to assess whether a speed limit is set too low is the number of people exceeding it.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 24th January 16:47

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

pablo said:

Don't think I have, he posted what the authorities position is followers by his reality in brackets. His reality is based on ignorance though.

It's fairly obvious why its attractive to the authorities though, I mean it's hard to point a camera at a car and tell if the driver is drunk...

The authority's position is often based on ignorance, that's the point under discussion!

Ah right, missed that subtlety, um yes, quite agree!

[catso]

crankedup said:

Losing the driving license hurts more than a financial penalty imo. Review the points tally system

Yes, review the points system downwards.

In the past 'earning' enough points for a ban was more difficult so, arguably one needed to have been misbehaving significantly for it to happen.

Given the levels of enforcement nowadays maybe points should be issued in ones and twos rather than threes and sixes? as losing one's licence is a very severe punishment for many, and all for a victimless crime.

Once again the motorist is pursued as the easy target so they can claim they're being tough on crime...

[Jazzy Jag]

Nothing to do with road safety.
All about the £££ IMHO

[Moonhawk]

Jazzy Jag said:

Nothing to do with road safety.
All about the £££ IMHO

Even if speeding were completely eliminated overnight - we'd still be looking at well over 1500 deaths per year and around 19,000 serious injuries on the road that are attributable to other causes.

Perhaps road safety needs to take a more holistic approach, rather than demonising speed which makes a relatively small contribution in the grand scheme of things.

The time and effort expended on speed detection/enforcement and punishment is massively out of proportion with the risk it actually poses.

"Failed to look properly" is one of the greatest causes of accidents according to DFT statistics. Perhaps better education, more awareness of this fact - and perhaps even start slapping points onto people who it can be proven have caused an accident in this way. It may make people pay more attention - and would probably have a much greater impact on casualty rates on the road than the 'war on speed' ever has.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 24th January 17:33

[speedking31]

Willy Nilly said:

There's a road in Essex where the speed of the traffic going up hill is about 50mph. The speed limit is 30.

Conversely there are millions of bends in the country that you couldn't get round in any vehicle at the NSL, and so you moderate your speed, tens of millions of people negotiate those bends without drama. There are billions of occasions when traffic is stationary in a town, but the speed limit is 30 mph, but people generally manage to avoid carnage. So people can self moderate to a large degree.

[frankenstein12]

Moonhawk said:

Jazzy Jag said:

Nothing to do with road safety.
All about the £££ IMHO

Even if speeding were completely eliminated overnight - we'd still be looking at well over 1500 deaths per year and around 19,000 serious injuries on the road that are attributable to other causes.

Perhaps road safety needs to take a more holistic approach, rather than demonising speed which makes a relatively small contribution in the grand scheme of things.

The time and effort expended on speed detection/enforcement and punishment is massively out of proportion with the risk it actually poses.

"Failed to look properly" is one of the greatest causes of accidents according to DFT statistics. Perhaps better education, more awareness of this fact - and perhaps even start slapping points onto people who it can be proven have caused an accident in this way. It may make people pay more attention - and would probably have a much greater impact on casualty rates on the road than the 'war on speed' ever has.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 24th January 17:33

This is the problem in its entirety.

Unfortunately the speed kills mantra has led to a victim like mentality where motorists have been brainwashed into believing that providing they are adhering to the speed limit they are driving safely or sensibly.

Unfortunately that is simply not the case. If speed truly did cause accidents or killed then I must be a mass murderer as in the last 12 years I have done over half a million miles of which 85% were on motorways or dual carriageways where I was far in excess of the posted speed limits.

To me knowledge however I have never caused or been involved in an accident or killed anyone so to be fair I am very confused. Does speed kill or not? Is my being over the speed limit by proxy the reason so many old people are dying of old age?

[Jazzy Jag]

If speed killed, the Isle Of Man would be called the Isle Of Dead Man.

[Moonhawk]

Here is the latest DFT report I could find if anyone wants to take a look at the data (pages 303/304 contain the 'contributary factors' data by accident severity - and 306/307 by road type)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Interestingly - on page 305 there is a summary table showing the top 10 contributory factors to accidents on the road - and compares the figures across 5 years. "Exceeding the speed limit" does not appear in that list.

[gareth_r]

IMHO of course...

It is naive to continue in the belief that the concentration on speeding is financially driven.

Any financial benefit is secondary to the political benefit, which is being able to say "We are doing something!" when some road safety group starts shouting "Something must be done!".

Obviously, the road safety "initiative" has to be simple to explain and understand (Speed kills!), should not annoy the voters (allowing them to say "I never do that!", rather than "I'm not voting for you. You said I'm a crap driver."), and must be cheap or, preferably, free - and if it can be self-financing with the possibility of a profit, well... that is just a bonus.

[Moonhawk]

gareth_r said:

Any financial benefit is secondary to the political benefit, which is being able to say "We are doing something!" when some road safety group starts shouting "Something must be done!".

Yes - I have voiced this very opinion in the past.

Speed has taken centre stage because it's far too easy to change limits without having to actually provide evidence that a lower limit is required or that it has been effective (many people will just accept that the road is safer due to the lower limit). It is also very easy to enforce (or at least look like you are enforcing) using highly visible means.

It's a political win-win - you gain a lot of kudos from the 'won't somebody think of the children' brigade - without actually having to think of the children (which based on recent events is probably for the best anyway - we all know how that can end).

[donutsina911]

Moonhawk said:

Here is the latest DFT report I could find if anyone wants to take a look at the data (pages 303/304 contain the 'contributary factors' data by accident severity - and 306/307 by road type)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Interestingly - on page 305 there is a summary table showing the top 10 contributory factors to accidents on the road - and compares the figures across 5 years. "Exceeding the speed limit" does not appear in that list.

Quick glance at page 315 seems to show that 'exceeding the speed limit' accounted for 3% of car accidents, with same again for 'travelling too fast for conditions'.

[Moonhawk]

donutsina911 said:

Moonhawk said:

Here is the latest DFT report I could find if anyone wants to take a look at the data (pages 303/304 contain the 'contributary factors' data by accident severity - and 306/307 by road type)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Interestingly - on page 305 there is a summary table showing the top 10 contributory factors to accidents on the road - and compares the figures across 5 years. "Exceeding the speed limit" does not appear in that list.

Quick glance at page 315 seems to show that 'exceeding the speed limit' accounted for 3% of car accidents, with same again for 'travelling too fast for conditions'.

Yep - exactly my point. Speeding seems to be the number one priority in terms of road safety (that's certainly how it comes across) - yet it's well outside the top 10 contributory factors.

Interestingly motorcycles are almost twice as likely to have "exceeding the speed limit" implicated.

Even when you only look at fatal accidents in isolation - speeding (in conjunction with other causes) is implicated in only 15% of those.

In 85% of fatal accidents and 95% of accidents overall - exceeding the speed limit is not cited as even a minor causal factor, let alone being the main one.

Targeting speed gets so many brownie points from many different corners. Not only from the aforementioned "wont somebody think of the children" brigade - but also from the eco warriors (slower is better for the environment....right) and all the envious tts who likely see the war on speed as one in the eye for people with sports/super cars. Politically - you can't lose.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 24th January 19:53