New speeding fines announced
Discussion
0000 said:
Meanwhile someone who spends all their time sat at home on the sofa will pay a fraction of that amount.
I'd be quietly interested in how it works for company directors who mostly take dividends rather than salary.
I see the HMRC website (SA section) now tells you what they believe was your "annual income" from your previous return. I'd be quietly interested in how it works for company directors who mostly take dividends rather than salary.
This is just more clueless, incompetent, sanctimonious meddling from those nice, dangerous people at BRAKE.
I'm patiently waiting for them to start wailing that ambulances shouldn't break the speed limit...especially those nice 20mph ones. You know, now that they've made it safe for children to play football on busy roads and all that.
I'm patiently waiting for them to start wailing that ambulances shouldn't break the speed limit...especially those nice 20mph ones. You know, now that they've made it safe for children to play football on busy roads and all that.
Moonhawk said:
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).
+1.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).
Interesting to note that the far more civilised French aren't so punitive with speeding fines:
http://english.controleradar.org/speeding-fines.ph...
Only EUR 90 fine for up to 50 kmh over the limit. That's 110 mph on
a normal French motorway.
Yet another nail in the coffin in the idea of spending much time, or indeed taxes,
in the UK.
The Brits really are getting even more anti-motorist than they were before.
They do seem to have the idea that speed control is the only thing that matters about traffic safety.
Their loss. Free citizens avoid the over controlling UK regime and move elsewhere to freedom.
dcb said:
The Brits really are getting even more anti-motorist than they were before.
They do seem to have the idea that speed control is the only thing that matters about traffic safety.
Their loss. Free citizens avoid the over controlling UK regime and move elsewhere to freedom.
It's not really promoted by the state, it's the state being bullied by the likes of BRAKE, who somehow manage to con successive governments into thinking they are credible and competent.They do seem to have the idea that speed control is the only thing that matters about traffic safety.
Their loss. Free citizens avoid the over controlling UK regime and move elsewhere to freedom.
The opposite is the case, they're naive, sometimes dangerous and driven by their hatred of cars, but it's another example of government taking advice from "experts", who are nothing of the kind.
See also climate "scientists".
Moonhawk said:
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.
To which the speed kills wonks reply; "explain that to the children and parents of the 200 people we would save". Besides, I completely disagree with the premise that eliminating speeding would actually save many if any lives. IMO for most drivers monotony, distractions and lack of concentration at legal speeds are more dangerous than allowing us to choose an appropriate speed. 
V8Matthew said:
I believe Finland already operate a similar system. Whether it works or not I don't know.
Sweden has the highest fine I think, but Finland does well. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewher...
"Finland is impossible to live in for certain kinds of people who have high incomes and wealth and want to speed."
The last bit may have been added by me.
fblm said:
To which the speed kills wonks reply; "explain that to the children and parents of the 200 people we would save". Besides, I completely disagree with the premise that eliminating speeding would actually save many if any lives. IMO for most drivers monotony, distractions and lack of concentration at legal speeds are more dangerous than allowing us to choose an appropriate speed.
Well quite - since most accidents have more than one causal factor - it's likely that the accident was caused by speeding and not looking properly, or speeding and poor road condition etc.If speeding were completely eliminated - there is nothing to say that those accidents wouldn't have still occurred or still been serious/fatal.
I suspect the true reduction in deaths if speeding were completely eliminated would be much lower than the 200 or so where speeding is implicated as one of the causal factors.
Some people seem to think that if a car wasn't speeding, the accident wouldn't have occurred or wouldn't have been fatal - in some cases this may be true, but in many others, this assumption is probably incorrect.
IMO the speed kills mantra is sending the wrong message - and dangerously so.
It's putting all of the onus on the driver of the car - whereas pedestrians need to be educated and have responsibility too. All of the effort and money being expended further bashing drivers for exceeding the speed limit could be used to educate other road users as to the dangers and perhaps have a much bigger impact on road safety.
The advert with the little girl being knocked down in the road with the tag line "if he had been doing 30 - he'd have stopped here" is a prime example. The advert doesn't question why the little girl was out in the road in the first place. Back in the 1970s - the adverts were very much geared towards educating the pedestrian......'don't run out into the f
king road or you might get killed'.It's making some drivers think that as long as they are within the speed limit, they are good, safe drivers, hence why we are seeing more and more idiots bumbling round at 10 or 20mph under the limit - seemingly oblivious to their surroundings (probably looking dreamy eyed at their speedo and revelling in the warm fuzzy feeling of smugness at how 'safe' a driver they are being.)
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 25th January 09:13
I have no figures , but I suspect most accidents are not caused by speed at all and occur within the speed limit (for example, pulling out without looking, driving into the back of cars , etc).
As you say, speed kills is the wrong message. As someone else said, it makes the average idiot think, well I'm doing 65 and the limit is 70 so I'm safe.
As you say, speed kills is the wrong message. As someone else said, it makes the average idiot think, well I'm doing 65 and the limit is 70 so I'm safe.
xjay1337 said:
I have no figures , but I suspect most accidents are not caused by speed at all and occur within the speed limit (for example, pulling out without looking, driving into the back of cars , etc).
As you say, speed kills is the wrong message. As someone else said, it makes the average idiot think, well I'm doing 65 and the limit is 70 so I'm safe.
There is a link to the DFT reported statistics is in the 4th post down on the previous page. As you say, speed kills is the wrong message. As someone else said, it makes the average idiot think, well I'm doing 65 and the limit is 70 so I'm safe.
Those figures show that 85% of fatal accidents and 95% of accidents overall do not have "speeding" cited as a causal factor.
Moonhawk said:
xjay1337 said:
I have no figures , but I suspect most accidents are not caused by speed at all and occur within the speed limit (for example, pulling out without looking, driving into the back of cars , etc).
As you say, speed kills is the wrong message. As someone else said, it makes the average idiot think, well I'm doing 65 and the limit is 70 so I'm safe.
There is a link to the DFT reported statistics is in the 4th post down on the previous page. As you say, speed kills is the wrong message. As someone else said, it makes the average idiot think, well I'm doing 65 and the limit is 70 so I'm safe.
Those figures show that 85% of fatal accidents and 95% of accidents overall do not have "speeding" cited as a causal factor.
Wouldn't the counter to "Speed kills" be the stats showing how many fatalities would still have happened with all vehicles at the speed limit (or below if that vehicle was below), in collisions, where one or more vehicles involved was exceeding the posted limit.
Munter said:
Wouldn't the counter to "Speed kills" be the stats showing how many fatalities would still have happened with all vehicles at the speed limit (or below if that vehicle was below), in collisions, where one or more vehicles involved was exceeding the posted limit.
Speed kills can't really be argued with as a concept though. A collision can only occur when objects are moving and as such a fatal collision must involve 'speed' of some magnitude (even travelling below a speed limit - is travelling at a speed)What is being argued with is that speed-ing (as opposed to speed) is as big a problem as it is being made out to be.
Also - collisions are such complex processes that it would be almost impossible to unpick a crash that involved a speeding car - and say the accident would still have occurred or the people involved would have still died even if the car was travelling below the limit.
What we can look at is the stats on an overall basis and say that in 85% of fatal accidents - speeding is not cited as one of the causes of either the accident or of the fatality.
Moonhawk said:
Speed kills can't really be argued with as a concept though. A collision can only occur when objects are moving and as such a fatal collision must involve 'speed' of some magnitude (even travelling below a speed limit - is travelling at a speed)
What is being argued with is that speed-ing (as opposed to speed) is as big a problem as it is being made out to be.
Also - collisions are such complex processes that it would be almost impossible to unpick a crash that involved a speeding car - and say the accident would still have occurred or the people involved would have still died even if the car was travelling below the limit.
What we can look at is the stats on an overall basis and say that in 85% of fatal accidents - speeding is not cited as one of the causes of either the accident or of the fatality.
If you can't argue with the concept of "Speed Kills". Why are there so many threads trying to do that?What is being argued with is that speed-ing (as opposed to speed) is as big a problem as it is being made out to be.
Also - collisions are such complex processes that it would be almost impossible to unpick a crash that involved a speeding car - and say the accident would still have occurred or the people involved would have still died even if the car was travelling below the limit.
What we can look at is the stats on an overall basis and say that in 85% of fatal accidents - speeding is not cited as one of the causes of either the accident or of the fatality.
If it's not possible to pick a collision apart. How can you/they know the last 4 words in your post?
So far as I can see the conversation is:
Plod/Others: Speed Kills. Lower speeds mean less dead people when collisions happen.
PH: Probably. But we don't want to have to obey that law.
Plod/Others: We don't "want" to have to obey lots of laws, but they make this place a reasonable part of the world so we accept them and carry on, or successfully campaign to have them changed for a reason. What's your reason?
PH: Collisions will still happen.
Plod/Others: Yeah...and...as you accepted, going slower when crashing will mean less are fatal. Plus it's easy to explain, and easy for people to do, cheap to enforce and not breaking the limit has no significant detrimental impact on anybody.
PH: Collisions will still happen.
Plod/Others: Yeah. We're not trying to stop them all. Just reduce the number of deaths a bit in a simple way.
PH: Collisions will still happen.
Plod/Others: Right, we'll go over here, and leave you to form a cohesive argument. Get back to us if you manage it.
Munter said:
If you can't argue with the concept of "Speed Kills". Why are there so many threads trying to do that?
If it's not possible to pick a collision apart. How can you/they know the last 4 words in your post?
The DFT report cites causal factors in fatal accidents. If speeding is not implicated as a causal factor in the accident - it follows that it cannot be implicated as a factor in the fatality that resulted from that accident either.If it's not possible to pick a collision apart. How can you/they know the last 4 words in your post?
Speed may be a factor in the fatality - but speed-ing (i.e. exceeding the speed limit) is not.
"Speed kills" is a political slogan that underpins the agenda of a particular anti-car organisation - it is that agenda that people are arguing against. As already stated - the time, effort and money thrown at speed enforcement seems massively out of proportion with the risk speeding actually poses.
Munter said:
Speed Kills. Lower speeds mean less dead people when collisions happen
Such an argument is open ended though. Lower speed will likely result is a lower fatality rate on the road due to simple physics - but where do you draw the line since the argument will likely always be true. Say we reduce the limits from 40 to 30 - the fatality rate drops, but people still get killed.
Now what - do we reduce them from 30 to 20. The fatality rate will likely drop again if we do - but people will still get killed.
If we now have a 20mph limit - do we now reduce them to 10mph to reduce the casualty rate even further?
At what point do the benefits outweigh the cost? At what point should we start looking at other ways of reducing the casualty rate? There are plenty of ways the casualty rate on the road could be reduced without reducing limits yet further. By reducing limits - you are treating the symptoms - not the cause. Yes it may make collisions less severe - but the root cause of many of those collisions will still be there - why isn't there more effort put into trying to prevent the collisions in the first place.
Speed limit reviews and enforcement should be part of a holistic approach to road safety - not the primary focus.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 25th January 13:03
Moonhawk said:
Munter said:
If you can't argue with the concept of "Speed Kills". Why are there so many threads trying to do that?
If it's not possible to pick a collision apart. How can you/they know the last 4 words in your post?
The DFT report cites causal factors in fatal accidents. If speeding is not implicated as a causal factor in the accident - it follows that it cannot be implicated as a factor in the fatality that resulted from that accident either.If it's not possible to pick a collision apart. How can you/they know the last 4 words in your post?
A suspension failure could be the cause of the accident of a car doing 60 in a 30 on a clear dry straight road at 10:00 in July. A speed and conditions that the car would be expected to cope with without any problem. Unfortunately the car hit's a tree on the edge of the pavement, and the passenger is killed. Now the cause of the collision is 100% the suspension failure, and even at 30 it's felt the car would have veered off and collided with the tree.
Cause of the collision/accident. Mechanical failure.
Likely cause of the fatality. Speed.
Munter said:
Just because speeding didn't cause the accident. Doesn't mean it didn't cause the fatality.
A suspension failure could be the cause of the accident of a car doing 60 in a 30 on a clear dry straight road at 10:00 in July. A speed and conditions that the car would be expected to cope with without any problem. Unfortunately the car hit's a tree on the edge of the pavement, and the passenger is killed. Now the cause of the collision is 100% the suspension failure, and even at 30 it's felt the car would have veered off and collided with the tree.
Cause of the collision/accident. Mechanical failure.
Likely cause of the fatality. Speed.
But the DFT stats quote multiple contributory factors when they apply to an accident - not just a single main 'cause'. A suspension failure could be the cause of the accident of a car doing 60 in a 30 on a clear dry straight road at 10:00 in July. A speed and conditions that the car would be expected to cope with without any problem. Unfortunately the car hit's a tree on the edge of the pavement, and the passenger is killed. Now the cause of the collision is 100% the suspension failure, and even at 30 it's felt the car would have veered off and collided with the tree.
Cause of the collision/accident. Mechanical failure.
Likely cause of the fatality. Speed.
In your scenario - both the suspension failure and exceeding the speed limit would be put down as contributory factors in the fatal accident.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 25th January 13:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff