Meddling with the Penalties
Transport Secretary suggests new regime of speeding fines
A new system of penalties for motorists caught speeding was outlined by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling today.
The new proposals would mean a reduced penalty for motorists not far above the speed limit and a higher penalty for those who are significantly above it.
The penalties imposed on speeding motorists would vary between £40 and two penalty points for the less serious offences up to £100 and six points for the most serious. The lower penalty would not apply to people speeding in 20 mph speed limits.
The consultation document also welcomes proposals by the police to put in place speed awareness courses nationwide, to be offered to first-time offenders in the lower speeding category - at their own expense - in lieu of the two point penalty. This follows successful trials by a number of police forces.
The new structure suggests that driving at 39mph in a busy 30mph zone surrounded by pedestrians is considered a 'minor' offence whilst driving at 94mph on an empty motorway is a the most dangerous and severe offence. The Government's perception of road safety will continue to confuse most motorists...
The suggested structure of fines and penalty is:
| Lower Penalty | Medium Penalty | Higher Penalty | |
| 2 points and £40 fine | 3 points and £60 fine | 6 points and £100 fine | |
| Speed Limit (mph) | Speed up to and including | Speed | Speed at or above |
20 |
n/a |
up to and including 31mph |
32mph |
30 |
39 |
40-44 |
45 |
40 |
50 |
51-56 |
57 |
50 |
61 |
62-69 |
70 |
60 |
72 |
73-81 |
82 |
70 |
83 |
84-93 |
94 |
Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said:
"We are seeking views on a new graduated system of penalties for speeding designed to be more effective and appropriate than the current 'one-size fits all' approach. We want to ensure that the level of the penalty fits the severity of the offence - including a crackdown on the most dangerous offences.
"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 .
"We also welcome the police initiative to roll out speed awareness courses for first-time 'low-end' offenders, for whom this looks to the most effective way to change their behaviour. I hope these courses, and continued enforcement, will encourage the minority of drivers who speed to slow down - for the sake of their and other road users' safety. "
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "This is simply a continuation of the blind obsession with numerical speed. It hasn't delivered an improvement in road safety and it never ever will. The problem is that there's no magic number of miles per hour that delivers safety - circumstances are far too variable ."
"The big problem ", Paul explained, "is that any speed at all can be deadly. Even at an impact speed of 30mph, according to government approved research, 50% of pedestrians struck by vehicles die. Fortunately in the real world this does not reflect reality. In 2002, in 30 and 40mph speed limits just 0.41% of child pedestrians struck by cars died. This is crystal clear evidence that road safety is already being delivered by drivers slowing down way below the speed limit when necessary. That's the behaviour we need to improve road safety. "
In 30mph limits where the *most* danger to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users speeding by a large percentage is to be "forgiven" and on the very safest roads making progress in safety is to be clamped down upon.
Cynically I suggest this is about the ability to keep drivers who speed in town on the road and paying fines. After all at 2pts you can pat £40 SIX times before being banned.
Proof its just about the money. I think even Joe Numpty will see through this. Its an attempt at a spoiler of the Tories promises to make life better for motorists whilst actually just raking in more cash.
This policy will endanger lives. As a member of the IAM/ROSPA I am dead against it.
The current regime and a motorway speed limit of 90mph with 5mph tolerance would suit my outlook a great deal better...
Don said:
This absolutely proves that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
In 30mph limits where the *most* danger to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users speeding by a large percentage is to be "forgiven" and on the very safest roads making progress in safety is to be clamped down upon.
Cynically I suggest this is about the ability to keep drivers who speed in town on the road and paying fines. After all at 2pts you can pat £40 SIX times before being banned.
That's until they lower all 30 mph limits to 20 mph zones where forgiveness does not apply...
car cloning never seemed so appealing
(well not since their last 'safety' announcement)
einion yrth said:
6x£40 == 4*£60
Same yield per licence.
Yes, but this new proposal of 6 minor offences and then a ban would keep more "just strayed over" speeders on the road paying petrol duty etc. Those of us who adhere to limits around town where there is greater danger to pedestrians etc would be well and truly screwed when making reasonable progress along sparsely trafficed motorways and dual carriageways.
DAZ
20...............n/a..............55%.............60%
30...............30%............33%-47%...........50%
40...............25%............28%-40%...........43%
50...............22%............24%-38%...........40%
60...............20%............22%-35%...........37%
70...............19%............20%-33%...........34%
T
rs! >> Edited by V8 Archie on Wednesday 1st September 13:32
Who is a more "risky" driver
a)someone who breaks the 30mph 3 times doing 39mph
or
b)a motorway driver caught doing 94mph?
Interstingly the bands seem quite arbritary, for example take the speed limit, add 9mph and another 1mph for each 10mph above 30 that your are doing to get your first band
mrwomble said:
So it's just as safe to do 44 in a 30 as it is to do 93 on the motorway is it?
FFS, which planet are these people from.
Putting on my "govt think tank hat" i would say that 93mph is very fast.
To imply that it is actually safer than doing 44 in a 30 would imply that 93mph a safer speed to travel at. This is risky beacuse it could be interpreted by the motorist lobby groups as a contradiction of our speed kills mantra.
Therefore 93mph is inherently unsafe and should be punished accordingly
Fat Audi 80 said:
Tell it like it is
Or Here:
www.safespeed.co.uk
ITYM www.safespeed.org.uk
grahambell said:
it's only since the spread of speed cameras that you've got to start producing your documents.
mad isn't it? you need less documents to get cigarettes, which WILL kill you, where as number plates have no recorded deaths.
also the worst effect will be the insurance - who will continue the scheme of :
2+ convictions = no quote.
"The tougher action in residential areas is seen as a critical move to enforce careful driving - 20mph zones have halved accident rates and cut child pedestrian accidents by 70 per cent. "
Hmmmm, I wonder where they get these figures from?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff