what are use of fines?
Discussion
Been chatting to my work colleague who suggested this thread.
As regards speeding, what is the point of fining people?. Well, as a punishment. However, if you have someone who has purchased a car, insured it, taxed it etc, then £60 can be no more than an irritation. Or there's the pensioner who lives on £x a week, (where x is small) who can't have his/her heating on anymore for doing 4 MPH over the limit.
I'm sure there's plenty more examples, but you've got mr businesman who wouldn't wipe his a**e on £60, and the pensioner who risks hyperthermia for same £60.
The points however tell me businessman to keep a check on his speed or risk losing your licence, job, etc etc. It also tells mr pensioner to keep a check on his speed too, or risk losing his licence.
So, the fine does nothing positive at all so why have them?
As regards speeding, what is the point of fining people?. Well, as a punishment. However, if you have someone who has purchased a car, insured it, taxed it etc, then £60 can be no more than an irritation. Or there's the pensioner who lives on £x a week, (where x is small) who can't have his/her heating on anymore for doing 4 MPH over the limit.
I'm sure there's plenty more examples, but you've got mr businesman who wouldn't wipe his a**e on £60, and the pensioner who risks hyperthermia for same £60.
The points however tell me businessman to keep a check on his speed or risk losing your licence, job, etc etc. It also tells mr pensioner to keep a check on his speed too, or risk losing his licence.
So, the fine does nothing positive at all so why have them?
It's suprising how much people don't want to part with £30 or £60 in a fixed penalty fine..no matter what their wealth..presumably, as it goes to the government and the driver sees nothing for it...
I would think it's only the 'super rich' who might not bother....
Points are what hurt people as in addition to the £60 fine, the increased insurance premiums each year are also to be expected...
Street
I would think it's only the 'super rich' who might not bother....
Points are what hurt people as in addition to the £60 fine, the increased insurance premiums each year are also to be expected...
Street
Well, why indeed. Most scrotes don't have any money anyway, so they effectively get let off them (paying 50p per week or some such ridiculous arrangement). The fines in the magistrates courts etc pay for the court to run, I would imagine. You have to have these things so, Ok. However, as is increasingly obvious, the speed camera income is purely for profit and for putting up of more cameras.
Well, why indeed. Most scrotes don't have any money anyway, so they effectively get let off them (paying 50p per week or some such ridiculous arrangement). The fines in the magistrates courts etc pay for the court to run, I would imagine. You have to have these things so, Ok. However, as is increasingly obvious, the speed camera income is purely for profit and for putting up of more cameras. There is no cohesive argument that the speed camera partnerships can come up with. I believe that someone (probably Safe Speed) once asked one of them to prove they weren't in it for the money by publishing costs of running vs the income from fines, and giving the profit to charities. Predictably, the partnership declined.
Well, why indeed. Most scrotes don't have any money anyway, so they effectively get let off them (paying 50p per week or some such ridiculous arrangement). The fines in the magistrates courts etc pay for the court to run, I would imagine. You have to have these things so, Ok. However, as is increasingly obvious, the speed camera income is purely for profit and for putting up of more cameras. There is no cohesive argument that the speed camera partnerships can come up with. I believe that someone (probably Safe Speed) once asked one of them to prove they weren't in it for the money by publishing costs of running vs the income from fines, and giving the profit to charities. Predictably, the partnership declined.
Streetcop said:
It's suprising how much people don't want to part with £30 or £60 in a fixed penalty fine..no matter what their wealth..presumably, as it goes to the government and the driver sees nothing for it...
I would think it's only the 'super rich' who might not bother....
Points are what hurt people as in addition to the £60 fine, the increased insurance premiums each year are also to be expected...
Street
I'm not super rich and the 30/60 quid make no real imapct on me (it's a tank of petrol or 280 miles) - it's definately the points that are a deterrent to me.
I don't drive more carefully because of the risk though - I drive carefully almost all the time (we all have occasional lapses).
If we went down the route of having big fines and no points I don't think this would work well. I'd be more likely to speed more on NSL and motorway (where it's arguably safer to exceed the current limits).
Removal of the fine while keeping the points system, however, wouldn't make me any more prone to speeding. If the penalty system was made harsher (less points to a ban or more points for an offence) then, apart from alienating me from the system further, it would make me even more cautious around camera sites and known talival areas.
Maybe the current points system does need some re-working. Maybe make the bans for low-level points shorter and the period they stay on the licence shorter. Or a 2-tier points system - DD, insurance, etc have 1st tier penalties and speeding, using a bus lane, illegal parking (red-routes etc) have 2nd tier points. 1st tier could stay on the licence for 3 years, 2nd only for a year...
That way, rather than banning drivers there's more room for revenue generation!
Iain
iaint said:
I'm not super rich and the 30/60 quid make no real imapct on me (it's a tank of petrol or 280 miles) - it's definately the points that are a deterrent to me.
Hiya Iain,
That's why the using mobile phone offence should carry points and not a £30 fine. It will be changed to that, but not for another 18months.
I also find that putting someone before a magistrate, often has the desired effect too.
Drive safe mate.
Street
Just slightly off topic, but it seems to me that the points deterrent works rather well. Too well for some of us. Bans have dire implications for people like us. So why aren't some other crimes points based? What if a first offence theft was dealt with by some community service/ticking off....and three points. And then when they committ another one, they get 6 points and some more severe/lengthy CS. And they also know that at 10 points, the magistrates have to jail them for at least six/twelve months. And they keep their points for the rest of their lives unless they do some time, in which case it gets set back to nine points again. Surely, that would be a good deterrent. they'd be in a similar position to motorists - i.e. alot to lose if you step over a certain mark.
Streetcop said:
It's suprising how much people don't want to part with £30 or £60 in a fixed penalty fine..no matter what their wealth..presumably, as it goes to the government and the driver sees nothing for it...
I would think it's only the 'super rich' who might not bother....
Points are what hurt people as in addition to the £60 fine, the increased insurance premiums each year are also to be expected...
Street
Yes I know. The whole system is a pain in the bum, and for no good reason, but then you all know that.
I still object to the fact that one can be penalised (in some cases very severely) for speeding, and yet you can have a shunt - perhaps causing a considerable amount of damage - and the police may not be interested at all. Alright Gary and colleagues, I know it's not your fault, but it makes no sense does it?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
busa_rush said:
Try this - make a point of speeding at least once on every journey and make sure you enjoy it, then when you do get the speeding fine, at least you've had something for it Makes me smile every day
Oh I do, I do!
But seriously, I don't do it specifically for the sake of being rebellious. In my case it's more a matter of 'doing awhat comes naturallee' in the words of the song.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
Try this - make a point of speeding at least once on every journey and make sure you enjoy it, then when you do get the speeding fine, at least you've had something for it
Oh I do, I do!
But seriously, I don't do it specifically for the sake of being rebellious. In my case it's more a matter of 'doing awhat comes naturallee' in the words of the song.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
OK guys, but consider this; what is "speeding"?
I had a mate in the Traffic years ago who used to talk about getting overtime on a shift doing "speeders".
Of course I took great delight in winding him up with the definition.
Over a dram in the pub I would ask him if it meant people who exceeded the denoted speed limit in their vehicles and he would say of course it was. Then I would assert that exceeding the limit was therefore the definition of speeding and he would again agree.
I would then go on to remind him that of course he went a damn site faster in the police vehicle to catch them so he must have been speeding and then some!
He would say that police officers are exempt from prosecution because they're in a pursuit situation and anyway they're highly trained drivers.
I would then state that the definition of speeding must be something other than exceeding the denoted speed limit because he did it but was not guilty of speeding, and by the way I was a more highly trained driver than he was so did that therefore disqualify me from being guilty of "speeding"?
As the whisky went down his throat, the steam started exiting his ears.
I would then ask if it would be a fair assumption to define speeding, utilising the essence of our previous conclusions, as travelling at a speed disproportionate to one's driving ability, the current road conditions, the type and specification of the vehicle and any other varying, insidious conditions.
I would get a slightly reluctant yes to this because he knew what was coming, but also that it was my round.
So really the only way to ensure everyone is travelling safely is to have several speed limits for all these different and varying factors; or you could just simply teach people to drive properly, the way that he and I were taught.
I would get a slightly dull, resigned stare over his glass and then, "mine's a double".
Streetcop said:
That's why the using mobile phone offence should carry points and not a £30 fine.
I was hugely dangerous with a mobile in my hand. I'm a bit worried that I can't talk and drive at he same time, but at least the law forces me to have both hands on the wheel .Streetcop said:Is that really a 3 pointer? I confess that my flabber is slightly gasted.
...numpties who risk 3 points by parking on the zig zags of Pelican and Zebra crossings...
Had a guy getting on the Mway infront of me this pm with phone in hand - wandering across both lanes of the slip road.. pillock.. further proof why it should be banned..
3 points on a zigzag - most definitely - obstructs the vision of other drivers from seeing a pedestrian crossing the road and subesquent risk of them being knocked down.
The whole idea of fines - annoying as streetcop says - we see nothing apparent that is good done with the proceeds - points are definitely more of an incentive to stop dangerous acts but lets face it - now that you can drive 2 miles through most towns @ no more than the equivalent of walking pace over the speed limit and loose your license in that single journey from cameras, shouldn't there be a definite shake up of either their settings/locations? or change them to a fine only basis depending on how fast you are going (tiered) and make that fine a %age of your salary/benefits/pension so that you are affected in the pocket the same way as the next man?
3 points on a zigzag - most definitely
- obstructs the vision of other drivers from seeing a pedestrian crossing the road and subesquent risk of them being knocked down. The whole idea of fines - annoying as streetcop says - we see nothing apparent that is good done with the proceeds - points are definitely more of an incentive to stop dangerous acts but lets face it - now that you can drive 2 miles through most towns @ no more than the equivalent of walking pace over the speed limit and loose your license in that single journey from cameras, shouldn't there be a definite shake up of either their settings/locations? or change them to a fine only basis depending on how fast you are going (tiered) and make that fine a %age of your salary/benefits/pension so that you are affected in the pocket the same way as the next man?
V8 Archie said:
I was hugely dangerous with a mobile in my hand. I'm a bit worried that I can't talk and drive at he same time, but at least the law forces me to have both hands on the wheel
If you feel to be dangerous with a mobile in your hand then it is best not to do it, along with driving (and talking to passengers?) at the same time, but the law does not force you to have both hands on the wheel, nor should it.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff