Speeding levels?
Discussion
AFAIK,
Limit____FPN/CoFP___Summons
30________35_________50+
40________46_________66+
50________57_________76+
60________68_________86+
70________79_________96+
ACPO says enforcement threshold is 10% PLUS 2mph.
Page 75 of the linked document gives an idea of the penalties upon conviction in the Magistrates' Court - www.jsboard.co.uk/downloads/acbb/section2a.pdf
Limit____FPN/CoFP___Summons
30________35_________50+
40________46_________66+
50________57_________76+
60________68_________86+
70________79_________96+
ACPO says enforcement threshold is 10% PLUS 2mph.
Page 75 of the linked document gives an idea of the penalties upon conviction in the Magistrates' Court - www.jsboard.co.uk/downloads/acbb/section2a.pdf
SS2. said:
AFAIK,
Limit____FPN/CoFP___Summons
30________35_________50+
40________46_________66+
50________57_________76+
60________68_________86+
70________79_________96+
ACPO says enforcement threshold is 10% PLUS 2mph.
Page 75 of the linked document gives an idea of the penalties upon conviction in the Magistrates' Court - www.jsboard.co.uk/downloads/acbb/section2a.pdf
Limit____FPN/CoFP___Summons
30________35_________50+
40________46_________66+
50________57_________76+
60________68_________86+
70________79_________96+
ACPO says enforcement threshold is 10% PLUS 2mph.
Page 75 of the linked document gives an idea of the penalties upon conviction in the Magistrates' Court - www.jsboard.co.uk/downloads/acbb/section2a.pdf
Not quite what it says, but often how it is applied.
The 10% +2 is not a threshold that ACPO is saying prosecutions shouldn't start until (although in practice that is what it appears a lot of SCPs do). What the ACPO guidelines say is that is the thresholds for minimum action to be taken (unless exceptional circumstances exist)& there is nothing in the guidance to stop an officer prosecuting for lower thresholds where the officer deems it necessary.
In essence the guidelines are a guideline to take at least that action at the above thresholds NOT a guideline to not do anything until those thresholds are reached (as is widely misconstrued)
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 11th August 23:05
Back in 1997, I got a summons for 94mph on a 70mph dual carriageway, and fined £130 inc. costs, and 5 points.
In 2004, I was offered a FPN £60 and 3 points, and say no more about it for 95mph.
Does this mean that speeding is less important now, as I only got 3 points but £60 fine?
This seems to reinforce that speeding is just about money for the government theory.
In 2004, I was offered a FPN £60 and 3 points, and say no more about it for 95mph.
Does this mean that speeding is less important now, as I only got 3 points but £60 fine?
This seems to reinforce that speeding is just about money for the government theory.
JoolzB said:
7db said:
hanse cronje said:
and it doesn't clog up the system
Indeed, it's a bargain on both sides.
It also perhaps suggests that speeding isn't considered a very serious offence.
It's definitely not up there with murder. It's summary only, with imprisonment not an option.
Maximum fines are £1,000 (£2,500 on a motorway).
I think it is as much because they know now that so many more people are being nicked (and grateful they are too, the coffers are swelling up) and therefore more points are being issued.. Thus, they need to reduce the amounts of points issued or else people will be off the roads and no longer able to contribute to HMT..
Hence the reason why they at one point (don't know if it is still a runner) wanted a variable points system for drivers, just 1pt for X over the limit etc.. = More people nicked more often and more money.. Of course, the simple fact they were considering reducing the points indicates that speeding is not about safety at all, as they are happy to allow speeders, whom we know are worse than a child murdering paedo, to continue to rack up even more offences by virtue of collecting less points each time....
Hence the reason why they at one point (don't know if it is still a runner) wanted a variable points system for drivers, just 1pt for X over the limit etc.. = More people nicked more often and more money.. Of course, the simple fact they were considering reducing the points indicates that speeding is not about safety at all, as they are happy to allow speeders, whom we know are worse than a child murdering paedo, to continue to rack up even more offences by virtue of collecting less points each time....
7db said:
JoolzB said:
7db said:
hanse cronje said:
and it doesn't clog up the system
Indeed, it's a bargain on both sides.
It also perhaps suggests that speeding isn't considered a very serious offence.
It's definitely not up there with murder.
That's kindda what I was getting at and yet the reason for it's enforcement is to reduce deaths(obviously incidents involving deaths can lead to more serious charges being made). Surely if the government is convinced that the problem is that serious they would send you to court instead of just having to fill your credit card details out on a form.
jasandjules said:
I think it is as much because they know now that so many more people are being nicked (and grateful they are too, the coffers are swelling up) and therefore more points are being issued.. Thus, they need to reduce the amounts of points issued or else people will be off the roads and no longer able to contribute to HMT..
Hence the reason why they at one point (don't know if it is still a runner) wanted a variable points system for drivers, just 1pt for X over the limit etc.. = More people nicked more often and more money.. Of course, the simple fact they were considering reducing the points indicates that speeding is not about safety at all, as they are happy to allow speeders, whom we know are worse than a child murdering paedo, to continue to rack up even more offences by virtue of collecting less points each time....
Hence the reason why they at one point (don't know if it is still a runner) wanted a variable points system for drivers, just 1pt for X over the limit etc.. = More people nicked more often and more money.. Of course, the simple fact they were considering reducing the points indicates that speeding is not about safety at all, as they are happy to allow speeders, whom we know are worse than a child murdering paedo, to continue to rack up even more offences by virtue of collecting less points each time....
Yes it's a runner & they aren't just lowering points (minimum 2) they are also raising them depending on the margin. So their best customers (in your scenario) are going to get banned quicker.
Not a good business model.
JoolzB said:
That's kindda what I was getting at and yet the reason for it's enforcement is to reduce deaths(obviously incidents involving deaths can lead to more serious charges being made). Surely if the government is convinced that the problem is that serious they would send you to court instead of just having to fill your credit card details out on a form.
Surely not. It's tricky isn't it - each individual offence isn't terribly serious, but there are so very many of them. Unlike murders which are pretty rare.
7db said:
JoolzB said:
That's kindda what I was getting at and yet the reason for it's enforcement is to reduce deaths(obviously incidents involving deaths can lead to more serious charges being made). Surely if the government is convinced that the problem is that serious they would send you to court instead of just having to fill your credit card details out on a form.
Surely not. It's tricky isn't it - each individual offence isn't terribly serious, but there are so very many of them. Unlike murders which are pretty rare.
Well no I don't personally think that each offence should be taken to court and the current system is far better for processing. I have always struggled understanding the logic of the points system and indeed the current way that scameraships can simply send out a form asking you to provide credit card details. Like I say, as a I see it the reason behind the law is to reduce fatalities, by disobeying that law could you not say that there is some kind of intent to kill(sorry struggling with law jargon). Whilst I understand there are different levels of punishment for crimes, I really struggle understanding the logic of this one. Now if we were to prosecute for dangerous driving rather than exceeding a limit I could perhaps start to get my around it.
JoolzB said:
...Like I say, as a I see it the reason behind the law is to reduce fatalities, by disobeying that law could you not say that there is some kind of intent to kill(sorry struggling with law jargon)...
We have good laws that deal already with death by dangerous driving or murder, which cover these very serious crimes. Speeding is less serious. I've posted up my 7 point rationale for enforced speed laws a few times before.
vonhosen said:
Yes it's a runner & they aren't just lowering points (minimum 2) they are also raising them depending on the margin. So their best customers (in your scenario) are going to get banned quicker.
Not a good business model.
Not a good business model.
I thought the 'best customers' would also be hit with a higher fine (IIRC £100?)
smeggy said:
7db said:
No - it reinforces the point that the offer of an FPN is a complete bargain compared with a conviction in court.
Especially for those who think it too much hassle to argue against the flawed enforcement technology, let alone the flawed policy.
Would you argue against an NIP? Would you send the PACE letter? I've heard you can get a summons after sending one of those.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff