Brunstrom Climbdown (small)

[V6GTO]

Daily Mail...page 39.

If you're caught doing just a few miles over the limit you will not get a FP and 3 points, but you will have to pay £200 for re-traning!. Pass me my rifle! M.



The above in no way constitutes a death threat.

[streaky]

V6GTO said:

Daily Mail...page 39. If you're caught doing just a few miles over the limit you will not get a FP and 3 points, but you will have to pay £200 for re-traning!.

IIRC, most "speed awareness" (type) courses are charged at £60 (the same as the fine). Regardless of whether this is a reasonable amount to charge, the figure of £200 mentioned in the article suggests that a premium of £140 might be considered as a contribution to the police coffers! - Streaky

[V6GTO]

You get fleeced both ways!

[Davel]

The really daft thing is that you're probably driving more safely at say just over the limit and constantly watching the road than driving dead on the limit and constantly checking your speedo.

Without being stupidly over the limit, shouldn't speed limits be safer at 30'ish and 40'ish - within reason rather than 30 dead or 40 dead?

[WildCat]

streaky said:

V6GTO said: Daily Mail...page 39. If you're caught doing just a few miles over the limit you will not get a FP and 3 points, but you will have to pay £200 for re-traning!. IIRC, most "speed awareness" (type) courses are charged at £60 (the same as the fine). Regardless of whether this is a reasonable amount to charge, the figure of £200 mentioned in the article suggests that a premium of £140 might be considered as a contribution to the police coffers! - Streaky

Exactly! This has to be fleecing! Paper article said "cut off at 35mph" - same as Lancs (who charge £85 per their website - and £95 if you you choose another Staffs. They also charge you a further £20 if you ask them to re-arrange your course for more convenient day - per their website!)

Cut off at 5mph over 30? You will get your "invite at 1-5mph - it is another form of fleecing and makes another farce of what should be a "good idea!"

[paolow]

do i also understand correctly that if caught again you get the 3 points for that offence as well as the 3 points from the earlier mickey mouse offence as its effectively a 'suspended sentence'?

[spaximus]

I didn't read the article but it concerns me. The idea of having to attend a course for some would be good.One of my ex drivers was caught on camera by the stripy car at her side with both hands off the wheel speeding on the phone. the course really helped her almost as much as the loss of her job did!And given the choice then I would go, but is this the next stealth tax? thirty or so people at £85-200 a pop every day in every police state, sorry service, a steady supply of customers to a state run monopoly and guess what we would be happy to avoid the points and would probably be thankful for the opportunity.

Only in Britain!

[Bobbins]

Davel said:

Without being stupidly over the limit, shouldn't speed limits be safer at 30'ish and 40'ish - within reason rather than 30 dead or 40 dead?

By George you've got it (well nearly). For 30MPH, drive at 20ish, and for 40MPH drive at 30ish - then you'll never get a ticket. The speed limits are MAX speeds, not speeds you HAVE to drive at.

[gopher]

Bobbins said:

Davel said: Without being stupidly over the limit, shouldn't speed limits be safer at 30'ish and 40'ish - within reason rather than 30 dead or 40 dead? By George you've got it (well nearly). For 30MPH, drive at 20ish, and for 40MPH drive at 30ish - then you'll never get a ticket. The speed limits are MAX speeds, not speeds you HAVE to drive at.

But this does not take into account the artificially low limits set by councils in collusion with scamera partnerships to increase revenue, if the limits are set according to proper road surveys, engineering and the 85th percentile then yes I would agree.

Surely the safest option of all is to remove limits all-together, give advisory speeds, warn drivers of danger areas and accident black spots. If someone is consequently found guilty of causing an accident ban them for 6 months, 2nd time a year, third time for life?

Surely this would have a much more positive effect on road safety ?

Cheers

Paul