nixy Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Heard this on the news today - not sure if it's been mentioned so apols if it has. 20 mph over the limit and you'll get 6 points on the spot - do it twice and it's a ban. 2 points instead of 3 for being a little bit over the speed limit. Crazy! They should concentrate on dangerous driving instead. I was cruising down an empty duel carriageway at midnight last night at a speed that would have got me 6 points but in my opinion I was driving safely! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavis Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Its all about getting drivers and cars off the road to ease congestion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIXXERUK Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 It's to be proposed by ministers Tougher penalties for speeding and other "excessive behaviour" by motorists are to be proposed by ministers as part of a bid to cut road deaths. Drivers who break the speed limit by a large margin could be given six penalty points, a consultation is expected to suggest, meaning they would be banned after two offences. Other measures will target drink drivers and those who put lives at risk by taking to the wheel under the influence of other drugs. Provisional Government figures showed this month that the number of people killed on the roads in spring this year fell by 20% compared with the same period in 2007. There were 580 fatalities in April-June 2008 compared with 721 in the same three months last year, the statistics showed. But Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick believes more can be done to cut the numbers further and will outline the proposals in a written statement to the Commons. There will be the subject of a three-month consultation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 so if you want to put your foot down you've got 3 months left! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I'd rather have the option of a bigger fine. 2 points for a little over..... what does that tell you? A little over the limit is where they make money on fixed penalties. Doing 50 in a 30 is really bad usually (in my opinion) however 90 on a motorway.... 6 points????? seems excessive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Quads Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 IMO the whole speeding side of things is another waste of tax payers money. I have 100% with hitting people who drink and do drugs and drive hard BUT what they are proposing to do with speeding is a) virtually already in force To undefined to enforce Currently if you speed and they deem it excessive you will get 6 points. Do it again and they can again give you 6 points = BAN. If they don't then they can't have deemed it "excessive behaviour" so this law would not have helped. Also if it is deemed "excessive behaviour" they will have to be very careful as I am sure the number of appeals will grow. It will only need one case to be let off and it will be used everywhere - again making the law pointless NOTE they have not sauis 20mpg everwhere they used going 90 on a motorway as an example and as usual the media are all distoring that they have proposed. i.e. IMO 95 on the motorway is no where near as danagerous as 55 in a 30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 When are they going to learn that prevention is better than cure. Oh thats right, teaching people to driver properly in the first place doesnt bring in anywhere near as much revenue as hammering them after they do it. And if everyone was a better driver then who would they fine :rant::rant: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Said it before Chris. Training is the key. Stick newly passed drivers on a 125 for a CBT and I bet the accident rate would drop! Further practical training to a basic level and theoretical education would vastly improve things. Reactive not proactive sums up our government...... Too little too late aswell..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoREoD Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I think you're all missing the real point - at present there is a tolerance in the fixed cameras, e.g. in a 30 limit you dont get done until around 34..... With the proposed law you get done for 31! Think how much revenue that can bring in...... They had to do something - static cameras just dont catch enough people now we all know where they are..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 2 points for a little over..... what does that tell you? A little over the limit is where they make money on fixed penalties. 6 fines before a ban.... Kerching! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kennydies Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Interesting reading the comments on the bbc article, the usual people saying dont speed and dont get fined. Yes, hitting someone at 35MPH is bad but it is worse to hit them doing 30mph becuase I was watching my speedo rather than the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adncd Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 most of what they are saying is rubbish about this. i used to deal with car accidents for a living. Most accidents are not caused by speed. If you look at court cases over car accidents, one of the most common things you see is that it is that speeding is not the cause of injury or damage on its own. it is a contributing factor as to the severity of damage or injury, but not the cause. in most cases accidents happen at low speeds, through people not paying attention to what is going on around them. And given cars stop quicker, have far greater protection for occupants and pedestrians, actually the amount of damage caused is less than it used to be, it is just litigation and repair costs that have gone up, and there are more cars and pedestrians that keep the figures ever increasing. Duel carriage ways and motorways are realy the only place where speed is a major factor as when you hit something, its generally pretty hard and at speed it can make a big difference, especially as cars do not leave sufficient space to stop for anything in front of them. There will always be the argument of well if the vehicles were travelling slower, but you might as well say we should go back to driving with a man walking in front waving a red flag, then again he might end up being run over, so actually lets go back to just walking. I think if the government lifted the motorway speed restictions people would be much happier to slow down in towns and villages where most of these accidents happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 They will never start banning people in that larger numbers. A banned motorist cant be milked over and over. This government has a fixation that speed kills - which it doesnt. As others have posted, speed may be listed as a contributing factor. And thats speed in excess for the conditions, which is not the same as speed in excess of the limits. 25mph in a 30 zone in the snow for example may cause an accident whereby excess speed would be counted as a contributory factor. Regardless that its within the limit. If the vehicle had been going slower, the accident wouldnt have happened. Which taken to the n'th degree is applicable for almost every accident. Ill pretty much guarantee I wont have an accident in my Z tonight, as its not moving. The government then choose to use these "excess speed" figures to justify measures against speeding motorists. Which is a massive twisting of the figures to suit a great revenue scheme. Also - if it is for safety reasons alone, why are all new cameras such as specs, forward facing - which do not "catch" motorcyclists, who are most likely to die in "speed related" incidents. Surprisingly this fact that a higher percentage of bikers die is ignored in favoutr of the largest number of "speeders" or should that be the safety of bikers is ignored in favour of the larger revenue stream... Plus - if people are banned, there appears to be no deterent for banned drivers other than another ban, so all we will see is an increase in drivers without licences, insurance tax etc. The costs for the genuine motorist will go through the roof, driving many off the road (handily acheiving the emissions cut along the way for Mr Brown), and Britain will be left with the highest number of illegal road users per capita in Europe. Sounds like another plan thought through by a government "think tank"whom don't appear to have a cerebrum between them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 most of what they are saying is rubbish about this. i used to deal with car accidents for a living. Most accidents are not caused by speed. If you look at court cases over car accidents, one of the most common things you see is that it is that speeding is not the cause of injury or damage on its own. it is a contributing factor as to the severity of damage or injury, but not the cause. in most cases accidents happen at low speeds, through people not paying attention to what is going on around them. And given cars stop quicker, have far greater protection for occupants and pedestrians, actually the amount of damage caused is less than it used to be, it is just litigation and repair costs that have gone up, and there are more cars and pedestrians that keep the figures ever increasing. Duel carriage ways and motorways are realy the only place where speed is a major factor as when you hit something, its generally pretty hard and at speed it can make a big difference, especially as cars do not leave sufficient space to stop for anything in front of them. There will always be the argument of well if the vehicles were travelling slower, but you might as well say we should go back to driving with a man walking in front waving a red flag, then again he might end up being run over, so actually lets go back to just walking. I think if the government lifted the motorway speed restictions people would be much happier to slow down in towns and villages where most of these accidents happen. Great post with a good insight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 +1 to above post its just getting silly. they have also banned talking on a phone (which i agree with) but they are also looking to make it illegal to use hands free, some lobbyists want smoking while driving band. if we head down this route we'll be made to sit in silence while driving and risk points if we take our hands off the wheel to change the radio station. if they want safe roads, they should look at the following firstly - improve the road network, their are loads of roads in poor condition or dual carriageways that should be turned into motorways e.g. a12 and a14 secondly - after 11 pm speed limits on dual carriageways and motorways should be raised to 100. (or removed completely.) there is very little traffic so why do 70. heavily enforce speeding past areas like schools especially at the times they are being used. scrap speed cameras, introduce more road road cops, they have a brain and can make a decision on the driver, and give just a warning (which for some is enough) instead of a box that takes your picture regardless. all learner drivers should follower the finnish method of driver tuition. taking 3 years to get a licence, including time spent on a skid pan. proper probation periods with cars that are limited to 1000 cc. or 70 mph old people should be re tested every year from 60 not 70. cars should be fitted with breathaliser ignition systems if the government want to keep the 70% fuel tax, thats fine but that should be classed as your road tax, not charging people double. that way you pay for what you use. i'd rather have them scrap road tax and put fuel up by a couple of pence than keep paying £400 a year. licence points should be calculated on the severity of the incident i.e. 6 points for doing 50 in a 30 past a school maybe a warning on the motorway if your doing 90 in a 70. maybe make the advanced drivers course compulsary to complete within the first 5 years of driving. there is a difference between fast driving and dangourous drivering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 They've been banging on tonight about how doing 20mph over the limit is what kills people when you knock them over but as far as i'm aware there are not that many people rambling on the M62! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kennydies Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I dont know why it is automatically the drivers fault. For example this story: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/2010661 ... f_cyclist/ Yes she was in the wrong, but he cycled through a red light. When someone is knocked over on the road why is it wrong to ask why they were crossing the road when a car is coming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavis Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 When someone is knocked over on the road why is it wrong to ask why they were crossing the road when a car is coming? Does my head in too, if someone gets knocked over its always automatically assumed its the drivers fault...........why? If you get run over by a train your an idiot for been there so why not the case with roads? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 if someone landed on my bonnet I'd hope they were insured for putting a big dent in it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kennydies Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 if someone landed on my bonnet I'd hope they were insured for putting a big dent in it! Shame we cant fit bull bars.... The amount of cyclists I see go through red lights in london and the amount wihout lights in bmouth, then the motorist gets slammed for running over something he cant see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobD7 Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 if someone landed on my bonnet I'd hope they were insured for putting a big dent in it! Shame we cant fit bull bars.... The amount of cyclists I see go through red lights in london and the amount wihout lights in bmouth, then the motorist gets slammed for running over something he cant see. +1 - utter joke this country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.