New Speed Camera Rules under the Tories

[Joshie]

Here's the latest on how the Tories propose to tackle speeding motorists:

"Shadow transport secretary Damian Green said many drivers caught by speed cameras should face only fines, not points on their licences.

But stricter penalties - such as four or five points and higher fines - would be given for speeding in more dangerous areas, such as outside schools.

Speed limits in such areas would also be cut from 30 to 20mph, he said" BBC News

Sounds good to me although I wonder how they'll be able to define what constitues "a more dangerous area". Course the Tories have to win the election but this is sure to generate votes.

[Brooner]

Always said it was a sad day we lost Maggie [img]images/graemlins/thumbs.gif[/img]

[SaabTuner]

The flip side of which is that without points against the lisence, weathy individuals would have a "license to speed" as they could afford the fines. Perhaps the fines should be based on income? $100 for the poor, $100,000 for the occasional royalty. [img]images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Adrian W

[daddyjohal]

Very valid point. If your loaded, who cares if you get done for speeding? But statistics in the UK have shown time and time again that speed alone has very little to do with road accidents in the UK. Maybe if people persistently speed they should be made to attend driver education courses etc.

[Joshie]

I like to believe that this is a recognition that speeding does not cause accidents but inappropriate use of speed does. It also recognises IMO that the trusty Gatso is a source of revenue generation and that criminalising millions is unreasonable.

So that's probably why points will still apply in the most dangerous places - certainly in built up areas and particularly near schools etc.

So in cases where exceeding the speed limit is not considered an inappropriate use of speed (like of the main three lane "motorway" into Manchester for example where (and correct me if I'm wrong) a 40MPH limit applies) then let the wealthy pay the fines and raise revenue. If the speeding is excessive I would imagine that points would probably still apply ayway.

[TimJMS]

Poster: Viggen_Tuner
Subject: Re: New Speed Camera Rules under the Tories

The flip side of which is that without points against the lisence, weathy individuals would have a "license to speed" as they could afford the fines. Perhaps the fines should be based on income? $100 for the poor, $100,000 for the occasional royalty.

Cheers,
Adrian W

Absolutely right. Couldnt agree more. Its the best way to level the playing field. They operate this system in Finland, and I include this example :

A director of the Finnish telecommunications giant, Nokia, has received what is believed to be the most expensive speeding ticket ever.
Anssi Vanjoki, 44, has been ordered to pay a fine of 116,000 euros ($103,600) after being caught breaking the speed limit on his Harley Davidson motorbike in the capital, Helsinki, in October last year.



Mr Vanjoki is a Harley Davidson enthusiast

Police say he was driving at 75 km/h (47 mph) in a 50km/h (31 mph) zone.

In Finland, traffic fines are proportionate to the latest available data on an offender's income.

[SaabTuner]

Unfortunately there is a flip side to that as well.

Is it really fair to charge $100,000 for a few mph? Does it really matter how much they make? That's $100K less that they have, which they earned.

I think small fines, for un-intentional speeding in NON-danger areas should be the close to the same for everyone. But ... if someone wants to go ripping along at 180 mph down a major highway (assuming it wasn't dangerous enough to arrest them for) they should pay something significant, and appropriate to their income. Something to keep it from happening again.

If the speed was intentional, then they deserve to lose whatever amount is equivalent to their income. If it was an accident that they sped a little, huge fines really aren't fair to anyone, not even the wealthy.

Guess you could argue that both ways though. As you can with most complex issues.

Yours Truly,
Adrian

[PhilT]

Is it really fair to charge $100,000 for a few mph? Does it really matter how much they make? That's $100K less that they have, which they earned.

I would check the calculation before we feel too sorry about the $100k loss. The law is the law, and he had a fairly profitable year....

[Joshie]

Trouble is that the punishment does not fit the crime whatever way you look at it.

The next thing will be earnings related fines for all sorts of stuff, like if your dog sh*ts on the pavement [img]images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]. I mean, where would it stop. [img]images/graemlins/crucified.gif[/img]

[ChrisB]

Perhaps the fine should be proportional to both income and the amount over the limit on a sliding scale? That way a wealthy person wouldn't be paying several hundred quid for 62mph in a 60 zone, while somebody with a lower income wouldn't get away with paying peanuts for 70mph in a 40 zone?

[PhilT]

Sounds fair to me Chris. Maybe the money could be spent on variable speed limit equipment for the motorways. Not sure how other people feel, but I think it would help with traffic jams and enable higher speeds at quiet times.

I'll be dreaming of the Autobahn again tonight.... [img]images/graemlins/sleeping_2.gif[/img]

[chris22]

Ho yes lets sell everthing we own [img]images/graemlins/ban.gif[/img]
[img]images/graemlins/062802beat_prv.gif[/img]
Bass.