Have your say: Drivers could be fined £10,000 for speeding on motorway

Have your say: Drivers could be fined £10,000 for speeding on motorway

Have your say: Drivers could be fined £10,000 for speeding on motorway

First published in News
Last updated
by

SPEEDING drivers could be fined up to £10,000 under proposals to be revealed today by Justice Minister Jeremy Wright.

Penalties for disorderly drunks could also be increased to £4,000 in magistrates courts and fines for the most serious offences such as drink driving could be unlimited.

The dramatic hike is the first in more than 20 years and will see some fines increase fourfold.

Mr Wright said he believes magistrates should have greater powers to punish offenders.

But motoring groups said the new fines were disproportionate and could put people off challenging unfair speeding tickets.

Mr Wright said: “Financial penalties set at the right level can be an effective way of punishing criminals and deterring them from further offending.

“Magistrates are the cornerstone of our justice system and these changes will provide them with greater powers to deal with the day-to-day offences that impact their local communities.”

The amount of fines collected reached an all-time high of £284 million at the end of last year and the proposals will see a huge increase in money collected.

AA President Edmund King, said: “We would not condone excessive speeding in any way but fines have to be proportionate to the offence and one has to question whether increasing the fines four-fold is proportionate.”

But James McLoughlin of road safety charity Brake supported the proposals.

He said: “Speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads and, through the support we provide for victims of road crashes, we bear witness to the devastating effects of speeding.

“Limits are there for a reason, and more needs to be done to deter those who choose to put other road users at risk by breaking them.''

Under the proposed changes the maximums in each category will increase from:  

  • Level 1 - £200 to £800. Includes unauthorised cycle racing on public ways.
  • Level 2 - £500 to £2,000. Includes driving a motor cycle without a protective helmet.
  • Level 3 - £1,000 to £4,000. Includes the sale of alcohol to a drunk person or being drunk and disorderly in a public place.
  • Level 4 - £2,500 to £10,000. Includes speeding on the motorway.

Comments (62)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:49am Tue 10 Jun 14

justme20092009 says...

good
good justme20092009
  • Score: -11

8:51am Tue 10 Jun 14

Townee says...

Yet another way to get the plebs off the road and free it up for the rich. Many who get caught speeding don't pay the fine or don't have a licence to drive so this will only effect middle Britain . Rich can afford to pay and poor won't be bothered. The people who make theses decisions need to live in the real world, the magistrates have power but how often do they use the power to put people away for a crime but don't.
Yet another way to get the plebs off the road and free it up for the rich. Many who get caught speeding don't pay the fine or don't have a licence to drive so this will only effect middle Britain . Rich can afford to pay and poor won't be bothered. The people who make theses decisions need to live in the real world, the magistrates have power but how often do they use the power to put people away for a crime but don't. Townee
  • Score: 36

8:58am Tue 10 Jun 14

BoscVegas says...

uncollectable and therefore pointless. They may as well make the fine £1miillion people simply can't/won't pay.
uncollectable and therefore pointless. They may as well make the fine £1miillion people simply can't/won't pay. BoscVegas
  • Score: 37

9:06am Tue 10 Jun 14

Tripod says...

If this is the first review for 20 years a 4-fold increase would be in line with inflation with no real increase.
If this is the first review for 20 years a 4-fold increase would be in line with inflation with no real increase. Tripod
  • Score: -19

9:08am Tue 10 Jun 14

BIGTONE says...

We've got no motorways in Dorset anyway.
I remember meeting a Bournemouth girl who had been driving for 3 years and never been on a motorway.
How many drivers in Echoland have not driven on a motorway?
We've got no motorways in Dorset anyway. I remember meeting a Bournemouth girl who had been driving for 3 years and never been on a motorway. How many drivers in Echoland have not driven on a motorway? BIGTONE
  • Score: 8

9:17am Tue 10 Jun 14

speedy231278 says...

Four grand for being piddled in public? They'll make millions every week if they go to Horseshoe Common, and hundreds of thousands every day at the Crescent in Boscombe!
Four grand for being piddled in public? They'll make millions every week if they go to Horseshoe Common, and hundreds of thousands every day at the Crescent in Boscombe! speedy231278
  • Score: 28

9:22am Tue 10 Jun 14

Baysider says...

Seems sensible enough to me. These haven't been increased in 20 years and are a maximum don't forget so no need for anyone to get their knickers in a twist really. All very dramatic for the headlines but ultimately won't effect things very much at all except increasing the available options to the courts e.g a Premiership footballer getting fined £5k for speeding is unlikely to amount to make him think twice...but £20k might.
Seems sensible enough to me. These haven't been increased in 20 years and are a maximum don't forget so no need for anyone to get their knickers in a twist really. All very dramatic for the headlines but ultimately won't effect things very much at all except increasing the available options to the courts e.g a Premiership footballer getting fined £5k for speeding is unlikely to amount to make him think twice...but £20k might. Baysider
  • Score: -4

9:24am Tue 10 Jun 14

podgie says...

'Magistrates are the cornerstone of our justice system and these changes will provide them with greater powers to deal with the day-to-day offences that impact their local communities.”
The police in Dorset can't even be arsed to arrest persistent violent shoplifters but issue them with a £50 fine notice, that they don't bother paying,that is if you can get them to ever answer a phone and attend in the first place.
Like the citizens of New York found out quite simply.'Be proactive and consistent on all crime for which you already have wide powers and the right results of a safer environment will follow.
'Magistrates are the cornerstone of our justice system and these changes will provide them with greater powers to deal with the day-to-day offences that impact their local communities.” The police in Dorset can't even be arsed to arrest persistent violent shoplifters but issue them with a £50 fine notice, that they don't bother paying,that is if you can get them to ever answer a phone and attend in the first place. Like the citizens of New York found out quite simply.'Be proactive and consistent on all crime for which you already have wide powers and the right results of a safer environment will follow. podgie
  • Score: 19

9:26am Tue 10 Jun 14

Farhad quentin says...

Hands up if you can afford the most minor fine?
This level of fine is something you should give for actual harm caused not this cow faeces minority report stuff.
Whuch idiots come up with these horse manure laws and how do we get rid of them?
Hands up if you can afford the most minor fine? This level of fine is something you should give for actual harm caused not this cow faeces minority report stuff. Whuch idiots come up with these horse manure laws and how do we get rid of them? Farhad quentin
  • Score: 3

9:28am Tue 10 Jun 14

goatty says...

Total utter garbage from a dying Government who have run out of ideas. How about giving Magistrates more powers to imprison little yobs with stiffer sentences????
Oh no this Government would rather attack workers and commuters on their way to work as knowing they have a car and more than likely going to work will be easy targets to get fines out of, instead of layabout yobs who have no job and therefore no money to collect.
Before all you liberals start screaming about people shouldn't speed and therefore deserve to be fined, lets remind ourselves of exactly how many accidents there are each year due to speed compared to thefts, muggings, rapes, violent behaviour, drunk and disorderly behaviour and murders. Surely this is where the harsh sentences need to be handed out?
Total utter garbage from a dying Government who have run out of ideas. How about giving Magistrates more powers to imprison little yobs with stiffer sentences???? Oh no this Government would rather attack workers and commuters on their way to work as knowing they have a car and more than likely going to work will be easy targets to get fines out of, instead of layabout yobs who have no job and therefore no money to collect. Before all you liberals start screaming about people shouldn't speed and therefore deserve to be fined, lets remind ourselves of exactly how many accidents there are each year due to speed compared to thefts, muggings, rapes, violent behaviour, drunk and disorderly behaviour and murders. Surely this is where the harsh sentences need to be handed out? goatty
  • Score: 48

9:34am Tue 10 Jun 14

master plan says...

Harsher penalty's for driving offences yet rape or murder someone and spend 8yrs in jail?
Something wrong with the justice system
Harsher penalty's for driving offences yet rape or murder someone and spend 8yrs in jail? Something wrong with the justice system master plan
  • Score: 38

9:52am Tue 10 Jun 14

BarrHumbug says...

It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?
It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 29

10:14am Tue 10 Jun 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

The old fine level didn't affect me and neither will the new one. I had a parking ticket in 1983 and swore the govt wouldn't get a penny out of me ever again. Apart from council tax and road tax and VAT they haven't.
The old fine level didn't affect me and neither will the new one. I had a parking ticket in 1983 and swore the govt wouldn't get a penny out of me ever again. Apart from council tax and road tax and VAT they haven't. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: 8

10:18am Tue 10 Jun 14

MotorbikeSam says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?
" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity.
So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ??
I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?[/p][/quote]" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity. So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ?? I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus... MotorbikeSam
  • Score: -18

10:25am Tue 10 Jun 14

speedy231278 says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
The old fine level didn't affect me and neither will the new one. I had a parking ticket in 1983 and swore the govt wouldn't get a penny out of me ever again. Apart from council tax and road tax and VAT they haven't.
So, you mean they have.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: The old fine level didn't affect me and neither will the new one. I had a parking ticket in 1983 and swore the govt wouldn't get a penny out of me ever again. Apart from council tax and road tax and VAT they haven't.[/p][/quote]So, you mean they have. speedy231278
  • Score: 6

10:25am Tue 10 Jun 14

speedy231278 says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?
" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity.
So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ??
I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...
Sadly, some of those already are.... behind the wheel!
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?[/p][/quote]" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity. So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ?? I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...[/p][/quote]Sadly, some of those already are.... behind the wheel! speedy231278
  • Score: 1

10:28am Tue 10 Jun 14

boyerboy says...

Just a money making and head line grabbing iniative...the "hardened" and persistent offenders are normally the ones unemployed/on benefits/ low wages..etc etc...as the fines system is not means tested, all they have to do is to declare a low income and thus the fine will remain(as now ) VERY LOW ...... it is about time the Government amended the ridiculous " Victim Surcharge", for offences where there is no victim it is another example of the system raking in unfair payments.
Just a money making and head line grabbing iniative...the "hardened" and persistent offenders are normally the ones unemployed/on benefits/ low wages..etc etc...as the fines system is not means tested, all they have to do is to declare a low income and thus the fine will remain(as now ) VERY LOW ...... it is about time the Government amended the ridiculous " Victim Surcharge", for offences where there is no victim it is another example of the system raking in unfair payments. boyerboy
  • Score: 5

10:30am Tue 10 Jun 14

speedy231278 says...

“Speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads"

No, it isn't. It doesn't kill anyone. Bad driving kills people, speed is a casual factor. Driving faster than you can react in a set of given circumstances causes accidents. Driving at the speed limit in bad weather or following too close to the car infront is more dangerous than speeding in good weather. Driving at any speed is all about taking into account the weather conditions, the traffic, the road layout, etc. Speed, speeding and accidents are not black and white.
“Speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" No, it isn't. It doesn't kill anyone. Bad driving kills people, speed is a casual factor. Driving faster than you can react in a set of given circumstances causes accidents. Driving at the speed limit in bad weather or following too close to the car infront is more dangerous than speeding in good weather. Driving at any speed is all about taking into account the weather conditions, the traffic, the road layout, etc. Speed, speeding and accidents are not black and white. speedy231278
  • Score: 28

10:31am Tue 10 Jun 14

Devonguy02 says...

Townee wrote:
Yet another way to get the plebs off the road and free it up for the rich. Many who get caught speeding don't pay the fine or don't have a licence to drive so this will only effect middle Britain . Rich can afford to pay and poor won't be bothered. The people who make theses decisions need to live in the real world, the magistrates have power but how often do they use the power to put people away for a crime but don't.
This smacks of big nanny state again raking in cash and hitting the ever suffering motorist, when there no other transport options in rural towns/villages,
Iet the driver decide what,s suitable, obviously some one speeding in a 30/40 in a town/village is very dangerous, 80 on a clear empty motorway in dry warm conditions at 4 in the morning shouldn't be a major issue, its all about being senceable ,
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Yet another way to get the plebs off the road and free it up for the rich. Many who get caught speeding don't pay the fine or don't have a licence to drive so this will only effect middle Britain . Rich can afford to pay and poor won't be bothered. The people who make theses decisions need to live in the real world, the magistrates have power but how often do they use the power to put people away for a crime but don't.[/p][/quote]This smacks of big nanny state again raking in cash and hitting the ever suffering motorist, when there no other transport options in rural towns/villages, Iet the driver decide what,s suitable, obviously some one speeding in a 30/40 in a town/village is very dangerous, 80 on a clear empty motorway in dry warm conditions at 4 in the morning shouldn't be a major issue, its all about being senceable , Devonguy02
  • Score: 12

10:31am Tue 10 Jun 14

Devonguy02 says...

Townee wrote:
Yet another way to get the plebs off the road and free it up for the rich. Many who get caught speeding don't pay the fine or don't have a licence to drive so this will only effect middle Britain . Rich can afford to pay and poor won't be bothered. The people who make theses decisions need to live in the real world, the magistrates have power but how often do they use the power to put people away for a crime but don't.
This smacks of big nanny state again raking in cash and hitting the ever suffering motorist, when there no other transport options in rural towns/villages,
Iet the driver decide what,s suitable, obviously some one speeding in a 30/40 in a town/village is very dangerous, 80 on a clear empty motorway in dry warm conditions at 4 in the morning shouldn't be a major issue, its all about being senceable ,
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: Yet another way to get the plebs off the road and free it up for the rich. Many who get caught speeding don't pay the fine or don't have a licence to drive so this will only effect middle Britain . Rich can afford to pay and poor won't be bothered. The people who make theses decisions need to live in the real world, the magistrates have power but how often do they use the power to put people away for a crime but don't.[/p][/quote]This smacks of big nanny state again raking in cash and hitting the ever suffering motorist, when there no other transport options in rural towns/villages, Iet the driver decide what,s suitable, obviously some one speeding in a 30/40 in a town/village is very dangerous, 80 on a clear empty motorway in dry warm conditions at 4 in the morning shouldn't be a major issue, its all about being senceable , Devonguy02
  • Score: 2

10:31am Tue 10 Jun 14

Minty Fresh says...

Yet another attack on the soft target motorist.
Yet another attack on the soft target motorist. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 7

11:03am Tue 10 Jun 14

refman says...

Having a job which requires me to travel 30K miles a year what a great idea - not! having said that, if we could get a rebate for all the delays of sitting for hour after hour in traffic jams and diversions taking us miles out of where we need to be it might be a good trade off as I would be in credit!!
Another stupid idea from a government for the rich!!
Having a job which requires me to travel 30K miles a year what a great idea - not! having said that, if we could get a rebate for all the delays of sitting for hour after hour in traffic jams and diversions taking us miles out of where we need to be it might be a good trade off as I would be in credit!! Another stupid idea from a government for the rich!! refman
  • Score: 8

11:26am Tue 10 Jun 14

dorsetgirl89 says...

People who speed on motorways don't even get charged the maximum as it is now!
They'll spend more money chasing people for the fines!
People who speed on motorways don't even get charged the maximum as it is now! They'll spend more money chasing people for the fines! dorsetgirl89
  • Score: 3

11:31am Tue 10 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

Does speeding drivers include speeding riders?
Does speeding drivers include speeding riders? suzigirl
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Tue 10 Jun 14

panting says...

If they want to fine speeding drivers why no put the fines up in stages.
ie 10 mph over the limit in the area they are travelling in ie built up area a fine of 50 pounds, 20 mph over the limit should be a fine of 150 pounds. For 30 mph a fine of 250 plus has to go on a DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE and the fines have to be paid within 4 weeks, or unpaid fines are reported to the DLVA and the fine would be added to the road tax when it is renewed, or if the driver sales the car the fine goes onto the new tax disc of his new car.
If a driver does more than 70 mph on the motorway he get a warning for the first time, if he get caught again he get a fine
If a driver does more than 80 mph on the motorway he gets a fine of 250 pounds plus has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENSS COURSE within 3 months of the fine.
If a driver does more than 90 mph he is banned from driving fore 6 months plus a fine of 500 pounds and has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE before getting his licence back.
For all drivers who do more than 100 mph he has his licence taken away for 5 years plus a fine of 1000 pounds plus has the car taken away and sold and has to take a new driving test after ban has finished, but if the driver is caught driving whilst being banned he will be banned for life.
If they want to fine speeding drivers why no put the fines up in stages. ie 10 mph over the limit in the area they are travelling in ie built up area a fine of 50 pounds, 20 mph over the limit should be a fine of 150 pounds. For 30 mph a fine of 250 plus has to go on a DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE and the fines have to be paid within 4 weeks, or unpaid fines are reported to the DLVA and the fine would be added to the road tax when it is renewed, or if the driver sales the car the fine goes onto the new tax disc of his new car. If a driver does more than 70 mph on the motorway he get a warning for the first time, if he get caught again he get a fine If a driver does more than 80 mph on the motorway he gets a fine of 250 pounds plus has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENSS COURSE within 3 months of the fine. If a driver does more than 90 mph he is banned from driving fore 6 months plus a fine of 500 pounds and has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE before getting his licence back. For all drivers who do more than 100 mph he has his licence taken away for 5 years plus a fine of 1000 pounds plus has the car taken away and sold and has to take a new driving test after ban has finished, but if the driver is caught driving whilst being banned he will be banned for life. panting
  • Score: -5

1:08pm Tue 10 Jun 14

M0Z says...

panting wrote:
If they want to fine speeding drivers why no put the fines up in stages.
ie 10 mph over the limit in the area they are travelling in ie built up area a fine of 50 pounds, 20 mph over the limit should be a fine of 150 pounds. For 30 mph a fine of 250 plus has to go on a DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE and the fines have to be paid within 4 weeks, or unpaid fines are reported to the DLVA and the fine would be added to the road tax when it is renewed, or if the driver sales the car the fine goes onto the new tax disc of his new car.
If a driver does more than 70 mph on the motorway he get a warning for the first time, if he get caught again he get a fine
If a driver does more than 80 mph on the motorway he gets a fine of 250 pounds plus has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENSS COURSE within 3 months of the fine.
If a driver does more than 90 mph he is banned from driving fore 6 months plus a fine of 500 pounds and has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE before getting his licence back.
For all drivers who do more than 100 mph he has his licence taken away for 5 years plus a fine of 1000 pounds plus has the car taken away and sold and has to take a new driving test after ban has finished, but if the driver is caught driving whilst being banned he will be banned for life.
So, what you a arguing is that driving at 60 in a 30 zone – which will likely be an urban area with oncoming traffic and pedestrians, possibly narrow and twisty – is a vastly LESSER crime than doing 100 on a 70 motorway – which is wide and straight, free of oncoming traffic and pedestrians. And all motorists are men. Blimey. Barking!!
[quote][p][bold]panting[/bold] wrote: If they want to fine speeding drivers why no put the fines up in stages. ie 10 mph over the limit in the area they are travelling in ie built up area a fine of 50 pounds, 20 mph over the limit should be a fine of 150 pounds. For 30 mph a fine of 250 plus has to go on a DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE and the fines have to be paid within 4 weeks, or unpaid fines are reported to the DLVA and the fine would be added to the road tax when it is renewed, or if the driver sales the car the fine goes onto the new tax disc of his new car. If a driver does more than 70 mph on the motorway he get a warning for the first time, if he get caught again he get a fine If a driver does more than 80 mph on the motorway he gets a fine of 250 pounds plus has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENSS COURSE within 3 months of the fine. If a driver does more than 90 mph he is banned from driving fore 6 months plus a fine of 500 pounds and has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE before getting his licence back. For all drivers who do more than 100 mph he has his licence taken away for 5 years plus a fine of 1000 pounds plus has the car taken away and sold and has to take a new driving test after ban has finished, but if the driver is caught driving whilst being banned he will be banned for life.[/p][/quote]So, what you a arguing is that driving at 60 in a 30 zone – which will likely be an urban area with oncoming traffic and pedestrians, possibly narrow and twisty – is a vastly LESSER crime than doing 100 on a 70 motorway – which is wide and straight, free of oncoming traffic and pedestrians. And all motorists are men. Blimey. Barking!! M0Z
  • Score: 8

1:16pm Tue 10 Jun 14

M0Z says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
The old fine level didn't affect me and neither will the new one. I had a parking ticket in 1983 and swore the govt wouldn't get a penny out of me ever again. Apart from council tax and road tax and VAT they haven't.
So, you mean they have.
What about tax on pensions / savings interest / dividends / employment income? National Insurance? Stamp duty on property & share transactions? Inheritance tax? Alcohol / cigarette / petrol duty? Airport tax? Parking meter fees on roads that used to be free?
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: The old fine level didn't affect me and neither will the new one. I had a parking ticket in 1983 and swore the govt wouldn't get a penny out of me ever again. Apart from council tax and road tax and VAT they haven't.[/p][/quote]So, you mean they have.[/p][/quote]What about tax on pensions / savings interest / dividends / employment income? National Insurance? Stamp duty on property & share transactions? Inheritance tax? Alcohol / cigarette / petrol duty? Airport tax? Parking meter fees on roads that used to be free? M0Z
  • Score: 7

2:19pm Tue 10 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?
" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity.
So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ??
I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...
It's not really the point is it? 20 or 50 I mean.

If I bumble along a motorway at 20 I am much more of a danger and in much more danger than if I am doing 50.

Kind of makes your point moot.

For me, the most important fact to consider what is the major cause of any collision / accident in the first place.

If 'speed' was the main factor then make it a priority, if not then prioritise in order whatever the key factors are.

That it is what happens with everything else in life I would suggest.

If your addiction to chocolate is making your fat and have a much higher risk of diabetes then you don't given up fruit and veg because they too have sugar and carbs
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?[/p][/quote]" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity. So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ?? I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...[/p][/quote]It's not really the point is it? 20 or 50 I mean. If I bumble along a motorway at 20 I am much more of a danger and in much more danger than if I am doing 50. Kind of makes your point moot. For me, the most important fact to consider what is the major cause of any collision / accident in the first place. If 'speed' was the main factor then make it a priority, if not then prioritise in order whatever the key factors are. That it is what happens with everything else in life I would suggest. If your addiction to chocolate is making your fat and have a much higher risk of diabetes then you don't given up fruit and veg because they too have sugar and carbs scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

2:23pm Tue 10 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

panting wrote:
If they want to fine speeding drivers why no put the fines up in stages.
ie 10 mph over the limit in the area they are travelling in ie built up area a fine of 50 pounds, 20 mph over the limit should be a fine of 150 pounds. For 30 mph a fine of 250 plus has to go on a DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE and the fines have to be paid within 4 weeks, or unpaid fines are reported to the DLVA and the fine would be added to the road tax when it is renewed, or if the driver sales the car the fine goes onto the new tax disc of his new car.
If a driver does more than 70 mph on the motorway he get a warning for the first time, if he get caught again he get a fine
If a driver does more than 80 mph on the motorway he gets a fine of 250 pounds plus has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENSS COURSE within 3 months of the fine.
If a driver does more than 90 mph he is banned from driving fore 6 months plus a fine of 500 pounds and has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE before getting his licence back.
For all drivers who do more than 100 mph he has his licence taken away for 5 years plus a fine of 1000 pounds plus has the car taken away and sold and has to take a new driving test after ban has finished, but if the driver is caught driving whilst being banned he will be banned for life.
We got your drift...
[quote][p][bold]panting[/bold] wrote: If they want to fine speeding drivers why no put the fines up in stages. ie 10 mph over the limit in the area they are travelling in ie built up area a fine of 50 pounds, 20 mph over the limit should be a fine of 150 pounds. For 30 mph a fine of 250 plus has to go on a DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE and the fines have to be paid within 4 weeks, or unpaid fines are reported to the DLVA and the fine would be added to the road tax when it is renewed, or if the driver sales the car the fine goes onto the new tax disc of his new car. If a driver does more than 70 mph on the motorway he get a warning for the first time, if he get caught again he get a fine If a driver does more than 80 mph on the motorway he gets a fine of 250 pounds plus has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENSS COURSE within 3 months of the fine. If a driver does more than 90 mph he is banned from driving fore 6 months plus a fine of 500 pounds and has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE before getting his licence back. For all drivers who do more than 100 mph he has his licence taken away for 5 years plus a fine of 1000 pounds plus has the car taken away and sold and has to take a new driving test after ban has finished, but if the driver is caught driving whilst being banned he will be banned for life.[/p][/quote]We got your drift... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

3:17pm Tue 10 Jun 14

nothingtofear says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
panting wrote:
If they want to fine speeding drivers why no put the fines up in stages.
ie 10 mph over the limit in the area they are travelling in ie built up area a fine of 50 pounds, 20 mph over the limit should be a fine of 150 pounds. For 30 mph a fine of 250 plus has to go on a DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE and the fines have to be paid within 4 weeks, or unpaid fines are reported to the DLVA and the fine would be added to the road tax when it is renewed, or if the driver sales the car the fine goes onto the new tax disc of his new car.
If a driver does more than 70 mph on the motorway he get a warning for the first time, if he get caught again he get a fine
If a driver does more than 80 mph on the motorway he gets a fine of 250 pounds plus has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENSS COURSE within 3 months of the fine.
If a driver does more than 90 mph he is banned from driving fore 6 months plus a fine of 500 pounds and has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE before getting his licence back.
For all drivers who do more than 100 mph he has his licence taken away for 5 years plus a fine of 1000 pounds plus has the car taken away and sold and has to take a new driving test after ban has finished, but if the driver is caught driving whilst being banned he will be banned for life.
We got your drift...
If not your grammar.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]panting[/bold] wrote: If they want to fine speeding drivers why no put the fines up in stages. ie 10 mph over the limit in the area they are travelling in ie built up area a fine of 50 pounds, 20 mph over the limit should be a fine of 150 pounds. For 30 mph a fine of 250 plus has to go on a DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE and the fines have to be paid within 4 weeks, or unpaid fines are reported to the DLVA and the fine would be added to the road tax when it is renewed, or if the driver sales the car the fine goes onto the new tax disc of his new car. If a driver does more than 70 mph on the motorway he get a warning for the first time, if he get caught again he get a fine If a driver does more than 80 mph on the motorway he gets a fine of 250 pounds plus has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENSS COURSE within 3 months of the fine. If a driver does more than 90 mph he is banned from driving fore 6 months plus a fine of 500 pounds and has to do a POLICE DRIVING AWARENESS COURSE before getting his licence back. For all drivers who do more than 100 mph he has his licence taken away for 5 years plus a fine of 1000 pounds plus has the car taken away and sold and has to take a new driving test after ban has finished, but if the driver is caught driving whilst being banned he will be banned for life.[/p][/quote]We got your drift...[/p][/quote]If not your grammar. nothingtofear
  • Score: 1

3:25pm Tue 10 Jun 14

The Liberal says...

BoscVegas wrote:
uncollectable and therefore pointless. They may as well make the fine £1miillion people simply can't/won't pay.
According to the BBC's legal correspondent, the financial circumstances of the offender will be taken into account when setting the level of a fine.
[quote][p][bold]BoscVegas[/bold] wrote: uncollectable and therefore pointless. They may as well make the fine £1miillion people simply can't/won't pay.[/p][/quote]According to the BBC's legal correspondent, the financial circumstances of the offender will be taken into account when setting the level of a fine. The Liberal
  • Score: 1

3:28pm Tue 10 Jun 14

The Liberal says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?
" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity.
So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ??
I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...
This is the Dorset: the normal laws of physics don't apply here, apparently.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?[/p][/quote]" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity. So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ?? I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...[/p][/quote]This is the Dorset: the normal laws of physics don't apply here, apparently. The Liberal
  • Score: 2

3:45pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Aianas says...

It's simple. Do it as they do it in Finland. A fine should be a percentage of your income.

Nice and fair. Problem solved.
It's simple. Do it as they do it in Finland. A fine should be a percentage of your income. Nice and fair. Problem solved. Aianas
  • Score: 2

4:04pm Tue 10 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

The Liberal wrote:
BoscVegas wrote:
uncollectable and therefore pointless. They may as well make the fine £1miillion people simply can't/won't pay.
According to the BBC's legal correspondent, the financial circumstances of the offender will be taken into account when setting the level of a fine.
No **** Sherlock....
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BoscVegas[/bold] wrote: uncollectable and therefore pointless. They may as well make the fine £1miillion people simply can't/won't pay.[/p][/quote]According to the BBC's legal correspondent, the financial circumstances of the offender will be taken into account when setting the level of a fine.[/p][/quote]No **** Sherlock.... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Hessenford says...

We are just emerging from a major recession, no body has any spare cash because of this Tory government and they choose to increase fines to £10,000 for a relatively minor offence of exceeding the speed limit on a motorway plus all the other fines are increasing four fold.
Celebrities, footballers well known movie stars would laugh their heads off at these fines but the ordinary man/woman in the street could lose their homes and belongings if they couldn't pay, what sort of dimwit thinks up these things.
If fines are to be done fairly it should be based on a persons income so the poorest pay substantially less than the super rich.
We are just emerging from a major recession, no body has any spare cash because of this Tory government and they choose to increase fines to £10,000 for a relatively minor offence of exceeding the speed limit on a motorway plus all the other fines are increasing four fold. Celebrities, footballers well known movie stars would laugh their heads off at these fines but the ordinary man/woman in the street could lose their homes and belongings if they couldn't pay, what sort of dimwit thinks up these things. If fines are to be done fairly it should be based on a persons income so the poorest pay substantially less than the super rich. Hessenford
  • Score: 2

6:34pm Tue 10 Jun 14

sooooz says...

Simple solution. Don't break the law if you don't want or can't afford to pay any fine you may incur in doing so. There are consequences to our actions and that's something that is all too often forgotten
Simple solution. Don't break the law if you don't want or can't afford to pay any fine you may incur in doing so. There are consequences to our actions and that's something that is all too often forgotten sooooz
  • Score: -3

6:57pm Tue 10 Jun 14

victor meldrew 17 says...

What is it with this obsession with speed,the number of people killed or injured on our roads is astonishing low, all things considered.This will be no comfort to friends and relatives of those who are,but is none the less true.We have all seen stupid behaviour by drivers,cyclists,and pedestrians on a daily basis,it could be a lot worse.Roughly 5 times as many people die needlessly in hospital from various mistakes,so those who are passionate about saving lives,might do better starting there.
I find it ironic, that in spite of all the fuss about speeding,when a vehicle goes for an MOT test,no attempt is made to check if the speedo is even working,let alone if it is accurate,its not considered important.
If you are running down the street,and you keep bumping into people,you know you're going too fast,no speedo required,just a bit of common sense.
What is it with this obsession with speed,the number of people killed or injured on our roads is astonishing low, all things considered.This will be no comfort to friends and relatives of those who are,but is none the less true.We have all seen stupid behaviour by drivers,cyclists,and pedestrians on a daily basis,it could be a lot worse.Roughly 5 times as many people die needlessly in hospital from various mistakes,so those who are passionate about saving lives,might do better starting there. I find it ironic, that in spite of all the fuss about speeding,when a vehicle goes for an MOT test,no attempt is made to check if the speedo is even working,let alone if it is accurate,its not considered important. If you are running down the street,and you keep bumping into people,you know you're going too fast,no speedo required,just a bit of common sense. victor meldrew 17
  • Score: 4

7:01pm Tue 10 Jun 14

MotorbikeSam says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?
" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity.
So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ??
I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...
It's not really the point is it? 20 or 50 I mean.

If I bumble along a motorway at 20 I am much more of a danger and in much more danger than if I am doing 50.

Kind of makes your point moot.

For me, the most important fact to consider what is the major cause of any collision / accident in the first place.

If 'speed' was the main factor then make it a priority, if not then prioritise in order whatever the key factors are.

That it is what happens with everything else in life I would suggest.

If your addiction to chocolate is making your fat and have a much higher risk of diabetes then you don't given up fruit and veg because they too have sugar and carbs
bumbeling along a motorway at 20 mph would be inconsiderate to other drivers who wish to drive at 70mph. but if up you "BUMBLE " around in an urban area with kids about shoppers, cycles and pedestrians the 20 mph would be appropriate . But limits are there for a reason to control those who wish to kill or maim us and our children. Avoid a fine keep your licence and save us all .. stick to the limit that our society has decided appropriate.
We know there are people who would like to drive as fast as they like so it time to stand up and report any we see speeding and make speeding as anti social as Drink Driving...
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?[/p][/quote]" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity. So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ?? I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...[/p][/quote]It's not really the point is it? 20 or 50 I mean. If I bumble along a motorway at 20 I am much more of a danger and in much more danger than if I am doing 50. Kind of makes your point moot. For me, the most important fact to consider what is the major cause of any collision / accident in the first place. If 'speed' was the main factor then make it a priority, if not then prioritise in order whatever the key factors are. That it is what happens with everything else in life I would suggest. If your addiction to chocolate is making your fat and have a much higher risk of diabetes then you don't given up fruit and veg because they too have sugar and carbs[/p][/quote]bumbeling along a motorway at 20 mph would be inconsiderate to other drivers who wish to drive at 70mph. but if up you "BUMBLE " around in an urban area with kids about shoppers, cycles and pedestrians the 20 mph would be appropriate . But limits are there for a reason to control those who wish to kill or maim us and our children. Avoid a fine keep your licence and save us all .. stick to the limit that our society has decided appropriate. We know there are people who would like to drive as fast as they like so it time to stand up and report any we see speeding and make speeding as anti social as Drink Driving... MotorbikeSam
  • Score: -3

7:05pm Tue 10 Jun 14

keith milton says...

but does not apply to politicians,establis
hment figures and elites because they are above the law.
why not whack em while they're down.
another way to beat down peoples finances whilst these filth running the country,get away literally with murder,paedophilia,f
ixing expenses and all matter of criminal activity.
but does not apply to politicians,establis hment figures and elites because they are above the law. why not whack em while they're down. another way to beat down peoples finances whilst these filth running the country,get away literally with murder,paedophilia,f ixing expenses and all matter of criminal activity. keith milton
  • Score: -1

7:10pm Tue 10 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?
" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity.
So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ??
I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...
It's not really the point is it? 20 or 50 I mean.

If I bumble along a motorway at 20 I am much more of a danger and in much more danger than if I am doing 50.

Kind of makes your point moot.

For me, the most important fact to consider what is the major cause of any collision / accident in the first place.

If 'speed' was the main factor then make it a priority, if not then prioritise in order whatever the key factors are.

That it is what happens with everything else in life I would suggest.

If your addiction to chocolate is making your fat and have a much higher risk of diabetes then you don't given up fruit and veg because they too have sugar and carbs
bumbeling along a motorway at 20 mph would be inconsiderate to other drivers who wish to drive at 70mph. but if up you "BUMBLE " around in an urban area with kids about shoppers, cycles and pedestrians the 20 mph would be appropriate . But limits are there for a reason to control those who wish to kill or maim us and our children. Avoid a fine keep your licence and save us all .. stick to the limit that our society has decided appropriate.
We know there are people who would like to drive as fast as they like so it time to stand up and report any we see speeding and make speeding as anti social as Drink Driving...
The point being it's not inconsiderate, its dangerous and an example of why you should not be obsessed with a number but the situation,
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?[/p][/quote]" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity. So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ?? I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...[/p][/quote]It's not really the point is it? 20 or 50 I mean. If I bumble along a motorway at 20 I am much more of a danger and in much more danger than if I am doing 50. Kind of makes your point moot. For me, the most important fact to consider what is the major cause of any collision / accident in the first place. If 'speed' was the main factor then make it a priority, if not then prioritise in order whatever the key factors are. That it is what happens with everything else in life I would suggest. If your addiction to chocolate is making your fat and have a much higher risk of diabetes then you don't given up fruit and veg because they too have sugar and carbs[/p][/quote]bumbeling along a motorway at 20 mph would be inconsiderate to other drivers who wish to drive at 70mph. but if up you "BUMBLE " around in an urban area with kids about shoppers, cycles and pedestrians the 20 mph would be appropriate . But limits are there for a reason to control those who wish to kill or maim us and our children. Avoid a fine keep your licence and save us all .. stick to the limit that our society has decided appropriate. We know there are people who would like to drive as fast as they like so it time to stand up and report any we see speeding and make speeding as anti social as Drink Driving...[/p][/quote]The point being it's not inconsiderate, its dangerous and an example of why you should not be obsessed with a number but the situation, scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

7:18pm Tue 10 Jun 14

nermal says...

I think fines for speeding should relate to the amount by which the limit is being exceeded. £100 for every mph over the limit, perhaps? That would penalise the real idiots who do for example 80 along the Holes Bay Road's 50 limit significantly more than the majority of those caught and sent on 'awareness' courses at the moment, those who generally tend to be quite law-abiding but have strayed just a few mph over.
I think fines for speeding should relate to the amount by which the limit is being exceeded. £100 for every mph over the limit, perhaps? That would penalise the real idiots who do for example 80 along the Holes Bay Road's 50 limit significantly more than the majority of those caught and sent on 'awareness' courses at the moment, those who generally tend to be quite law-abiding but have strayed just a few mph over. nermal
  • Score: 2

11:20pm Tue 10 Jun 14

yet_another_one says...

Should we fine motorists for not being in full control of their vehicle & driving too slowly also ?
My opinion, for what it's worth, is this type of driver & those who drive BMW's like lunatics should be targeted more instead of the normal motorists who get caught doing a few extra mph's
Should we fine motorists for not being in full control of their vehicle & driving too slowly also ? My opinion, for what it's worth, is this type of driver & those who drive BMW's like lunatics should be targeted more instead of the normal motorists who get caught doing a few extra mph's yet_another_one
  • Score: 1

11:46pm Tue 10 Jun 14

andrewjohn3110@gmail.com says...

That is extortionate,there is no need for fines to be that high,there will inevitably quite a number of people that could not afford to pay it if they were fined that much,how are they going to be catered for?
That is extortionate,there is no need for fines to be that high,there will inevitably quite a number of people that could not afford to pay it if they were fined that much,how are they going to be catered for? andrewjohn3110@gmail.com
  • Score: -3

6:41am Wed 11 Jun 14

tbpoole says...

victor meldrew 17 wrote:
What is it with this obsession with speed,the number of people killed or injured on our roads is astonishing low, all things considered.This will be no comfort to friends and relatives of those who are,but is none the less true.We have all seen stupid behaviour by drivers,cyclists,and pedestrians on a daily basis,it could be a lot worse.Roughly 5 times as many people die needlessly in hospital from various mistakes,so those who are passionate about saving lives,might do better starting there.
I find it ironic, that in spite of all the fuss about speeding,when a vehicle goes for an MOT test,no attempt is made to check if the speedo is even working,let alone if it is accurate,its not considered important.
If you are running down the street,and you keep bumping into people,you know you're going too fast,no speedo required,just a bit of common sense.
And yet if 2,000 people were killed in aircraft crashes over our country I bet you would be one of the first to call for an investigation/ grounding/inquiry...
..should we let you explain to the parents of a killed young driver that it doesn't matter about his/her death because the number of road fatals are relatively low. Idiot.
[quote][p][bold]victor meldrew 17[/bold] wrote: What is it with this obsession with speed,the number of people killed or injured on our roads is astonishing low, all things considered.This will be no comfort to friends and relatives of those who are,but is none the less true.We have all seen stupid behaviour by drivers,cyclists,and pedestrians on a daily basis,it could be a lot worse.Roughly 5 times as many people die needlessly in hospital from various mistakes,so those who are passionate about saving lives,might do better starting there. I find it ironic, that in spite of all the fuss about speeding,when a vehicle goes for an MOT test,no attempt is made to check if the speedo is even working,let alone if it is accurate,its not considered important. If you are running down the street,and you keep bumping into people,you know you're going too fast,no speedo required,just a bit of common sense.[/p][/quote]And yet if 2,000 people were killed in aircraft crashes over our country I bet you would be one of the first to call for an investigation/ grounding/inquiry... ..should we let you explain to the parents of a killed young driver that it doesn't matter about his/her death because the number of road fatals are relatively low. Idiot. tbpoole
  • Score: -2

7:13am Wed 11 Jun 14

Baysider says...

I se people chose to overlook the fact these are maximum fines applicable to all offences on the same scale preferring to go off on their hysterical, poor old motorists, it's a stealth tax, blah, blah, blah bandwagon. Honestly, exactly the point of the Echos slant...
I se people chose to overlook the fact these are maximum fines applicable to all offences on the same scale preferring to go off on their hysterical, poor old motorists, it's a stealth tax, blah, blah, blah bandwagon. Honestly, exactly the point of the Echos slant... Baysider
  • Score: 3

7:50am Wed 11 Jun 14

tbpoole says...

andrewjohn3110@gmail
.com
wrote:
That is extortionate,there is no need for fines to be that high,there will inevitably quite a number of people that could not afford to pay it if they were fined that much,how are they going to be catered for?
Well perhaps they shouldn't speed then?
[quote][p][bold]andrewjohn3110@gmail .com[/bold] wrote: That is extortionate,there is no need for fines to be that high,there will inevitably quite a number of people that could not afford to pay it if they were fined that much,how are they going to be catered for?[/p][/quote]Well perhaps they shouldn't speed then? tbpoole
  • Score: 1

7:52am Wed 11 Jun 14

tbpoole says...

goatty wrote:
Total utter garbage from a dying Government who have run out of ideas. How about giving Magistrates more powers to imprison little yobs with stiffer sentences????
Oh no this Government would rather attack workers and commuters on their way to work as knowing they have a car and more than likely going to work will be easy targets to get fines out of, instead of layabout yobs who have no job and therefore no money to collect.
Before all you liberals start screaming about people shouldn't speed and therefore deserve to be fined, lets remind ourselves of exactly how many accidents there are each year due to speed compared to thefts, muggings, rapes, violent behaviour, drunk and disorderly behaviour and murders. Surely this is where the harsh sentences need to be handed out?
A lot more people are killed on the roads than through violence
[quote][p][bold]goatty[/bold] wrote: Total utter garbage from a dying Government who have run out of ideas. How about giving Magistrates more powers to imprison little yobs with stiffer sentences???? Oh no this Government would rather attack workers and commuters on their way to work as knowing they have a car and more than likely going to work will be easy targets to get fines out of, instead of layabout yobs who have no job and therefore no money to collect. Before all you liberals start screaming about people shouldn't speed and therefore deserve to be fined, lets remind ourselves of exactly how many accidents there are each year due to speed compared to thefts, muggings, rapes, violent behaviour, drunk and disorderly behaviour and murders. Surely this is where the harsh sentences need to be handed out?[/p][/quote]A lot more people are killed on the roads than through violence tbpoole
  • Score: 1

7:54am Wed 11 Jun 14

kjpayne says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?
" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity.
So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ??
I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...
It's not really the point is it? 20 or 50 I mean.

If I bumble along a motorway at 20 I am much more of a danger and in much more danger than if I am doing 50.

Kind of makes your point moot.

For me, the most important fact to consider what is the major cause of any collision / accident in the first place.

If 'speed' was the main factor then make it a priority, if not then prioritise in order whatever the key factors are.

That it is what happens with everything else in life I would suggest.

If your addiction to chocolate is making your fat and have a much higher risk of diabetes then you don't given up fruit and veg because they too have sugar and carbs
bumbeling along a motorway at 20 mph would be inconsiderate to other drivers who wish to drive at 70mph. but if up you "BUMBLE " around in an urban area with kids about shoppers, cycles and pedestrians the 20 mph would be appropriate . But limits are there for a reason to control those who wish to kill or maim us and our children. Avoid a fine keep your licence and save us all .. stick to the limit that our society has decided appropriate.
We know there are people who would like to drive as fast as they like so it time to stand up and report any we see speeding and make speeding as anti social as Drink Driving...
Which society deemed the motorway speed limit acceptable then? Speed limits are always coming down not going up - soon there will be an enforced 30mph limit everywhere if we are not careful.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?[/p][/quote]" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity. So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ?? I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...[/p][/quote]It's not really the point is it? 20 or 50 I mean. If I bumble along a motorway at 20 I am much more of a danger and in much more danger than if I am doing 50. Kind of makes your point moot. For me, the most important fact to consider what is the major cause of any collision / accident in the first place. If 'speed' was the main factor then make it a priority, if not then prioritise in order whatever the key factors are. That it is what happens with everything else in life I would suggest. If your addiction to chocolate is making your fat and have a much higher risk of diabetes then you don't given up fruit and veg because they too have sugar and carbs[/p][/quote]bumbeling along a motorway at 20 mph would be inconsiderate to other drivers who wish to drive at 70mph. but if up you "BUMBLE " around in an urban area with kids about shoppers, cycles and pedestrians the 20 mph would be appropriate . But limits are there for a reason to control those who wish to kill or maim us and our children. Avoid a fine keep your licence and save us all .. stick to the limit that our society has decided appropriate. We know there are people who would like to drive as fast as they like so it time to stand up and report any we see speeding and make speeding as anti social as Drink Driving...[/p][/quote]Which society deemed the motorway speed limit acceptable then? Speed limits are always coming down not going up - soon there will be an enforced 30mph limit everywhere if we are not careful. kjpayne
  • Score: 0

9:10am Wed 11 Jun 14

madras says...

So long as all other fines ('tariffs') are being increased in line with the above then it's fine - but suspect they are not!

But what I would really like to see is better policing of the existing laws and not just the 'easy' ones like speeding - generally standard of driving is poor
So long as all other fines ('tariffs') are being increased in line with the above then it's fine - but suspect they are not! But what I would really like to see is better policing of the existing laws and not just the 'easy' ones like speeding - generally standard of driving is poor madras
  • Score: 0

9:34am Wed 11 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
The old fine level didn't affect me and neither will the new one. I had a parking ticket in 1983 and swore the govt wouldn't get a penny out of me ever again. Apart from council tax and road tax and VAT they haven't.
You don't have any form of insurance then, or are you exempt from insurance tax?
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: The old fine level didn't affect me and neither will the new one. I had a parking ticket in 1983 and swore the govt wouldn't get a penny out of me ever again. Apart from council tax and road tax and VAT they haven't.[/p][/quote]You don't have any form of insurance then, or are you exempt from insurance tax? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

9:40am Wed 11 Jun 14

Pawnstrar says...

BIGTONE wrote:
We've got no motorways in Dorset anyway.
I remember meeting a Bournemouth girl who had been driving for 3 years and never been on a motorway.
How many drivers in Echoland have not driven on a motorway?
How many "drivers" in Echoland can actually drive with any sense?
[quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: We've got no motorways in Dorset anyway. I remember meeting a Bournemouth girl who had been driving for 3 years and never been on a motorway. How many drivers in Echoland have not driven on a motorway?[/p][/quote]How many "drivers" in Echoland can actually drive with any sense? Pawnstrar
  • Score: 0

9:41am Wed 11 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
Yet another attack on the soft target motorist.
Sadly a lot of motorists are soft, unfortunately in the head. End result, all motorists are tarred with the same brush.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Yet another attack on the soft target motorist.[/p][/quote]Sadly a lot of motorists are soft, unfortunately in the head. End result, all motorists are tarred with the same brush. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

9:48am Wed 11 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Aianas wrote:
It's simple. Do it as they do it in Finland. A fine should be a percentage of your income.

Nice and fair. Problem solved.
That smacks to me as a huge amount of common sense. Not a dog's chance in hell of it ever happening in the UK then.
[quote][p][bold]Aianas[/bold] wrote: It's simple. Do it as they do it in Finland. A fine should be a percentage of your income. Nice and fair. Problem solved.[/p][/quote]That smacks to me as a huge amount of common sense. Not a dog's chance in hell of it ever happening in the UK then. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

9:57am Wed 11 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

kjpayne wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?
" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity.
So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ??
I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...
It's not really the point is it? 20 or 50 I mean.

If I bumble along a motorway at 20 I am much more of a danger and in much more danger than if I am doing 50.

Kind of makes your point moot.

For me, the most important fact to consider what is the major cause of any collision / accident in the first place.

If 'speed' was the main factor then make it a priority, if not then prioritise in order whatever the key factors are.

That it is what happens with everything else in life I would suggest.

If your addiction to chocolate is making your fat and have a much higher risk of diabetes then you don't given up fruit and veg because they too have sugar and carbs
bumbeling along a motorway at 20 mph would be inconsiderate to other drivers who wish to drive at 70mph. but if up you "BUMBLE " around in an urban area with kids about shoppers, cycles and pedestrians the 20 mph would be appropriate . But limits are there for a reason to control those who wish to kill or maim us and our children. Avoid a fine keep your licence and save us all .. stick to the limit that our society has decided appropriate.
We know there are people who would like to drive as fast as they like so it time to stand up and report any we see speeding and make speeding as anti social as Drink Driving...
Which society deemed the motorway speed limit acceptable then? Speed limits are always coming down not going up - soon there will be an enforced 30mph limit everywhere if we are not careful.
An excellent idea as it would actually make a lot of journeys quicker. Proven in South Africa after the Yom Kippur war resulted in oil prices going sky high. If you're interested look up queuing theory. Before you ask I'm not an expert in the subject, but spent a couple of years working with a guy who had a doctorate in the subject.
[quote][p][bold]kjpayne[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: It's funny how they always roll out the old "speed is one of the biggest killers on our roads" when they want an excuse to raise some revenue but when the public want money spent on a dangerous road because people drive too fast or the layout is poor, its determined that speed is not a factor in the accident stats?[/p][/quote]" its determined that speed is not a factor in the accidents" what utter tosh from fools who want to carry on speeding with immunity. So how many get killed at 20 mph ?? how many get killed doing more than 50mph ?? I think anyone who exceeds the speed limit anywhere more than once should receive a 12 month ban. and next ttme 2 years and so on... then maybe to worst dangerous drivers will be on the bus...[/p][/quote]It's not really the point is it? 20 or 50 I mean. If I bumble along a motorway at 20 I am much more of a danger and in much more danger than if I am doing 50. Kind of makes your point moot. For me, the most important fact to consider what is the major cause of any collision / accident in the first place. If 'speed' was the main factor then make it a priority, if not then prioritise in order whatever the key factors are. That it is what happens with everything else in life I would suggest. If your addiction to chocolate is making your fat and have a much higher risk of diabetes then you don't given up fruit and veg because they too have sugar and carbs[/p][/quote]bumbeling along a motorway at 20 mph would be inconsiderate to other drivers who wish to drive at 70mph. but if up you "BUMBLE " around in an urban area with kids about shoppers, cycles and pedestrians the 20 mph would be appropriate . But limits are there for a reason to control those who wish to kill or maim us and our children. Avoid a fine keep your licence and save us all .. stick to the limit that our society has decided appropriate. We know there are people who would like to drive as fast as they like so it time to stand up and report any we see speeding and make speeding as anti social as Drink Driving...[/p][/quote]Which society deemed the motorway speed limit acceptable then? Speed limits are always coming down not going up - soon there will be an enforced 30mph limit everywhere if we are not careful.[/p][/quote]An excellent idea as it would actually make a lot of journeys quicker. Proven in South Africa after the Yom Kippur war resulted in oil prices going sky high. If you're interested look up queuing theory. Before you ask I'm not an expert in the subject, but spent a couple of years working with a guy who had a doctorate in the subject. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

10:11am Wed 11 Jun 14

retry69 says...

Pawnstrar wrote:
BIGTONE wrote:
We've got no motorways in Dorset anyway.
I remember meeting a Bournemouth girl who had been driving for 3 years and never been on a motorway.
How many drivers in Echoland have not driven on a motorway?
How many "drivers" in Echoland can actually drive with any sense?
Probably as many as the thumbs up your comment will get :)
[quote][p][bold]Pawnstrar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: We've got no motorways in Dorset anyway. I remember meeting a Bournemouth girl who had been driving for 3 years and never been on a motorway. How many drivers in Echoland have not driven on a motorway?[/p][/quote]How many "drivers" in Echoland can actually drive with any sense?[/p][/quote]Probably as many as the thumbs up your comment will get :) retry69
  • Score: 0

11:38am Wed 11 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

tbpoole wrote:
victor meldrew 17 wrote:
What is it with this obsession with speed,the number of people killed or injured on our roads is astonishing low, all things considered.This will be no comfort to friends and relatives of those who are,but is none the less true.We have all seen stupid behaviour by drivers,cyclists,and pedestrians on a daily basis,it could be a lot worse.Roughly 5 times as many people die needlessly in hospital from various mistakes,so those who are passionate about saving lives,might do better starting there.
I find it ironic, that in spite of all the fuss about speeding,when a vehicle goes for an MOT test,no attempt is made to check if the speedo is even working,let alone if it is accurate,its not considered important.
If you are running down the street,and you keep bumping into people,you know you're going too fast,no speedo required,just a bit of common sense.
And yet if 2,000 people were killed in aircraft crashes over our country I bet you would be one of the first to call for an investigation/ grounding/inquiry...

..should we let you explain to the parents of a killed young driver that it doesn't matter about his/her death because the number of road fatals are relatively low. Idiot.
in 2010 203 people in the UK died of choking on food.

The number of occupants who died in a transport accident (more than one moving vehicle) in the same year? What do you think? 1000, 2000, 5000?

104.

So, nearly half of those who died choking on food (that does not include those who died of inhaling their stomach contents - which was another 113.

When you say "2000 people in an aircraft" for those killed in cars hitting other vehicles you would have to wait 10 years of the whole of the UK deaths to get to this figure of one crash you gave in your example.

But hey what is a little reality and a few facts when you have as many people as you focussed on one thing and making it the be all and end all of your reasoning?

You are not alone.

(SOURCE: ONS)
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]victor meldrew 17[/bold] wrote: What is it with this obsession with speed,the number of people killed or injured on our roads is astonishing low, all things considered.This will be no comfort to friends and relatives of those who are,but is none the less true.We have all seen stupid behaviour by drivers,cyclists,and pedestrians on a daily basis,it could be a lot worse.Roughly 5 times as many people die needlessly in hospital from various mistakes,so those who are passionate about saving lives,might do better starting there. I find it ironic, that in spite of all the fuss about speeding,when a vehicle goes for an MOT test,no attempt is made to check if the speedo is even working,let alone if it is accurate,its not considered important. If you are running down the street,and you keep bumping into people,you know you're going too fast,no speedo required,just a bit of common sense.[/p][/quote]And yet if 2,000 people were killed in aircraft crashes over our country I bet you would be one of the first to call for an investigation/ grounding/inquiry... ..should we let you explain to the parents of a killed young driver that it doesn't matter about his/her death because the number of road fatals are relatively low. Idiot.[/p][/quote]in 2010 203 people in the UK died of choking on food. The number of occupants who died in a transport accident (more than one moving vehicle) in the same year? What do you think? 1000, 2000, 5000? 104. So, nearly half of those who died choking on food (that does not include those who died of inhaling their stomach contents - which was another 113. When you say "2000 people in an aircraft" for those killed in cars hitting other vehicles you would have to wait 10 years of the whole of the UK deaths to get to this figure of one crash you gave in your example. But hey what is a little reality and a few facts when you have as many people as you focussed on one thing and making it the be all and end all of your reasoning? You are not alone. (SOURCE: ONS) scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

11:42am Wed 11 Jun 14

scrumpyjack says...

Baysider wrote:
I se people chose to overlook the fact these are maximum fines applicable to all offences on the same scale preferring to go off on their hysterical, poor old motorists, it's a stealth tax, blah, blah, blah bandwagon. Honestly, exactly the point of the Echos slant...
It's amazing how many people are really dumb and really annoying.

And even more amazing is how many carry saying and thinking exactly the same way even when someone takes time to explain it to them.

I wonder if we are the most clichéd country in Europe?
[quote][p][bold]Baysider[/bold] wrote: I se people chose to overlook the fact these are maximum fines applicable to all offences on the same scale preferring to go off on their hysterical, poor old motorists, it's a stealth tax, blah, blah, blah bandwagon. Honestly, exactly the point of the Echos slant...[/p][/quote]It's amazing how many people are really dumb and really annoying. And even more amazing is how many carry saying and thinking exactly the same way even when someone takes time to explain it to them. I wonder if we are the most clichéd country in Europe? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Wed 11 Jun 14

stevobath says...

boyerboy wrote:
Just a money making and head line grabbing iniative...the "hardened" and persistent offenders are normally the ones unemployed/on benefits/ low wages..etc etc...as the fines system is not means tested, all they have to do is to declare a low income and thus the fine will remain(as now ) VERY LOW ...... it is about time the Government amended the ridiculous " Victim Surcharge", for offences where there is no victim it is another example of the system raking in unfair payments.
You're wrong.

A 'Statement Of Means' form has to be filled out.

Also your' comment about persistent offenders being on benefits etc.....what
a pathetic statement.
Don't pay your fine? Never heard of Attachment Of Earnings?
[quote][p][bold]boyerboy[/bold] wrote: Just a money making and head line grabbing iniative...the "hardened" and persistent offenders are normally the ones unemployed/on benefits/ low wages..etc etc...as the fines system is not means tested, all they have to do is to declare a low income and thus the fine will remain(as now ) VERY LOW ...... it is about time the Government amended the ridiculous " Victim Surcharge", for offences where there is no victim it is another example of the system raking in unfair payments.[/p][/quote]You're wrong. A 'Statement Of Means' form has to be filled out. Also your' comment about persistent offenders being on benefits etc.....what a pathetic statement. Don't pay your fine? Never heard of Attachment Of Earnings? stevobath
  • Score: 0

10:40am Thu 12 Jun 14

Dorset Logic says...

What happened to this statement of Dave's when he came to number 10, about smaller government with less interference in our day to day life's?

We get more and more don't do this, don't do that laws. More worryingly there are more and more voices for, "lock them up and throw away the key" for the smallest misdemeanour's.

It's not about Europe and its interference, it's so many people willing to give their own common sense and civility away to people in power. I think some of you want laws and fines in place for everything we do as part of normal existence. For me, the amount of power that government and local authorities now have, is going too far.
What happened to this statement of Dave's when he came to number 10, about smaller government with less interference in our day to day life's? We get more and more don't do this, don't do that laws. More worryingly there are more and more voices for, "lock them up and throw away the key" for the smallest misdemeanour's. It's not about Europe and its interference, it's so many people willing to give their own common sense and civility away to people in power. I think some of you want laws and fines in place for everything we do as part of normal existence. For me, the amount of power that government and local authorities now have, is going too far. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 0

11:29am Thu 12 Jun 14

suzigirl says...

Hessenford wrote:
We are just emerging from a major recession, no body has any spare cash because of this Tory government and they choose to increase fines to £10,000 for a relatively minor offence of exceeding the speed limit on a motorway plus all the other fines are increasing four fold. Celebrities, footballers well known movie stars would laugh their heads off at these fines but the ordinary man/woman in the street could lose their homes and belongings if they couldn't pay, what sort of dimwit thinks up these things. If fines are to be done fairly it should be based on a persons income so the poorest pay substantially less than the super rich.
But the poorest people's cars will not be able to do the same speeds as celebrities and the like..........
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: We are just emerging from a major recession, no body has any spare cash because of this Tory government and they choose to increase fines to £10,000 for a relatively minor offence of exceeding the speed limit on a motorway plus all the other fines are increasing four fold. Celebrities, footballers well known movie stars would laugh their heads off at these fines but the ordinary man/woman in the street could lose their homes and belongings if they couldn't pay, what sort of dimwit thinks up these things. If fines are to be done fairly it should be based on a persons income so the poorest pay substantially less than the super rich.[/p][/quote]But the poorest people's cars will not be able to do the same speeds as celebrities and the like.......... suzigirl
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Thu 12 Jun 14

FNS-man says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
victor meldrew 17 wrote: What is it with this obsession with speed,the number of people killed or injured on our roads is astonishing low, all things considered.This will be no comfort to friends and relatives of those who are,but is none the less true.We have all seen stupid behaviour by drivers,cyclists,and pedestrians on a daily basis,it could be a lot worse.Roughly 5 times as many people die needlessly in hospital from various mistakes,so those who are passionate about saving lives,might do better starting there. I find it ironic, that in spite of all the fuss about speeding,when a vehicle goes for an MOT test,no attempt is made to check if the speedo is even working,let alone if it is accurate,its not considered important. If you are running down the street,and you keep bumping into people,you know you're going too fast,no speedo required,just a bit of common sense.
And yet if 2,000 people were killed in aircraft crashes over our country I bet you would be one of the first to call for an investigation/ grounding/inquiry... ..should we let you explain to the parents of a killed young driver that it doesn't matter about his/her death because the number of road fatals are relatively low. Idiot.
in 2010 203 people in the UK died of choking on food. The number of occupants who died in a transport accident (more than one moving vehicle) in the same year? What do you think? 1000, 2000, 5000? 104. So, nearly half of those who died choking on food (that does not include those who died of inhaling their stomach contents - which was another 113. When you say "2000 people in an aircraft" for those killed in cars hitting other vehicles you would have to wait 10 years of the whole of the UK deaths to get to this figure of one crash you gave in your example. But hey what is a little reality and a few facts when you have as many people as you focussed on one thing and making it the be all and end all of your reasoning? You are not alone. (SOURCE: ONS)
Given that 111 cyclists died on the roads in 2010, your figure is misleading, if not completely wrong.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]victor meldrew 17[/bold] wrote: What is it with this obsession with speed,the number of people killed or injured on our roads is astonishing low, all things considered.This will be no comfort to friends and relatives of those who are,but is none the less true.We have all seen stupid behaviour by drivers,cyclists,and pedestrians on a daily basis,it could be a lot worse.Roughly 5 times as many people die needlessly in hospital from various mistakes,so those who are passionate about saving lives,might do better starting there. I find it ironic, that in spite of all the fuss about speeding,when a vehicle goes for an MOT test,no attempt is made to check if the speedo is even working,let alone if it is accurate,its not considered important. If you are running down the street,and you keep bumping into people,you know you're going too fast,no speedo required,just a bit of common sense.[/p][/quote]And yet if 2,000 people were killed in aircraft crashes over our country I bet you would be one of the first to call for an investigation/ grounding/inquiry... ..should we let you explain to the parents of a killed young driver that it doesn't matter about his/her death because the number of road fatals are relatively low. Idiot.[/p][/quote]in 2010 203 people in the UK died of choking on food. The number of occupants who died in a transport accident (more than one moving vehicle) in the same year? What do you think? 1000, 2000, 5000? 104. So, nearly half of those who died choking on food (that does not include those who died of inhaling their stomach contents - which was another 113. When you say "2000 people in an aircraft" for those killed in cars hitting other vehicles you would have to wait 10 years of the whole of the UK deaths to get to this figure of one crash you gave in your example. But hey what is a little reality and a few facts when you have as many people as you focussed on one thing and making it the be all and end all of your reasoning? You are not alone. (SOURCE: ONS)[/p][/quote]Given that 111 cyclists died on the roads in 2010, your figure is misleading, if not completely wrong. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Mon 16 Jun 14

ifordanglia says...

Thought this topic needed 'bumping' so..................
.

Hidden in the depths of the article I read on this was the fact that as well as magistrates being able to quadruple speeding fines, d&d fines etc. they also will have the power to quadruple fines for that other dreadful offence.............
...not having a TV licence.
Thought this topic needed 'bumping' so.................. . Hidden in the depths of the article I read on this was the fact that as well as magistrates being able to quadruple speeding fines, d&d fines etc. they also will have the power to quadruple fines for that other dreadful offence............. ...not having a TV licence. ifordanglia
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree