My personal view is that speed limits should be removed totally, but penalties for speed related accidents increased to national debt levels.

Are you taking the piss?

Are you taking the piss?

No, putting a theory out there that could be debated. Beyond some people, of course.

OP, this doesn’t make sense at all. 49 in a 40 would be 3 points £100 fine max unless you appealed it or ignored it. Only magistrates can issue fines bigger than a FPN (£100).
You mention court and giving your salary info, that would suggest you were summonsed and pleaded guilty by post. That would mean you were caught doing a lot faster than 49, guideline for prosecution is 66.

Being fined only after you caused an accident is ridiculous, the idea of speeding fines is to deter speeding to reduce accidents and the damage caused. Allowing people to drive at what speed they like is madness.

a theory out there that could be debated

I reckon the penalty for carrying a gun should be reduced from a minimum 5 year custodial sentence to a slap on the wrist if it’s a first offence. I think this should be debated too.

Anyone else have any ‘daft’ laws they want to repeal?

Milo will be along shortly, I expect…

Should’ve killed a cyclist to create a distraction from the speed you were doing and make it an unpunishable crime by British law.

Should’ve killed a cyclist to create a distraction from the speed you were doing and make it an unpunishable crime by British law.

Seems the OP wants that to be the law.

i got caught by a mobile camera last year…coming into a 30 zone from a 50.

That’s how I got caught out, only not on a bend. Braking for a 30mph zone down from a 50, I hadn’t quite slowed enough as I passed the sign. If they’d pinged me a couple of seconds later I’d have been under the limit.

If anyone wants to see what life is like without speed limits, drive on a busy autobahn. It’s horrifying at times.

Seems the OP wants that to be the law.

Do show me where that was said, please? Or make it clear that you´re seeing things.
Not the same comparison in the slightest wwaswas, I´’m not talking about legitimate ownership of vehicles and the law is similar with guns in that shooting another person with or without intent will lilely lead to a custodial sentence. To this end we see very few pwoplw wandering through our streets firing randomly, or even larking around with guns.
There mighty be a similarity after all.

Speed, get fined, learn lesson, don’t speed, simples!

No sympathy. Having seen a chap get killed after being hit by a woman doing 60 in a 30 zone next to my house, Im all for speed enforcement. Cant do the time? don’t do the crime!

£300 seems very very steep. Increasing stealth detection going on, there was a piece on French news last night that they are starting to use more and more mobile cameras in unmarked cars, just driving up the road and clocking people overtaking. @gonzy lots of scams like that, often private contractors with off duty police working an extra job, frequent examples of deliberate / no “speed camera” signs (legal requirement to have them).

If anyone wants to see what life is like without speed limits, drive on a busy autobahn. It’s horrifying at times.

I don´t know what the penalties are like for causing an accident there.
Thinking about it drac, you could be right. Life imprisonment for murdering killing a cyclist when driving over the limits would fit with what many want. Not such a bad idea now, is it?

but an accident at 35mph in a 30mph limit will get you a 5 grand fine and lots of points (for

But it won’t be if there are no speed limits wil it? it’ll be more like 50 or 60 in a 30 zone it would be carnage

😯

jambalaya – Member

£300 seems very very steep.

Not in my eyes. The fine is a deterrent…..if the amount is so small that it doesn’t deter people, then it’s pointless. £300 fine will probably make people think about whether it’s better to leave the house 2 mins earlier or speed to get somewhere on time.

Same with points on your licence….most people I know who have 3 points have the attitude that they have another 2 opportunities to get done before needing to tone it down…..
But, if it was 6 points for speeding and being caught again would mean 12 points and a ban (even if it was only for a week or two) most people wouldn’t keep on speeding…..

Drac – Moderator

Being fined only after you caused an accident is ridiculous

Being fined only if you don’t cause an accident is more ridiculous.

Allowing people to drive at what speed they like is madness.

No it isn’t. People are amazing machines that are very good at making judgements like this.
If speed limits don’t apply to bicycles, why have we all got such good brakes? 💡

frequent examples of deliberate / no “speed camera” signs (legal requirement to have them).

No, it isn’t.

Cougar thats my understanding, there must be a sign warning its a speed camera area.

But it won’t be if there are no speed limits wil it? it’ll be more like 50 or 60 in a 30 zone it would be carnage

Why? There is no speed limit per se, but the existing limits are legally used as guidelines and providing a benchmark. Therefore it would be stupid to 50 in a 30 as the risk of having an accident is higher and the consequences/penalties outrageously higher. It wouldn´t be worth the risk. read the whole think and not just the headline that provokes shock, please?

People are amazing machines that are very good at making judgements like this.

People are amazing machines that are often bloody awful at making judgements like this, which is why we have speed limits.

I don’t doubt that many drivers are more than capable of making sensible judgement calls, but I’ll wager there’s plenty more that aren’t. Going back to what I said earlier, almost half of the drivers on the road are below average ability.

Cougar thats my understanding, there must be a sign warning its a speed camera area.

Your understanding is incorrect.

The reverse is true – if there are signs then there are regulations as to how / where / why they are displayed, but there is no legal requirement to display them in the first place.

So police are now allowed to fine tune their FPNs to take account of income? I wonder what happens if you put zero in the relevant box?

Perjury, innit? I think it’s a great idea, fines should always be proportional to income.

Going back to what I said earlier, almost half of the drivers on the road are below average ability.

Therefore the law has to cater to the lowest common denominator. Although that would mean that everyone would be driving around with a man with a red flag walking in front of them. This is inconvenient so we accept that there will be a risk* and speed up accordingly.

The risk ends up with about 1700 deaths and about 21,000 seriously injured (total causalities nearly 192,000 – 2014 figures: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401295/quarterly-estimates-jul-to-sep-2014.pdf)

Personally I’d like the rules tightened up, getting places faster shouldn’t be worth this kind of harm.

Cougar – Moderator

People are amazing machines that are often bloody awful at making judgements like this…..

+lots.

Coming back towards where I live on the road bike on Sunday, there is a short stretch of double white lines on a twisty section on the lead up to a roundabout. I was doing around 23mph on the road bike, but people were still overtaking me having to venture onto the wrong side of the road & unable to see if there was any oncoming traffic….

This is what the highway code says….

129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

Therefore it would be stupid to 50 in a 30

Uh-huh…so, given that many many drivers fall into that category, perhaps we could have a system of enforceable limits to prevent them from being accidents waiting to happen?

£300 seems pretty steep – though I think fixed fines in general are a pretty crap way to enforce the law.

A fine is meant to be a deterrent – if it doesn’t seem steep (ie you can write it off without thinking) then it’s not going to work.

(Disproportionate punishment of the poor).

Which is the point of income based fines.

increasing stealth detection going on, there was a piece on French news last night that they are starting to use more and more mobile cameras in unmarked cars, just driving up the road and clocking people overtaking.

There’s a speed limit. Limit means maximum. Don’t exceed it and you won’t get caught. All detection should be ‘stealth’ – the idea of only having to obey speed limits in specific areas seems utterly ridiculous to me. There’s no other offence we treat in the same way.

People are amazing machines that are very good at making judgements like this.

Manifestly and verifiably rubbish ^^^

Cougar – Moderator

People are amazing machines that are often bloody awful at making judgements like this, which is why we have speed limits.

I don’t doubt that many drivers are more than capable of making sensible judgement calls, but I’ll wager there’s plenty more that aren’t. Going back to what I said earlier, almost half of the drivers on the road are below average ability.

There aren’t many examples of places without speed limits, but here’s one: https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/

Though I fear we’ve chanted the “speed kills” mantra for too long now and removed too much personal responsibility.

almost half of the drivers on the road are below average ability.

then the driving test is not doing its job.
i’ve always questioned this having seen a number of people who have passed their test…watching them drive legally would leave you asking yourself how the hell did they pass the test??
under the current test procedure you need to demonstrate to a random stranger that you are able to demonstrate that you can do what is required as per the test for just under 1 hour…after that you can go back to being a crap driver.
i’d be more happy to see a driver testing system where the test is conducted as a series of driver assessments.

Some people’s attitude to speeding is really poor.

OP gets caught speeding and whinges cos they apparently weren’t doing any harm and the fine’s a bit steep.

Who cares where it was? You were speeding. If you don’t speed you don’t get fined. Fine a bit steep? Good. Cough up and learn a lesson.

And as for the no speed limit idea – if the entire concept of risk assessment revolved around “don’t do anything till someone gets hurt” there would be a lot of totally preventable accidents, injuries and deaths.

Whatever happened to “Safe Speed” haven’t hear of them for ages?

molgrips – Member

Manifestly and verifiably rubbish

Says the man without verification. 😆

If anyone wants to see what life is like without speed limits, drive on a busy autobahn. It’s horrifying at times.

That’s because you directly equate speed with danger and fear, and think that only you can decide what a safe speed to travel at is.
Probably best to request an aisle seat next time you fly. 😉

Peyote – Member

Whatever happened to “Safe Speed” haven’t hear of them for ages?

Chap who ran it passed away.

OP gets caught speeding and whinges cos they apparently weren’t doing any harm and the fine’s a bit steep.

Is he? I hope you wear your glasses when driving.

Chap who ran it passed away.

Yes, I remember that, but I thought the campaign was carried on.

There aren’t many examples of places without speed limits, but here’s one: https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/

Google would suggest that Montana is 381,154 km² with a population of 1.024 million. The UK is 243,610 km² with a population of over 64 billion. I’d posit that reducing our population density by a factor of a hundred thousand would have a far greater impact on road safety than any changes to speed limits.

ehrob – Member

And as for the no speed limit idea – if the entire concept of risk assessment revolved around “don’t do anything till someone gets hurt” there would be a lot of totally preventable accidents, injuries and deaths.

Nice theory but you haven’t bothered to address the one practical example I’ve given you… 🙂

KSIs on UK roads have been a lovely straight line of decay for decades. Millions of speeding tickets have had absolutely zero positive effect, and may have been detrimental to road safety.

That’s because you directly equate speed with danger and fear, and think that only you can decide what a safe speed to travel at is.

Bit of an assumption isn’t it? Surely if he’s abiding by the legal limits then it’s basing a decision on the road designers, traffic engineers, road police etc. People who speed think they know better than the professionals, hence they speed. Superiority assumption I guess.

but an accident at 35mph in a 30mph limit

So how does the police prove the speed of the car before the accident (a car could crash at 30mph on impact but could have braked hard from 40mph)? Forcibly fit trackers to all vehicles?

Then if all vehicles had trackers why not just fine people automatically when they speed?