But in reality, how much are people actually fined at the current levels and what percentage of these fines are actually paid?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27774455

I’d suggest that fines made are nowhere near the actually allowable levels (and lets be frank, hundreds/thousands of pounds fines for speeding on a motorway – are they serious?) and neither are a large percentage actually paid.

Anyone got the stats?

I think doubling the length of any driving bans would make far more difference to the amount of speeding that goes on.

£10k seems ridiculous. A £10k fine could ruin quite a few peoples lives. (Obviously not anyone on STW scoff scoff)

I assume the high fines are reserved for people doing silly over the limit… 100mph +…

Surely you can’t be expected to pay £10k for straying over 75mph by accident?

Firstly, the fines need to be applied in proportion to the seriousness of the incident.

So, 150mph, in a crowded wet motorway, and bamo, that’ll be £10K please, but 101 mph at 2 in the morning, on an empty dry motorway, well, that’ll be £10 please!

Secondly, lets start adding proper costs to crimes. If you run from the police, and it takes 5 cars, 15 officers, and a helicopter to catch you, bening only fined £180 is ridiculous in 2014!

Surely you can’t be expected to pay £10k for straying over 75mph by accident?

The important word here is “maximum fines”…

Interesting that this head-line story appears in the press the same day as the debate in parliament on the Trojan Horse. But it has allowed my mate Dave to trot out a sound bit “British values appeal overwhelming to people”

If this government were truly concerned over road safety would not a ratchet-ing up of fines, driving bans and ultimately crushing of cars for habitual law breakers be a better political story

😳 apologies all round that would mean making people responsible for their own actions….

EDIT

The important word here is “maximum fines”…

Maybe if you replaced ‘maximum’ with ‘minimum’

Firstly, the fines need to be applied in proportion to the seriousness of the incident.

And the affordability of the person who committed the crime, 10k could financially destroy many people, but is pocket money to others (the kind who can afford mr loophole to get off anyway).

I think there has been plenty of evidence to show that the level of punishment is negligible compared to the chance of being caught in getting people to obey the law.

It is also a little worrying that they seem to concentrate on “motorways” which are pretty safe, but easier to police and automate. IMO it is urban and residential roads that really need a big safety push. Does make it sound like they are looking more at revenue.

I’d rather see telemetry used as a ‘punishment’.

If you were caught not using PPE or doing something stupid with work machinery, you’d expect your boss/supervisor to be watching you closely untill you’d proved you could o the job again, why not with cars?

6 points = little black box and a direct debit £60 each time you go over the limit.

Remember this isn’t just about traffic offences. It’s giving more fining power to magistrates, for everything that they deal with.

Also, it’s not a £30 to £10,000 increase. The maximum possible fine has been quadrupled.

Who knows anyone who’s been given a £2500 fine for speeding? You only get that if you’re being really fast/daft. Then you contest the fine for a stupid reason which winds the judge up so he gives you a £2500 fine. If you could get a £10k fine for doing 75mph on an empty motorway then you would previously have been getting £2500 fines for it.

Of course the obvious answer is to not break the law, but the driving gods won’t like that 😉

I’d rather see telemetry used as a ‘punishment’.

I like that. Especially if it had some way of emailing the perpetrator at the end of the day with their bill for all the misdemeanours they’d perpetrated.

If traffic offences were properly captured and fined then the national debt would probably be sorted in a couple of years 😀

I’d rather see telemetry used as a ‘punishment’.

Not a bad idea, like an ankle tag but for the car.

Personally, I’d like it so that if you are caught doing anything that would cause you to fail your driving test you have to resit it before you are allowed your licence back. I doubt we’ll ever get compulsary retesting at frequent intervals but this could be a step towards it.

I think increasing the punishment by such a large multiple simply reveals that the punishment isn’t suitable at all. The most problematic thing about policing motorists is motorists don’t feel punished by the penalties – they feel exploited.

If the punishment was effective most people with a motoring conviction would be too embarrassed to say they had one, but in reality having points is strange mix of a boast and sense of injustice because, like, the way the circumstance of them being caught weren’t sportsman-like enough, the fine is just a stealth tax and anyway and I drive, like, 60k a year, and anyway it was the middle of the night.

As things stand, motoring offences are entirely socially and professionally acceptable (if you are applying for a job of instance you’re told not to include any motoring offences in declaration about criminal convictions) and for the most part totally affordable. The maximum fines are eye watering but typical penalties are less than I pay for a tank of fuel.

I’d rather see short bans. If 12 points is a 6 month ban then a point is worth 2 weeks. So I’d rather see period in the sin bin, and still have a ban under totting up. Partly because it gets a bad driver off the road for a few days but also… its embarrassing. And convictions should be embarrassing.

6 points = little black box and a direct debit £60 each time you go over the limit.

Not really thought though:

1. But we fine the driver not the car – so if I got the black box how would it know if I was driving or my wife.
2. If I drove another car I would then not suffer the same risk as driving my own car.
3. If the technology supports it (which of course it could) why not apply to all drivers.
4. The standard fixed penalty for speeding is £100.
5. If the technology can record speed and issue fines why not simply have it prevent speeding (that is perfectly feasible and I believe if you “invented” the car today that is the sort of thing which would be built in).
6. The cost of installing the box (and removing later) would probably be more than the cost of typical fines.

Retests by default for people who get bans (including totting up) might be more effective.

In reality all fines are limited by the ability of the offender to pay – every court in the country is required by to take it into account during sentencing. The reality is higher maximums will not result in higher penalties, after all the sentencing guidelines will not change – they are not set by government.

Personally, I’d like it so that if you are caught doing anything that would cause you to fail your driving test you have to resit it before you are allowed your licence back. I doubt we’ll ever get compulsary retesting at frequent intervals but this could be a step towards it.

Like failing to carry out a three-point turn correctly, or not using your rear-view mirror obviously enough?
At least one of those caused me to fail my first test.
Difficult to see how that could justify a huge fine and a re-test.

The big fines exist to use as a punishment where a ban would jeopardise a livelihood. A very long time ago I got done from driving without due care. The magistrate was all set to give me a 30 day ban and a £25 fine, when I plead that this would mean I’d lose my job, which entailed driving to customer sites. The ban vanished, but the fine jumped to £500.

Similar thing now, just move on twenty years.

Very interesting interview with Mr Loophole on 5Live an hour or so ago.

He pointed out that the current maximum fines are rarely imposed even when the defendant can afford them, that focusing just on speed deflects from all the other causes of accidents like drink, mobiles etc.

He also felt that fines were ineffective compared to bans, and a short one month ban at 6 points would make people take more notice.

He also suggested that putting resources into traffic policing would also be more effective at cutting driving offences than big fines ever would be.

Much as I despise the way he makes a living, when he was asked what would actually reduce traffic offences/accidents/deaths, he was surprisingly blunt, honest and correct.

*goes off to have a word with myself*

Personally, I’d like it so that if you are caught doing anything that would cause you to fail your driving test you have to resit it before you are allowed your licence back. I doubt we’ll ever get compulsary retesting at frequent intervals but this could be a step towards it.

Like failing to carry out a three-point turn correctly, or not using your rear-view mirror obviously enough?
At least one of those caused me to fail my first test.
Difficult to see how that could justify a huge fine and a re-test.

Apropo of nothing really but I recently had to undergo a driver assessment whilst suffering from Peripheral Neuropathy. The test is pretty broad ranging as it covers everything from local nerve damage (as in my case) to brain lesions. So I had to have a physical, undergo tests of perception, memory and recall, tests of vision, peripheral vision, then in a driving simulator tests of reaction speed, hand and foot coordination, strength (who hard and sustained I could brake for instance) and so on. Then that was followed by a driving tests both on and off the road

Weirdly if I’d failed then the DVLA would have taken my license away, but thats a much, much more onerous test then I had to take to get my license in the first place.

I feel like for having passed I shouldn’t just get to keep my license I should get a little gold star on it.

He also suggested that putting resources into traffic policing would also be more effective at cutting driving offences than big fines ever would be.

I’d suggest if the penalties were effective drivers would be better at policing themselves, there would be less need for enforcement not more

If someone’s livelihood depends on keeping their licence, but they commit offences anyway they are clearly not capable of exercising sufficient judgement to hold a licence in the first place, give their job to someone who is.

If someone’s livelihood depends on keeping their licence, but they commit offences anyway they are clearly not capable of exercising sufficient judgement to hold a licence in the first place, give their job to someone who is.

Indeed, I doubt the same consideration is given to someone who breaks the term of a firearms licence, a licence to serve alcohol or a licence to practice medicine.

I’d suggest if the penalties were effective drivers would be better at policing themselves, there would be less need for enforcement not more

Not at all, an increased likelihood of being caught has been shown to be a greater deterrent than harder sentences time and time again, it just doesn’t fit in with revenge based justice so many sound bite politicians seem to clamour for.

Not at all, an increased likelihood of being caught has been shown to be a greater deterrent than harder sentences time and time again

I’m all for that – just not more policing. I’m not a fan of two £50k/year policemen in a £50k car yielding less results than a camera on a pole just so drivers feel the whole thing is more sportsman-like.

Can anyone tell me why we’re increasing the maximum fines for speeding on the safest roads in the country, and not for (say) speeding past schools?

Thought about this, haven’t we.

I’m all for that – just not more policing. I’m not a fan of two £50k/year policemen in a £50k car yielding less results than a camera on a pole just so drivers feel the whole thing is more sportsman-like.

Apart from cameras on poles only deal with 1 factor of poor driving, there are far more dangerous bad driving behaviours. going on all the time that are completely ignored.

If someone’s livelihood depends on keeping their licence, but they commit offences anyway they are clearly not capable of exercising sufficient judgement to hold a licence in the first place, give their job to someone who is.

Everyone seems to think high mileage drivers are some sort of high powered executives steaming up and down motorways in mercs and audis, the reality is most are low level disposable employees, pressured into delivering results that require something to give. There seems to be a somewhat idealistic “goveian” fantasy about working life portrayed by many on here, where you can pick and choose your jobs at ease and move between roles at whim always increasing you salary and conditions on the way. If that has been your career, you have been very very lucky, but it does not represent the reality of the majority of the population.

Cougar – Moderator
Can anyone tell me why we’re increasing the maximum fines for speeding on the safest roads in the country, and not for (say) speeding past schools?

“we” are not. The government are discussing it (not actively doing it at all) – and they are proposing increasing all fine maxima not just motorway speeding – thats just something the media have latched onto! Court sentences always take into account the circumstances of the offence (and the offender) so you can expect someone doing 40 past a school at 3.20pm in the rain to be more seriously viewed than someone doing 95 on a dry quiet motorway.

Thought about this, haven’t we.

bothered to read beyond the headline, haven’t we!

(