MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
1mph over the limit and BANG!! there goes half your wages and 3 points.
So.. anyone had one yet?
Wow, where was that?
Came in 25th April..
They are entirely optional, just don't choose to speed.
elzorillo - Member
1mph over the limit and BANG!! there goes half your wages and 3 points.
For those a couple of miles an hour over the limit, nothing will change - but the big difference is a significant increase in fines for the worst offenders.
🙄
Sensationalist post, is it not if you're a band C offender?
Under the current scheme, fines for Band C offenders start from a sum equal to 100 per cent of their weekly income. However the change will increase this to 150 per cent. They could still also be banned from driving for up to 56 days or get six points on their licence.
So you're saying you've never accidentally been 1mph over the limit? wow
Sensationalist post, is it not if you're a band C offender?
How is it sensationalist? 50% is the bare minimum for band a.. band c is 1.5x your pay packet.
[I]So you're saying you've never accidentally been 1mph over the limit? wow [/I]
I think he's saying that even if you do, you won't get three points and a fine of half your wages
I think he's saying that even if you do, you won't get three points and a fine of half your wages
Why wont you? the rules are pretty clear.. 31-39 in a 30 is 50% of your wage and three points.
Given that routinely driving 'just' a couple of MPH over the is the norm, we clearly need to change how the law is policed/punished.
It's much easier to avoid going over the limit if you treat it like a [i]limit[/i] and not a [i]target[/i].
1/10
scaremongering article from a site targeted at those who might most resent having to do the same speed limit as mere mortals.
What really counts is the tolerance on the measuring kit and how individual forces and speed partnerships pursue this. It is difficult to see that 1 mph too fast would be legally sustainable unless all the kit were calibrated multiple times a day. More likely to be 10% + 1mph as it often is now.
The option to drive within the limits already exists... and most speedometers over-read enough to make actually getting a ticket an excuse-free crime. Chill out, use Cruise.
How is it sensationalist? 50% is the bare minimum for band a.. band c is 1.5x your pay packet.
the rules are pretty clear.. 31-39 in a 30 is 50% of your wage and three points.
Errr.... no, it isn't.
Band A is 50% starting point, not bare minimum. It can be adjusted up or down to 25-75% depending on circumstances.
Band A offence example {using national average earning number}If you were caught travelling at a recorded speed of 36mph in a 30mph zone you would be prosecuted under Band A rulings.
Three points will go on your licence.
The initial fine would be £265.38, 50 per cent of your weekly wage.
Depending on the circumstances the final figure could range between: £132.69 (25 per cent of your weekly wage) and £398.08 (75 per cent of your weekly wage).
And that assumes you're going to court over it. The FPN 3/£100 is still an option, as would be the awareness course in some cases. Read the comments below that slag off the inaccuracies in the article.
The 36/30 example is ridiculous. 36/30 is a speed awareness course or otherwise a £100 fixed penalty and 3 points endorsement. 36/30 doesn't involve court proceedings and an income based fine - and it won't in future. The only reason 36/30 would go to court is if the accused didn't pay the £100 fixed penalty or wasn't eligible for a fixed penalty - because he has 9 or more points within 3 years of the latest offence.
By the way, the first comment on that EVO article points out how inaccurately they have reported it.
Edit: as otherjonv has just pointed out.
That one more to your liking sir 😉
https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/motoring/cars/using/the-uks-new-speeding-fines-explained
scaremongering article from a site targeted at those who might most resent having to do the same speed limit as mere mortals.
Shame, because the scaremongering fines look like ones that might work as a deterrent!
Nope, because he's wrong too.....
Drivers caught speeding far in excess of the speed limit who are summoned to court [u]instead of handed a fixed penalty notice[/u] will now face fines that have a starting point of 150 per cent of their weekly salary, up from the current base of 100 per cent......
Fixed penalty notices handed out to drivers on the road will remain the same - with a minimum penalty of £100 and three penalty points.
Irrelevant of the fine, if you don't like it, don't speed. Every time you do it you're making a decision that the cut in journey time is worth the risk of getting caught and the associated fine. It's your decision to make.
Fine too much risk or too high for you? Don't speed then. Not difficult is it? By increasing the fine and/or the likelihood of being caught your are (in theory) decreasing the number of people who decide to speed, if people still speed, increase it again and again until they stop.
And yes, I drive, and yes, I speed on occasions too.
Every time you do it you're making a decision that the cut in journey time is worth the risk of getting caught and the associated fine.
I fear that this is not actually true in many cases. This presupposes a level of thought that I'm just not convinced many people invest in their driving. Although some clearly will. (Edit: I know I'm almost certainly taking your quote out of context as you're, i think, alluding to the need for personal responsibility for the act of speeding).
I think in many cases the thought process goes something more like....
"Faaaaaassssstttttteerrrrrr super important me who makes Lewis Hamilton look like a dithering learner...I am a driving goooooooddddd"
OR
"Dum de da de dum de do de la"
I think speeding and mobile phone use has become such ingrained behaviour that conscious thought about it is quite rare.
Edit clearly I have no empirical evidence for this
Oooh are we doing this again even though it's been in a month and publicised long before it was.
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/increased-speeding-fines
speaking as a man who got 2 x sp 30 last year its entirely your own fault if you get caught speeding. The twit with their foot on the pedal is entirely responsible.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
You never know - this might just make the roads safer for cyclists
And to make a point - the money I was fined ( £100 each) is little deterrent to me. However the 6 pts was. ( any more an no hire cars) Getting fined £500 each would be much more of a deterrent.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.You never know - this might just make the roads safer for cyclists
Doesn't really go beyond this for me. Want to speed? Then don't whine when you get a fine. Don't want a fine? Then don't bloody well speed. Simple
If the money goes on road safety and actually reduces accidents then I don't see the issue.
If it's just another way of getting money from motorists then not to sure..
Speed limits in this country are a joke. I was on a trip from Yorkshire to Edinburgh last week. Twisty Country roads about a car and a half wide are a 60. Driving anywhere near that speed would be reckless .
Then on the flip side the m6 which is 3*lanes wide, straight and completely empty and I'm limited to 70. Makes no sense.
You're right. Having it 60mph would reduce fuel consumption and emissions considerably.
his presupposes a level of thought that I'm just not convinced many people invest in their driving
True - and it serves the buggers right if they get fined into bankruptcy for not [i]thinking while driving[/i], too.
will now face fines that have a starting point of 150 per cent of their [b]weekly [/b]salary, up from the current base of 100 per cent......
Phew! Thankfuly I get paid monthly, 150% of my weekly £0 is still £0 right?
I have a seasonal job so I'll remember to only ever exceed the speed limit in the winter.
If the money goes on road safety and actually reduces accidents then I don't see the issue.
what if it goes on infant cancer care and research? would that be o.k?
Country roads about a car and a half wide are a 60. Driving anywhere near that speed would be reckless
That's exactly why it's a limit and not a minimum requirement. Lots of roads near me are like this and I just drive at around 40mph or slower on the twisty bits
tpbiker - Member
If the money goes on road safety and actually reduces accidents then I don't see the issue.If it's just another way of getting money from motorists then not to sure..
So if there were fines for nicking bikes and someone nicked your bike and got caught you wouldn't want to see them punished unless the money went on bike theft prevention? Both are breaking the law.
I do agree with you that some of the limits are silly but it would cost a fortune to implement slower limits on lanes (and who would follow them after years of driving at 60), and an empty motorway is great but what about the same motorway when it's busy but has the same limit.
Can't wait for automated cars that drive at fastest safe speed whatever the conditions.
There is a simple solution for avoiding the fines..
^This.
False registration plates.
I think speeding and mobile phone use has become such ingrained behaviour that conscious thought about it is quite rare.
Didn't there used to be a similar attitude to drink driving? Kind of suggests that heavy penalties do change attitudes and behaviour over time.
Speeding is like getting a beer when your 16, misreading the electric meter when you move out and a bit of jovial shop lifting. Just one of those things you do that should be overlooked. It's not hard to see speeding has no lasting impact or consequences. It's just the cops working out an easy money maker because people are too thick to work out driving is a dangerous activity that requires concentration.
It's not hard to see speeding has no lasting impact or consequences.
Can't work out if you're serious or trolling.
Did you not make it as far as his last sentence?
The main reason for the change is to further reduce the number of people who take the day in court option. The last thing they want is for the highly dubious penalties being challenged in law. In most cases the police drop the charge if a day in court is requested as loosing is embarrassing and calls into question the whole money making scam.
The last thing they want is for the highly dubious penalties being challenged in law. In most cases the police drop the charge if a day in court is requested as loosing is embarrassing and calls into question the whole money making scam.
Sauce?
"chrismac - Member
The main reason for the change is to further reduce the number of people who take the day in court option. The last thing they want is for the highly dubious penalties being challenged in law. In most cases the police drop the charge if a day in court is requested as loosing is embarrassing and calls into question the whole money making scam."
care to expand on this or link to some evidence ,im just asking for a friend.