New speeding fines, the way forward.

I guess it's all relative. 150% of not very much a week is a lot.

I have just been reading about the new Speeding Legislation and can see how drivers will be categorised into A,B & C bands regarding seriousness of offences. "Drivers could be fined over 150% etc of their weekly income!" That's all well and good but a lot of people who drive are on Benefits. Can anyone explain how that works with them because l can't find anything talking about that. Surely if l'm working and doing 60mph in a 40mph zone and someone unemployed is doing the same he/she should be fined exactly the same. Crazy Country we live in.

I believe that a nominal income of around £100 per week is applied as a minimum.

... and a minimum penalty of £100 and 3 points will apply.

I have just been reading about the new Speeding Legislation and can see how drivers will be categorised into A,B & C bands regarding seriousness of offences. "Drivers could be fined over 150% etc of their weekly income!" That's all well and good but a lot of people who drive are on Benefits. Can anyone explain how that works with them because l can't find anything talking about that. Surely if l'm working and doing 60mph in a 40mph zone and someone unemployed is doing the same he/she should be fined exactly the same. Crazy Country we live in.

I suppose it depends which benefit, but if you mean unemployed and on job seekers allowance, if I was on it, I wouldn't expect to be able to run a vehicle, but on any other benefits any fine would be a % so it should work better than the old system where anyone on a very high income wasn't really deterred.

What if your too wealthy to have to work, with no wages at all?

Given that the purpose of a fine is to alter behaviour it needs to have a meaningful impact on an offenders pocket.

Given the level of income differential, between people and between regions is huge (the top 10% of households earn 10x that of the bottom 10%), there is perfect logic in matching the fine to income.

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 15:28 ----------

What if your too wealthy to have to work, with no wages at all?

Just because you don't work doesn't mean you have no income.

I suppose a percentage actually paid is better than the £1 a month offer when it gets to court scenario.

I suppose a percentage actually paid is better than the £1 a month offer when it gets to court scenario.

But if your that wealthy your income can be disguised in many ways, making it very difficult to establish a figure.

Threads merged as El Cids original post has clarification of the payment potentially to be made by the wealthy.

I'm just curious as to the £2,500 limit.

It seems this new law that the 10% threshold if it existed has gone because you can be prosecuted at 31 mph.

There is no car that gives an accurate reading of speed, admittedly speedos are configured to read aprox 3mph ahead of the actual, which wil be why on many occasion as we pass a standard camera and we glance at the speedo showing aprox 34mph we never get prosecuted. I think it would be tricky to bring a conviction 1mph over the limit with speedos not digitally registering actual speed (the ones with just a dial)

I also think initially it could cause accidents as drivers will be more concious of looking for speed signs, and thier speedometers rather than the actual road they are travelling on.

I'm sure we are all guilty of going above the actual limit if even only 1mph over.

It seems this new law that the 10% threshold if it existed has gone because you can be prosecuted at 31 mph.

There is no car that gives an accurate reading of speed, admittedly speedos are configured to read aprox 3mph ahead of the actual, which wil be why on many occasion as we pass a standard camera and we glance at the speedo showing aprox 34mph we never get prosecuted. I think it would be tricky to bring a conviction 1mph over the limit with speedos not digitally registering actual speed (the ones with just a dial)

I also think initially it could cause accidents as drivers will be more concious of looking for speed signs, and thier speedometers rather than the actual road they are travelling on.

 

I'm sure we are all guilty of going above the actual limit if even only 1mph over.

That 'law' has never existed. You could always be prosecuted for doing 1mph over the speed limit. It was brought in for 2 reasons:

- Back in the day (i.e. when speed cameras first came about in the 70s) they were not accurate to within 1mph so the cut off for prosecution was set high enough that it couldn't be challenged on that basis, however if someone could otherwise prove you were doing 31mph you'd still be liable for prosecution

- Fairness. Odd to say, but like you've said it's so easy to go *just* over the limit for a moment while you are concentrating on the road ahead of you and not the speedo, that it was deemed 'unfair' to prosecute for those speeds, but again, it was down to copper discretion.

Nothing has changed in law at all. Coppers still have discretion so can decide not to formally prosecute for ANY speed at all.

Exactly right - the guidelines were for severity of prosecution, not permission to speed.

If people are struggling to gauge speed then drive in third gear in a thirty zone.It doesn't stop you speeding but it does make you more aware according tot he speed awareness courses anyway.