Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Speeding Yet Again - They're Having A Laugh!

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by MobileB

A young driver with 6 months experience gets the same punishment as someone with 50 years unblemished (lucky or not lukcy).

FYI that's not true, the young driver would need to re-sit thier test. Any offence in the first year leads to re-test, passing is now only "provisional" for the first 12 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont dispute its a lot for a pensioner to pay. I never have. I just see speeding and other motoring offences as clear cut.

 

Again though the problem with levels of fines is Court time. Given the amount of crime these days, the Courts just dont have the time to consider individual fine levels. There arent enough Court officers to do it, and to employ more leads to more revenue needed to fund it, which leads to higher fines. Its a vicious circle really.

 

Heres a thought though. Imagine you have someone who earns £20k a year. 60% of his weekly income (which is about £200, by the way) goes on a fine for driving at say 35 in a 40. Someone else who works at McDonalds, a 20 year old in a Nova SRi, drives through the same camera at 45. Because he earns say £8000, he pays a hell of a lot less for driving at a higher speed. Should he not be more careful because he knows it will be more costly to him? Conversely, does that mean that Mr £20k is getting off more lightly if the fines are fixed at £60?

 

Theres no answer to that I suspect. You cant please everyone with that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by foo_fighter

Of course it is possible, to say that it isn't is ludicrous.

 

 

 

Just as ludicrous as suggesting it isn't possible to slow down from a national limit to 30 for a small village and then speed back up AFTER the national speed limit sign.

 

 

MobileB, if your father saw the van, didn't it occur to him it could've been a speed camera van, or perhaps a delivery driver (maybe half asleep) just about to pull out, someone with a good driving record in that circumstance *might* slow down a bit to just to be safe.

 

1) Alright nothing is impossible but I would say that is one thing that is as close to impossible as to be unworthy of argument. Over 100 miles in unfamiliar territory amongst extremely heavy traffic acting aggressively - you would not push your way onto a junction? be stuck in the wrong lane? get caught between lights? not enter a box until your exit was clear? block someones right of way? etc. etc.

Have you ever driven in London? At 5 o/c in the evening you couldn't even drive a short distance from Barking to Beckton with making a minor transgression.

 

2) He slowed down to 34mph - hardly wacky races is it?

 

3) Slam your brakes on at the sight of every parked van - must remember that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the shade of grey that a traffic officer would have seen was that he was approaching a change up in the speed limit and had already passed the residential area.

I don't think there'd be a traffic cop in the country that would pull someone for that behaviour. The cynical, fine generating placing of a mobile trap though was done deliberately to catch most drivers, rather than to reduce a danger or punish bad drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by foo_fighter

Of course it is possible, to say that it isn't is ludicrous.

 

Just as ludicrous as suggesting it isn't possible to slow down from a national limit to 30 for a small village and then speed back up AFTER the national speed limit sign.

 

MobileB, if your father saw the van, didn't it occur to him it could've been a speed camera van, or perhaps a delivery driver (maybe half asleep) just about to pull out, someone with a good driving record in that circumstance *might* slow down a bit to just to be safe.

 

Or perhaps when you are driving down the M1 like I was on Christmas day evening would you expect someone to be travelling alongside you in the same direction on the opposite carriageway?

 

I obviously do not know what his thoughts were at that particular time. He was in the middle of a 90 mile journey. He just says thinking back he can remember the van.

 

I found something ironic out yesterday. I was in Tradeprint on Abbeydale Road yesterday afternoon. At 5.15 am on the same morning as my father got penalised, a BMW tried to a U turn at the traffic lights. The guy tried the moneuvre by his own admission too fast resulting in him losing control and going through the shop window. He had his mother and his young brother in the back. At 5.15 am in the morning.

 

So quiz for today, which one of the two drivers on the same day within 75 minutes of each other has received the biggest punishment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Mooseyb

Imagine you have someone who earns £20k a year. 60% of his weekly income (which is about £200, by the way)

 

£20,000 = £384 per week gross. You couldnt take into account net because that would involve means testing as 40% of the population do not have a standard tax code. Thats why the CSA got in such a mess and amended their rules to a simple percentage based on gross wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Whelk

2) He slowed down to 34mph - hardly wacky races is it?

 

3) Slam your brakes on at the sight of every parked van - must remember that one.

Response to above:

 

2) No it's not "Wacky Races", but it's not slowing to an appropriate speed either.

 

3) I didn't say "slam the brakes on", I said "slow down a bit", you know to an appropriate speed, ie BELOW the speed limit would help.

 

As has been said above by someone else, if he was caught doing 34mph the indicated speed in the car would have been *at least* 37mph, that is neither within the law, nor the spirit of the law, especially not in a small rural village.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Cyclone

the shade of grey that a traffic officer would have seen was that he was approaching a change up in the speed limit and had already passed the residential area.

I don't think there'd be a traffic cop in the country that would pull someone for that behaviour. The cynical, fine generating placing of a mobile trap though was done deliberately to catch most drivers, rather than to reduce a danger or punish bad drivers.

 

I dont deny speed cameras are generally there to make money but...

 

Speed limit 30mph

Speed at time 34mph

 

Speeding. Yes its harsh, yes i would be upset, but i would look at it as bad luck. I would have been caught, its as simple as that. Its not a nice tactic, its not doing much for safety, but its the law. If police officers start letting people off for 34mph, do they then let them off for 36? Its only 2mph. If so, why not change the limit to 35?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by MobileB

I found something ironic out yesterday. I was in Tradeprint on Abbeydale Road yesterday afternoon. At 5.15 am on the same morning as my father got penalised, a BMW tried to a U turn at the traffic lights. The guy tried the moneuvre by his own admission too fast resulting in him losing control and going through the shop window. He had his mother and his young brother in the back. At 5.15 am in the morning.

 

So quiz for today, which one of the two drivers on the same day within 75 minutes of each other has received the biggest punishment?

I know, things like this are very *frustrating*, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Whelk

1) Alright nothing is impossible but I would say that is one thing that is as close to impossible as to be unworthy of argument. Over 100 miles in unfamiliar territory amongst extremely heavy traffic acting aggressively - you would not push your way onto a junction? be stuck in the wrong lane? get caught between lights? not enter a box until your exit was clear? block someones right of way? etc. etc.

Have you ever driven in London? At 5 o/c in the evening you couldn't even drive a short distance from Barking to Beckton with making a minor transgression.

 

That is so true. I challenge anyone - go on Saxon take up the challenge with one of your pupils - to go to London in rush hour. Come off the A4 at Hammersmith roundabout and take the last exit to go to the Novotel at 5pm at night. And tell me you can do that without breaking at least six rules of the Highway Code and one Law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two points

 

1) There is a well known and publicised speed limit on all public roads

2) The police are punishing people who break this law

 

In what sense is anyone "having a laugh"?

 

Would this be said of any other law that the police were enforcing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you have the speeding is speeding argument (which does annoy me) which can go on for ever, but in my opinion, the only people it generally catches are the people who are not high risk drivers or the ones that cause the majority of accidents. What about all the uninsured drivers who's cars are not even registered to them? How many Camera speeding fines go unpaid or are untraceable or get rejected as the car no longer officially exists etc?? What about the persistent offenders with massive records that have no intention of paying the fines, the banned drivers, the scallies, the drunk people.

Cameras catch people speeding regardless of the danger they pose. Is driving at 66 down a country lane at night really any more dangerous than driving at 60? (wait's for someone to say it's the law so it must be) The flip side with old people on the roads is that the cameras don't catch them driving at 15mph with no awareness of other traffic or people or anything!! Some of them may have been driving for 50 years but should have stopped 20 years ago! I was on the M1 Christmas day and came rapidly up behind some old chap doing 40mph. A LOT MORE DANGEROUS than doing 90 in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.