Speeding Yet Again - They're Having A Laugh!

[Cyclone 10]

unreasonably fast being capable of doing 34 mph?

 

Fining as a % of net income would actually be far fairer than the current system. Afterall an exec will probably not even notice a £60 fine, whereas one of these low income types with excessively fast 34mp cars that could be half a weeks wage. Hardly balance and fair at the moment.

 

Variable points and fines are already being introduced, so it's a bit late to suggest it. I think they only go up though from 3, not from 1.

And the points system already addresses the repeat offender. Fourth time and they loose their license.

 

Originally posted by iffypop

Thanks for your reply

 

I cant agree on your idea of weighting punishment in favour of those with no previous convictions or low income earners : this would throw the whole idea of a fine as a speed deterrent out of the window.

 

As many low income earning kids own unneccesarily fast cars as high earners; I would hate to think that one group believed it had more of a right to bomb around street corners than another.

 

I believe the same argument could be applied to those with no previous convictions - In exceptional circumstances, might they be more likely to put their foot down hoping that they'll only get half the fine?

 

I do realise that this is taking the debate entirely out of the scope of what happened to your father,

 

I do however agree totally on your point of staggering punishment, "<15% would be say 1 point. 15-25% 3 points 25%-50%" etc, I think thats a great idea.

 

iffy

[foo_fighter 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

Fining as a % of net income would actually be far fairer than the current system. Afterall an exec will probably not even notice a £60 fine, whereas one of these low income types with excessively fast 34mp cars that could be half a weeks wage. Hardly balance and fair at the moment.

So some little scrote on I.S. could bomb round to thier hearts content, safe in the knowledge that knicking one more car stereo will cover the cost of the *low* means tested fine...

 

...and those on really big wages will pay a lawyer to get them off (remember Mr A Ferguson ?)...

 

...and the rest of us in the middle will pay more, because the system's too complicated to really understand...

 

...yeah, I'm all for that one !

 

OK, lets just say I don't agree.

[nick2 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

Fining as a % of net income would actually be far fairer than the current system. Afterall an exec will probably not even notice a £60 fine, whereas one of these low income types with excessively fast 34mp cars that could be half a weeks wage. Hardly balance and fair at the moment.

 

Everyone gets fined the same, that seems fair to me.

[JoeP 11]

Originally posted by Cyclone

unreasonably fast being capable of doing 34 mph?

 

Fining as a % of net income would actually be far fairer than the current system. Afterall an exec will probably not even notice a £60 fine, whereas one of these low income types with excessively fast 34mp cars that could be half a weeks wage. Hardly balance and fair at the moment.

 

Variable points and fines are already being introduced, so it's a bit late to suggest it. I think they only go up though from 3, not from 1.

And the points system already addresses the repeat offender. Fourth time and they loose their license.

 

However, a low income speeder could arrange to pay his fine at - what is it? A fiver a week or less? If he can afford to run a car he can afford to pay the fine. Quite honestly, suffering for a week and losing half your income won't harm them - there have been times when I've had 20-30 for a couple and cats to live on for a week. It's not hard. Just no fags, beer, petrol or dope.

 

At the same time you're caught speeding, check the records for Tax and Insurance - if none found just confiscate and crush the car, if owned by the speeder.

 

Joe

[Cyclone 10]

Originally posted by JoePritchard

However, a low income speeder could arrange to pay his fine at - what is it? A fiver a week or less? If he can afford to run a car he can afford to pay the fine. Quite honestly, suffering for a week and losing half your income won't harm them - there have been times when I've had 20-30 for a couple and cats to live on for a week. It's not hard. Just no fags, beer, petrol or dope.

 

At the same time you're caught speeding, check the records for Tax and Insurance - if none found just confiscate and crush the car, if owned by the speeder.

 

Joe

 

fine, in that case someone on 50k a year can manage to pay a fine of £400, otherwise they'll just (not paraphrasing you here Jo, an earlier post) bomb round in there merc secure in the knowledge that 1 hrs work will more than cover the cost of the fine.

 

My point was that people on a high income can view the fine as irrelevant as it stands, whereas low income people (who are not presumably all theives) it will have a larger impact on.

 

How is it fair for the low income person to be punished to a greater degree, which is what happens if we look at % disposable income that is taken in a fine.

 

Re: paying it back slowly. Not a fixed penalty notice, only if you go to court.

[JoeP 11]

Originally posted by Cyclone

fine, in that case someone on 50k a year can manage to pay a fine of £400, otherwise they'll just (not paraphrasing you here Jo, an earlier post) bomb round in there merc secure in the knowledge that 1 hrs work will more than cover the cost of the fine.

 

My point was that people on a high income can view the fine as irrelevant as it stands, whereas low income people (who are not presumably all theives) it will have a larger impact on.

 

How is it fair for the low income person to be punished to a greater degree, which is what happens if we look at % disposable income that is taken in a fine.

 

Re: paying it back slowly. Not a fixed penalty notice, only if you go to court.

 

I'm sorry, if you can't afford it then take more care.

 

If you're wealthier and rely on your car for your job then getting a few points will soon start your employer worrying about your judgement. The prospect of losing your job / reputation might have an effect on you as well.

 

Yes, it's hard when poor people get hit with fines, but again, if you can't afford it don't do it.

 

It may sound hard but those people with the low levels of disposable income represent the sort of people I was bought up with, and I do appreciate the impact it can have, but, when it comes to the wire, you've broken the law and there is a penalty to pay.

 

Does anyone know the statistics of how speeders break down by social class and income? That might help us get to better grips with exactly WHO speeds and whether a sldiing scale would make a difference.

 

joe

[Cyclone 10]

so your saying that if you can afford it you don't need to bother taking care?

 

Maybe the fine should be higher then, sod the poor people at least that way the well off will also be concerned.

 

i'm not interested in making it easier for poor people, i just think it would be more of a deterant if it slid up the scale for the more well off.

Personally a £30 or £60 fine once a month wouldn't bother me. Once a week wouldn't be a disaster.

So if it's not a deterant for me (and i don't earn 50k) then it's certainly not for the better paid amongst us.

 

you broken the law and there's a penalty to pay is a rather circular argument since we are discussing what that penalty should be.

[nomme 10]

Make the penalty say a flat 50 hours community service.

Forget money. When people have to give up a substantial amount of time they'll think twice about doing it again.

And it doesnt involve means testing.

 

Nomme

[Mooseyb 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

so your saying that if you can afford it you don't need to bother taking care?

 

Maybe the fine should be higher then, sod the poor people at least that way the well off will also be concerned.

 

 

Why should people who have better paid jobs suffer more for the same offence though? The whole point behind law is that it is dealt with in a uniform way. Everyone is seen as the same whether they be male, female, white, black, rich, poor or anything else. Say I earn £50k (I dont, far far from it), why shouldnt I feel annoyed if some little cretin who spent his childhood smoking at school and getting nowhere gets caught at the same speed. Just because I chose to work hard and do well, why should chav boy in his nova get away with a lesser fine when we are both caught at 40 in a 30? Just because someone earns more, maybe they have worked harder.

 

The point is, you cant just say, oh he earns less therefore should pay less. Its the same offence.

[dinp 10]

Originally posted by Mooseyb

The point is, you cant just say, oh he earns less therefore should pay less. Its the same offence.

 

Agreed. A criminal is a criminal irrespective of their background.

 

(P.s. I know motoring offences aren't seen as criminal)

[InvalidUser 10]

I've followed this thread for a few days and even made a few contributions to it but I have to say it's going a little too far now.

 

Taxes are mandatory. What your father has to pay was as a result of his speeding. So the answer is no, it's not a stealth tax. It's a penalty for his criminal behaviour. He broke the law and got caught.

 

Why do you think he’s above the law and should get away with crimes that others are penalised for?

 

I'm sorry that most of the posters aren't rallying round and supporting you but it seems that the majority of us take responsibility for our own actions and expect your father to do the same.

[foo_fighter 10]

Originally posted by Mooseyb

Why should people who have better paid jobs suffer more for the same offence though? The whole point behind law is that it is dealt with in a uniform way. Everyone is seen as the same whether they be male, female, white, black, rich, poor or anything else. Say I earn £50k (I dont, far far from it), why shouldnt I feel annoyed if some little cretin who spent his childhood smoking at school and getting nowhere gets caught at the same speed. Just because I chose to work hard and do well, why should chav boy in his nova get away with a lesser fine when we are both caught at 40 in a 30? Just because someone earns more, maybe they have worked harder.

 

The point is, you cant just say, oh he earns less therefore should pay less. Its the same offence.

...and back to the original post (in a way), why would a 72 year old pensioner, who has been frugal all thier life and has a good pension, pay more than the equivalent 72 year old who had a whale of a time spending all thier wages as they earned them ?