# New Speeding fines



## donfresh (Feb 23, 2016)

Watch out speeders
they're talking about fining you 150% of your weekly wage...*******
and aparently going 1mph over is a fine now? i doubt anyone will enforce that one

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/speeding-fines-rise-175pc-weekly-120709850.html


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

Seems fair enough, points clearly aren't a deterrent to some people and only money hits them.
It also says it's more than one up to ten mph over in a twenty zone. Not everywhere. The whole point of twenty zones is to make it safer for pedestrians.

I have no issue with these increased fines.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

It's a joke. All cameras should be scrapped.

The level of driving competence on today's roads is abysmal, and it has nothing to do with speeding.


----------



## Eric the Red (Sep 14, 2010)

ollienoclue said:


> It's a joke. All cameras should be scrapped.
> 
> The level of driving competence on today's roads is abysmal, and it has nothing to do with speeding.


Totally agree with this statement


----------



## Minimiller (Jan 20, 2017)

the autobahn is has less accidents than our motorway why? No speed limits

we spend more time looking at the god damn speedo and cameras rather than the road.

Its absolutely ridiculous.

There should be no limits on A roads or at rioads for that matter.

You will find most people will respect others and go at a sensible speed anyway.

Rule of nature rules and regulations are there to be broken lol


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Minimiller said:


> the autobahn is has less accidents than our motorway why? No speed limits
> 
> we spend more time looking at the god damn speedo and cameras rather than the road.
> 
> ...


Everyone keeps saying how safe Autobahns are, but even the Germans don't agree. Facts show accidents are more likely on the Autobahns.

Also if you are you're going fast and have an accident on the Autobahn you are automatically at fault. There is more liability placed on a driver wanting to go fast.


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

Minimiller said:


> the autobahn is has less accidents than our motorway why? No speed limits
> 
> we spend more time looking at the god damn speedo and cameras rather than the road.
> 
> ...


There's only about 10% of Autobahns that are actually derestricted, and the number of lorries and goods vehicles on them makes it incredibly difficult to actually max your car.

As for spending time looking at the speedo, cruise control. Set it at an appropriate speed and then you can concentrate on keeping a safe distance to the car in front. For most people around here, that's approximately 12 feet.


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

No mention of road safety at all which is what primarily should be about. IMO it's just extra taxation, we all know that cars have come on leaps and bounds in the last 20 years, nothing seems to be done to tackle parking outside schools, on junctions, double yellow lines etc. all these are dangerous to children.


----------



## Andysp (Jan 1, 2017)

To me this really matters very little,Let's face it within twenty years we'll all be driven around by google/apple autonomous modes of transport leading to an even more miserable existence of utter monotiny,the car/motorbike is probably one of the last ways to actually feel a little alive....we are all being driven to life as human robots by more and more legislation such as this.....my advice should you wish to take it,buy a decent motor and boot it down a "b" road,feel alive....while you still can!!!


----------



## wish wash (Aug 25, 2011)

People are working harder for less, have less time for things. There stressed out before they even leave the house and have 500 things going on in there heads to do list. Driving like maniacs is the least of there worries. 

They harp on about driving test improvements, Highway Code needs re looking at. Modern cars are far safer than they were. Stopping distances are well out.


----------



## Rayaan (Jun 1, 2014)

I'm unconcerned - doesn't affect me.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

wish wash said:


> People are working harder for less, have less time for things. There stressed out before they even leave the house and have 500 things going on in there heads to do list. Driving like maniacs is the least of there worries.
> 
> They harp on about driving test improvements, Highway Code needs re looking at. Modern cars are far safer than they were. Stopping distances are well out.


Stopping distances have improved, but the roads are far busier and drivers don't even allow enough distance between cars anyway.

I genuinely don't understand why people think the roads are dangerous at 60/70mph and then seen no issues with an even higher limit. The faster you go the bigger the damage. The German Autobahns prove the faster you go the more serious the accidents. I'm not sure why so many people in the UK keep repeating how safe the Autobahns are when they are totally wrong. The death rate on the Autobahns is almost double our motorways.

I have no issues with the 70mph limit. Unless you are doing a huge journey the actual time you save is much smaller than you would think. I've already noticed that far more people are happy to sit well below the 70mph limit and save fuel.


----------



## wish wash (Aug 25, 2011)

I remember James may saying on top gear that statically driving slower ( around 50 I think he said) was causing more accidents. 

I'd rather get there than not at all. Some people get wiser with age, some will forever be thick as mince.


----------



## OrangeManDan (Sep 10, 2012)

I have to agree that its quite a good idea. If you earn £100 a week and you get fined £80 or whatever it is now for speeding it is a big hit, but for someone earning £2,000 a week £80 isnt much at all so why would these people really care. Whereas, earning £100 a week and being fined £150 is going to be an even bigger hit and being fined £3,000 when you earn £2,000 a week will actually affect these people (hope I've done my math correctly). I think It's a good deterrent personally.

I feel that the only people that will be against this is the ones that do speed. Just the same as the people who don't like police officers are usually the ones that get in trouble with them.

As for saying that not having speed limits on A roads, I have to disagree with this. i'm terrified of some drivers when they are driving at 20-30mph, I would not like to see them driving on A roads doing 100mph+ because they think they can drive and handle a car. It would be choas in my opinion.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2017)

wish wash said:


> People are working harder for less, have less time for things. There stressed out before they even leave the house and have 500 things going on in there heads to do list. Driving like maniacs is the least of there worries.


And this is a big problem with driving standards. When you drive a car you have a duty of responsibility to do it well.



wish wash said:


> They harp on about driving test improvements, Highway Code needs re looking at. Modern cars are far safer than they were. Stopping distances are well out.


Doesn't matter how quickly a car can stop, if you don't see the hazard in time you (and your victim) are stuffed. 
Perception and reaction to a hazard takes up a significant proportion of the overall stopping distance. 
Quoted stopping distances are like 0-60 times i.e. best case. In the real world they will be notably longer, due to many factors, including surface conditions, tyre wear and driver ability (I doubt many people can actually threshold brake).


----------



## uggski (Jun 29, 2016)

Kerr said:


> Stopping distances have improved, but the roads are far busier and drivers don't even allow enough distance between cars anyway.
> 
> I genuinely don't understand why people think the roads are dangerous at 60/70mph and then seen no issues with an even higher limit. The faster you go the bigger the damage. The German Autobahns prove the faster you go the more serious the accidents. I'm not sure why so many people in the UK keep repeating how safe the Autobahns are when they are totally wrong. The death rate on the Autobahns is almost double our motorways.
> 
> I have no issues with the 70mph limit. Unless you are doing a huge journey the actual time you save is much smaller than you would think. I've already noticed that far more people are happy to sit well below the 70mph limit and save fuel.


Safety. In 2014, autobahns carried 31% of motorized road traffic while accounting for 11% of Germany's traffic deaths. The autobahn fatality rate of 1.6 deaths per billion-travel-kilometers compared favorably with the 4.6 rate on urban streets and 6.5 rate on rural roads.

Uk rate was 12% for the same time


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

uggski said:


> Safety. In 2014, autobahns carried 31% of motorized road traffic while accounting for 11% of Germany's traffic deaths. The autobahn fatality rate of 1.6 deaths per billion-travel-kilometers compared favorably with the 4.6 rate on urban streets and 6.5 rate on rural roads.
> 
> Uk rate was 12% for the same time


Where did you get those stats from?

Edit....Found it. Wikipedia.

One of Wikipedia's other tables. Look how much better the UK is on this one. Rural roads are always the most dangerous.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate


----------



## Bristle Hound (May 31, 2009)

donfresh said:


> Watch out speeders
> they're talking about fining you 150% of your weekly wage...*******
> and aparently going 1mph over is a fine now? i doubt anyone will enforce that one
> 
> https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/speeding-fines-rise-175pc-weekly-120709850.html


Instead of speeders the 150% of your weekly wage fine should be used for people who use their mobile phones while driving

Better still, those caught testing should have their phones confiscated & fined massively


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Bristle Hound said:


> Instead of speeders the 150% of your weekly wage fine should be used for people who use their mobile phones while driving
> 
> Better still, those caught testing should have their phones confiscated & fined massively


And then they should be punched, square on the nose end.

Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## shane_ctr (Dec 17, 2006)

my understanding is that the new guidelines only apply if court proceedings are instituted.


----------



## uggski (Jun 29, 2016)

The problem is that there is very little real policing on the roads, apart from remotely,. Most drivers know this and think/know they can get away with most things. 

Until this changes it's just a revenue raising exercise.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Aren't a lot of people self-policing the roads already? Many road users have dashcams and are running to social media and/or the police for every minor issue they capture. 

I'm amazed when people get caught by many of the speed cameras. Many have signposts and are painted bright colours so drivers can't miss them. Still people manage. 

Policing the roads stirs people up. If there's no police then they are using cameras to take in money. Put police on the road, and when they get caught, the police should be looking for real criminals. 

I genuine don't think the roads are that bad over here. The driving standard is significantly better than most places I've ever visited in the world. Most countries are considerably worse. People make mistakes and errors all the time going about their normal business. Some people see a car as a tool to get from A to B and don't apply the same dedication as others.

The speed guidelines are the same as before. It's highly unlikely you will get charged for just a few MPH over the limit.


----------



## uggski (Jun 29, 2016)

Kerr said:


> Aren't a lot of people self-policing the roads already? Many road users have dashcams and are running to social media and/or the police for every minor issue they capture.
> 
> I'm amazed when people get caught by many of the speed cameras. Many have signposts and are painted bright colours so drivers can't miss them. Still people manage.
> 
> ...


I agree but it's other things like phone use tailgateing and my pet hate Middle Lane Numpties. I have also been lucky enough to drive in a huge amount of countries all over the place and agree the standard is pretty good here. Just the normal amount of morons who have no awareness of anyone else on the roads.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

uggski said:


> I agree but it's other things like phone use tailgateing and my pet hate Middle Lane Numpties. I have also been lucky enough to drive in a huge amount of countries all over the place and agree the standard is pretty good here. Just the normal amount of morons who have no awareness of anyone else on the roads.


It's a thing you'll never coach out of people. You can't teach people awareness or concentration. They only learn after an accident.

The mobile phone usage is out of hand. I must say since the new higher penalty I have not seen as many.

When they decreased the drink drive limit up here in Scotland it made a big difference. Even though the real effect was it meant you could only have half a drink less in your system(roughly) It put people into a panic and give more consideration to the fact they could fail easier. A small amount made a big difference. Hopefully this will have the same effect.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Kerr said:


> It's a thing you'll never coach out of people. You can't teach people awareness or concentration. They only learn after an accident.
> 
> The mobile phone usage is out of hand. I must say since the new higher penalty I have not seen as many.
> 
> When they decreased the drink drive limit up here in Scotland it made a big difference. Even though the real effect was it meant you could only have half a drink less in your system(roughly) It put people into a panic and give more consideration to the fact they could fail easier. A small amount made a big difference. Hopefully this will have the same effect.


Still beyond me why they let anyone drink anything before driving.

Set the limit to zero and then it's obvious if you've broken the law or not.

....of course some people just can't bear the thought of not having some alcohol for one night..


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

DrEskimo said:


> Still beyond me why they let anyone drink anything before driving.
> 
> Set the limit to zero and then it's obvious if you've broken the law or not.
> 
> ....of course some people just can't bear the thought of not having some alcohol for one night..


It's the day after people get caught.

I've got a breathalyser and use it for fun and just to be sure. I'm sure most people would be surprised just how far into the following day they could fail.

A zero margin is too harsh. You can function properly when there is a trace of alcohol in the system.

The bit I've never got is people know they will fail after a drink or two whilst feeling no effect of alcohol, yet they'd drive the next day knowing they feel iffy.


----------



## OrangeManDan (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm with DrEskimo on this one.

Set it to 0. If you've had a drink then you can't drive end of.

Not that I drink now, but when I did have a drink I was always brought up that I was not to drive the next day at all. Whether it was down the road or not and whether I had a pint or 10 it didn't matter. No driving end of. I prefer the freedom of being able to drive whenever and wherever I need/want. I could not bear the thought of having a family emergency and not being able to help because I had a drink. That's just me, probably a bit over the top but it doesn't bother me not drinking


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Kerr said:


> It's the day after people get caught.
> 
> I've got a breathalyser and use it for fun and just to be sure. I'm sure most people would be surprised just how far into the following day they could fail.
> 
> ...


But saying you can have one just creates ambiguity. It's like saying you can have one 5min phone call, or check your phone while stopped at lights. There is no need.

It's pathetic that people are so dependent on social media that they can't bear to be away from their phone while driving. Think it's equally pathetic that people can't not drink for a night when they're driving. If you drive, you have a responsibility to be aware and sober. No alcohol. No phones. Simple and easy.

By giving limits you just get people not knowing how much is too much, or things like 'but that's for lightweights I can handle more'....if you're that dependent on drinking, don't drive!


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

DrEskimo said:


> But saying you can have one just creates ambiguity. It's like saying you can have one 5min phone call, or check your phone while stopped at lights. There is no need.
> 
> It's pathetic that people are so dependent on social media that they can't bear to be away from their phone while driving. Think it's equally pathetic that people can't not drink for a night when they're driving. If you drive, you have a responsibility to be aware and sober. No alcohol. No phones. Simple and easy.
> 
> By giving limits you just get people not knowing how much is too much, or things like 'but that's for lightweights I can handle more'....if you're that dependent on drinking, don't drive!


It's not ambiguous as people know they're pushing it with just a drink.

We have speed limits and people expect a margin of error on top of the limit.

We all know if you've got your phone in your hand you are done.

There is no confusion unless you are judged by a margin you can't measure.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Kerr said:


> It's not ambiguous as people know they're pushing it with just a drink.
> 
> We have speed limits and people expect a margin of error on top of the limit.
> 
> ...


Like alcohol units (most don't know how much one pint or one glass of wine contains), one glass (pint, half pint, small glass or large glass of wine, shot of spirit...?) or mmol of alcohol in your blood...:

I say all three are confusing.

I appreciate you carry a breathalyser, but you are a sensible chap, and unfortunately not the norm....

Which is exactly why we need speed limits. There are too many morons out there. I mean we still have to fine people for not wearing their seatbelt....!


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

Kerr said:


> It's not ambiguous as people know they're pushing it with just a drink.
> 
> We have speed limits and people expect a margin of error on top of the limit.
> 
> ...


People often don't realise though, because the advice is given in units, and a lot of people don't realise how much units vary between drinks.

The margin of error was always for calibration errors as much as anything, which are much less as tech moves on. I've no issue with going with the traffic on the motorway, but "only" going 35 in a 30 means that person knew they were speeding and is only annoyed they got caught.

Yup, people know if you get caught, you're done. But people don't fear being caught, at least not round here. The new increased punishments have had minimal effect from what i can see.

I'm in the 0mcg group I'm afraid, if you're driving don't drink. Simple. If you know you have to drive the following day, either don't drink or have one. It's not that difficult.

Unfortunately, whatever the regulations there will always be people who do it doesn't apply to them, or who just don't care. It's often the ones who are conscientious that get hit by changes like this, because i accept occasionally people slip up.


----------



## markcaughey (Apr 3, 2015)

OrangeManDan said:


> I have to agree that its quite a good idea. If you earn £100 a week and you get fined £80 or whatever it is now for speeding it is a big hit, but for someone earning £2,000 a week £80 isnt much at all so why would these people really care. Whereas, earning £100 a week and being fined £150 is going to be an even bigger hit and being fined £3,000 when you earn £2,000 a week will actually affect these people (hope I've done my math correctly). I think It's a good deterrent personally.
> 
> I feel that the only people that will be against this is the ones that do speed. Just the same as the people who don't like police officers are usually the ones that get in trouble with them.
> 
> As for saying that not having speed limits on A roads, I have to disagree with this. i'm terrified of some drivers when they are driving at 20-30mph, I would not like to see them driving on A roads doing 100mph+ because they think they can drive and handle a car. It would be choas in my opinion.


Thats the part that makes you laugh though, there is a £2,500 cap on the fine so someone earning 50k a year will roughly get the same fine as someone earning 100k a week so to me this just defeats the whole purpose of a system like this where everyone is equally penalised.



shane_ctr said:


> my understanding is that the new guidelines only apply if court proceedings are instituted.


Yeah, done a little more digging myself and this seems to be the case. I knew something was up as it seems like an impossible thing to enforce otherwise.

People seem to have missed this comment as its a few pages back

Like Shane CTR said the new guidelines only apply if court proceedings are instituted


----------



## Cookies (Dec 10, 2008)

MagpieRH said:


> I'm in the 0mcg group I'm afraid, if you're driving don't drink. Simple. If you know you have to drive the following day, either don't drink or have one. It's not that difficult.
> 
> Unfortunately, whatever the regulations there will always be people who do it doesn't apply to them, or who just don't care. It's often the ones who are conscientious that get hit by changes like this, because i accept occasionally people slip up.


I agree with this. If I'm driving, I don't drink. Simple.

However, we were out with friends a while back, and they were saying the usual "Why don't you take one?" The conversation developed and we were chatting about the new range of non alcoholic beer, so while I'm not particularly a fan of lager type beer, I took one to try it. The round of drinks were brought down to the table. Anyhoo - I tried it, didn't taste much different tbh. Turns out I was drinking my mate's drink!!

Anyhoo, perhaps a zero tolerance is just not reasonable. A small degree of tolerance is needed, otherwise you'll just penalise genuinely innocent people (like me lol)

Cooks

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk


----------



## IamDave (Feb 6, 2015)

I'll add my own two pence worth.

I will openly admit I do occasionally exceed the limit on dual carriageways and motorways but not by much and not all the time (generally just for overtaking) but stay within limits on other roads.

I don't think scrapping speed limits will help the matter as has been suggested. The way some people drive at the moment I wouldn't trust half of them. Some people drive way to fast and take too many risks as it is and some people drive so slowly that it'll probably worsen matters. As someone who attends RTCs as part of their job I can safely say more speed generally results in more damage and generally more/worse injuries and it's really just not worth it.

As for drink driving I have to agree with those who don't drink at all when driving. Again it's just not worth the risk it's really not that hard to just not have an alcoholic drink. In my opinion if you need to drink alcohol to have a good time you need to get some new mates! I'll either just not drive or just stick to soft drinks if I am driving, doesn't bother me in the slightest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AndyN01 (Feb 16, 2016)

Fascinating thread.

I'll happily pin my colours to the mast and start with the standards are way too low.

There's some pretty basic physics involved in collisions:

Double the speed and quadruple the damage.

However, what's "dangerous" about travelling at say 100mph on a deserted dual carriageway with a good surface, good visibility and an alert, appropriately skilled driver and a well maintained vehicle?

Is that as "dangerous" as travelling at 30mph in a busy built up area with lots of pedestrians, cyclists and children about?

It's about appropriate speed and assessment of risk.

Drink/drug/prescription meds etc. is out for me on the basis of impaired function.

Perhaps we need to educate that being in charge of a vehicle isn't some sort of "right" and it takes a high level of skill to be allowed to take to the roads.

And if you choose to abuse or lose that level of skill you will lose your license and have to start again.

For me a single camera recording of texting would be an automatic removal of a license.

Ditto driving while "under the influence" etc.

Oh and if you'll lose you job - tuff. You made your choice - there are consequences.

Andy.


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

All good points, the only thing I would say is how does a third party know your car is well-maintained? It could be clean and shiny but never have seen a drop of fresh oil or a new set of spark plugs in its life, or conversely be treated to an extensive service every time it shows a blip but be an absolute shed on the outside.

Also, who judges if the driver is appropriately skilled? I'd wager the majority of people who regularly speed would consider themselves capable, but are they?

It's a tricky balance, and I can see those enforcing the law being slated whichever way it goes, by the group who disagree with the current law. Keep it as is? Those who think we should be allowed more freedom up in arms. Increase the limit? First big crash where increased speed is a factor and it was a terrible idea and everyone should've seen this coming. No-win situation.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Cars aren't maintained well enough. Many people try everything to avoid spending money on their car. Look how many cars are fitted with the cheapest of tyres. Even high performance cars. 

A lot if people use Germany as the yardstick, but look at their tyre rules. Most of the tyres they scrap off come here and are sold as part worn tyres. 

Look how many cars fail their MOT test due to serious issues. They shouldn't be arriving for a test with such issues. The driver should know in advance.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Kerr said:


> Cars aren't maintained well enough. Many people try everything to avoid spending money on their car. Look how many cars are fitted with the cheapest of tyres. Even high performance cars.
> 
> A lot if people use Germany as the yardstick, but look at their tyre rules. Most of the tyres they scrap off come here and are sold as part worn tyres.
> 
> Look how many cars fail their MOT test due to serious issues. They shouldn't be arriving for a test with such issues. The driver should know in advance.


People don't care. Because driving is a chore. Like vacuuming, or mowing the lawn. It's not enjoyable, so it becomes something that must be done to get places.

Hence why when you look at a lot of people as they drive by, the actual driving seems to be low on their priority list.
They're eating, playing with phones, putting make up on.

This attitude is reflected in their vehicle maintenance. 
The car gets no attention as all it is - is a good. Like the washing machine, the fridge.

It's there to do a job. So it sits on the drive, or by the side of the road until it's needed. There is no checking tyre pressures, fluid levels. Making sure all the bulbs work, the wipers work acceptably. No taking pride in it's appearance. Touching in stone chips, keeping the inside clean.

The less spent on it the better.

Hence why you get forums full of people going apoplectic because their £500 145k mile Peugeot 307 needs a new clutch, or an ABS sensor. Rather than just getting it fixed it's easier to whine like a girl about how unreliable things are because they're going to cost you a few quid.


----------



## kingswood (Jun 23, 2016)

speed limits are for idiots who cant judge road conditions.

on the motorway, mid afternoon on a sunny sunday with no traffic is 85mph in a upto date motor dangerous? the speed cameras would think so

but 65mph in thick fog and zero visibility in a 60's relic is fine according to big brother

hate to say it but what we need is more traffic cops punishing bad driving. 

dam, i did just say it :wall:

i had an argument with the (ex-copper) doing the speed seminar when i got pinged on a A road doing 36 in a temp 30 zone. i told him i would follow every speed limit in the land if he told me why i have to do 20mph past a school at midnight. he had no answer


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2017)

AndyN01 said:


> It's about appropriate speed and assessment of risk.


Yes, absolutely. And constant re-assesment of risk, as it can change rapidly, especially in built up areas.

Speed limits are, imho, not really about speed. They are more about giving both the driver of a vehicle AND anyone else in the near vicinity the *time* to assess the level of risk and determine an appropriate course of action.
You, as a driver need to be able to assess what level of risk other road users, etc, present to you.
Other road users need to be able to assess the level of risk YOU pose to them.

Generally, the higher the likely risk, the lower the speed limit.

So speed limits, to my mind, are more about grading how hazardous a section of road is likely to be. But as already said, it is up to the driver to assess what hazards there are and adjust their speed accordingly, which may mean well below the posted limit.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

I think we can all agree there is bombing down the motorway at 90 at 9pm at night and there is storming down a dual carriageway at 80 in the rain when traffic is nose to tail.

The problem is that we have become a nation of speedo watchers. Everyone is paying more attention to the dials behind the wheel than what is going on in mirrors or out the windows. Some drivers are now **** scared to drive at the limit, or even dare to attempt to overtake anyone.

The skill of actually driving defensively, or reading the road ahead is being lost. Everyone assumes that if they stick below the speed limit they will be OK.

Doesn't work that way. Instead, cyclists and motorbikers and the like are being killed. People are getting wound up because they get stuck in a 10 car mobile road block and have to overtake a dozen cars to be able to drive at the speed limit.

Speed has very little to do with road safety. Few Britons can read the road or anticipate others making errors. A bit of adverse weather and it is crash central. Count the muppets on their phones whilst driving or leaving no distance to the vehicle in front, it's everywhere.

By putting nothing but an emphasis on speed the government is basically making the driving public a collection of drones who are good at nothing but watching speedos. This is not conductive to safe driving.

In a previous life when I had a less sedantry vehicle I was a _serious_ speed merchant. Literally I would do 70 mile journeys and overtake everything. Never even saw a cop car. I would say however I would never ever speed in a 20, 30 or 40 zone, in my mind that just is not justifiable and I just would not do it and never have.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

Another money spinner for the goverment.


----------



## robertdon777 (Nov 3, 2005)

Oooh how do i claim im on a Zero hours contract.... Or im paid not weekly/monthly but by dividends etc.


----------



## Shug (Jul 13, 2007)

Shame they capped the fine. 
A couple of weeks stopping premiership footballers and the nations debt would be gone.


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

On average one weeks wages you'll work for nothing, just to pay off the fine.


----------



## vsideboy (Sep 1, 2006)

Andysp said:


> To me this really matters very little,Let's face it within twenty years we'll all be driven around by google/apple autonomous modes of transport leading to an even more miserable existence of utter monotiny,the car/motorbike is probably one of the last ways to actually feel a little alive....we are all being driven to life as human robots by more and more legislation such as this.....my advice should you wish to take it,buy a decent motor and boot it down a "b" road,feel alive....while you still can!!!


haha you could always rip Johnny out the way and drive his little cab with the joystick yourself like on demolition man!:devil:


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

Just read this (linked from loopinsight.com), and it seemed relevant here:

Is every speed limit too low?

It's all US-based stats, but essentially says if speed limits are set at the 85th percentile (i.e. the speed which 85% drive at or below), then the variation in speeds is reduced and accidents also drop. If you can sift through the numbers, it's actually a really interesting analysis


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

Lot of comments regarding standard of driving in general.

Ive always thought it a good idea for the current system of learning to drive should only qualify you to drive on all roads apart from motorways when you pass the test

Once you have qualified as a new driver it should then be compulsory to do a motorway/multi-lane highway driving course. This course will concentrate on lane discipline, maintaining constant awareness by effective use of mirrors and apropriate following distances. Once this is passed and you have the appropiate level of skill..... then go out on 3/4/5 lane motorways.

The course will also dispell the idea of a 'slow lane' 'fast lane' etc and reiterate that we keep left unless passing another vehicle.

This in turn will, over time create better educated drivers & safer roads that feel less crowded.

Far too often our motorways feel over crowded because you have the middle lane hoggers and everyone else kettled into using lane 3 to get past......while lane 1 is empty.


Speed isnt neccessarilly the route of all evil. As has been mentioned its appropriate use thereof. Biggest problem is people not keeping aware of what is happening around them & switching off/not paying attention.

Eg.....someone drives through a red light at 30mph on a 30mph road and has a smash or hits a pedestrian......its not speed that made the driver jump the light, its that they wern't paying attention due to being preoccupied with a phone call or fiddling with the stereo or whatevef else they deemed more important than concentrating on fhe road.


----------



## DLGWRX02 (Apr 6, 2010)

I wonder how the likes of my wife would get on. She has no income, she's a housewife who gets 0 in benefits since we got married in 2012 so she earns nothing.


Also has anyone noticed a change in the daily commute? Today was my first time commuting since the new fines were introduced as I had a long weekend off. It's a 25 mile trip about 10 miles on single A roads and the rest on dual carriageway (the A47). I noticed the outside lane to be considerably emptier than normal and on my journey home from work I passed 3 lay-bys each had a police traffic car pulling over a driver still with blue lights flashing. Now this could of been a coincidence however considering I travel this route 5 days a week twice a day, and in the past 12 years I may of passed 2 speed traps in different locations on this route on the same day less than the fingers on one hand and more to the point it's normally always on a Friday or bank holiday Monday. So if this isn't a show of force taking advantage of these new laws then I don't know what is.


----------



## markcaughey (Apr 3, 2015)

DLGWRX02 said:


> I wonder how the likes of my wife would get on. She has no income, she's a housewife who gets 0 in benefits since we got married in 2012 so she earns nothing.


They have a £2500 cap to protect high earners making sure that they are not equally penalised however i seriously doubt they will do the same on the other end of the scale and there will likely be a minimum fine, they may even base it off the household income in that situation. Who knows one way or another they will be significantly lightening your wallet , i don't see anyone getting let off lightly

Luckily these new guidelines are only if court proceedings take place but they are definitely not making that part very clear which i would imagine is a scare tactic to get people to think twice

Also i think that the idea behind this is maybe to scare people off from going to court over speeding fines etc and just to accept the fixed penalty


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2017)

Andyg_TSi said:


> Lot of comments regarding standard of driving in general.
> 
> Ive always thought it a good idea for the current system of learning to drive should only qualify you to drive on all roads apart from motorways when you pass the test
> 
> ...


I think there are changes afoot to the current driving test. Perhaps making Pass Plus compulsory would be a start - https://www.gov.uk/pass-plus/how-pass-plus-training-works

Actually, not always keeping to the left can have its advantages, if the conditions are right i.e. not at the expense of anyone else, and is advocated by advanced driving courses such as IAM or RoSPA.


----------



## wayne451 (Aug 15, 2016)

DrEskimo said:


> Still beyond me why they let anyone drink anything before driving.
> 
> Set the limit to zero and then it's obvious if you've broken the law or not.
> 
> ....of course some people just can't bear the thought of not having some alcohol for one night..


Hope you don't want to use mouthwash in a morning after you've brushed your teeth?

Those chocolate liqueurs going round the office...not for you I'm afraid!

Completely unworkable.

The laws are designed to capture people that are intoxicated and therefore are a risk on the roads. They aren't there as some form of enforcing a puritan existence.


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

wayne451 said:


> Hope you don't want to use mouthwash in a morning after you've brushed your teeth?
> 
> Those chocolate liqueurs going round the office...not for you I'm afraid!
> 
> ...


Well obviously this wouldn't lead to people being devoid of common sense would it. The law wouldn't be 'if your limit is not exactly 0 then you will be charged'.

To be stopped for being suspected of drink driving, or to be breathalysed at the road side you would need to smell of drink or have some indication of being over the limit. Having minty breath wouldn't count would it....


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

Some mouthwash products contain ethanol, I think this is the point being made.

There is no point in having a zero % alcohol limit as it is practical. Someone drinking a half of cider or a pint of shandy before going home is hardly being a terrible criminal to be lumped into the same category as someone whom has just drank an entire skinful and decided to drive home at the end of the night.

I see no reason to change drink drive laws as they stand.

I do not see that increasing traffic fines will improve road safety one jot. The problem on today's roads have little to do with people breaking speed limits as far as I am concerned and these changes to the law will do nothing to make anyone safer.

As for motorway lane use the current system is impractical. You do not want legions of motorists changing lanes constantly. Get in a lane, get up to speed and stay at that speed whilst maintaining the distance to the vehicle in front. I regularly get in the middle or outside lanes and stay there for prolonged periods of time, unless it is obvious I am holding up someone who is keen to get past. 99% of the time you are travelling faster than anything in the nearside lane and thus are basically constantly overtaking, so you are best of staying there, not dodging in and out like am muppet who is just asking to be rear ended.

Get up to speed, maintain the same speed and thus behave in the manner that others are expecting you to drive. Don't go throwing unpredictability into the fray. It helps no one.

I have no problem with the guys in high end Audis or Mercs who want to drive at 90-100mph on the motorway in the fast lane, provided they are keeping their eyes open and reading the road ahead. It is the nutters who are dodging in and out of lanes, failing to indicate, undertaking constantly and the like who are going to cause an accident.

The REALLY dangerous motorway users are those people who use the outside lane but absolutely will not drive faster than about 65-70mph. They end up causing a heap of nose to tail traffic in the outside lane, and if there is a single collision no one has anywhere to go and into the melee they are forced. You do not want to be involved in any collision where your car is using both crumple zones at the same time, it is a prime way to be killed.


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Problem is speed cameras have affected peoples views of speeding over the years as money raising devices.
Average cameras work better as they monitor speed over a distance rather than in a split second. I had a foreign lorry start to move into my lane on a dual c/w once. Because I had a car close behind I slammed my foot down to pass the lorry. This was approaching a regular spot where the spred van sits and lucky for me wasn't there that day. If he had been I would have had no defence as the only evidence would have been a nice clear photo of the front of my car not a wider shot. 

I live in N Wales where the vans are everywhere there is an accident hotspot just outside Wrexham which is a 60 road single c/w but really wide so idiots overtake a lot and there have been several deaths over the years. Sadly the speed vans are never at that location but are regularly a mile further up sat on a bridge above a dual c/w part of that road up a hill where you can overtake slower vehicles and there are never accidents.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

http://southendnewsnetwork.com/news...k-to-avoid-speeding-fines-and-penalty-points/


----------

