Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. | Motoring discussion | Back Room Forum

What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks

Mon 30 Jan 2012 19:17

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - brum

I suppose its inevitable, but do you think they are going to ramp up easy targets just for revenue? Why dont more cars have speed limiters? - I thought the one in Citroen C4 Grand Picasso I test drove was a good idea. Even better if it was automatically controlled, say by GPS.

Full article in Daily Telegraph here

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 30 Jan 2012 19:40

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - unthrottled

I thought the one in Citroen C4 Grand Picasso I test drove was a good idea.

Why? If you need a band aid-what's wrong with cruise control? What do you set the speed limiter to-70mph? How does that stop speeding in 30? What about temporary speed limits that haven't been logged with the GPS system? Who would be liable if the speed limiter permitted speeding? What about inclement weather conditions etc etc?

Driving is about observation. You can't automate that-and automation tends to lead to driver disengagement. Anyone disinclined to be observant needs a bus pass, not a gadget.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 00:06

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - brum

Why? If you need a band aid-what's wrong with cruise control? What do you set the speed limiter to-70mph? How does that stop speeding in 30? What about temporary speed limits that haven't been logged with the GPS system? Who would be liable if the speed limiter permitted speeding? What about inclement weather conditions etc etc?

Driving is about observation. You can't automate that-and automation tends to lead to driver disengagement. Anyone disinclined to be observant needs a bus pass, not a gadget.

(sigh) I suppose you poo poo parking sensors as well...

In a modern car in 4th or 5th , unless you have your eyes glued to the speedo all the time, its all too easy to drift up over a 30 or 40mph limit especially when being haranged by tailgaters, distracted by wife/kids or being just a little too tired. Spending up to 50% of your time staring at a speedo is a dangerous pastime.

Many urban roads I can think of e.g. going through town centres, villages etc, cruise control is not appropriate - you definitely would not be in control

The thing I liked about the Citroen limiter was it worked just like a cruise control - you simply pushed a button to set the limit , but unlike cruise, it allows you to go at any speed slower than the set limit, even stop, and just silently didnt let you exceed the limit you set. Manual feathering of throttle and constant eagle eyed monitoring of speed not required. For safety, if you floored it, a kickdown feature overides it allowing an emergency manouver, but this has to be a definite to the floor action.

I can see this being a real benefit - e.g when going into and around town, just set it at 30 or 40 and just drive and dont spend half the time staring at the speedo because you know there is likely to be a speed van parked down the road.

Just an extra couple of buttons and some ecu code, similar to cruise but different.

In 40 years of driving, I've never been done for speeding (touch wood) and I try to stay below the limit at all times, but sometimes its difficult not to suddendly find you've drifted 10%+1mph too high and its usually the areas beloved by speed vans.

Speed vans are unforgiving money machines - 35mph in a 30, 46mph in a 40 etc and you'll get a fine, points and an expensive hike in your insurance that stays with you for 3 years at least.

Unthrottled, try it and see. Keep an open mind. I'm anti french cars but the Citroen implementation of this simple idea seems very good.

GPS controlled limiters - properly implemented with the ability to overide etc would be an excellent feature.

Waffle about temporary speed limits or liabilty etc etc is typical unthrottled garble - of course its still the drivers responsibilty to check his speed.

I of course advocate all cars in the UK should have a mandatory top speed of 80 mph.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 00:23

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - unthrottled

I suppose you poo poo parking sensors as well...

Yes. I'd rather have a car with decent visibility than rely on a laser/infra red sensor. I'm embarrassingly bad at parking-but sensors wouldn't help.

In a modern car in 4th or 5th , unless you have your eyes glued to the speedo all the time, its all too easy to drift up over a 30 or 40mph limit especially when being haranged by tailgaters, distracted by wife/kids or being just a little too tired.

Then stay in third if you can't control your speed at low revs. If you're "a little to tired" or "distracted" that you can't even control your speed-you need to pull over-not push a button. Controlling your speed is lesson 101 of driving. It doesn't bode well for more complex observational requirements, does it?

Unthrottled, try it and see.

I have used cruise control. I took my foot off the pedal and mentally switched off. That's why I don't like it. I find that my biggest challenge is maintaining concentration. Automation makes it easier to become disengaged.

Waffle about temporary speed limits or liabilty etc etc is typical unthrottled garble - of course its still the drivers responsibilty to check his speed.

Liability is not a theoretical problem. There are cars fitted with technology that enables the car to maneouvre itself into a parking space. Every single one of these systems requires the driver to operate the accelerator and brake-so that the driver is legally in control of the car and the manufacturer is indemnified from liability.

Edited by unthrottled on 31/01/2012 at 00:24

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 00:56

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - brum

I expected you would reply with the same old twaddle/lecture.

Probably an IAM member.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 01:08

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - unthrottled

Probably an IAM member.

Not at all.

Why the ad hominem response? I don't think my driving is pefect-far from it. But I blame my driving, not the car. There are always going to be sorts that gravitate to useless shiny gimmicks-but they're usually called magpies.

Why should my car be externally controlled because someone else can't modulate the accelerator properly?

Must be a RoSPA member.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 10:04

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - brum

Why the ad hominem response?

Maybe its something to do with the abrasive,know all, not willing to consider anyone elses point of view, I'm always right, style.

Edited by brum on 31/01/2012 at 10:14

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 30 Jan 2012 20:36

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - IRC

Easy target? Only if you speed.

Well OK I'm not saying I never speed. I do though watch where I do it. I tend to drive at or 10mph (indicated) over it. So 45 in a 40. I know where the fixed speed cameras are in my area. I know where the police traps usually are.

If I'm driving somewhere I don't know I drive at the limit. That's for my own car.

Most of my miles are done at work. Perhaps I'm lucky in that neither of my employers pressure me to speed with unrealistic time limits. That being the case what percentage is there for me to speed? One job has a fixed finish time. The other job if I finish late I get overtime. Why should I speed? If I'm working I'm more or less at the limit. 30-32 in a 30 then 50 in a 50, . 70 in a 70 etc (speed taken from by SatNav)

Of course if road and weather conditions dictate a slower speed then I'll be under the limit.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 30 Jan 2012 21:16

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - gordonbennet

Don't wish for GPS speed limiters, i can hear appratchiks all over the country now in a frenzy....quick whilst the proletariat are not looking.

Fines should be graduated on income for all crimes and civil penalties, a days wages would be about right for speeding, as it is those on footballers wages would laugh at £100.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 30 Jan 2012 21:27

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - unthrottled

Fines should be graduated on income for all crimes and civil penalties.

Very good point. Based on self-assessment (so little additional administration costs) with an appropriate penalty for a false declaration.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 30 Jan 2012 21:28

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - sb10

A lot of drivers take no notice of speed signs anyway, so a larger fine wont alter anything,but base the fine on value of motor ie the more expensive it is the bigger the fine

Look at the mobile phone law what a joke that is to some !

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 30 Jan 2012 21:33

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - unthrottled

For a lot of drivers the increase in insurance premium is a much bigger disincentive to speeding than the points/FPN. As is often the case, the market provides the solution.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 30 Jan 2012 23:31

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - jamie745

Fines should be graduated on income for all crimes and civil penalties.

Sorry i cant agree with that. Stupid suggestion. How is speeding worthy of a bigger penalty if the driver earns more money? You cant say Driver A who earns £20,000 should get £100 fine for doing 36 in a 30 but Driver B who earns £100,000 should get a £500 fine for doing 36 in a 30. Both offences are identical yet Driver B's is deemed 5 times worse? That'd never work in a civilised society.

Are you going to suggest potless people should get no fine at all? So they can go around breaking the law as much as they want and never face penalty?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 30 Jan 2012 23:58

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - unthrottled

Well you could have a lower threshold, Jamie.

Penalties are supposed to be proportionate to the offence. The trouble with FPNs is that the severity of the penalty is dependant on your income.

Are you going to suggest potless people should get no fine at all? So they can go around breaking the law as much as they want and never face penalty?

FPNs allow the well healed to just that. £60 is nothing to someone on 100k/year, but it is a lot to someone on £12k. Variable fines are perfectly workable. Fines determined by the courts are based on income.

Edited by unthrottled on 30/01/2012 at 23:59

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 00:13

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - jamie745

Penalties are supposed to be proportionate to the offence. The trouble with FPNs is that the severity of the penalty is dependant on your income.

Thats life. Somebody on 100k a year can afford more than someone on 12k a year in general. If you cant afford to pay the fine then in all likelyhood you'd be aware of that before you go speeding, so just dont do it. Simples. The purpose of the penalty is meant to be proportionate to the offence, NOT to be as punishing as possible to the individual. If speeding is worthy of £100 fine, then its worthy of a £100 fine, regardless of who you are.

FPNs allow the well healed to just that. £60 is nothing to someone on 100k/year, but it is a lot to someone on £12k.Fines determined by the courts are based on income.

Well yes but only in the event that you lose an appeal. Then its based on 'ability to pay' rather than income, as you put it. That system is also broken, you get well-to-do people receiving huge fines despite the fact its the first 'illegal' thing they've done in their lives while Wayne-tracksuit-troglodyte, complete with his nicked trainers, hat on backwards and jeans full of cannabis gets let off with a small fine and a 'referal order' as the magistrate tuts about him being a lost cause.

Variable fines are perfectly workable.

No they're not. It'd be way too expensive to administrate. Completely pointless, a furthering of red tape and a waste of money. The Government still cant get peoples tax codes right, what hope is there of them implimenting this system properly?

I think this is a non-issue. The amount of people with the sort of money to be able to speed/illegally park freely etc is very small. Although that small group of people are vital to many councils. Chelsea and Kensington Councils essentially rely on the parking fines of the Chelsea FC players (one of them racking up £50,000 in charges over a year i believe). Mind you it probably wouldnt be difficult to rack up 50k worth of parking fines in London. I could probably manage it over a weekend.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 00:06

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - gordonbennet

Are you going to suggest potless people should get no fine at all? So they can go around breaking the law as much as they want and never face penalty?

Good grief how simple does it have to be for you to understand.

Those on minimum wage or benefits would likely be earning say £60 a day, so £60 would be a fair fine for them, for those who have no income ie the increasingly rare housewife who isn't on benefits then her husbands income should be rated, one could even have £60 as a minimum.

As noted above, self assesment would be fair all round, and a 10X the fine penalty eg 10 days pay for false declaration plus the correct fine.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 00:15

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - jamie745

But how can the severity or punishment of a speeding offence be determined by what the driver earns? That makes no sense.

The punishment is for the offence, not for how much you dare earn.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 00:27

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - unthrottled

But how can the severity or punishment of a speeding offence be determined by what the driver earns?

Because the effective severity of the fine is relative to income Jamie! It's not like breaking a ming vase where the cost of the damage is absolute. There is no 'damage to pay for' (for want of a better phrase) in a fine. It is (supposed to be ) a fiscal disincentive from repeating the offence.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 00:32

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - jamie745

Because the effective severity of the fine is relative to income Jamie!

Tough. The effective impact of petrol prices is dependant on how much you earn. Should poor people get free petrol?

It is (supposed to be ) a fiscal disincentive from repeating the offence.

Doesnt the threat of losing your driving licence serve as a good disincentive for most people regardless of income? If you want to talk to me about possibly reducing the number of points it takes to get disqualified and harsher penalties for those who drive without a licence then i'll listen to you.

This on the other hand just sounds like jealousy that you dont have as much money as some other people.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 01:26

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - unthrottled

No, the points system is a great leveller-it affects everyone equally-irrespective of income. I don't get your hostility. Fines are not like commodities that must be paid for.

Given the fact that the hike in insurance premiums is almost always much greater than the FPN-I would just scrap the FPN. Happy?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 07:20

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - Armitage Shanks {p}

A fine is meant to hurt financially! It needs a bigger fine to "hurt" a rich person than to hurt most of us. In Switzerland

Speeding fines are NOT calculated as a percentage of income. This is only true for violations over a certain speed.

Over 25 over, it's a "Verzeigung" (i.e. a judicial report). Up to 34 over, you lose your license under the less strict part of the traffic law (not sure for how long) and can be sentenced to fines up to 10,000 CHF, as well as up to 360 hours of community service - it's in the purview of the judge.

At more than 35 over, you will lose your license for a significant amount of time. You can also go to jail for up to 3 years. And the judge can order a fine based on your net (after tax) income on a per-day basis - up to 360 days' worth, at up to 3,000 CHF/day. Again, it's subjective and up to the judge, and the law sets maximum limits.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 07:49

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - Andy P

Rather than link the fine to income, why not link it to how may times the offence is commited - £60 first time, £100 second time and so on. That way, persistent offenders are punished more than the person who only does it once and learns from their mistake.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 08:19

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - Armitage Shanks {p}

I think the "step" effect is achieved by Insurance comapnies raising premiums and by a lot more than £40 per 3 points! This means also that the money doesn't go to Local Authorities or Central Government to wasted on Illegal wars and poxy Olympic games!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 09:07

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - RT

I think the "step" effect is achieved by Insurance comapnies raising premiums and by a lot more than £40 per 3 points! This means also that the money doesn't go to Local Authorities or Central Government to wasted on Illegal wars and poxy Olympic games!

Loading the insurance premium, progressively, according to number of points does have a benefit for all those who don't commit offences, at least in theory, as their premiums should drop slightly. Might need to duck under the pigs though!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 09:35

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - barney100

It's just a game with the odds stacked against you. You can't win anything but the authorities and the insurance rogues do, if you mnage to avoid the cameras its sure someone behind you will come a cropper. I set off on every journey with a 'you won't get me today attitude' so far so good but it's just a matter of time 'til I make a mistake.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 09:53

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - RT

I set off on every journey with a 'you won't get me today attitude' so far so good but it's just a matter of time 'til I make a mistake.

I set off on every journey on the basis that I don't need to speed, any difference in journey time is inconsequential in the big picture of life. I try not to speed, I mainly succeed but being human I fail ocassionally - if I fail, get caught and punished, that's simply taking responsibility for my own actions.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 10:05

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - ChannelZ

I've been driving for 15 years. For 10 of those I did 60-65k a year. You know how many speeding fines I got?

None. You know why? I have a clue and can regulate my speed. I don't have to look at the speedo every few seconds, because I can feel if I'm speeding up or slowing down.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 13:10

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - sb10

All that grief to pay for victims of crime,must be a better way to pay for that, insurance as usuall,but we pay too much insurance anyway

They cant stop drivers using mobile phones so I really dont think many speeders will be caught,there not at the moment not enough police around

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 14:50

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - jamie745

No, the points system is a great leveller-it affects everyone equally-irrespective of income

When did i say otherwise? The only point i was trying to make was why do new drivers only get 6 points to play with yet those who should know better get 12? My argument was either everybody should start with 12 or 6 and keep it that way.

I don't get your hostility. Fines are not like commodities that must be paid for.

My hostility comes from the fact i dont see why i should get a bigger speeding fine than some Aldi shelf-stacker.

Given the fact that the hike in insurance premiums is almost always much greater than the FPN-I would just scrap the FPN. Happy?

But arent you annoyed that insurance premiums are not calculated based on income? A rich person can afford a huge insurance bill. If anything, those on higher incomes who live in nicer areas will get cheaper insurance on nicer, newer cars than poor people in Salford with 15 year old Mondeo's.

I just think you're making a big deal about very little. The fact is most of the people you see coming out of courts with fines or points for driving without insurance/on the phone/speeding etc are usually tracksuit wearing scrotes who's only income is what they've pilfered from holding up a post office.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 16:20

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - unthrottled

But arent you annoyed that insurance premiums are not calculated based on income?

No. Commodities have to be paid for. But a fine is not a commodity. It is supposed to be a financial pain that discourages offenders from speeding. Clearly a flat rate of £60 is not an equal disincentive across the income spectrum.

All fines that are not FPN are calculated according to income. It's a well-established principle, not a socialist utopia.

Of course we all know that fines are essentially just revenue raisers-so the point is a moot one.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 31 Jan 2012 16:39

Motorists to be hit with £100 speeding fines. - jamie745

All fines that are not FPN are calculated according to income.

I think the term used is 'ability to pay' because after all theres no point in giving someone a £5,000 fine if they dont have any money, they'd never pay it. However most fines for driving offences still have an upper limit. For instance i believe its £5,000 maximum for drink driving.

Of course we all know that fines are essentially just revenue raisers-so the point is a moot one.

Well yes thats the key point. The real reason why your 'income graduated fines' wouldnt work is because they'd actually work. Many local authorities depend greatly on the revenue raised from fines so they wouldnt want to issue a real disincentive to more well off frequent offenders.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Ask Honest John

Sell Your Car

Real MPG

Fuel Calculator