Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Speeding fine may get £15 surcharge

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
"Speeding motorists could be required to pay a £15 surcharge on top of fines as a contribution towards a fund for crime victims. Skip related content
Related photos / videos Motorists fined for speeding may have to pay a £15 surcharge towards a fund for … So far the surcharge has been levied only on fines handed down in court.

But it was confirmed that Justice Secretary Jack Straw is considering extending it to on-the-spot fines and fixed penalty notices, as well as to other punishments imposed by courts.

This could mean millions of motorists, including those caught by speed cameras, having to stump up extra cash on top of the minimum £60 penalty, reported the Daily Telegraph.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "The surcharge has, to date, been applied only to fines, at a rate of £15. The Government is considering whether to extend the surcharge to certain types of penalty notices and other court disposals."

The Victim's Surcharge was introduced in April 2007 and latest figures show that between April 2008 and January this year it raised more than £6.6 million.

That sum could be vastly increased if the surcharge was extended to more than three million drivers handed fixed penalties for speeding each year. Other offences receiving on-the-spot fines include graffiti, shoplifting and being drunk and disorderly."


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090427/tuk-speeding-fine-may-get-15-surcharge-6323e80.html

:banghead:

While I am all for keeping speeds down, it seems to me that motorists are just an easy target (again) for the government to raise cash from them when they should REALLY be extracting cash from REAL criminals.

If you watch programs like 'Police, Camera, Action' etc, these little cunts that cause so much damage are let off with a mere slap on the wrist. Why doesn't the government chase them and their families instead? Perhaps if parents of young offenders had to dig some compensation money out of their pockets, they'd be more inclined to keep their kids on a leash.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Government is bankrupt.
    Government needs money.
    Government picks on easy target for more money, as taxing according to means is such a fucking alient concept to the Government.

    Speed doesn't kill. Bad driving does. Cameras are revenue extracting, they don't prosecute bad driving.

    It's either perfectly safe to drive at 90mph on a motorway or it is the most dangerous thing to do, depending on road conditions. I wouldn't mind, but the national speed limit was only brought in as a response to the 1970s fuel crisis; the black diagonal always used to mean 'end of restriction'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't agree with the speed limit. What I've heard is that it was based on a 1970s Ford Mondeo or something. If they existed then heh. Brakes today are much better.

    But... I still think the speed limit is the speed limit. If people are exceeding the speed limit then if the police are around they know they're going to get caught. I further agree with Kermit's implication that it's situational - going 40 in a 30 near a school is increasing the chance of killing a child quite dramatically according to the adverts. Going 80mph on the motorway isn't going to make a lot of difference in good conditions. Then again, I've seen some drivers in APPALLING conditions still try to drive at 70mph when it was clearly not safe to do so.

    I guess the speeding laws work on averages, on average someone who is speeding is more likely to be a hazard than someone who is not, and as such they should be punished. I don't think the speed camera culture is good at all, the theory is sound but as we have seen even prison doesn't act as an effective behaviour modifying deterrent.

    £15 isn't a whole lot - if you can afford to speed where you know the speed limit then you can afford to pay the extra surcharge on top of the fine. If you can't afford to speed... then you shouldn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The speed limits are often there for solid safety reasons. My terraced street is very narrow so the speed limit is 20mph, the dual carriageway at the top of the hill is wide and straight so the speed limit is 70mph.

    But enforcing the speed limits with cameras isn't done on solid safety reasons. There are several cameras on the A69 covering dangerous junctions- so far so good. But if they are there on safety grounds, why are they hidden behind a non-reflective sign, a tree and a bridge parapet? Speed cameras should be painted neon pink with flashing lights on them if it's safety you want- a hidden camera won't make people slow down for the dangerous junction.

    As for who I think the most dangerous drivers are, lets start with the owd codger I was following the other week doing 27mph on a trunk road.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What I wouldn't do to see our Prime Mentalist run over by a truck when I see these sorts of stories. Cunts, cunts, cunts, cunts...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I don't agree with the speed limit. What I've heard is that it was based on a 1970s Ford Mondeo or something. If they existed then heh. Brakes today are much better.
    IIRC it was a Morris Minor, or some monstruous deathtrap like that.

    But never mind that the average modern car is two million times safer and can stop at a fraction of the braking distance of the Morris. Apparently anything about 70 is dangerous.

    I for one don't mind further speed restrictions on certain roads- so long as it is recognised there is nothing wrong with doing at least 85-90mph on a motorway in the right conditions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »

    I for one don't mind further speed restrictions on certain roads- so long as it is recognised there is nothing wrong with doing at least 85-90mph on a motorway in the right conditions.

    I'm inclined to disagree.

    Although it may be safe for YOU to drive at that speed, alone on a road, you have to remember there are other road users. Road users that are STUPID. If you were doing that speed and someone cut you up etc you would have less time to react and a much slower stopping time, thus making 90mph not an advisory speed to be travelling at compared to 60/70mph.

    That's my opinion anyway and of course you are entitled to yours which I appreciate :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I for one don't mind further speed restrictions on certain roads - so long as it is recognised there is nothing wrong with doing at least 85-90mph on a motorway in the right conditions.
    Now that's a policy I'd vote for. For example, 20mph speed limits outside schools should have been introduced years before they actually were.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think on the motorway what is more dangerous than excessive speed is driving excessively close to other vehicles. But I don't know any cameras that send out tickets to van drivers for tailgating cars. Consider that a motorcyclist if he's lucky and doesn't hit anything can survive a crash at 100mph+ there is something to be said for being aware of the real dangers rather than just arbitrary speed limits.

    But then again it would be too difficult to judge whether people were driving recklessly all the time as apposed to just checking their speed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    squeal wrote: »
    I'm inclined to disagree.

    Although it may be safe for YOU to drive at that speed, alone on a road, you have to remember there are other road users. Road users that are STUPID. If you were doing that speed and someone cut you up etc you would have less time to react and a much slower stopping time, thus making 90mph not an advisory speed to be travelling at compared to 60/70mph.

    That's my opinion anyway and of course you are entitled to yours which I appreciate :)

    Yea I agree it all depends on the circumstances and like I said its more dangerous to drive dangerously i.e. too close to other vehicles, unsafe lane changes than to just simply drive faster.

    I think it's an issue the government avoids looking at tbh, just like drugs for whatever reason.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    squeal wrote: »
    Although it may be safe for YOU to drive at that speed, alone on a road, you have to remember there are other road users. Road users that are STUPID.

    In busy traffic it's inappropriate to go that fast, but in good conditions on quiet roads it's perfectly appropriate to be going that fast.

    You don't have carnage on the motorways in Germany and their motorways are unrestricted.

    What I really want to see is the Government going after middle lane morons.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote: »
    What I really want to see is the Government going after middle lane morons.

    :yes: and restrictions on lorries overtaking on dual carriage ways.

    Driving fast isn't dangerous. Driving fast in the wrong conditions is dangerous.
    The whole system's out of date. Speed limits could quite easilly go up on some roads without any significant increase in risk. But then there are other roads that coudl do with heavier restrictions.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Poor driving is what causes the majority of accidents on major roads (dual carriageways, motorways)

    For example - in heavy rain, I'm doing a solid 70MPH. The speed limit, and I feel comfortable that I and my car can cope with it (the car I drive is particularly communicative as to road surface conditions).
    Someone comes steaming past at 95MPH, hits unsighted standing water and almost smashes into the barrier, possibly collecting other road users.


    A few weeks ago, I'm driving home on the M4 on a sunny Saturday morning. There is very little traffic around, and I'm doing 90MPH. The car is stable, I am confident and alert, monitoring what little traffic ahead I can see and planning accordingly.
    I come round a bend in the motorway and see a camera van on a bridge up ahead - too late, as I tend not to check for road hazards on a bridge above my head.
    Bam. 3 points and a £60 fine.


    Now tell me which one is more dangerous and deserving of a penalty?

    Limits are there for a reason, but common sense has to be applied more thoroughly to something with as many fluctuating variables as driving.
    Just as in the same way a speed camera will catch a motorist straying over the limit coming home late at night, it won't catch a drunken driver weaving all over the road endangering lives and property at 25MPH.


    As for the surcharge ... just ANOTHER way for this bloody government to milk road users for all their worth. They really don't want re-election, do they?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    gov is so broke by the time they're done there will be a surcharge for flushing the bog.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This isnt about raising money from the motorist, its about helping victims and saving lives :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    This isnt about raising money from the motorist, its about helping victims and saving lives :rolleyes:

    Which victims ? Whose lives will be saved ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    This isnt about raising money from the motorist, its about helping victims and saving lives :rolleyes:

    Helping victims of what? Saving whose lives?

    As I said before, if these cameras were about safety there would be one outside every single school and they would all be painted neon pink with shiny sparkly lights.

    But they're not, these cameras are hidden in places solely to catch people speeding. Hell, it was only after a European challenge that the Government were forced to paint them yellow and put warning signs up; before then, most cameras were well hidden on fast flowing stretches of road. Most of the speed cameras in Northumberland Partnership are hidden behind non-reflective signs even now.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Which victims ? Whose lives will be saved ?
    Kermit wrote:
    Helping victims of what? Saving whose lives?

    Is sarcasm lost on you two? :p
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Is sarcasm lost on you two? :p

    Thank you, some brains on the boards ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am amazed the amount of people who actually stick to speed limits.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am amazed the amount of people who actually stick to speed limits.
    In some areas and situations maybe, but in others it's just a very few..

    In such cases (say on dual carriageways with a restriction of 40 or 50mph) the one driver sticking to the speed limit sticks out like a sore thumb and promptly creates a long queue of traffic behind them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cars may have massively improved, but unfortunately, reaction times have not! It's still going to take the same amount of time for a person to react to someone cutting them up now as it would in the 70s

    Who is to say that it's safe travelling at whatever speed on whatever day?

    I'm actually in favour of increasing the limit on the motorway, like in Germany, but they have different rules altogether (for example, they don't have lorries clogging up the autobahns on a weekend, unless carrying fresh produce, meaning lower numbers of lorries / tired lorry drivers etc).

    I'd rather see more Traffic Police than cameras to be honest - i'm not sure how much the cameras cost, but i'm sure for every one, you could afford at least 1 to 2 bobbies, and considering a camera is only triggered by someone going over a set limit, it can't determine what could be dangerous driving, along with other problems
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Cars may have massively improved, but unfortunately, reaction times have not! It's still going to take the same amount of time for a person to react to someone cutting them up now as it would in the 70s

    Pont is braking distances are still far smaller now than when when these laws were set in place. Cars are safer all round infact. Speed is not the main cause of accidents on the road anyway.
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Who is to say that it's safe travelling at whatever speed on whatever day?

    Who is it say that 70mph is safe and 75mph is deserving of ticket?
    Commen sense tells us that dryy roads are safer than wet roads, clear conditions are safer than foggy condition etc etc.
    Variable speed limits are in already in effect on large stretches of UK motorways. Of course they still have have a ceilign of 70mph which is outdated.
    FCUK it wrote: »
    I'm actually in favour of increasing the limit on the motorway, like in Germany, but they have different rules altogether (for example, they don't have lorries clogging up the autobahns on a weekend, unless carrying fresh produce, meaning lower numbers of lorries / tired lorry drivers etc).

    I'd rather see more Traffic Police than cameras to be honest - i'm not sure how much the cameras cost, but i'm sure for every one, you could afford at least 1 to 2 bobbies, and considering a camera is only triggered by someone going over a set limit, it can't determine what could be dangerous driving, along with other problems

    Agree with all that. I don't think anybody with any sense will argue that we shoudl just up the limit across the board. There are so many variables to take into account when assessing how risky a road is.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Is sarcasm lost on you two? :p

    Not normally!
    FCUK it wrote:
    Cars may have massively improved, but unfortunately, reaction times have not!

    Look in your Highway Code. Most of the braking distance is actual stopping distance, rather than thinking time. The Highway Code distance could probably be cut by 35% and be realistic for modern cars, although I appreciate that they should overstate the distances massively.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Not normally!



    Look in your Highway Code. Most of the braking distance is actual stopping distance, rather than thinking time. The Highway Code distance could probably be cut by 35% and be realistic for modern cars, although I appreciate that they should overstate the distances massively.

    Erm not quite...

    Based on the Highway Code (but you'll know this, as you quoted it)

    Speed - Thinking Distance - Braking Distance

    20mph = 6m - 6m
    30mph = 9m - 14m
    40mph = 12m - 24m
    50mph = 15m - 38m
    60mph = 18m - 55m
    70mph = 21m - 75m

    Therefore even if you cut the braking distance, you'd still be looking at between 25% to 50% of the stopping distance being thinking time.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Erm not quite...

    Based on the Highway Code (but you'll know this, as you quoted it)

    Speed - Thinking Distance - Braking Distance

    20mph = 6m - 6m
    30mph = 9m - 14m
    40mph = 12m - 24m
    50mph = 15m - 38m
    60mph = 18m - 55m
    70mph = 21m - 75m

    Therefore even if you cut the braking distance, you'd still be looking at between 25% to 50% of the stopping distance being thinking time.

    Eitherway, it's not hard to see that speed limits are outdated. Cars are much safer, and those stats are old stats. Even if you don't take ABS into account breaking distance on most modern cars are shorter than that. Those stats are way out of date.

    There are clear instances where limits should be decreased - such as many country roads, and clear insatnce where they coudl be increased - such as motorways where variable speed limits are possible.
    Weekender Offender 
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    NThe braking distance shown in the Highway Code at 70 mph is 75 metres, which was probably a realistic figure in 1965 under good conditions with a reasonably competent driver at the wheel. In 2001, nearly all cars tested by Autocar could brake from 60 mph to a standstill in 3 seconds or less. This rate of deceleration is equivalent to a braking distance from 70 mph of 55 metres. When the thinking distance is added, this means that the total stopping distance for a modern car is 76 metres, compared with 96 metres shown in the Highway Code. This represents a 21% improvement in performance since 1965.
    These bare figures do not show the whole story. Nearly all cars produced today are fitted with anti-lock braking systems. Not only do these allow relatively unskilled drivers to access a car's full stopping abilities on a consistent basis, they also enable steering control to be maintained whilst doing so. Some more expensive and performance oriented cars are equipped with dynamic stability aids, which will become more widely available in time. These enable vehicles to be kept under control in extreme circumstances, such as when taking avoiding action.

    Part of the improvement in braking performance can be attributed to the development of tyre technology. In 1965, radial-ply tyres were only just starting to make significant inroads into the original-equipment market. Today, even quite ordinary cars are fitted with tyres having much greater cornering, braking and wet weather grip than those of the 1960s. The design of suspension systems has become more sophisticated, to take advantage of the abilities of the latest tyres. Even basic modern tyres are capable of being run at sustained speeds above 100
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive - my response to Kermit was re: thinking time / distance, not braking distance

    RE: Your comments about tyres - this assumes that all individuals look after their tyres, which unfortunately they do not.

    A blow out at 100mph would possibly result in far more serious injury than that of a lower speed
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just to butt in, does anyone actually KNOW for definite that the highway code hasn't changed? It's constantly being revised and updated, it seems strange that they wouldn't look at stopping distances again but they do everything else.

    Just a thought.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Skive - my response to Kermit was re: thinking time / distance, not braking distance

    RE: Your comments about tyres - this assumes that all individuals look after their tyres, which unfortunately they do not.

    A blow out at 100mph would possibly result in far more serious injury than that of a lower speed

    As speed increases from 10mph to 20mph the kinetic energy increases by 4 times. Therefore definitely if you crash at 100mph into a brick wall as apposed to 70mph the energy differential would be massive, about double. Which effectively means you have double the chance of dying, although crashing into a brickwall at 70mph is a pretty grim outlook anyway.

    Although that is all sound physics, the problem is there is really no evidence that if people are driving at speeds suitable for the conditions that accidents are any more or less likely to happen at 100mph than 70mph. In fact in many places innappropriate speed limits have been cited as a causal factor of accidents because some drivers try to stick to them and some try to drive at what they determine to be safe and end up tailgating, weaving, and other dangerous driving habits.

    The thing is, on clear stretches of the M1 where variable speed limits are enabled, at clear times of the day, do you think that increasing the speed limit to 80mph would do any extra damage at all? Because there is really no conclusive evidence at all, other than the above science that going faster and crashing = more damage.

    Consider that motorcycle helmet manufacturers gave up trying to protect the riders head from impacts at 70mph because if they do hit a lampost or something, they're going to be dead anyway. So what they have done is engineered them to be safer at low speed impacts (where most collisions occur anyway) so you are less likely to have brain damage from crashing into a bus at 30mph. The same is true in cars. If you hit a stationary object at 70mph, unless you are deflected the energy you were travelling with is most likely going to kill you. So the emphasis must be on avoiding accidents with appropriate distances between cars and driving at speeds safe for the conditions.

    However there is no reason why you are more likely to crash in good conditions on a clear road at 80mph over 70mph, anymore than if you were travelling at 60mph or 50mph. The case, in pure evidence, just isn't there for limiting people's top speed arbitarily on good roads. In fact in pure evidence germany with the autobahn is far safer than many other countries with imposed speed limits. It is all about -not- crashing and speed is only a contributing factor to a crash when it is speed inappropriate for the conditions or there is a speed difference between the vehicle and the mean speed of traffic (either if the car is going much faster or much slower).

    Nobody complains about planes travelling a couple of hundred miles per hour!
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Skive - my response to Kermit was re: thinking time / distance, not braking distance

    RE: Your comments about tyres - this assumes that all individuals look after their tyres, which unfortunately they do not.

    A blow out at 100mph would possibly result in far more serious injury than that of a lower speed

    I accept those points.
    But you can't get away from the fact that car saftey (both in prevention and result of crashes) has improoved significantly whilst UK laws on speed have remained the same for decades. They are out of date.

    Britain has the safest main roads in Europe. The evidence is that approc 50% of people speed on our motorways yet they remain some of the safest in the world. That goes for A roads too.
    Where Britain is lagging is ur saftey record of pedestrians and cyclists indicating that it's our minor and country roads that need harsher limits whilst the limit for our major roads could be increased.

    And Whowhere the highway code's stats on stopping distances are not realistic. They do not accurately represent the true stopping distance of modern vehicles.
    Weekender Offender 
Sign In or Register to comment.