Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Feb 03, 2026 14:16

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 02:45 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Daily Telegraph

Quote:
Speeding drivers to face ban after two offences

Drivers could be banned from the roads after two speeding offences under safety measures to be announced.

By James Kirkup and Andrew Porter
Last Updated: 11:10PM GMT 19 Nov 2008

Comments 31 | Comment on this article

The proposals would see motorists given six penalty points for breaking the speed limit by a significant margin. A driver with 12 points on their licence is disqualified automatically.

The excessive speeds could be defined as more than 50mph in a 30mph zone, 70mph in a 50mph zone or 90mph on a motorway. Ministers will consult, however, before determining the exact thresholds.

Under current laws, most motoring offences are dealt with by a standard fixed penalty notice of a fine and three penalty points.

Motorists are only taken to court if police feel that a stiffer sanction is necessary, because only a court can impose a penalty of more than three points for a speeding offence.

The new system would see drivers receiving six-point penalties without a court hearing.

The plans are detailed in a consultation document, published on Thursday, in which the Government proposes a "sliding scale" of punishments for speeding offences. This would also see "borderline" cases, where a driver only exceeds the speed limit by a few miles an hour, incurring only two penalty points.

Four minor speeding offences would therefore no longer automatically add up to a disqualification.

Laws permitting a sliding scale for fixed penalty notices were passed in 2006 but ministers did not enact the system because they feared it would be politically controversial.

Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary, is understood to have concluded that a more flexible approach to speeding was now required, allowing the police to focus their attention on the most dangerous drivers. Motoring groups estimate that around 40 per cent of motorists have had penalty points for speeding. Department for Transport figures show that there were 2,946 road deaths in 2007, with speed a factor in many of them.

The Government will also announce that it has backed away from lowering the drink driving limit, which will remain unchanged.

Britain has one of the highest limits in Europe at 80mg of alcohol to 100ml blood. Doctors and road safety campaigners had backed a cut to 50mg, enough to put someone over the limit after a single drink.

However, ministers want to concentrate on the small number of people who drive while well over the legal limit. "It's the people who are at 100mg and more who are the real danger here; that's who we have to target," said a source.

As part of the shift in emphasis, ministers will expand the "High Risk Offenders Scheme" targeting a hard core of persistent drink-drivers.

This could see friends, neighbours and colleagues encouraged to inform police about those who frequently drive while drunk. These drivers would get warning letters from their local force telling them to seek help and change their ways. They may also be followed while driving and subjected to spot-checks.

Such targeting schemes have been used successfully in Canada. Lothian and Borders police began a similar initiative this summer.

Vince Yearly of the Institute of Advanced Motorists said the sliding scale for speeding penalties could be a useful contribution if it was accompanied by more use of "driver education courses" as an alternative to punishment.

"A sliding scale for fixed penalty notices – if it is also used alongside more education for drivers – may send the right message that this is about educating drivers instead of automatically penalising them," he added.

Cathy Keeler of Brake, the road safety campaign group, welcomed the prospect of increased penalties for the worst speeders.

But she said that she was worried about a two-point penalty, because it could reduce the punishment for speeding in built-up areas.


Still the emphasis is on speed being the main reason for road accidents. Don’t they read their own departments statistics which showed that speed was only a factor in 5% of road accidents.

Quote:
The new system would see drivers receiving six-point penalties without a court hearing.


More of whittling away our rights and, anything to speed up the process.

I can only assume that the system can’t cope with the amount of people being caught speeding well in excess of the limit. It would be interesting to know what percentage of people are caught speeding over the disqualification threshold every year.

At the end of the day what will this do for road safety. Is "speeding motorists" what this is all about? :(

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 08:05 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I can't help feeling this story has spun out of the launch of the cristmas drink drive inititives. There is nothing realy new here. The "one third" line was trotted out this morning. (one third of road deaths involved speeding) how many of those were as drink as a skunk? Well to catch drug or drink drivers you need coppers. And all of those are on shifts to deal with excessive drinking in town centers.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 09:23 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Yes, the "third lie" was on the radio today from yet another Scottish minister.

Quote:
The excessive speeds could be defined as more than 50mph in a 30mph zone, 70mph in a 50mph zone or 90mph on a motorway.

Wouldn't a percentage over make more sense than a 20mph increment?

Quote:
The new system would see drivers receiving six-point penalties without a court hearing.

The last 4 words are in line with the Government's summary "justice" programme.

Quote:
This could see friends, neighbours and colleagues encouraged to inform police

As is this.

Quote:
They may also be followed while driving and subjected to spot-checks

I assume they will do this by numberplate. How will they know who is driving the car? Will the police "stake out" an alleged offenders house?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:58 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Another thing, the way speed limits have been reduced to such ridiculously low speeds, it wouldn’t take much to be over the higher threshold.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 13:31 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Doesn't 26mph over the limit risk a ban anyway?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 14:01 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Speed enforcement guidlines

Page 6 :)

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 17:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:31
Posts: 46
This is the comment I left on topic titled BBC Radio Drive Time .....

If this is the consulation paper that is suggesting 6 points if you are deemed to be 'substantially over' the speed limit which could well mean a ban after 2 such incidents, then I think it is utterly crazy!

Being 'substantially over' the speed limit, is surely hugely ambiguous and definitely relative. A lot depends on the weather and road conditions as well as the time. Is it really unrealistic to drive at 30 or 35mph along a High Street that is set at 20mph when it is say 3.00 am in the morning and completely deserted? Of course I don't advocate driving through that same High Street at 60 or 70 mph, that would be daft, but surely no dafter than sticking to 20mph when there is not a soul in sight!

Also, if they intend to bring in a 'substantially over' the limit, perhaps there also ought to be a 'substantially below' the limit!

Most of us know that speed on its own is not responsible for the majority of deaths on our roads and that you do not have to be speeding/driving fast to be driving dangerously! There are too many people on the roads today that drive too slowly and cause people to take chances with overtaking that they normally would not take.

My other real problem with this is yet again it has been stated that 3000 people die each year on our roads and as I have said before, it is a great shame that this happens to anyone, but to put it in context, a report the other week also said that 24000 old people die each winter (ie during a 3 to 4 month spell) from the cold!

Could this be because the government don't give a damn about them as mostly they do not pay any tax anyway, just draw a pension and therefore are a drain on resources, whereas a lot of people killed on our roads are tax payers and that money is then lost to the coffers?

If this is not the reason, then I would like to know what is as it seems to me to be a lot more unacceptable that in this day and age 8 times as many elderly people should die from the cold during 3 to 4 months, than are killed in 12 months on our roads!

If this government want to reduce all accidental deaths to nil then they had better start pulling down houses and only building bungalows as falling down stairs in your own home is a common accident and can and does lead, in some cases, to broken necks, death or paralysis. There are many more dangers in the home too that probably claim the lives of just as many people as killed on the roads, but of course, ultimately it is not about road safety at all, is it? It is all about collecting money and playing the bully!

I wonder how they will feel about the loss of taxes when people have to give up work because they have lost their licence and without being able to drive cannot possibly get to work? I couldn't - for me no licence means no job! Public transport is such a joke in most parts of the country it is not even a consideration for many people.

I wonder when these politicians will start to earn their money, expenses and allowances and start to actually represent the people who voted them into office in the way those people want to be represented and to fight the issues these people voted them in to fight!

It is disgusting what these fat cats get away with and they have the audacity to throw stones at others who take big bonuses (not that I am condoning that), but talk about kettle and black!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 23:51 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
BBC 10 oclock stated 1/4 of all road deaths down to speeding.... down from 1/3 in just 14 hours. So in 42 hours it should be down to zero and we can stop persicuting motorists

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 20:20 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
It seems that this government is totally anti driver, so in my opinion, everyone who owns a vehicle or drives a vehicle for work should not vote for them in the next election, let's see how several million lack of voters makes them feel about their policies.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 14:14 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 15:00
Posts: 1109
Location: Can't see.
graball wrote:
It seems that this government is totally anti driver, so in my opinion, everyone who owns a vehicle or drives a vehicle for work should not vote for them in the next election, let's see how several million lack of voters makes them feel about their policies.


Which is why I voted for boris in the london mayoral election.

6 points for 90 on an m'way is interesting, and a complete contradiction. If the speed limit was changed to reflect the current median car speed of about 80, then 90 would be on the bubble of the 10%+2 rule of being deemed worth enforcement.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 16:52 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
True, 6 points for going as fast as everyone else does in L3....

:?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 01:59 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Johnnytheboy wrote:
True, 6 points for going as fast as everyone else does in L3....

:?

And the rest cover "road works" quite nicely.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 19:32 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
odd that no one mentioned this

Quote:
This would also see "borderline" cases, where a driver only exceeds the speed limit by a few miles an hour, incurring only two penalty points.


can the thread be renamed banned after six offences

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 21:53 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
camera operator wrote:
odd that no one mentioned this

Quote:
This would also see "borderline" cases, where a driver only exceeds the speed limit by a few miles an hour, incurring only two penalty points.


can the thread be renamed banned after six offences


No. They have decided against the two pointer.

:roll:


But abroad.. they have a sliding scale . It means EU cannot now "harmonise" and it means foreign idiots here cannot now be held to account.

Of course it means we UK fools might just get aways with it over there .. but pay an "on the spot fine" all the same.

But in the UK? These foreign fools do not pay even a fine if pinged by cam.

:banghead:

At least if they had the balls to introduce the two pointer.. and thus set in motion some "harmony" .. we would all face the same fines and two points wherever for low transgressions and perhaps put some justice and learning curve for the lower end of the complacent but safe" blipster!" ..

Yes.. I KNOW it''s not really fair .. nor just.. but in the worst scenario .. better than present system. If you achieve one inch . you can .. like our kids.. pester for the next inch till you get a whole mile :wink: if you see what I am getting at. :wink: Stealth them and play their games back to them.. with winning shots :wink:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.050s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]