Speeding drivers face new penalties

[timezone]

Tougher penalties for speeding and other "excessive behaviour" by motorists are to be proposed by ministers as part of a bid to cut road deaths.

http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/ne/pressass/20081120/03/704706208-speeding-drivers-face-new-penalties.jpg#200,200

Drivers who break the speed limit by a large margin could be given six penalty points, a consultation is expected to suggest, meaning they would be banned after two offences.

Other measures will target drink drivers and those who put lives at risk by taking to the wheel under the influence of other drugs.

Provisional Government figures showed this month that the number of people killed on the roads in spring this year fell by 20% compared with the same period in 2007.

There were 580 fatalities in April-June 2008 compared with 721 in the same three months last year, the statistics showed.

But Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick believes more can be done to cut the numbers further and will outline the proposals in a written statement to the Commons.

They will be the subject of a three-month consultation.

[keystone]

I don't have a problem with this. We slaughter 3,500 people on UK roads every single year and positive action to reduce that number has to be for the good.

[orderoutofchaos]

I have a big problem with this. 2 offences then you are BANNED for 2 years. This Labour governement is the worst Government this country has ever had. Instead of putting all thei energies in saving victims of abuse, they want to penelise the motorist excessively for exceeding the speed limit.

2900 people die on the roads each year- not 3500 of which 30% are speed related. So what are they doing about the non speed related accidents?

[keystone]

I have a big problem with this. 2 offences then you are BANNED for 2 years. This Labour governement is the worst Government this country has ever had. Instead of putting all thei energies in saving victims of abuse, they want to penelise the motorist excessively for exceeding the speed limit.

2900 people die on the roads each year- not 3500 of which 30% are speed related. So what are they doing about the non speed related accidents?If people want to behave like lunatics on the roads then they deserve all they get. Don't mind if they kill one another it's the innocents (particularly the children) that matter due to peoples selfish stupidity.

Even if its "only" 30% that are speed related that's still the best part of a 1,000 which is 1,000 too many. What planet are you on?

[skyline]

The problem with this idea is that a motorist caught speeding on a clear day,open road will be punished.Its crazy

The highway code was written by moses its so old and moden cars have better bracking and handling.I had a 1968 mini and it took 3 weeks to stop at 50mph.

The 70 mph speed limit on a motorway is insane,stats show most accidents are caused by people not knowing how to drive,Driving at 60 in the middle lane is common and thats what causes accidents.The driving test is crap mine was 15 minutes,although it was 20 years ago



Things that cause accidents

Left hand drive lorries
Old people who drive too slow
Badly maintained vehicles
Booze
Risk takers
buses
Weather
Tail gaters
Tiredness

[tracker]

Tougher penalties for speeding and other "excessive behaviour" by motorists are to be proposed by ministers as part of a bid to cut road deaths.

http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/ne/pressass/20081120/03/704706208-speeding-drivers-face-new-penalties.jpg#200,200

Drivers who break the speed limit by a large margin could be given six penalty points, a consultation is expected to suggest, meaning they would be banned after two offences.

Other measures will target drink drivers and those who put lives at risk by taking to the wheel under the influence of other drugs.

Provisional Government figures showed this month that the number of people killed on the roads in spring this year fell by 20% compared with the same period in 2007.

There were 580 fatalities in April-June 2008 compared with 721 in the same three months last year, the statistics showed.

But Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick believes more can be done to cut the numbers further and will outline the proposals in a written statement to the Commons.

They will be the subject of a three-month consultation.


bloody well good on em too .

i have children and it totally pisses me off seeing speeding drivers .

they get what they deserve and not soon enough too !


its about bloody time !

[tracker]

If people want to behave like lunatics on the roads then they deserve all they get. Don't mind if they kill one another it's the innocents (particularly the children) that matter due to peoples selfish stupidity.

Even if its "only" 30% that are speed related that's still the best part of a 1,000 which is 1,000 too many. What planet are you on?

too true they deserve what they get .

my child was hit by a speeding car , lucky i wasnt there coz i would have willingly served a life sentance for outing their life force .


this law is taking too long to come out .

im glad that speeding motorists will be banned if they do it twice .

bloody maniacs ! speed limits are put there for good reason .
liscences are given with good trust that those who earn them will comply to given speeds etc .

if they cant accept responsability , then they dont deserve to drive .


i cant wait , speeding maniacs deserve to have their liscenced revoked for ever !

[drhemp]

This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising more money in fines for their coffers. This Government couldn't give a shit about public health or safety.

[tracker]

This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising more money in fines for their coffers. This Government couldn't give a shit about public health or safety.

at the end of the day


if you dont speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!and put lives at wrisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss k !


you dont get fined ---------------da !


all speeding drivers get what they deserrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrv va !

[keystone]

This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising more money in fines for their coffers.How do you work that out? It's nothing to do with fines but evreything about doubling the penalty points total so that it'll be two foul tips and you're out rather than four.

This Government couldn't give a shit about public health or safety.Ah yes - but that's a quite different issue.

[tracker]

what enoys me is people who complain about speed cameras .

those are the type that speed , and dont wish to get cought for it .

ive always driven within the limit so it doesnt bother me .

they doubled the points and fines etc coz the bloody thick gits are not listening and certainly not learning .


speed kills kids ! it kills people full stop !

i cant wait to see speeding motorists off the bloody road .

they will get everything they deserve for not taking the responsability of holding a driving liscence seriously .


tough poo poo !

[pinkgrapefruit]

I have a big problem with this. 2 offences then you are BANNED for 2 years. This Labour governement is the worst Government this country has ever had. Instead of putting all thei energies in saving victims of abuse, they want to penelise the motorist excessively for exceeding the speed limit.

2900 people die on the roads each year- not 3500 of which 30% are speed related. So what are they doing about the non speed related accidents?

I assume by your objection that you feel you have a right to drive at any speed you see fit. I apologise if I have this wrong.
If you cannot control the speed of your car using a combination of brake and accelerator then you cannot control your car, therefore you should not be on the road at all!
The Government would not see the need to introduce these laws if people stuck to the speed limits. So the blame for this falls on the shoulders of the speeders.
Speed Bumps, Speed Cameras, Congestion, 1000+ deaths per year, plus whatever else that I hate about driving is because of speeding twats.
Another reason for NOT speeding should be your dislike for the Labour Government, don’t speed and you wont have to give them your cash will you?

[drhemp]

If they really didn't want people to speed then why not put speed restricters in all those fast cars that execs and senior management drive, er no, coz that would piss off middle England and reduce the amount of cash they get in fines.

The simple truth is that there are certain areas where it's safer to drive fast than others. Only last week I was driving at 180km/ hour (about 112mph) perfectly legally on the German Autobahn and I felt perfectly safely too. What we should have is a bit of common sense on the issue which allows drivers to drive faster on rural main roads or specifically designed duel-carriageway ways or motorways and then concentrate on slowing down vehicles in urban or built up areas where speeding is clearly dangerous. But of course, this would be common sense, and we all know the Government's speeding policies are geared around raising as much cash as possible rather than anything to do with the safety of the public.

[signalnorth]

what enoys me is people who complain about speed cameras .

those are the type that speed , and dont wish to get cought for it .! !

* I don't speed.

* But I hate speed cameras

* I have had family tragedy from reckless driving.

So where does that leave me!!


What's the betting, there will be objections and the government will 'back-down' to a position of heavier fines for speeding? Watch this space

[tracker]

* I don't speed.

* But I hate speed cameras

* I have had family tragedy from reckless driving.

So where does that leave me!!


What's the betting, there will be objections and the government will 'back-down' to a position of heavier fines for speeding? Watch this space

well sounds rather like reality to me , its the typical way to raise finds by bartering .

i only hope that they bring that law in and make it final .

break the speed limit eccesively twice and a life bann no returns .
it couldnt happen soon enough in my eyes .

[airkraft]

A 30mph speed limit is great for built up areas......but the trouble is, the built up areas are getting bigger and bigger. I live in a rural-ish area, and all the towns and villages are blending into each other now because of new housing estates and outlet villages...all with 30mph or even 20 in some places. Imagine the future, and having to drive a 200 mile journey at 30 mph all the way, or........have to pay a toll, like on the new bit on the M6. I agree that common sense is needed, but lets get the full facts first. How many people die from using various household items every year.....how many die from drowning in and around our shoreline......but none of those things can be prevented by awarding penalty points on licenses (which increases your insurance bill)or issuing a fine....so its not done

Speed cameras are just a revenue earner for the state, and anyone who thinks they are there for the safety of the public needs to re think....especially people on this website who are supposed to be awake to the fact of how our govt works.

A thousand times more people die each year from the effects of the poisons they put in our water and our food, than by speeding motorists. So what about campaigning to get the poisons out of the food chain and saving people from the cost of the health service and the bill from the pharmacutical companies. People will live longer healthier lives because of it.

[tracker]

A 30mph speed limit is great for built up areas......but the trouble is, the built up areas are getting bigger and bigger. I live in a rural-ish area, and all the towns and villages are blending into each other now because of new housing estates and outlet villages...all with 30mph or even 20 in some places. Imagine the future, and having to drive a 200 mile journey at 30 mph all the way, or........have to pay a toll, like on the new bit on the M6. I agree that common sense is needed, but lets get the full facts first. How many people die from using various household items every year.....how many die from drowning in and around our shoreline......but none of those things can be prevented by awarding penalty points on licenses (which increases your insurance bill)or issuing a fine....so its not done

Speed cameras are just a revenue earner for the state, and anyone who thinks they are there for the safety of the public needs to re think....especially people on this website who are supposed to be awake to the fact of how our govt works.

A thousand times more people die each year from the effects of the poisons they put in our water and our food, than by speeding motorists. So what about campaigning to get the poisons out of the food chain and saving people from the cost of the health service and the bill from the pharmacutical companies. People will live longer healthier lives because of it.

speed cameras would not be taking revenue if there werent so many incompitant drivers driving over the limit .

end fact , if you are breaking the limit you are not paying enough attention .

cameras would not be earning any money at all if people didnt think they had the right to create their own laws on the roads .

it couldnt get plainer and easier to comprehend than that .

if they can take the responsability of the liscnece they hold knowing fully well what the repocusions of killing people can be , then they deserve what they get .

im glad this law has been concidered and im glad cameras are all over coz their are so many incompitant thoughtless maniacs who are always believing they can own the road .

im glad this is happening !:D

[largejack]

This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising more money in fines for their coffers. This Government couldn't give a shit about public health or safety.


Agreed

[antinwo]

This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with raising more money in fines for their coffers. This Government couldn't give a shit about public health or safety.


You are so right:)

[tracker]

You are so right:)

NO they are not right !

if they were they would be remarking about the increase of road tax and petrol . they are money raisers .

speed cameras are put there for those who have passed their test but then have no respect for the road , other road users , padestrians and other things .
they go out and then believe they own the road and as stated

if they drove the way they were tought and were capable of driving properly they wouldnt be getting fines would they !

what part of that do you not understand then ?

its their own fault and if i was a copper i would do much more than fine , i would confiscate their liscnece and car , and fine them , and then make a prepared jail sentance for life if they go back on the road !

[airkraft]

tracker.....There is no need for you to keep pointing out your views on this subject, I`m sure we`re all aware of what you would do and how happy you`d be if it came into being.

We also understand that there has to be common sense....or should I do it like this....Common sense

I can understand how you feel, but others feel exactly the opposite.

We dont want to give them more powers. Peoples livelihoods are at stake here, just like my bro inlaw who lost his license through the totting up procedure. He could go bankrupt because he`s self employed. One of the times he was caught was at night on a well lit main road when nobody was about, doing 36 mph. Another time was when he pulled out of a junction and the camera got him....his fully loaded van could not have got to over 30mph in the distance it got him, but he couldnt argue, he just paid the fine and got the points.

Of all the things that people die of in the UK(apart from old age and illness), what percentage are killed on the roads ????? a lot smaller than you think I`ll bet, and compare this to how many people use their car everyday to travel to work/shops (about30 million cars).....its a tiny percentage so why are they picking on them....because its easy money.
If it cost twice as much to catch a speeding driver than the fine itself (because of the technology say), they wouldnt be bother doing it. Thats how much they care about us.
Its another form of entrapment....you could set traps for any criminal activity and you will catch someone.....why do you think its ok for them to do it to the motorist. Pick on real criminals, when they are all locked safely away, then start having a go at others for petty crimes

[tracker]

tracker.....There is no need for you to keep pointing out your views on this subject, I`m sure we`re all aware of what you would do and how happy you`d be if it came into being.

We also understand that there has to be common sense....or should I do it like this....Common sense

I can understand how you feel, but others feel exactly the opposite.

We dont want to give them more powers. Peoples livelihoods are at stake here, just like my bro inlaw who lost his license through the totting up procedure. He could go bankrupt because he`s self employed. One of the times he was caught was at night on a well lit main road when nobody was about, doing 36 mph. Another time was when he pulled out of a junction and the camera got him....his fully loaded van could not have got to over 30mph in the distance it got him, but he couldnt argue, he just paid the fine and got the points.

Of all the things that people die of in the UK(apart from old age and illness), what percentage are killed on the roads ????? a lot smaller than you think I`ll bet, and compare this to how many people use their car everyday to travel to work/shops (about30 million cars).....its a tiny percentage so why are they picking on them....because its easy money.
If it cost twice as much to catch a speeding driver than the fine itself (because of the technology say), they wouldnt be bother doing it. Thats how much they care about us.
Its another form of entrapment....you could set traps for any criminal activity and you will catch someone.....why do you think its ok for them to do it to the motorist. Pick on real criminals, when they are all locked safely away, then start having a go at others for petty crimes

oh i see , you don't want to save children's lives because of peoples lively hoods . and because not giving them more power is more important to you than saving children's lives you think its wrong to ban speeding maniacs who take the law in their own hands and have absolutely no respect for other peoples lives .
well that sums you up quite finally i think , and just because i wrote in big letters it does not mean its a view point .
it was a means of getting across to those who are as thick as shite who think its just a means to gain money coz its not .

it is a final means that has had to be considered because mindless law breaking road prats are just not listening and reasoning with road safety .

and then you say "pick on real criminals"

they are doing that you blind person , how on earth you justify putting lives at risk to justify speeding maniacs who kill people goes beyond reasoning .

why don't you get it in that head of yours .

the licence to drive has been given on trust that those who pass their test will stay in accordance to the road safety at hand , it is because these incessant maniacs refuse to do so why these cameras and laws are made in the 1st place .

What part of this logic dont you understand ?

and it is clear on how many childrens life you would put at risk just because you want to speed .
it sums you up quite fast and final .

and your remark about my big writing ?

also concider you have also slated off the thread creator too .

as i quote;

Tougher penalties for speeding and other "excessive behaviour" by motorists are to be proposed by ministers as part of a bid to cut road deaths.

hhhm same size too , maybe you might want to think before shooting off that gob thats attached to the head that doesnt mind puting childrens lives at risk . you would think some would have learned through experience by now .

[jimholbein]

absolutely nothing being done to cure death,s by those not speed related. watched the police behind a motorist doing 10 to 15 mph on a main rd for ages and driver was not stopped. try overtaking them at 30 and you are nicked. driving standards are by far the worst i have witnessed in years but police still hang off bridges to catch people,who have never had an accident, speed by. p.s best way to get off with bridge cameras is to get a mate to say they had a turn of driving and not sure who was at wheel at the time indicated. after 4 visits to court it was thrown out as unable to see how many in car never mind identify driver from crap video. oh did i mention a lot of intimidation also.

[jimholbein]

glad you are not in charge. still i will put a word in for you to bush.

[spock]

go and ask any police crash investigator.
not a traffic cop. a crash investigator.
they will tell you 9 out of 10 crashes have nothing to do with speed.

awareness (lack of)
risk taking
alcohol
driving ability
weather
loss of focus...........etc

no doubt, speeding is bad.
but a speeding drunk that's on his phone is worse.

[jimholbein]

Exactly, wonder how many die from terrorists in uk per year, must be millions with all the new spying laws being passed

[airkraft]

To start with, You are like a Drama queen, sensationalising everything I wrote.....I have not mentioned once about not wanting to save childrens lives. Quite the opposite in fact, I have touched on the subject of poisons in our water and food, this would save more lives than driving bans. But driving a little faster at night should not effect children should it. The figures they use are 580 total deaths .....how many were speed related??? ......how many of those speed related where children ???? It is sad when a child dies, but not all speeding drivers are wreckless....there are just some wreckless drivers about, and deserve to be punished.

Secondly, driving at 30mph does not guarantee that nobody will be killed, people still die when run over at 30 mph. It does cut the percentage, but we must use common sense or we could get even more radical like reducing the speed limit to 10 mph, or even less than that.....or why not ban cars altogether in built up areas where there is a 30 mph now.

We do need rules, but also knowing where to draw the line.....the punishment must fit the crime. Speed cameras have not reduced speed related road deaths where I live, and we have one of the most staunchest supporters of them with our cheif constable....but he insists on putting more up, because its a good revenue earner. Try campaigning to get points on licenses but not having a fine......the ptb would not entertain it, so dont fool yourself in thinking otherwise. As mentioned already, why not have speed restricters built into your car if it was the best safetywise, the money motorist pay in fines will surely cover the cost 10 fold.

[bendelapidate]

Well they have to make up the shortfall in tax revenue somehow. Redundancies and other job cuts are reducing tax revenues.

[jimholbein]

with all the tax we pay on everything we touch these days how the hell can there be a shortfall. we should be asking how they manage to spend it all.

[drhemp]

its their own fault and if i was a copper i would do much more than fine , i would confiscate their liscnece and car , and fine them , and then make a prepared jail sentance for life if they go back on the road ![/SIZE]

Nice.

[tracker]

Nice.

the point is , that driving lessons are there for us to take as lessons to drive SAFELY on the road .
when we pass that driving test , the liscence is given to us on TRUST that we ADHERE to the DRIVING STANDARS OF SAFETY !

if people are going to ignore the law , take it in their own hands as though no one elses life matters accept their own idea of what speed they can go , then they deserve to have their liscence revoked endstop !

i remember some prat doing 40 down my road .
this time i saw him coming and suddenly pulled out infront of him on purpose knowing fullwell he was doing well over the speed limit .
this idiot had the nerve to say i was an idiot . i got out of my old van ( he was driving a new murc and the dick head also had a phone to his ear , apparently blue tooth he either couldnt afford or he was too cool for an earpiece ) and i approached him .
i told him he was doing well over the speed limit and was a danger to others .
we argued for a bit until he came out with this one liner .
"what the fk is it to do with you ? its none of your business"
just by coincidence my partner and child came from out of the garages where i had driven out from . i repplied
"its everything to do with me you idiot i have kids that walk this road , i pay taxes and drive carefully , i axpect a grown man to have more concideration for children and other people, and youve got kids in your car , the next time i see you speeding , i wont apply my breaks and you'll get done for speeding coz crash investigators will find out you were speeding"

ok he called me an arshole , so again i called him a potential child killing maniac .

the point is this .

the government wouldnt have to put cameras up if pratts werent speeding in the 1st place .
governments wouldnt be making money from insane criminals speeding if they were mentally capable of driving the car to the standard required for health and safety .

then we wouldnt have pratts complaining about cameras and why they are money makers because they are not .
fuel and road taxes are money makers .

if people werent so prattish speeding in a slow area where children and elderly people live then there wouldnt be need for camears .

yet crazy insane people cant see this reasoning .

they get what they deserve .

it has nothing to do with giving the government more power , it has everything to do with getting it into the thick heads of insane crazy minded drivers who puts every one else at risk , the bad thing is , is that crazy people cant reason , and are unable to see logic , like many who complain about speed cameras .

one day , those who speed might just see , that they have created this long line of security and cameras installed on roads , it is their fault , not the governments .

most people with cars these days beleiev they own the road , its not theirs , its everyones road and there is a standard .

if they cant be safe they should be banned !

[diamondgeezer]

We dont want to give them more powers. Peoples livelihoods are at stake here, just like my bro inlaw who lost his license through the totting up procedure. He could go bankrupt because he`s self employed. One of the times he was caught was at night on a well lit main road when nobody was about, doing 36 mph. Another time was when he pulled out of a junction and the camera got him....his fully loaded van could not have got to over 30mph in the distance it got him, but he couldnt argue, he just paid the fine and got the points.

No way, sorry.

If your brother-in-law's livelihood was so important to him then he would have observed the speed limits, end of. They're there for a reason, to save lives, and if anyone here thinks getting to their late appointment is more important than a childs life then they need their moronic bumps feeling.

I always observe the speed limits, just as many others who rely on their licences for their work have to do. Having worked as a driving instructor for many years, and now a HGV/LGV professional driver, its pretty much requisite that I do really isn't it..?

If your brother-in-law can't hack it then he shouldn't be on the road. For your (& his) information, the law allows a 10% error margin for driver and speedometer errors, and this is actually factored into speed camera sensor technology, therefore in a 30 mph limit, doing 33mph will not even be noticed, and 36mph would hardly be taken as point offence on a clear road in clear safe driving conditions...

:rolleyes: I would suggest your brother-in-law, being rather disgruntled, has bent the facts just a bit..

[brossen99]

As usual everybody is missing the obvious point here !

During my experience of riding shotgun in wagons since I was 13, then driving wagons for a living 300K Km a year for 15 years, plus my subsequent car driving following other people making a total of over 30 years on the road. I have noticed that there is something funny about the actions of some drivers. The key to this was a past older friend who was not very good at seeing and freaked out if you drove him as a passenger above 30 Mph. Obviously he didn't drive himself although he once had a probably illegal small 120cc motor-bike for a short time. According to the latest statistics there are 20% of drivers who would fail the eyesight test on the roads today. With not looking being the greatest alleged cause of accidents, perhaps many of these accidents are avoidable if you root out those who actually can't see to look properly.

One may be asking how these potentially blind drivers manage to keep on the roads and get from A to B, but its a simple case of finding your way from point to point at a given speed. It was normally the case that dense fog would not significantly slow my progress along the A59 on the way to Skipton at 5 AM in the morning. It was simply a case of learning the route at a said speed / time, the only time you had to slow down was when you had to slow down for any other traffic and get temporarily lost. Then it was just a case of finding the next fixed recognised point on the road and carrying along as usual. It is probably the case that people slamming on the brakes when they get " lost " on motorways in fog causes major accidents. My mum was totally blind for the last few years of her life and could easily navigate around our home like a sighted person just so long a the furniture was not moved. If any strangers came in they did not realise she was blind unless she told them. Before she went blind she was an excellent driver.

Potentially blind drivers may be driving around in the equivalent of dense fog at all times. They normally travel at about 40 Mph everywhere, ( any slower and they know they would stick out like a sore thumb ) and usually have a very long queue behind them on roads with a faster speed limit. It is usually the case that the diver causing the queue is fitted with " Jam Jar " spectacles when you finally pass them on a dual carriageway. Blind drivers are also easy to spot when they stop on the line at roundabouts when all those in the following usual queue can see that the road is clear to proceed. I believe that accidents caused by cars stopping unexpectedly at roundabouts have significantly increased over the past few years. Although some could be due to insurance scams, I suspect that more are caused by blind drivers stopping for no good reason.

By now you may be asking why the government has not introduced annual eye-sight testing for all drivers considering all the other measures it passes allegedly in the interest of road safety. Perhaps the simple fact is that the government actually like lots of road accidents just so long as they don't kill the wage slaves. With disability benefits generally low and relatively difficult to claim the government has nothing to loose by crippling quite a few people every year. Accidents generate a lot of tax revenue in VAT etc. plus the blind drivers are far more likely to be caught by a speed camera in a 30 limit, so plenty of extra revenue from speeding fines. The government also benefits from the extra congestion caused by blind drivers, more in fuel tax and now they are considering congestion charging nationwide. Perhaps it should be up to the insurance companies to require all drivers to produce evidence of good eye-sight when they apply for their new policy each year, perhaps they could offer a discount if one did this. Once again its a case of money comes first, more insurance claims and people with speed camera convictions means higher prices for policies and as third party insurance is a legal requirement to drive they can charge whatever they want.

You also have to ask where the majority of the high profile road safety lobby are when it comes to eye-sight testing, plenty of ban this cut that but not a word on probably one of the most important factors for road safety. The simple truth is that high profile road safety groups like Brake are generally funded by the motor industry itself, and therefore campaigning for the introduction of a measure which could cut 20% of their sponsors best customers is out of the question.

It would be fairly easy to organise a simple but effective eye-sight testing facility at GP's health centres in the treatment room. The test could be on a walk in basis and free to the user and carried out by a member of the nursing staff. Perhaps the test could be phased in starting with older drivers then rolled out to cover everyone with a driving licence around their birthday.

BBC Action Network Blog Response

I couldn't agree more.

You have acurately described my (now deceased) father.

Suffering from macular degeneration, and repeatedly arriving home complaining of how foggy it was (on a clear day) he only decided to stop driving after three crashes into parked cars (no injuries thankfully) and when the compulsory eye test (at eighty, I think) was due.

Being in a car with him was terrifying to the extreme. My mother refused to go out with him. He would simply pull out at roundabouts with a belligerent "they'll get out of my way". He really had no idea if something was coming or not.

It is insane to allow people to drive in this state of health and as my selfish father proved - you cannot rely on people to police themselves."
By susan crowe in Bromley - on 10 Jan 2007 at 14:32

[gordysmit]

I am a lorry driver and restricted to 56mph and the amont of bad driveing I see day in and day out. I call them three to one lane nut jobs in there suits and cut in front of you

[keystone]

I am a lorry driver and restricted to 56mph and the amont of bad driveing I see day in and day out. I call them three to one lane nut jobs in there suits and cut in front of youDont forget the numerous members of C.L.O.C.

:D

[resistance]

[QUOTE=tracker;624413]at the end of the day


[SIZE="7"]if you dont speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed !

Whats with the excessive use of bold capital letters? this is a forum not a highway!

[shodan]

Ok I agree with both sides of the argument, I believe its a good idea to slow drivers down if people are dying, but I don't for one second believe thats why the zombies in power are doing it. The people in power seem to me to enjoy killing us and our chilidren. I think there's an argument for people driving fast when they can because they are so friggin sick of rules. there has to be a release for people and they are stripping our various means of release away.

there's no doubt in my mind its about money.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/13/1390.asp

UK: Hidden Camera Proves Money is Motivation for Speed Cameras
Undercover camera captures speed camera official, a former police chief, describes photo enforcement as a scam to make money.

A hidden camera captured a speed camera executive and former police chief admitting that their photo enforcement tools were part of a "scam." Jon Bond, CEO of Tele-Traffic, the UK's top laser speed camera importer, spoke with an undercover Mail on Sunday journalist who had posed as a prospective customer from Eastern Europe. Bond had previously been Chief Superintendent for the Warwickshire police and was responsible for establishing the area's speed camera program five years ago. Many of Bond's top employees now are former police officers.

"There will be so much money coming in you won't know what to do with it," Bond said. "It's a blank checkbook.... The money will come in in buckets."

Bond also described the way speed camera partnerships operated by supplying regional ticket targets to the Department for Transport. Warwickshire set a goal of 80,000 tickets. If, for example, it had only issued 60,000 tickets, the partnership would have to pay 20,000 out of its own pocket to the central government. If 100,000 tickets were issued, the Treasury would keep the revenue from the 20,000 extra tickets. The system is designed to encourage low initial targets to ensure those extra payments flow to the Treasury.

"This was done so the Government wasn't perceived to be revenue raising," Bond said. "But the reality is that the government is actually raking off even more money than before... So it's all a scam -- it's smoke and mirrors."

Bond explained that he was limited to issuing 80,000 citations because beyond that, the court system was unable to cope with the load. The solution was to send police to low-volume roads to slow down the work load.

"Imagine 80,000 checks for £60 coming through your door in a given year," Bond said. "[The courts] were swamped and we are the smallest of all the speed partnerships.... I had to send the camera operators out to roads where they would only catch one or two people an hour."

Road safety activist Paul Smith of Safe Speed was not surprised by the revelations. "Speed cameras are 21st century snake oil," Smith said. "Many of the purveyors are charlatans, and all of them are wrong. The widespread side effects of the infernal cameras conspire to damage road safety, the police public relationship, respect for the judiciary, respect for official road safety messages and significantly worsen the experience of living in Britain."

Smith demanded a criminal investigation of the matter.

In 2001, a former employee for Lockheed Martin IMS (now ACS) testified in a pivotal San Diego, California red light camera trial that the program's only motivation was revenue generation. Trial documents confirmed that cameras were placed not at the most dangerous but the most profitable locations.

"It's all about money as far as I was concerned," Arnone said.

Source: Undercover probe reveals the buckets of money made from speed cameras (Mail on Sunday (UK), 10/15/2006)

Regional News:
Other news about England

[airkraft]

Everyone who has posted on here has a valid side to this argument, but when people believe that the govt are doing this to motorists because of safety, I cant believe they fall for it. It is so obviously about the money as far as the govt is concerned.
When they give out statistics, they will always "tweak" them in their favour to prove their point.....its so blatant sometimes.

I agree there are some people out there driving who shouldnt be on the road for one reason or another.

But tracker....to deliberately pull out in front of someone, who may then have caused an accident by doing so, just to prove a point, is just as bad as the person speeding.....and there were kids in the car......tut tut. What if he swerved to avoid your van and knocked some kid over crossing the road....I suppose you`d say it was his fault for speeding.

[bendelapidate]

Only a moron would pull out in front of somebody deliberately just because in their view the other driver was going too fast. People get more emotional about speeding motorists than they do about the slaughter of children in Iraq. Statistically, faster drivers are safer.

Government loves to portray the "big bad motorist" who happens to be doing a little bit more than the speed limit. The government only uses the motorist as a cash cow, which is why road safety hasn't improved, despite multiple cameras and speed traps.

They (the Department of Transport) should concentrate on catching the real criminals - truck drivers who haven't slept in days, elderly drivers who can't see more than 20 feet in front of them and poor reflexes and boy racers with no driving experience.

The only child killing maniac I know is Tony Blair.

[diamondgeezer]

Statistically, faster drivers are safer.

WTF?

That has to be the daftest statement in the history of this forum, & thats saying something...

[diamondgeezer]

They (the Department of Transport) should concentrate on catching the real criminals - truck drivers who haven't slept in days

Again wrong. And uninformed.

:rolleyes:Learn about tachograph rules buster...

[the itinerant shrubber]

I may sometimes creep over the national speed limit if the conditions suit and if I get caught,thats my fault but I would never dream of going over 30 in a residential area where there's a chance of hitting someone.
They need to introduce a minimum limit on national speed limit roads though. Every day I end up behind someone doing 40 or even 30 on a main road.That behavior is probably more likely to cause an RTA than speeding becouse it gets peoples backs up and people get impatient.
Some of us have jobs to get to. We're not all OAP's with nothing better to do than to go on leisure drives.

[bendelapidate]

Again wrong. And uninformed.

:rolleyes:Learn about tachograph rules buster...

No, I'm well informed thanks. I think it's you who missed the point. I would rather drive on roads with people who are going over the speed limit than with long distance truck drivers who haven't slept properly for days. They are more of a danger to other traffic than somebody who's going over the speed limit.

[brossen99]

All the evidence suggests that a large proportion of road deaths occur in " head on overtaking " accidents or as the result of an overtaking maneuver. In the original Highway Code written in the 1930s it states "As a responsible citizen you have a duty to the community not to endanger or impede others in their lawful use of the King's Highway," This common sense approach applies just as much today as it did then.

I can't help speculating that if a vehicle any driver attempted to overtake had been travelling 10 Mph faster they would have been content to remain behind at least until they could reach a safer place to overtake. Leg-Irons, i.e. those people who will insist on driving up to 20 Mph less than the national speed limit ( 60 Mph on single carriageway A roads ) are a real menace on Britain's roads. Many sections of road with double white lines or hazard lines are quite undulating and curvy, but it is possible for a competent driver to safely maintain close to 60 Mph throughout in a car and 50 Mph in an articulated lorry.

Of course the HGV speed limit for "A " roads is currently 40 Mph but 90% of HGV drivers do the safe thing and ignore this stupid law which has no basis in science. I did all the vehicle motion science at tech and the mass cancels itself out in all the crucial equations, the limit is there purely to technically make the railways more competitive. Some may travel slowly in the belief that they are saving fuel, but this doesn't hold water in science or practical experience either. I check my fuel consumption figures of my 1000cc car each time I fill up and I can expect to have to pay significantly more if I have been significantly delayed by Leg-Irons on open roads during that period. Contrary to the green spin the most fuel efficient speed for a vehicle is 60 Mph, a vehicle will build up its own streamlining effect so air resistance is actually reduced at slightly higher speeds. To reduce transport's effect on Global Warming many speed limits need to be increased not cut further. When 90 Kph EU speed limiters were introduced on HGV's during the 1990s fuel consumption on local 38 tonne tanker vehicles doing night runs from Lancashire to Scotland increased from 9 Mpg to 7 Mpg.

Perhaps the most potentially dangerous Leg-Irons are those who totally fail to attempt to pass slow moving vehicles like tractors at the earliest opportunity. All too soon a " funeral procession " of several vehicles can build up and some completely incompetent idiot in a high powered car comes along and is likely to try to pass the lot. Queues formed on open roads generally tend to lead to severe congestion at junctions. It is perhaps hardly surprising that the government fails to do anything about this because they are now considering charging for road use on the strength of it. It is my considered opinion that many drivers buy high power cars or 4 by 4's to make up for their self confessed lack of aptitude and driving ability.

Of course the road safety high priests will preach that everyone is expected to drive like morons watching their speed all the time and not attempt to pass anywhere. Unfortunately human nature is not like that and its tragic that many of the brightest, imaginative " get up and go " younger drivers kill themselves and others simply trying to make their way in life to the best of their ability.

To improve road safety and cut the number of head-on accidents during overtaking the HGV speed limit needs to be scrapped. Similarly a new offence of Not Making Satisfactory Progress needs to be brought in for car drivers who consistently fail to maintain the posted speed limit. Encouraging traffic officers to stop or film people going too slow and subjecting them to an eye test could be a sufficient deterrent, but perhaps a fixed penalty fine of £30 could work better.

I suspect that many basically incompetent drivers would give up driving altogether if they were faced with fines for going too slow. It is also probable that many of them would fail the eyesight test anyway.

In the early 1960s when the goods vehicle speed limit was only 20 Mph it was not unknown for the police to stop vehicles travelling at only 20 and inquire if there was something seriously wrong with it. It is probably the case that any theoretical reductions in deaths ascribed to traffic calming and other quasi-religious road safety measures of the past 15 years are down to better paramedics and the air ambulance service.

[brassneck69]

speed limits are put there for good reason .


Quite agree, speed limits are there for a reason.

Unfortunately you havent got the faintest idea what that reason is, so i will educate you.

A certain Carroll Shelby shoehorned a v8 Chevy engine into an AC Cobra in the late 50's.
One of these Cobras was imported to England, and was toodling down the M1 in a testing session at close to 180 MPH.
The police expressed concern as they had absolutely no chance of catching criminals who jumped on the motorway network.
Barbara Castle provisionally set the max speed limit, 70 mph, as it was generally the max speed family cars were capable of at the time. The thinking was no-one would drive their family saloon flat out.
So if the same thinking was applied today the max speed would be 140 mph thereabouts.

Absolutely nothing to do with reasons of safety.

And as you consider cameras a safety item, why is there not one single camera outside ANY junior or infant school anywhere in the area i live. Were talking a large area here, not one town. The Wirral peninsula.

There is, however, an abundance of cameras on straight, accident free (generally) "fast" roads. Also there is a lot on one side as opposed to 2.
Hows that work? One side of the road is more dangerous than 20 feet on the other side?

Ridiculous.

[bendelapidate]

WTF?

That has to be the daftest statement in the history of this forum, & thats saying something...

Ha! What the fuck do you know. You're talking out of your dogs arse.

[diamondgeezer]

No, I'm well informed thanks. I think it's you who missed the point. I would rather drive on roads with people who are going over the speed limit than with long distance truck drivers who haven't slept properly for days. They are more of a danger to other traffic than somebody who's going over the speed limit.

You obviusly aren't well informed about the rules & regulations regarding the tachograph rules at all are you..

FYI drivers of all large vehicles, buses or lorries, are regulated & monitored to buggery, the tachograph is a big part of that. It recordes everything that driver does in that truck driving-wise over the whole period of his journey, all part of enforcing the strict but fair rules limiting driving hours.

No way a LGV driver could get away with flouting the rules re driving hours nowadays, and most wouldn't want to.

[diamondgeezer]

Ha! What the fuck do you know. You're talking out of your dogs arse.

;)Its not my dogs arse

Perhaps I'm talking out of yours..

[jhado]

Quite agree, speed limits are there for a reason.

Unfortunately you havent got the faintest idea what that reason is, so i will educate you.

Absolutely nothing to do with reasons of safety.

And as you consider cameras a safety item, why is there not one single camera outside ANY junior or infant school anywhere in the area i live. Were talking a large area here, not one town. The Wirral peninsula.

There is, however, an abundance of cameras on straight, accident free (generally) "fast" roads. Also there is a lot on one side as opposed to 2.
Hows that work? One side of the road is more dangerous than 20 feet on the other side?

Ridiculous.

Brilliant point.

Where I live we have two schools, infants and juniors, about 300yds away. We also have a huge park opposite which is always full of kids having a good time. In the good weather there are cars parked all around the place,
ice-cream van etc, I think you get the picture.
Yet we still we get pricks flying down our road at 50/60 mph, they are the ones who need shot. Why won't the local council make our road safe for those kids? In this sort of instance I agree with speed being controlled.
But if you hit the M40 at 4 in the morning, and it's empty, where's the problem in doing 120mph?

As for lorry drivers, so the tacho says they're safe to drive, can a tacho breathalise them? Just ,cos they've been off the road for the required time doesn't mean they've read their bible and gone to sleep. Not saying that ALL lorry drivers are on the piss, but I,ve met more than a few lorry drivers in my time. Most of them have told me that they don't get a good night's sleep when away from home, stuck in a lay-by or lorry stop. Apparently, Pikies nicking your load ,at 3.30am, disturbs you.

I had a great argument about this very subject at work today.

[jimholbein]

Learn about tachograph rules buster...

technically wrong again. neighbour next door drives all day with 2 tacho discs and frequently with no disc. he knows the penalty but has to do this to feed his family. he also told me he has drivers working with him casual have no hgv license. takes a lot of the fear away from a good driver going a wee bit fast eh.

[diamondgeezer]

Learn about tachograph rules buster...

technically wrong again. neighbour next door drives all day with 2 tacho discs and frequently with no disc. he knows the penalty but has to do this to feed his family. he also told me he has drivers working with him casual have no hgv license. takes a lot of the fear away from a good driver going a wee bit fast eh.

Errr what??

FYI your neighbour is the exception to the rule, he's a criminal ffs & is in no way typical of the average lorry driver, the vast majority stick to the rules.

So you believe what he says? :rolleyes:Then you are as morally bankrupt as he is buster...