Should speeding fines be proportionate to earnings?

[willman]

Do you mean that just because he is having a mid-life crisis and feels the need to assert himself a bit, he has the right to willy-wave/disregard the law?!

 

Perhaps you should check the spelling and meaning of 'rite of passage'...! The thought of there being some socially-accepted age/experience related threshold, beyond which it is deemed OK for people like Ron to speed unpunished and unchallenged, is terrifying...

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 09:21 ----------

 

 

The figure I cited did not relate to 2011. Please read what is written before leaping in with both feet. That aside, are we to assume that any number of speed related accidents is acceptable? What would that number be, then?

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 09:29 ----------

 

 

As the Highway Code and this website make abundantly clear, speed limits are limits, not targets. If there is an accident (which means an unintended incident, by the way, not an inevitable one), in which speed was a factor, we must assume that the driver was indeed going too fast in the circumstances and that his or her decision to do so led to loss of control and ultimately killed or injured someone.

 

Whether that speed was below the legal limit for that road is of secondary importance in this context.

 

NO it isn't - you boldly stated 3000+ injuries by speeding motorists you are wrong.

I only cited 2011 as that was the only .Gov figures that have been released to show why more road deaths occurred - they claimed weather conditions and most likely inappropriate driving;not speeding.

 

As an aside 2% of drivers statistically use a mobile whilst driving (60 out of 3000), 2% fail to wear a seatbelt (60 out of 3000), i've just shown that potentially 120 accidents could have nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit.

As you rightly say they are speed limits not targets - so according to the law and the Highway Code no speeding offence has occurred if they are below that limit. So in essence they aren't speeding, they are driving inappropriately.

Edited March 5, 2015 by willman

[RonJeremy]

Do you mean that just because he is having a mid-life crisis and feels the need to assert himself a bit, he has the right to willy-wave/disregard the law?!

 

Perhaps you should check the spelling and meaning of 'rite of passage'...! The thought of there being some socially-accepted age/experience related threshold, beyond which it is deemed OK for people like Ron to willywave/speed unpunished and unchallenged, is terrifying...

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 09:21 ----------

 

 

The figure I cited did not relate to 2011. Please read what is written before leaping in with both feet. That aside, are we to assume that any number of speed related accidents is acceptable? What would that number be, then?

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 09:29 ----------

 

 

As the Highway Code and this website make abundantly clear, speed limits are limits, not targets. If there is an accident (which means an unintended incident, by the way, not an inevitable one), in which speed was a factor, we must assume that the driver was indeed going too fast in the circumstances and that his or her decision to do so led to loss of control and ultimately killed or injured someone. To try to maniupulate the figure to pretend anything else is disingenuous.

 

Whether that speed was below the legal limit for that road is of secondary importance in this context. It was still speeding in the sense of choosing to drive too fast relative to the risk.

 

Speed was a factor is what it says. It doesn't say excess speed was a factor. Anything above 5mph does of course make speed a factor.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 09:27 ----------

 

Jasmyn Chan wasn't killed by someone putting on his slippers or getting in the shower though.

 

Are we restricting this count to killing others?

 

Jasmyn Chan was a very sad case. the perpetrator was driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions, which also happened to be above the speed limit. He was not a good driver.

 

Stopping speeding is not the panacea that you may think it is.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 09:31 ----------

 

That figure is quite concerning especially as you specify speeding as the cause, whereas the official figures for 00 to 13 are less and apparently road fatalities are decreasing.

 

 

Year Pedestrian Pedal Cyclist Motorcyclist rider/passenger Car Occupant Other road user All Road User Groups Percentage change from previous year

2000 857 127 605 1,665 155 3,409 -0.4

2001 826 138 583 1,749 154 3,450 1.2

2002 775 130 609 1,747 170 3,431 -0.6

2003 774 114 693 1,769 158 3,508 2.2

2004 671 134 585 1,671 160 3,221 -8.2

2005 671 148 569 1,675 138 3,201 -0.6

2006 675 146 599 1,612 140 3,172 -0.9

2007 646 136 588 1,432 144 2,946 -7.1

2008 572 115 493 1,257 101 2,538 -13.8

2009 500 104 472 1,059 87 2,222 -12.5

2010 405 111 403 835 96 1,850 -16.7

2011 453 107 362 883 96 1,901 2.8

2012 420 118 328 801 87 1,754 -7.7

2013 398 109 331 785 90 1,713 -2.3

 

That is fatalities in road accidents, there is no Government evidence that speed caused them all.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 08:07 ----------

 

In 2013:

 

1,713 people were killed in reported road traffic accidents in Great Britain, 2% (41) fewer than in 2012. This is the lowest number of fatalities since national records began in 1926. The total number of people killed in 2013 was 39% lower than the 2005-09 baseline average

the number of fatalities decreased for pedestrians, pedal cyclists and car occupants, by 5%, 8% and 2% respectively, but increased for motorcycle users by 1%. Over the same period motor vehicle traffic remained broadly stable, with a small increase of 0.4% between 2012 and 2013

 

Any death is a complete and utter waste of a life, but there is no categoric evidence that speeding was the cause of them. So i assume it's impossible to blame all accidents on speeding as the prime cause of other accidents aswell.

 

Their is no excuse for speeding, but it happens and often not on purpose by many willy wavers. Accidents are just as likely to be caused by make up appliers on the daily commute or school run,or mobile phone users.

 

I would love to know how many of those deaths were in stolen or twoced vehicles. And how many were of a third party. ie - if I get out of the shower (waving my willy around or not) - I understand the risk to myself in the same way that if I take a syringe full of Heroin, I understand the risk to myself, if I speed I understand the risk to myself. Third parties are what we should be concerning ourselves with I'd have thought?

[Berberis]

NO, but they should increase by a factor each consecutive fine you receive.

 

We all know how easy it is to dip above the speed limit. No one who drives (or even cyclists on Sheffield hills) can claim they have never gone above the speed limit.

 

First offence, £25 fine. Then double it at each future offence.

[alchresearch]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the fine and points system, but there is something wrong here with the way its enforced on rich celebs:

 

FOOTBALL ace Robbie Savage has escaped a driving ban after telling a court he couldn't use public transport – because he's HATED by footie fans.

 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/427875/Robbie-Savage-avoids-driving-ban-because-fans-HATE-him

 

 

He's rich enough to be able to afford a chauffeur.

[barleycorn]

So ... should all fines be proportionate to earnings?

I don't see why not. If the purpose of a fine is to act as both a deterrent and a punishment then it makes sense that it is levied as a percentage of income rather than a flat rate.

 

In which case should cigarettes be priced depending on earnings? Same with alcohol? Same with other goods? It's a plainly stupid idea

I didn't realise enforced purchase of cigarettes, alcohol and other goods was enacted as punishment for committing a crime.

 

jb

[MikeFrank]

If the fines from speeding are to act as a deterrent then should they be proportional to the earnings of the speeder? After all a £60 fine is nothing to a millionaire but could land someone on NMW up the proverbial creek. Is the same fine for all fair or does it give carte blanche to the rich to do as they please?

 

In news to get some on here frothing at the mouth Finland operates such a system of proportional fining, with fines as high as 54,000 and 116,000 Euro reported for millionaires.

 

I think all fines should be. Speeding fines should be 10% of weekly gross income.

[Harrystottle]

I don't have specific figures for the problem of speed-related deaths in Sheffield, but I have a shocking statistic for the whole of the UK. 3064 people were killed or seriously injured by speeding motorists on Britain's roads in 2013.

 

The last figures I saw for people killed on Britain's roads were less than 2,000 per year.

 

In 1970 it was just less than 8,000 killed.

 

The roads are massively safer than they used to be.

[truman]

3064 That must be a great relief for the fellow residents of your care home.

 

The flaw in that argument is that you assume that everyone is able to assess accurately what the risk of injury is, in every situation. It would be the height of arrogance for any driver to to assume that; you have to err on the side of caution - always - and if that makes for a more boring driving experience for you, then tough. Driving (in public) is by its nature not all about you.

 

Those are legal requirements designed to reduce the risk of killing people; if people flout them, they should be prosecuted. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because some people kill people due to defective vehicles and inexperience, doesn't make experienced drivers with effective brakes choosing to ignore the speed laws, alright.

 

I don't have specific figures for the problem of speed-related deaths in Sheffield, but I have a shocking statistic for the whole of the UK. 3064 people were killed or seriously injured by speeding motorists on Britain's roads in 2013. No doubt some of those involved experienced drivers like you whose cars were in optimal condition, and who thought they had the sense to know when it was dangerous and when it wasn't. I'm sure they didn't all set off and think 'I'm going to drive dangerously tonight', did they? But they chose to ignore the speed restrictions (for whatever reason). Join the dots, Ron.

 

Where does that figure come from?

[Cyclone]

NO, but they should increase by a factor each consecutive fine you receive.

 

We all know how easy it is to dip above the speed limit. No one who drives (or even cyclists on Sheffield hills) can claim they have never gone above the speed limit.

 

First offence, £25 fine. Then double it at each future offence.

 

Speed limits don't apply to cycles of course, they don't have speedometers.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Cyclone

[Berberis]

Speed limits don't apply to cycles of course, they don't have speedometers.

 

They are on roads through Royal Parks (obviously not in Sheffield). Local bye-laws can also effect whether or not a cyclist can be fined for speeding. Its also a bit of a grey area as the highway code covers all traffic, but then disregards cyclists buy not publishing a speed limit for them explicitly.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Berberis