FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > New speed camera fines
New speed camera fines
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/lounge/626884
Just in case you wanted to hear these people's thoughts from earlier.
I think any deterrent to speeding is good.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose "
Not really. Your view is very short sighted imo. I earn a relatively good wage but live on my own which means I pay all the bills and have a small disposable income. Someone who has a smaller income can claim benefits or someone who shares a house and bills may have a larger disposable income so how is that fair??? If one person commits a crime and gets 5 years in jail because they have money and someone who is homeless commits the same crime and only gets 1 year is that really justice??? I think not. If you can afford to drive then the punishment should be the same for everyone. It won't be long before it goes to the high court because of persecution because one person earns more than someone else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
The points on a licence and the resultant rise in insurance premiums is a far bigger deterent.
Jacking up the fines is pretty much just another way to raise revenue and will likely result in some JAMs (just about managing) being forced into debt.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"How do they defeat the purpose?
A rich person speeding is doing no more wrong than a poor person speeding, why should they pay more? "
Its about putting a financial blow onto someone.. Simple really if you think about it.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You wouldn't have a problem with the new legislation if you didn't speed... And before you say 'it's easy to go over a little', this only applies if you go to court - in other words, you were probably way over in the first place. Current fixed penalties and processes are still in place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose "
One easy way to keep your money...rich or poor ??? just stick to the speed limits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You wouldn't have a problem with the new legislation if you didn't speed... And before you say 'it's easy to go over a little', this only applies if you go to court - in other words, you were probably way over in the first place. Current fixed penalties and processes are still in place "
Some leeway is allowed..
The 10% plus 2 method.
E. G in a 40 zone 10% of 40 is 4 + 2 = 6. Add that to the speed limit 40 = 46. So 46 is threshold for a fine.
Thats to allow for speedo accuracy in a car. NOT an excuse to go a bit faster. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It doesn't give far enough as there is a proposed cap to the limit of the fine.
Should also be means tested on how much you actually have..
For those that work but are in debt up to their eyeballs, a huge fine could sink them and for someone that has eo much money they do not need to work, they will get away lightly..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose
Not really. Your view is very short sighted imo. I earn a relatively good wage but live on my own which means I pay all the bills and have a small disposable income. Someone who has a smaller income can claim benefits or someone who shares a house and bills may have a larger disposable income so how is that fair??? If one person commits a crime and gets 5 years in jail because they have money and someone who is homeless commits the same crime and only gets 1 year is that really justice??? I think not. If you can afford to drive then the punishment should be the same for everyone. It won't be long before it goes to the high court because of persecution because one person earns more than someone else. "
I totally agree, why should I be fined more for making more money. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that speeding is okay, far from it, there are limits in place for a reason and I adhere to them. I have had my licence for 20 years and never had any fine or points. Just another money making scheme |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do they defeat the purpose?
A rich person speeding is doing no more wrong than a poor person speeding, why should they pay more? "
Some richer people flaunt the law because they can afford fines mere mortals struggle to pay e.g. parking a roller outside Harrods because a ticket is nothing to them & doing other criminal acts simply because they can, for poorer people breaking the law hitting them in the pocket as always been the norm.
It now makes all classes sit up & think so it can only be a good thing.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It doesn't give far enough as there is a proposed cap to the limit of the fine.
Should also be means tested on how much you actually have..
For those that work but are in debt up to their eyeballs, a huge fine could sink them and for someone that has eo much money they do not need to work, they will get away lightly..
"
They should really think about all of this when they're driving and stick to the limit, it's not hard, it's not necessary to speed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Some leeway is allowed..
The 10% plus 2 method.
E. G in a 40 zone 10% of 40 is 4 + 2 = 6. Add that to the speed limit 40 = 46. So 46 is threshold for a fine.
Thats to allow for speedo accuracy in a car. NOT an excuse to go a bit faster. "
This is an "Old Wives Tale" the limit IS the limit (and always has been). Unless you've modified your car, then your speedo will only ever read faster than you are going... so when you get a ticket for doing 35 in a 30 zone, you probably thought you were doing 40.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Some leeway is allowed..
The 10% plus 2 method.
E. G in a 40 zone 10% of 40 is 4 + 2 = 6. Add that to the speed limit 40 = 46. So 46 is threshold for a fine.
Thats to allow for speedo accuracy in a car. NOT an excuse to go a bit faster.
This is an "Old Wives Tale" the limit IS the limit (and always has been). Unless you've modified your car, then your speedo will only ever read faster than you are going... so when you get a ticket for doing 35 in a 30 zone, you probably thought you were doing 40.
Cal"
An old wives tale from a serving Northumbria police traffic officer then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
Some leeway is allowed..
The 10% plus 2 method.
E. G in a 40 zone 10% of 40 is 4 + 2 = 6. Add that to the speed limit 40 = 46. So 46 is threshold for a fine.
Thats to allow for speedo accuracy in a car. NOT an excuse to go a bit faster.
This is an "Old Wives Tale" the limit IS the limit (and always has been). Unless you've modified your car, then your speedo will only ever read faster than you are going... so when you get a ticket for doing 35 in a 30 zone, you probably thought you were doing 40.
Cal"
Habe a look on the internet.
One example:http://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/2016/08/speeding-what-is-the-10-plus-2-rule-and-what-does-it-mean/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The 10% + 2 "rule" is guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is only guidance and can be ignored/amended by individual forces or officers, but nevertheless it is formal and entrenched enough to be published for all to see on the government website. And even without this there has to be some leeway shown. Around 70% of motorway drivers are speeding at any given time during the day, 80mph being nearer the normal traffic flow speed for cars. It would be awkward to prosecute them all. A blind eye is turned to this situation because of its prevalence and the fact that 80 is a far more pragmatic speed. I believe the motorway limit would have raised by now (there was a credible proposal to do so not long ago) if it wasn't for the fact that it might encourage driving at over 80, and to avoid making waves with the environmental and safety lobby groups. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.
We are a huge money making scheme for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.
We are a huge money making scheme for them."
they need more money! loads of main roads are used by far more vehicles than they were designed for,so the upkeep costs more..if the money is from penalising people breaking the law, i see no problem at all in that...would you prefer it was from increased tax? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.
We are a huge money making scheme for them."
Actually I can't imagine anything less "third world" than this issue. Not often you see people pulled over in India for speeding, not wearing a seat belt, or riding 5 to a motorbike with no helmets. Mainly because people over there have more immediate concerns. It's only in our molly-coddled, comfortable world we can afford to dream up rules and regs like those, in the largely futile quest for complete safety. Needless to say, the casualty record in India reflects the situation, but I do believe there is a happy medium somewhere, a point which we passed long ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.
We are a huge money making scheme for them.
they need more money! loads of main roads are used by far more vehicles than they were designed for,so the upkeep costs more..if the money is from penalising people breaking the law, i see no problem at all in that...would you prefer it was from increased tax?"
Haven't they just upped the car tax massively on new cars? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.
We are a huge money making scheme for them.
they need more money! loads of main roads are used by far more vehicles than they were designed for,so the upkeep costs more..if the money is from penalising people breaking the law, i see no problem at all in that...would you prefer it was from increased tax?
Haven't they just upped the car tax massively on new cars?"
Yup.! Vehicle ownership is expensive unfortunately |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose "
The new laws are ridiculous, especially if you're in the higher tax bracket! But I guess I'll just be driving extra careful  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.
We are a huge money making scheme for them.
Actually I can't imagine anything less "third world" than this issue. Not often you see people pulled over in India for speeding, not wearing a seat belt, or riding 5 to a motorbike with no helmets. Mainly because people over there have more immediate concerns. It's only in our molly-coddled, comfortable world we can afford to dream up rules and regs like those, in the largely futile quest for complete safety. Needless to say, the casualty record in India reflects the situation, but I do believe there is a happy medium somewhere, a point which we passed long ago."
Absolute nonsense.
Anyone who has ever been to India will know that the police are very vigorous in pulling people and fining them for driving misdemeanours.
India is also not a third world country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.
We are a huge money making scheme for them.
they need more money! loads of main roads are used by far more vehicles than they were designed for,so the upkeep costs more..if the money is from penalising people breaking the law, i see no problem at all in that...would you prefer it was from increased tax?
Haven't they just upped the car tax massively on new cars?"
good! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose The new laws are ridiculous, especially if you're in the higher tax bracket! But I guess I'll just be driving extra careful "
So actually your response shows it not to be ridiculous. As it has achieved it's aim of making people abide by the law... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.
We are a huge money making scheme for them.
they need more money! loads of main roads are used by far more vehicles than they were designed for,so the upkeep costs more..if the money is from penalising people breaking the law, i see no problem at all in that...would you prefer it was from increased tax?
Haven't they just upped the car tax massively on new cars?
good!"
  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Have a look on the internet.
One example:http://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/2016/08/speeding-what-is-the-10-plus-2-rule-and-what-does-it-mean/"
A great example, if you read the page, it actually states that the rule isn't actually a rule at all... just a suggestion.
My best friend, a police Sargent and former traffic officer, tells me that they would apply their own discretion when stopping speeders. If you were driving a small & older car for example you would be more likely to be stopped than someone driving a car that's safer at speed such as a newer car or sports car... on the other hand, if it was wet/frosty/foggy, every possible speeder would be stopped.
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The new laws are ridiculous, especially if you're in the higher tax bracket! But I guess I'll just be driving extra careful "
There are no new laws.
They are changing the penalties, presumably because far too many people broke the law previously. So trying to change the deterrent makes sense.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"just more money income, no doubt to raise foreign aid rate."
where on earth do you get the idea that revenue from traffic fines goes to foreign aid! that's utter nonsense! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irceWoman
over a year ago
Gloucester |
Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.
What ever happened to a warning first, no it all about monies not safety...bad policing = public hate.
Next we will have to hire a guy to run in front of the car with a warning flag.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.
I REALLY doubt that.
Have you looked into it then?"
I haven't no.
I just find that very, very hard to believe.
....I'm not saying it COULDN'T be true though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Has anybody actually thought about this?
In a few years time all the roads will be gridlocked!!
Introducing a one mile over the limit will eventually take thousands of cars off the road and make thousands for the treasury ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dsindyTV/TS
over a year ago
East Lancashire |
All a bit of a storm in a teacup really.
As has been stated previously, stick to the limit and the fines, however calculated, become irrelevant because they won't be applicable.
As the old saying goes, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".....well, that's what my mum used to say when she sent me to bed without my supper. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I had a £300 fine at court for doing 36 in a 30. The guy before got a £30 for doing 42 in a 30. He had no job I did. He also had no bills unlike me so yes I earn more but that does not mean I can afford to pay much more. If you work hard and are not in debt you will be forced to pay for it.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I had a £300 fine at court for doing 36 in a 30. The guy before got a £30 for doing 42 in a 30. He had no job I did. He also had no bills unlike me so yes I earn more but that does not mean I can afford to pay much more. If you work hard and are not in debt you will be forced to pay for it. "
It's all revenue making....they know they can't get blood out of a stone so they get off lighter.
But surely the 6 points you get is a deterrent as if you get another within 4 years....your banned! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.
What ever happened to a warning first, no it all about monies not safety...bad policing = public hate.
Next we will have to hire a guy to run in front of the car with a warning flag...."
That is basically untrue |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.
I REALLY doubt that."
shareholders in what exactly? i dont understand how anyone can be a shareholder in tax revenues...which would be a matter of public record incidentally.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irceWoman
over a year ago
Gloucester |
"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.
I REALLY doubt that.
shareholders in what exactly? i dont understand how anyone can be a shareholder in tax revenues...which would be a matter of public record incidentally.."
Look into IBM please and it is being debated... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irceWoman
over a year ago
Gloucester |
"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.
What ever happened to a warning first, no it all about monies not safety...bad policing = public hate.
Next we will have to hire a guy to run in front of the car with a warning flag....
That is basically untrue "
What part deary  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.
I REALLY doubt that.
shareholders in what exactly? i dont understand how anyone can be a shareholder in tax revenues...which would be a matter of public record incidentally..
Look into IBM please and it is being debated..."
can you be a lot more specific please. Look at what exactly?..and debated by whom, and where? im genuinely curious as to how public tax revenue is being sold off as shares (in what?)..to members of the public? which police are as well being police... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.
What ever happened to a warning first, no it all about monies not safety...bad policing = public hate.
Next we will have to hire a guy to run in front of the car with a warning flag....
That is basically untrue
What part deary "
Virtually all of it. The shareholder allegation in particular.
Stakeholder and shareholder is entirely different.
One is a tie based on a mutual requirement for performance criteria to be met and one is a profit based arrangement whereby revenue is shared.
The police don't make any revenue.
They do not get the money from fines.
Stop spreading lies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
