[Closed] Increased speeding fines

Read up an awful lot about it actually captain. Its perfectly viable. Look up carbon based taxation for a start.

Read up an awful lot about it actually captain. Its perfectly viable. Look up carbon based taxation for a start.

Bring in the automated car, that's the real solution for road safety.

Take ego and attitude out of the equation.

TJ - at the moment non drivers subsidise drivers

Is that true? I'm not saying it is wrong, I have no data to base it on, but considering the following forms of taxation directly on vehicle ownership and usage I am wondering where the subsidy from non-drivers is coming from?

1. VAT on vehicle purchases / lease / rental
2. Income tax on Company Cars
3. IPT on car insurance
4. VED and first registration fees
5. Fuel duty
6. VAT on fuel
7. VAT on vehicle repairs, tyres etc.
8. VAT on paid parking
9. Fines on traffic offences
10. Tolls and Congestion Charges.
11. Import duty on vehicles (or parts) manufactured outside the EU
12. Recharged medical bills from NHS to RTA insurers

Now I could probably find totals for most of those things if I looked hard enough, but the balance of the equation would need me to have costs for the road infrastructure, policing etc. Even if I had them what proportion would you assign to "drivers" and "non-drivers" bearing in mind that you still want good quality policed roads to ride you bicycle on and will need trunk roads to get deliveries of artisan coffee to your local vendor, and so that your LBS can get the spare parts to maintain your steed.

Poly - yes its true. of course you can manipulate stats any way you like but take the total cost of motoring to the country and subtract the total taxation raised only from motorists and you have a huge subsidy or many hundreds a year.
You have to do things like include the cost of all injuries and deaths ( million pounds a death x 2000 a year just from RTCs) o the roads, the cost of congestion, the costs of illhealth from vehicle fumes and the value of the land used. Roads are paid for by local authorities not from motoring taxes

Captain - really? Its just a shift inhow things are taxed. some would go down, some would go up.

Its a differnt arguement to the OP, its a debate we have had on here before and the conclusions are not those people want to hear

Wiki is a decent starting point if you want to find out more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

As tj says, this isn't the original topic, but http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/when-will-drivers-start-paying-the-full-costs-of-motoring/

Interestingly, the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which produced the report for the RAC Foundation, said:

“Road use generates costs which are borne by wider society instead of the motorist.”

In the same report, the Department for Transport estimated that the average marginal external cost of driving a car an additional kilometre is 15.5 pence allowing for the congestion (estimated at 13.1 pence per kilometre), infrastructure, accidents, local air quality, noise and greenhouse gases. This compares to 3.6 pence per kilometre paid in fuel duty and VAT.

As already said, there are lots of costs and tax streams that could be included (VAT on fluffy dice?) but generally I think it's accepted that the costs of motoring aren't covered by motoring taxes. That might change a bit with more electric vehicles, but then fuel tax falls too.

Maybe people's perception that they've "paid" to drive is part of what's behind the entitlement issues (and that includes "I'm entitled to break the law because I like it/it's convenient for me").

How is the £20 gallon going to keep idiots off the roads? There are plenty of wealthy idiots who drive too. It is just taxing the lower incomed and attempting to curb where I live. I'd rather see a tax on cats and dogs, or that noisy git delivering pizza around here on his stupid, noisy motorbike.

While TJ has good ideas sometimes please don't debate use of cars with him.

We know from previous posts that he lives and works in a city with regular and decent public transport and doesn't see why everyone else just doesn't do the same.

While TJ has good ideas sometimes please don't debate use of cars with him.

b r - Member

While TJ has good ideas sometimes please don't debate use of cars with him.

We know from previous posts that he lives and works in a city with regular and decent public transport and doesn't see why everyone else just doesn't do the same.

Relying on car ownership to ferry you between work and home is almost always nothing more than a selfish lifestyle choice.

*Warning.
This post was sent from the moral highground of carless living. 😉

Relying on car ownership to ferry you between work and home is almost always nothing more than a selfish lifestyle choice.

Ta bob - thats exactly the point I made in previous posts. People claim their car is a necessity while its actually because of choices they have made that their chosen lifestyle is difficult without a car.

Not that wwe should all move to cities.

also if petrol was £20 a gallon and the money raised used on public transport then how good would our public transport be?

some folk do need a car - if they are working in a variety of places and have to be there physically. But the majority? Lifestyle choice.

Its also indisputable that the subsidy to car owners from the general public is less than the subsidy to public transport users from the general public. Some of my taxes go to making your car ownership cheaper to you than its real cost

We know from previous posts that he lives and works in a city with regular and decent public transport and doesn't see why everyone else just doesn't do the same.

Back on topic, increased speeding fines will have no effect on me as I don't drive, and when I did I managed to *avoid any fines.
They won't help road safety though, and could even have a detrimental effect.

*By not speeding.
In my 400bhp, 187mph BMW.
😀

Go on - have a laugh at me. I got done twice last year on the same car journey. Higher fines wouldn't have stopped either of the offences. However now I have 6 points I can no longer risk any more.

[i]I don't mean trackwers comulsorily fitted by the governemnt but that folk take voluntarily to reduce insurance premiums. Its already available[/I]

tbh mate my 435d's insurance is less than £300 anyway, no incentive there for me.

[I]also if petrol was £20 a gallon and the money raised used on public transport then how good would our public transport be?[/I]

It would still only come into the nearest town, and not near enough for me to carry my shopping home?

And also under this theory the majority of the Scottish countryside would be empty with only old folk left?

Why can't they? Slightly rhetorical question as whenever this comes up people come up with elaborate scenarios where you would have to drive. I know they exist. Problem is with motoring so cheap and property so expensive then people make the choice to do a long commute as the lesser of two evils but it is a choice

[i]There's no point to motorbikes, they shouldn't even be on the roads. [/I]

Do you also hate that they filter past you in your tin-top when you're sat in a queue too? 🙂

Best form of city/urban transport IMO, plus cracking fun on the open road.

Do you also hate that they filter past you in your tin-top when you're sat in a queue too?

Yes , I get that the time difference is sod all over say 4 miles at 36mph in a 40mph limit. Lets assume that on the overtaking straight the limit goes to 60mph. The lorry is limited by law to 40mph. I am legally allowed to drive at 60mph. There are miles of bends and double white lines coming up with zero overtaking opportunities
Sorry chaps but Im off past that truck and I will use full throttle to pass the HGV as quickly as I can then continue with journey at below the speed limit for my vehicle for the next 10 miles of wiggles/ hills/ roundabouts etc.

The cars that wind me are the totally superfluous trackday specials that belt around the countryside on a Sunday, them and motorbikes

I'm the opposite. I'm not really that fussed about the odd leisure drive/ride, they're too infrequent to matter.
What bothers me is choking on fumes every day on my way to work because people are selfish and lazy bastards.

b r - Member

Best form of city/urban transport

There's also an invention that doesn't rely on churning out fumes to run: the bicycle. 💡

[quote=mattyfez ]Bring in the automated car, that's the real solution for road safety.
Take ego and attitude out of the equation.

This, it is much the best idea.

And I had absolutely no idea that the car tax fund thingy is not enough to pay for the road network, I thought it covered the roads and a lot more. Interesting.
Shows how powerful the car lobby is perceived to be by the gov.

5plusn8 - Member

This, it is much the best idea.

Is it ****.

Ceasing to rely on the car is the best idea.

Ceasing to rely on the car is the best idea.

Poly - yes its true. of course you can manipulate stats any way you like but take the total cost of motoring to the country and subtract the total taxation raised only from motorists and you have a huge subsidy or many hundreds a year.

You have to do things like include the cost of all injuries and deaths ( million pounds a death x 2000 a year just from RTCs) o the roads, the cost of congestion, the costs of illhealth from vehicle fumes and the value of the land used.

This summary sums it up quite well:
[img] [/img]
However it is worth noting that inevitably the external factors are estimates, and the author has adopted the larger number in any range and made a sweeping assumption that it can be extrapolated to the 20% of the population outside of English Urban Areas. When you reverse those assumptions you get back to something much closer to break even. Now, in fact, if you consider that even if we had no private motorists we would still need roads for busses, deliveries, emergency services etc - then perhaps that 9BN on roads (which happens to be the amount of the worst case "subsidy") should actually be shared by the whole country anyway as it is essential infrastructure that keeps the country working - regardless of whether you ever drive a car yourself.

Now I commute on public transport so would love to see more investment there, and although a car owner have no objection to increased motoring taxes, so I suppose it depends what you'd call a huge subsidy.

Roads are paid for by local authorities not from motoring taxes

Its not necessarily that people don't want to hear your argument - but if you obscure it in misleading claims like that it makes it hard to believe the rest was prepared from an entirely impartial viewpoint.

I reckon my motorbike costs me £60 per ride before I put petrol in it.

£20 per gallon won't stop me going for a blast on a summer Sunday. Nor stop me speeding. No point in having a litre bike and sticking to 70mph.

The hand wringing, holier than thou STW massive can go **** themselves.

It would still only come into the nearest town, and not near enough for me to carry my shopping home?

But people won't do it without infrastructure. I don't blame anyone who doesn't feel safe to ride on our roads as they're currently built. But if we build them with safe space for cycling then people will use it.

The same goes for public transport.

But as we can see on this thread, stuff gets an as an attack on motorists, or extrapolated out so "maybe don't use a car for every trip" becomes "everyone should have their car taken away".

One thing that's often overlooked with our car-centric way of doing things is how isolating it can be for people who can't drive, e.g. for financial or medical reasons. If you've been used to driving everywhere and all of a sudden your cataracts mean you lose your license then you're going to feel stranded. It's easy to say "nah, keep driving cheap and easy, we don't need proper public transport" when you're a driver. I'm not surprised elderly people hide medical conditions in order to keep their driving licenses.

The Netherlands is something we should aim for IMO, yet try have a higher rate of car ownership than we do. It's not anti car, it's just that we're so far pro-car that any movement looks "anti".

zanelad - Member

The hand wringing, holier than thou STW massive can go **** themselves.

No need, for there are women on the moral high ground. 😀

Ps, baggsy your lungs. 😉

I'm loving the posts by people who claim speeding is okay if you have the skill or the conditions are right. It doesn't matter how much skill you have or think you have, you are not alone on the roads and cannot account for the behavior of others. The limits are there for a reason.

I knew a bloke who thought he was skilled enough to drive quicker than the limit. I sat in court and watched him, head bowed, as the prosecution detailed what had happened to my brother when his car hit him.

35 in a 30, just making progress. According to the people that actually know what they are talking about 5 mph slower and the chance of two young kids still having a father and me still being able to hang out with my older brother would have been a damned sight higher. Stick your excuses and your reasons for speeding firmly up your arse.

Poly correct - its taxes on motoring not taxes from motorists

(And who has ever been done for speeding while overtaking? Nonsense argument).

Me, in the 'slow vehicle- only overtaking spot for miles' scenario. On the A9 by a mobile van camera. I think they were there on purpose and it was a bit unsporting but i did it so I paid up.

I'm a big fan of the average speed cams on the A9, I'm on it twice a day, it takes sod all extra time and its a nicer place to be

Me as well. on the a9. By a mobile camera. Booting it past a line of trucks on a dualled bit. 84 mph. £100 and 3 pts.

Ps, baggsy your lungs.

Well, you wouldn't want his brain.

[quote=tjagain ]Me as well. on the a9. By a mobile camera. Booting it past a line of trucks on a dualled bit. 84 mph. £100 and 3 pts.

Were you in the outside lane of the dual or had you crossed to the oncoming traffic?

Funkmasterp

I don't think you'll find any of the 'speeders' are condoning speeding in 30/40 limits, were saying that you should drive to the conditions and environment - which is why many of us 'suffer' vehicles right up our backsides when in 30/40 limits. Because most drivers DON'T, and seem to trundle along at whatever speed is the slowest in top gear their vehicle is comfortable at.

b r - motorways, I accept that going quicker with all traffic heading in the same direction, in some instances makes sense. Anywhere else, regardless of conditions or environment, there are far too many other factors at play. That's why speed limits exist and are enforced.

I admit my opinion is possibly biased, but you speed, you get fined, simple. It should go further and excessive speeding should result in a lifetime ban. Driving is a privilege and not a right. If people understood this now then there would be no need for threads like this to reach six pages.

5plusn8

In the outside lane. The camera was facing me ie I was heading towards the camera.

Well, you wouldn't want his brain.

Why not, it's not been over-used? 🙂

I'm all for minimum speed limits. That at least would get all the fools wobbling along on push bikes off the roads.

[quote=tjagain ]5plusn8
In the outside lane. The camera was facing me ie I was heading towards the camera.

Ah if I understand your description correctly then I feel that does not fit my definition of being caught speeding when "overtaking". I was thinking more on a single carriageway where you cross to the oncoming traffic side. Otherwise anyone caught by a camera speeding whilst in the middle or outside lane of the motorway was "overtaking". Do you get me?

Ps, baggsy your lungs

Of course you can. Luckily for you I've never been a smoker. £5,000 OK? Send the money now and I'll tell Mrs Z to put you down for them. 😀

5plusn8

Many palces on the A9 and A1 where this is possible - roadside fixed gatsos that can get cars in both directions on both sides of the road. I know of one specifically placed to do this

[quote=tjagain ]5plusn8
Many palces on the A9 and A1 where this is possible - roadside fixed gatsos that can get cars in both directions on both sides of the road. I know of one specifically placed to do this

I think we are talking crossed purposes here.

NOpe. I know what you mean. On the A1 on a single carriageway section south of edinburgh there is a long straight suitable for overtaking. there is a camera there specifically intended to catch drivers overtaking. Set up for exactly the scenario you think cannot happen

5plusn8 - Member
Ah if I understand your description correctly then I feel that does not fit my definition of being caught speeding when "overtaking".

Set up for exactly the scenario you think cannot happen

I can't really see many people being caught speeding whilst overtaking

So you and your brother haver neve broken a speed limit then? I find that hard to believe. In which case stick your sanctimonious drivel up your arse.

No I don't speed, never have. It's quite simple to stick to the limits you know. I don't recall my brother doing so either. He can't now though on account of being dead because somebody who was speeding hit him causing a massive brain bleed.

[quote=zanelad ]Stick your excuses and your reasons for speeding firmly up your arse.
So you and your brother haver neve broken a speed limit then? I find that hard to believe. In which case stick your sanctimonious drivel up your arse.

I think a little compassion is required here. It worries me that one persons right to arrive a bit earlier or to have more fun appears to trump others right to life.

5plusn8 - because of the set up of the camera. Its clear its to catch people overtaking

[quote=tjagain ]5plusn8 - because of the set up of the camera. Its clear its to catch people overtaking

Fair enough, I don't doubt that's the case.

This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road
https://goo.gl/maps/1iiNNwJ8Hh32

I think a little compassion is required here. It worries me that one persons right to arrive a bit earlier or to have more fun appears to trump others right to life.

Thank you. What I find incredulous is the fact that somebody can't seem to understand that others don't speed. That, in my opinion, is part of the issue. Speeding has been accepted to such a degree (by some individuals) in this country that they simply assume it's something everybody does.

The limit is just that, a limit. It's not a target or a minimum requirement. It's how fast you are legally able to travel under optimal road conditions. Perhaps some need revising, I would agree that this is the case for certain stretches of motorway and some dual carriageways.

You can see the marking lines both sides of the road

That's very common IME, I always thought it was so you couldn't evade the camera by just using the other lane rather than a specific measure to catch overtakers.

[quote=tjagain ]This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road
https://goo.gl/maps/1iiNNwJ8Hh32
br />

Or given what the others said earlier about how cameras can work both ways isn't this just to get speeders in any direction? I am sure it will get overtakers too, but I wonder that with the cost of cameras etc that this was set up only with the purpose of getting overtakers? Rather than just speeders in both directions.

Many palces on the A9 and A1 where this is possible - roadside fixed gatsos that can get cars in both directions on both sides of the road. I know of one specifically placed to do this

No you don't, Gatsos cannot do that.

This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road

That's not a Gatso. It's the same type of camera they use to enforce red lights, IIRC it works by using sensors in the road (I don't know what it's called though). Could potentially work in both directions, I'm not sure.

tjagain - Member
This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road

I'm pretty sure that style of camera is only capturing traffic moving away though, so it does seem set up to catch overtakes (heading towards a bend in the road)

FWIW there are no Gatsos on the A9 now. They were removed when the ASCs were installed. Some of the road markings still exist- with the expected comedic responses 🙂

Maybe its not the one I was thinking of

I thought these were gatsos. Oh well.

Assuming it is set up specifically to catch overtakers, you have to admit that it is an uncommon arrangement.

5plusn8 - because of the set up of the camera. Its clear its to catch people [b]exceeding the speed limit while[/b] overtaking

Fixed.

[i]The limit is just that, a limit. It's not a target or a minimum requirement. It's how fast you are legally able to travel under optimal road conditions. Perhaps some need revising, I would agree that this is the case for certain stretches of motorway and some dual carriageways. [/I]

Yep, an arbitrary number decided in the past - in fact the motorway and NSL limits were reduced for a time in the 70's as a fuel saving measure.

And as you say 'legally', so probably worth posting one of my favourite quotes (Michael Winner). To add context, I spent a lot of time riding a motorcycle in/around London, and there's no consistency to whether you can go in a bus lane or not, so had a fair few visits to TfL's appeals department.

They only charge you £60 to use them, and you get no points. Wonderful value!

The limit is just that, a limit. It's not a target or a minimum requirement.

And yet, if you drive everywhere at 15mph on a driving test without good reason you'll fail. Strange, that.

And yet, if you drive everywhere at 15mph on a driving test without good reason you'll fail. Strange, that.

I mentioned before that the statistics show that driving slower than the average speed increase the risk of an accident, much like going faster does.

Indeed. Google "85th percentile."

And yet, if you drive everywhere at 15mph on a driving test without good reason you'll fail. Strange, that.

Exactly as you say, without good reason. Driving idiotically slowly, as mentioned above, is also extremely dangerous. If the road was covered in ice or you were driving in heavy fog you'd have good reason to drive at 15mph. Some people would continue to drive to the limit though because they seem to think that's the speed you have to go.

Yep, an arbitrary number decided in the past

Not all limits were set in the past. Plenty around where I live have been altered over the last few years. This is normally down to the number of accidents that have occurred on certain stretches of road. As I've previously said, some limits probably need looking at. In all fairness this would more than likely lead to further reductions not increases in limits. The road network appears to not be equipped to deal with the amount of traffic that utilises it.

[i]Not all limits were set in the past. Plenty around where I live have been altered over the last few years. This is normally down to the number of accidents that have occurred on certain stretches of road. As I've previously said, some limits probably need looking at. In all fairness this would more than likely lead to further reductions not increases in limits. The road network appears to not be equipped to deal with the amount of traffic that utilises it. [/I]

Although its often 'policy' too, there's a road that travels down the Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire border and it's 60 in Buckinghamshire and 50 in Oxfordshire...

Exactly as you say, without good reason. Driving idiotically slowly, as mentioned above, is also extremely dangerous. If the road was covered in ice or you were driving in heavy fog you'd have good reason to drive at 15mph. Some people would continue to drive to the limit though because they seem to think that's the speed you have to go.

No arguments here, that's bang on the money.

Not all limits were set in the past

You have limits set in the future?

You have limits set in the future?

Roads, where we're going you don't need roads.

Too much traffic, too much emissions, increasingly lazy driving standards. People driving around with 30 points cause "they couldn't work without a car". Brits treat cars like sacred cows, it's pathetic. They should start crushing cars and permabanning people for much less than they do. make people take a bit more responsibility and care over their driving.

Olly

Too much traffic, too much emissions, increasingly lazy driving standards. People driving around with 30 points cause "they couldn't work without a car". Brits treat cars like sacred cows, it's pathetic. They should start crushing cars and permabanning people for much less than they do. make people take a bit more responsibility and care over their driving.

Honestly, why stop there.

There are some places where speed limits have been set deliberate low, with a camera, before the road was even open: the Batheaston bypass. It was built to take traffic from the highly congested village, which was also an accident blackspot, and was constructed as a dual carriageway from some way up a hill, and the limit was set at 50mph, with a camera set up under a bridge where the road straightens up from the bend as the traffic comes down the hill.
The justification for having the speed limit on a dual carriageway and a camera before the road was opened was down to the rules stating a camera can be installed a kilometre from an accident blackspot - so they put one on a brand new road, designed to bypass the blackspot, with an artificially low limit for a dual carriageway.
The camera is now off.

I was reminded of this discussion after a mate told me he got flashed by an "other side camera" yesterday on a 70MPH Dual carriageway with a wide central reservation.
He was in the inside lane, doing 90+ and the camera was on the other side of the dual on the hard shoulder side.
Apparently it was early morning, bright and nobody on the road in either direction but him. Is he done for?

If it's a double flashy distance travelled between the two photos job then I expect not. He'll have triggered it but even if there were lines painted on his side I'd imagine his vehicle would only be in 1 photo and not 2..
IANATrafficpolice

Nick, that's what I thought, but IA also NATrafficpolice... It was a double flashy, no lines painted on his side (I drove past it to have a look on my way n this morning). I wondered about the wideangleness of the lens. I wonder if the lens only covers the lane it is interested in, whereas the radar to trigger it may have wider coverage.

I've often thought that painting lines on both sides like the example given above is a cheap way to try and enforce both carriageways at one time. Some may take the risk, most won't.

As for the 'law of the land' argument. Nobody asked me to sign up for these before I popped out of the womb. Like everyone else, I abide by the Laws I agree with, and I ignore the Laws I disagree with. The nation state's ability to lock me up and throw away the key is driven purely by use of force.

The morality of breaking the Law is irrelevant to me, because I am already abiding by the Laws that I agree with by my individual moral code.

You can argue that by the process of applying for a driving licence, sitting my test, etc. I agreed to abide by the law of the land as regards motoring. However, I see it as a bit like the Apple terms and conditions, there is no other way to get to the end result I'm after, I'll say anything and then carry on as I see fit. There was a good article on here a while back about how it can actually work out cheaper to drive unlicenced, untaxed and uninsured. Even if you get caught. I just don't want that hassle, as I suspect the majority of people don't.

I speed. I religiously stick to the limit in built up areas because of my perception of risk to other road users and innocent bystanders. I also just do not think it is right to treat somewhere people live as a racetrack. Otherwise, I break the law if I want to, and I feel it is safe to do so. If I get caught, so be it.

I am happy to admit that by speeding when I feel it is safe to do so, I am still endangering other road users and innocent bystanders unnecessarily, purely for my own enjoyment or other selfish reasons.

But then I am only driving a car in the first place, because I have chosen to be a very selfish person. In the same way that I heat my house, and add to the population pressure by existing. The logical conclusion to the question, 'how can I remove all risk I pose to other people?' is to commit suicide. But then EVEN doing that does not actually remove all risk to other people!

(I am not arguing that I speed because I'm not suicidal BTW!)

I've often thought that painting lines on both sides like the example given above is a cheap way to try and enforce both carriageways at one time.

Apologies, my English isn't always the best. I meant that there were NO LINES painted on his side.