Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Jul 10, 2026 20:40

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 02:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
The Telegraph here
The Telegraph - Nick Collins wrote:
Drivers can escape fines at 86mph
Drivers caught speeding at up to 86mph will be able to avoid penalty points under a new scheme to be adopted by most police forces.
By Nick Collins 7:30AM BST 09 Apr 2011

A driver caught at 86mph can keep a clean license by taking a course

Under the new guidelines ministers will raise the limit at which drivers can escape prosecution, provided they pay to attend a speed awareness course which costs about £100.

Thirty seven of England's 44 police forces have so far agreed to put the new framework in place, and it is already under way in Oxfordshire.

Proceeds from the courses would be used to buy more speed cameras or to recommission disused ones - which they are no longer permitted to do with money raised from speeding fines.

Drivers can already pay to attend courses in order to escape points or fines for speeding, but now the upper limit at which the option is available is being raised.

The courses have so far been limited to drivers caught travelling up to ten per cent plus 5mph above the speed limit, but this is being raised to ten per cent plus 9mph.

This means that in a 70mph area, where drivers travelling faster than 79mph should expect to be prosecuted, a driver caught at 86mph can keep a clean license by taking a course – higher than the previous limit of 82mph.

In a 50mph area, where speeds above 57mph usually result in fines, the option of a course will still be available at 64mph, rather than the previous level of 60mph.

Drivers in a 30mph area would usually be prosecuted at 35mph, but the ceiling for those who take courses will be lifted from 38mph to 42mph.

The courses can only be taken by the same driver once every three years, to prevent repeat offenders from abusing the system.

Officials said the guidelines were not fixed and that police chiefs were free to set their own levels.

Figures from the Department for Transport show that in 2009 almost 600,000 drivers, excluding those in London and certain other areas, chose to pay for a speed awareness course rather than paying a £60 fine and receiving three points on their license.

The same number of people paying £100 for a course would raise almost £60 million, and by raising the level at which the courses are offered police can expect the number of drivers electing to take them to rise significantly.

Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS), told the Daily Mail: "Increasing the latitude for motorists to do speed awareness courses means more will fall into the net. But the Government supports using the cash from the courses to fund the cameras."
Don't see how they are avoiding the fine ! They have to pay and it will still be announced to all insurance companies. This process only serves to benefit those that make the profit like the AA DriveTech. We know that the 85th%ile of motorists may be travelling at approx 85mph on the motorway so this only means that they will receive the funds than the Treasury. This may also be a move to seek more approval by the public of the SCAM industry. Many courses are more than £100 and many have to travel to get there too and loose a day off work plus then there is the 1 / 3yrs so when is that going to be reduced to what 1 / yr ?
Making money not safety.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:05 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
The real kicker is this:

Quote:
Proceeds from the courses would be used to buy more speed cameras or to recommission disused ones - which they are no longer permitted to do with money raised from speeding fines.


Playing around the rules by finding a different means of 'fining'. The 'speed industry' is really becoming a self-licking lollipop, to the detriment of a holistic approach to road safety and driver quality.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
It seems the cost of these courses is increasing at quite a rate - for no apparent rea$on!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 13:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
RobinXe wrote:
The real kicker is this:

Quote:
Proceeds from the courses would be used to buy more speed cameras or to recommission disused ones - which they are no longer permitted to do with money raised from speeding fines.

Playing around the rules by finding a different means of 'fining'. The 'speed industry' is really becoming a self-licking lollipop, to the detriment of a holistic approach to road safety and driver quality.

Yes, it's pretty much exactly the same scandal as the discredited "hypothecation scheme". It is always invidious for law enforcement agencies to profit directly from fine revenue as it produces a perverse incentive to maximise the number of offences detected. If nobody was caught, the funding stream would dry up.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 18:29 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
I find it curious that any one should criticise a law enforcement agency for trying to "to maximise the number of offences detected." The more usual complaint is that they are not trying hard enough to catch offenders

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 18:43 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
I find it curious that any one should criticise a law enforcement agency for trying to "to maximise the number of offences detected."

What if their method is by needless criminalisation?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 18:54 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
dcbwhaley wrote:
I find it curious that any one should criticise a law enforcement agency for trying to "to maximise the number of offences detected."


Here's an idea - let's make it illegal to step on cracks on the pavement.
As they're essentially a trip hazard, such a law would doubtless save untold injuries.
We have more than enough CCTV cameras around to make detection a doddle, and we can catch offenders in their thousands.

How does that sound?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 20:12 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Pete317 wrote:
[How does that sound?


Stupid. It is one thing to criticise the law. Quite another to criticise the police for applying the law.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 20:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 20:54
Posts: 225
Location: West Midlands
dcbwhaley wrote:
Stupid. It is one thing to criticise the law. Quite another to criticise the police for applying the law.


...but they are not "applying the law", they are selectively choosing which (degrees of) laws they choose to prosecute and which they decide to make a tidy profit from :mad:

mb


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 20:47 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
Stupid. It is one thing to criticise the law. Quite another to criticise the police for applying the law.

"Law enforcement agencies" goes well beyond "police". I don't consider SCP staff as police - do you?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 21:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
dcbwhaley wrote:
Stupid.


Quite.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 22:14 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
dcbwhaley wrote:
Stupid. It is one thing to criticise the law. Quite another to criticise the police for applying the law.

But surely the authorities can apply the law both:

(a) in a manner that is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, and
(b) in a manner that represents an inappropriate targeting of limited resources.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 07:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
... Nor all the companies that directly sell and profit from the cameras that they produce either.

At least with VAS they profit and the Police/Council apply but it educates and teaches ... far better and not money-spinning.

To select a band by which the profit is chosen and raised to suit is not much better than organised Highway Robbery, IMHO.
It is far better to educate to help teach how to driver better and more safely prior to offences by the 1000's.
Shooting 'ducks' as they pass and justifying it because it is a 'technical offence' and fails benefits society is appalling. To some that then try to establish a tenuous link that a speed will assist in preventing an accident shows how gullible the public are and how they believe anything when dressed up to sound nice.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 13:56 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
I think they are just trying to sugar-coat a bitter pill.

On the surface it looks like they are being more lenient on drivers which will boost the negative image so many have of obsessive speed enforcement and lowering of limits when in fact they just want to pay for more scameras which will in turn bring in more revenue.

Let’s extrapolate thier idea shall we.

“Drivers in a 30mph area would usually be prosecuted at 35mph, but the ceiling for those who take courses will be lifted from 38mph to 42mph.”


Next year drivers in a 30mph area, (which was dropped from a previous safe 40mph area), who would usually be prosecuted at 42mph, but for those who take courses it will be lifted from 42mph to 46mph with a course fee of £150.

And something which has sprung to my mind is actually quite sinister. You could argue that they are now effectively encouraging people to go faster with this policy which will bring in yet more revenue.

I'll go one step further and pull a few numbers out of the air..

The previous safe NSL of 60mph on a single carriageway road was dropped to a 40mph limit. Drivers in this 40mph area who would usually be prosecuted at 50mph will now not be prosecuted until they reach 66mph, (that’s just 6mph over the once safe and legal limit of 60mph and within the ACPO guidelines), and the course will cost £200.

They really do think we are stupid.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


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

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.021s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]