1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Road "safety" Bill, the highlights

Discussion in 'Motors' started by Muncher, 9 Mar 2006.

  1. Muncher

    Soldato

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,169

    Location: Ipswich

    32 in a 20 = 6 points, £100 fine
    45 in a 30 = 6 points, £100 fine
    57 in a 40 = 6 points, £100 fine
    70 in a 50 = 6 points, £100 fine
    82 in a 60 = 6 points, £100 fine
    94 in a 70 = 6 points, £100 fine



    Careless driving fine up from £2,500 to £5,000

    Failing to indentify the driver (S172) will go up to 6 points from 3.

    Driving while using a mobile will now attract 3 points.

    Roadside breath tests will be enough to convict, a second test at a police station is no longer necessary



    ps Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman admitted in a debate he uses a scamera detector...
     
  2. happytechie

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 5,601

    Location: Surrey

  3. Oakesy2001uk

    Mobster

    Joined: 7 Sep 2005

    Posts: 3,312

    brillient! :D .........



    (small hint of sarcasm there)
     
  4. Muncher

    Soldato

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,169

    Location: Ipswich

    Not to mention the removal of ACPO guidelines so 31 in a 30 will now attract points and a fine....


    Oh, and they can also hide cameras....
     
  5. Freefaller

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 5 Jun 2003

    Posts: 87,182

    Location: Falling...

    To be fair though those are quite substantially over the speed limit. However, I agree it does seem to be targetting drivers needlessly, this is not the way to police bad driving or get people to drive properly. And then they wonder why there is so much animosity towards the police force and speed cameras?!

    The mobile phone one doesn't bother me I have to say.

    edit: just read your 2nd post Muncher - that is way over the top. It's a bloody farce. :mad:
     
  6. Muncher

    Soldato

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,169

    Location: Ipswich

    The Bill:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/010/05010.i-v.html

    Trying to find an article on it, none appear online yet, though it is on the front pade of The Daily Mail.



    As an aside:

    Speed cameras lead to points surge

    Speed cameras have led to a surge of penalty points on drivers' licences, a new poll has revealed.

    About 16% of motorists now have penalty points, with 3% being one offence away from a driving ban, the survey from motor insurance company Direct Line showed.

    In the past 12 months, motorists have paid out more than £121 million in speeding fines and 92% of motoring convictions over the last two years were for speeding.

    Based on responses from 2,430 UK adults, the survey also showed that 61% think speed cameras are mere revenue raisers and 11% think cameras are there to pay for local authority workers' bonuses

    Also, more than three quarters claim that fines have no effect on the speed they drive.

    Direct Line's motor spokeswoman Emma Holyer said: "Despite the growing number of speed cameras in the UK and the increase in motorists receiving penalty points, our research shows that drivers are still speeding.

    "Although the Government is currently reviewing speed cameras as part of the Road Safety Bill, drivers need to take notice of the speed limits - and cameras - regardless of whether they agree with them or not as they could lose their licence if they choose to ignore them.

    "Speed cameras exist because speeding is one of the biggest dangers on UK roads, with one in three road deaths attributed to it, so motorists do need to keep their speed down and be aware of the limits."
     
  7. great advice

    Mobster

    Joined: 20 Oct 2003

    Posts: 2,872

    Location: Manchester

    TBH your highlights in the opening post are very fair, Its about time people got raped for using a mobile whilst driving imo

    The two that get me is that they can now hide speed cameras, i know we shouldnt be speeding and we get what we deserve if caught, but when they are hidden we are gunna get a load of traffic cruising at a steady pace then all slamming the breaks on as soon as they see the camera - its gunna be a late later now so they are gunna break heavier. Way more dangerous than it was before imo

    The Matthew Right show have just said you could also lose your license when you get 6 points rather than 12, just like new drivers too!!

    18 years of driving without a single point or accident though :D gotta be a right tool to get caught speeding imo :D
     
  8. woodsy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 26 Jan 2004

    Posts: 1,317

    Location: North East, UK

    "Roadside breath tests will be enough to convict, a second test at a police station is no longer necessary"

    Speaking from experience if that is the case two people I have dealt with would of been charged with drink driving as the time it takes to get people back to custody, processed and then checked again on the advanced kit there alcohol level had dropped enough for them not to be charged.

    So I'm all for it. As far as the proposed point system goes those speeds listed below you would be close to or well with the zone for getting reported and summoned anyway (Which would likely lead to 6 points). So it would appear they are trying to reduce the amount of 'higher' speed convictions going through the courts.
     
  9. L0rdMike

    Capodecina

    Joined: 3 Nov 2003

    Posts: 10,586

    Location: Southampton

    What a joke, the whole speed kills thing does my head in. I was doing the limit when some idiot near killed me. The fact he was an idiot and we wernt speeding had nothing to do with it I guess.
     
  10. agw_01

    Capodecina

    Joined: 11 Apr 2004

    Posts: 19,681



    Good! When I see people using the phone while driving they get a nice hand gesture from me.

    I was going to say that the roadside units aren't as accurate, but thinking about it, if you're driving, you shouldn't be drinking at all.



    So what causes the other 2/3's? Speeding isn't dangerous. Morons who speed in the wrong places are.
     
  11. DRZ

    Soldato

    Joined: 2 Jun 2003

    Posts: 6,861

    Location: In the top 1%

    I am sure I have read (perhaps from Dolph here) figures that show speeding to be the sole cause of accidents in a ridiculously small number of cases in the grand scheme of things.

    Where did the above quote get their figures from?
     
  12. Vanilla

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,360

    So is this law or is it being discussed?
     
  13. spaz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 16 May 2005

    Posts: 2,414

    Location: Bedfordshire

    The higher penalties don't really bother me as they are quite high, but it's the hidden cameras I'm against. I don't really speed that much, but incase I 'stray' over the limit I'd prefer peace of mind that for that short time I'm not going to get a letter through my door saying that I'm the scum of the earth for causing no extra danger. About time people started getting fined for things like tail-gaiting and rubbernecking which causes far more harm than speeding itself.
     
  14. Amps

    Mobster

    Joined: 23 Mar 2003

    Posts: 2,652

    Location: Scotland

    Is this bill uk wide or just england?
     
  15. Muncher

    Soldato

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,169

    Location: Ipswich

    Will be for England and Wales.

    The Bill has had the third reading in the Lords so is only a couple of months away from becoming law.
     
  16. gobbo

    Mobster

    Joined: 25 Dec 2002

    Posts: 2,862

    At last, maybe this will stop all those morons that drive around paying more attention to thier phones than the road!
     
  17. TomO

    Mobster

    Joined: 28 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,303

    i think its speeding in about 6-7% of cases.

    they round it up to the third by using things such as 'agressive driving' - which generally means you are speeding. but its not that your speeding, its that your driving like a ****. otherwise it would solely under speeding :confused:

    but means they can put it as 'speeding' and call it a third. :rolleyes:
     
  18. Beepcake

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,852

    Location: Cheshire

    The speeding figures are always complete nonsense because they twist the wording so accidents/fatalities attributed to 'Inappropriate Speed' are classed as 'Speeding'. But that doesn't mean they were doing over the actual speed limit, just you were driving too fast for the conditions, corner etc.

    I have no problem with the harsher penalties for big speeders, and I don't really have any problem with scameras.. but hiding them away and not signposting them goes against every argument that they are 'safety cameras' that are meant to warn you to reduce speeds.

    I also with they'd make it law that every speed camera and speed camera sign has to also have a large sign with the actual limit on; i've lost count of the amount of roads that don't have any repeaters on them, knackered signs etc. but they still have a camera.
     
  19. kaiowas

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,298

    Location: Castle Anthrax

    http://www.abd.org.uk/one_third.htm
     
  20. Freefaller

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 5 Jun 2003

    Posts: 87,182

    Location: Falling...

    The number of court appearances, and paper work is going to go through the roof as people put forward complaints and/or appeals - it's really going to cause more trouble than it is going to solve.