New anti-speeding proposals.......... Really bad news.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,225
Likes: 0
While I do not condone speeding, we all do it a little, so this makes for worrying reading.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR><I>The Home Office have issued a consultation document on more severe penalties for road traffic offences. Part of the proposals deal with offences involving death, and dangerous driving. No bad thing you may think, except that on reading the consultation paper, it rapidly becomes clear that they plan to abuse public concern over genuinely dangerous driving as a means of getting severe punishments for minor infringements of inappropriately low speed limits in by the back door.
Under the proposed "Possible later stage of two-tier system for speeding offences":
23 in a 20 limit will get you 7 points and a £60 fine, despite the fact that speedometers are only accurate to 10%.
76 to 85mph on a 70mph motorway will get you 15 points and a £90 fine, despite motorways being our safest roads, and Scottish Police chiefs recently calling for the motorway limit to be increased to 80mph.
20 points will result in an automatic ban.
It is quite clear that too many of the proposals are not about road safety at all, but represent the most extreme anti-car and anti-driver measures yet threatened by this government. It clearly attempts to put minor technical infringements on a par with malicious criminal activity. The high penalty points proposed are a blatant attempt to intimidate safe drivers and force people out of their cars.
The consultation paper can be downloaded as a PDF file from the Home Office website.(
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR><I>The Home Office have issued a consultation document on more severe penalties for road traffic offences. Part of the proposals deal with offences involving death, and dangerous driving. No bad thing you may think, except that on reading the consultation paper, it rapidly becomes clear that they plan to abuse public concern over genuinely dangerous driving as a means of getting severe punishments for minor infringements of inappropriately low speed limits in by the back door.
Under the proposed "Possible later stage of two-tier system for speeding offences":
23 in a 20 limit will get you 7 points and a £60 fine, despite the fact that speedometers are only accurate to 10%.
76 to 85mph on a 70mph motorway will get you 15 points and a £90 fine, despite motorways being our safest roads, and Scottish Police chiefs recently calling for the motorway limit to be increased to 80mph.
20 points will result in an automatic ban.
It is quite clear that too many of the proposals are not about road safety at all, but represent the most extreme anti-car and anti-driver measures yet threatened by this government. It clearly attempts to put minor technical infringements on a par with malicious criminal activity. The high penalty points proposed are a blatant attempt to intimidate safe drivers and force people out of their cars.
The consultation paper can be downloaded as a PDF file from the Home Office website.(
What about this 
The Government's Response to the Recommendations in the Report by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety: "Road Traffic Law and Enforcement: A Driving Force for Casualty Reduction."
Chapter 5. Detection and processing: The use of new technology
18. DETR, the Department of Trade and Industry, and European authorities should work together on the development of variable speed limiters. They should promote further research including field trials to look at long-term behavioural changes and studies into levels of public acceptability and concern over speed limiters. A target date should be set by which a decision over implementation should be made. [M5.2.1a]
This is referred to in the Road Safety Strategy. At the European level it is a matter principally for the European Commission. A High Level Group of Road Safety Directors chaired by the Commission is involved.
The Department is currently conducting research which is examining methods for limiting the speed of a vehicle without any action by the driver. This research is being carried out on behalf of the Department by the University of Leeds and the Motor Industry Research Association. Further trials will be carried out.
Although it is generally expected that external speed limiters could have a positive effect on road safety and that there may be potential for accident reduction, such control would have to be introduced in a way that ensures that any negative effects are avoided.
No target date for introduction has been agreed and until the research has been completed any such decision would be premature. As long as no trade barrier was introduced it would be possible to introduce a local scheme but to be truly effective it would probably need agreement at a European level. This would then need to be included in any target.
The Government's Response to the Recommendations in the Report by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety: "Road Traffic Law and Enforcement: A Driving Force for Casualty Reduction."
Chapter 5. Detection and processing: The use of new technology
18. DETR, the Department of Trade and Industry, and European authorities should work together on the development of variable speed limiters. They should promote further research including field trials to look at long-term behavioural changes and studies into levels of public acceptability and concern over speed limiters. A target date should be set by which a decision over implementation should be made. [M5.2.1a]
This is referred to in the Road Safety Strategy. At the European level it is a matter principally for the European Commission. A High Level Group of Road Safety Directors chaired by the Commission is involved.
The Department is currently conducting research which is examining methods for limiting the speed of a vehicle without any action by the driver. This research is being carried out on behalf of the Department by the University of Leeds and the Motor Industry Research Association. Further trials will be carried out.
Although it is generally expected that external speed limiters could have a positive effect on road safety and that there may be potential for accident reduction, such control would have to be introduced in a way that ensures that any negative effects are avoided.
No target date for introduction has been agreed and until the research has been completed any such decision would be premature. As long as no trade barrier was introduced it would be possible to introduce a local scheme but to be truly effective it would probably need agreement at a European level. This would then need to be included in any target.
I can't believe it there's MORE horrible stuff going down.
21. DETR should keep up to date with developments in electronic driving licence control of vehicle ignition systems and should ensure that future designs for driving licences do not preclude their use for such purposes. [M5.2.3]
As stated in the Government’s Road Safety Strategy a smart card driving licence has advantages for road traffic law enforcement and road safety purposes because information about the driver could be stored and downloaded . DETR’s Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is represented on an EC working party examining the feasibility of an electronic driving licence. This working party is fully aware of the potential for a BAIID function and the report does not preclude its inclusion at some stage. But the Government would need to be confident that any such control was compatible with vehicle safety standards.
21. DETR should keep up to date with developments in electronic driving licence control of vehicle ignition systems and should ensure that future designs for driving licences do not preclude their use for such purposes. [M5.2.3]
As stated in the Government’s Road Safety Strategy a smart card driving licence has advantages for road traffic law enforcement and road safety purposes because information about the driver could be stored and downloaded . DETR’s Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is represented on an EC working party examining the feasibility of an electronic driving licence. This working party is fully aware of the potential for a BAIID function and the report does not preclude its inclusion at some stage. But the Government would need to be confident that any such control was compatible with vehicle safety standards.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
The farmers etc got out and shocked the goverment on fuel.If we care about theses proposals and want to stop we have to create a stink.Wrote to your mp moan at the rac/AA.write to blair direct.don't sit back and complain we have to get out their and have a go.
I don't care about politics but i do know unless you moan they will walk all over you!!. Any one a better idea?
I don't care about politics but i do know unless you moan they will walk all over you!!. Any one a better idea?
Trending Topics
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
This is all very worrying.
And why I did not vote Labour at the last election ! These vile scumbags are eroding our ancient liberties by the back door in a typically undemocratic and underhand way.
Scum. May the Cheshire cat not be elected again (this last statement was editied).
Si
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
One thing that occured to me when reading these posts was that if they introduce speed limiters, they will stand to loose millions through not being able to fine people for speeding. So we will see whether all that safety talk is true or not.
In essex, pigs are ten a penny now.
In essex, pigs are ten a penny now.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 8,204
Likes: 0
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by bros:
<B>The new Home Secretary, David Blunkett, yesterday issued an instruction to police forces to stop targeting speeders and concentrate on real criminals.
Hoorah!
Mind you, the proof of the pudding etc etc
Bros[/quote]
Is this a wind up or did it actually happen. If it did happen then it's good news until the money starts to run out again.
<B>The new Home Secretary, David Blunkett, yesterday issued an instruction to police forces to stop targeting speeders and concentrate on real criminals.
Hoorah!
Mind you, the proof of the pudding etc etc
Bros[/quote]
Is this a wind up or did it actually happen. If it did happen then it's good news until the money starts to run out again.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,999
Likes: 0
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by bros:
<B>The new Home Secretary, David Blunkett, yesterday issued an instruction to police forces to stop targeting speeders and concentrate on real criminals.
Hoorah!
Mind you, the proof of the pudding etc etc
Bros[/quote]
Yes but with Police now able to keep speeding fines, and 'purly coincidental' plans for a three-fold increase of speeding cameras, this isn't going to happen.
Catch a murder - no revenue
Catch a rapist - no revenue
Catch a repeat burglar - no revenue
Catch a vandal - no revenue
Catch an armed bank robber - no revenue
Catch a speeding motorist - £40 to 4000 revenue
Where do you the Police's priority will lie?
Spot the future problem....
10 years time, the above consultation document become law - 34mph on a non-residential 30mph dual carriageway is punishable with 7 points. 'Bobby on the beat' becomes a genuine PC Tax Collector targetted and remunerated on revenue raised rather than convictions, thus everyone will be stopped. Second 34 in 30 offense gets 15 points and thus tots up to a 6 month ban. Given the volume of people who do drive (perfectly safely) at 34 in non-residential 30 limits, everyone will spend approx 6 months of the year without a license. Reduced central govt spending on Public Transport (they won't have the £bns from speeding fines remember) means people have no choice but to drive at key times, thus the current 1 in 10 driving with no (or invalid) insurance rockets to 1 in 6? 1 in 4? 1 in 2?? Furthermore, with less cars in the road, speeding revenue drops, Police cry poverty, increase FPN fines to £100? £200? and a viscious circle is created 
Who voted these power-crazed lunatics in for a second term??
<B>The new Home Secretary, David Blunkett, yesterday issued an instruction to police forces to stop targeting speeders and concentrate on real criminals.
Hoorah!
Mind you, the proof of the pudding etc etc
Bros[/quote]
Yes but with Police now able to keep speeding fines, and 'purly coincidental' plans for a three-fold increase of speeding cameras, this isn't going to happen.
Catch a murder - no revenue
Catch a rapist - no revenue
Catch a repeat burglar - no revenue
Catch a vandal - no revenue
Catch an armed bank robber - no revenue
Catch a speeding motorist - £40 to 4000 revenue
Where do you the Police's priority will lie?
Spot the future problem....
10 years time, the above consultation document become law - 34mph on a non-residential 30mph dual carriageway is punishable with 7 points. 'Bobby on the beat' becomes a genuine PC Tax Collector targetted and remunerated on revenue raised rather than convictions, thus everyone will be stopped. Second 34 in 30 offense gets 15 points and thus tots up to a 6 month ban. Given the volume of people who do drive (perfectly safely) at 34 in non-residential 30 limits, everyone will spend approx 6 months of the year without a license. Reduced central govt spending on Public Transport (they won't have the £bns from speeding fines remember) means people have no choice but to drive at key times, thus the current 1 in 10 driving with no (or invalid) insurance rockets to 1 in 6? 1 in 4? 1 in 2??
Furthermore, with less cars in the road, speeding revenue drops, Police cry poverty, increase FPN fines to £100? £200? and a viscious circle is created Who voted these power-crazed lunatics in for a second term??
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
okay, we know this govt is anti-car and that the police have become anti-speed because technology allows them to collect fine revenues to supplement their operational budgets through draconian use of the speed camera.
we know that TRL figures suggest that excess speed is a minor contributor in accidents from their own figures, which makes a mockery of the govt's "speed kills" mantra.
we've seen that speed camera experiment in nottinghamshire(?) recently where the cameras were so successful that people have stopped speeding and the local council/constabulary have seen fine revenues shrink to next to nothing: one in the eye for arrogant paper-pushers and sanctimonious, self-righteous coppers because the self-funding for more cameras out of fines has evaporated.
so write to your MP and register your displeasure. i wrote to mine (alan duncan) - i've done it, had a fast response plus a formal, further response to my points from lord whitty in the DETR. make a pain of yourself - they are your public servants so go make your point, volubly and often.
the only way such proposals can be headed off is to use your MP and lobby through the motoring bodies. so, register your support with the ABD, RAC Foundation etc etc and shout about it. if as much grouching went on to the right people as goes into just this BBS - well, i leave it to your imagination.
it sounds simple but in the meantime, play these idiots - and that's what they are: arrogant& self-serving - at their own game. drive smartly, be observant, don't get yourself caught. you don't have to pay this tax if you don't want to.
deprive them of their fine revenue: that'll really pi55 them off.
(also, don't drive through northamptonshire: there are so many cameras, it feels like big brother.)
i've got a clean licence and never been stopped, camera-clocked or pointed in 15 years and i like giving my scoob some humpty like the rest of you.
but you have to fight for your rights - the first principle of govt is control of the population and if you don't kick back then you get stitched up.
we know that TRL figures suggest that excess speed is a minor contributor in accidents from their own figures, which makes a mockery of the govt's "speed kills" mantra.
we've seen that speed camera experiment in nottinghamshire(?) recently where the cameras were so successful that people have stopped speeding and the local council/constabulary have seen fine revenues shrink to next to nothing: one in the eye for arrogant paper-pushers and sanctimonious, self-righteous coppers because the self-funding for more cameras out of fines has evaporated.
so write to your MP and register your displeasure. i wrote to mine (alan duncan) - i've done it, had a fast response plus a formal, further response to my points from lord whitty in the DETR. make a pain of yourself - they are your public servants so go make your point, volubly and often.
the only way such proposals can be headed off is to use your MP and lobby through the motoring bodies. so, register your support with the ABD, RAC Foundation etc etc and shout about it. if as much grouching went on to the right people as goes into just this BBS - well, i leave it to your imagination.
it sounds simple but in the meantime, play these idiots - and that's what they are: arrogant& self-serving - at their own game. drive smartly, be observant, don't get yourself caught. you don't have to pay this tax if you don't want to.
deprive them of their fine revenue: that'll really pi55 them off.
(also, don't drive through northamptonshire: there are so many cameras, it feels like big brother.)
i've got a clean licence and never been stopped, camera-clocked or pointed in 15 years and i like giving my scoob some humpty like the rest of you.
but you have to fight for your rights - the first principle of govt is control of the population and if you don't kick back then you get stitched up.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
The consultation document went round at the beginning of the year; they were accepting comments until the end of March. (Although this was hardly publicised at all!).
After reading about it on this group I wrote to my-then MP who replied and forwarded on my comments. I received a number of letters from various people within the Government, none of which answered any of my points.
I then got a copy of the proposals (glossy brochure - expensively produced) which didn't really say anything!
However, letters to MPs are taken seriously (as long as they're not all photo-copies of each other!) as 1 letter means that a large number of people feel the same way but haven't quite been bothered to write in - so do it!
Nick
After reading about it on this group I wrote to my-then MP who replied and forwarded on my comments. I received a number of letters from various people within the Government, none of which answered any of my points.
I then got a copy of the proposals (glossy brochure - expensively produced) which didn't really say anything!
However, letters to MPs are taken seriously (as long as they're not all photo-copies of each other!) as 1 letter means that a large number of people feel the same way but haven't quite been bothered to write in - so do it!
Nick
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 73
From: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
From the url Steve provided:
The real number would, however, probably be far higher. Essex police are one of eight forces involved in a pilot scheme that allows them to keep the fines. They installed 100 cameras and caught 70,000 motorists last year, compared with 1,000 in 1999.
Later this month, new government figures will show that road deaths nationally fell slightly from 3,423 in 1999 to 3,411 last year. Transport officials attribute the decrease to the success of these pilot schemes.
So they intalled 100 extra speed cameras and caught 70,000 speeding motorists and only saved 12 lives, I can't be sa5ed to do the maths but in my opinion speed was obviously not the key factor in the 12 fatalities then. Or have I missenterpreted something
The real number would, however, probably be far higher. Essex police are one of eight forces involved in a pilot scheme that allows them to keep the fines. They installed 100 cameras and caught 70,000 motorists last year, compared with 1,000 in 1999.
Later this month, new government figures will show that road deaths nationally fell slightly from 3,423 in 1999 to 3,411 last year. Transport officials attribute the decrease to the success of these pilot schemes.
So they intalled 100 extra speed cameras and caught 70,000 speeding motorists and only saved 12 lives, I can't be sa5ed to do the maths but in my opinion speed was obviously not the key factor in the 12 fatalities then. Or have I missenterpreted something
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
am totally with nickp on this: exercise your democratic right to an explanation. if enough people do it then they start to take notice - even if they try and fob you off with meaningless drivel.
lime: you vote because it's *your* chance to pass *your* judgement, for better for worse. if enough people feel the same way, then you get a result.
personally i feel that anyone bitching on this BBS - about the truly appalling state of public and private transportation in this country - who then went and abstained has no right to complain about the proposals now set before parliament if they are passed.
abstention simply makes it easier for them to be re-elected. how can a govt that receives support from only 24% of the total number of people eligible to vote be said to have either a "mandate from the people" or any sort of moral validity? 74% of voters didn't even vote for blair for god's sake.
lime: you vote because it's *your* chance to pass *your* judgement, for better for worse. if enough people feel the same way, then you get a result.
personally i feel that anyone bitching on this BBS - about the truly appalling state of public and private transportation in this country - who then went and abstained has no right to complain about the proposals now set before parliament if they are passed.
abstention simply makes it easier for them to be re-elected. how can a govt that receives support from only 24% of the total number of people eligible to vote be said to have either a "mandate from the people" or any sort of moral validity? 74% of voters didn't even vote for blair for god's sake.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 32,398
Likes: 1
From: Old Codgers Home
I agree that anyone who didnt bother to vote should NOT have the right to make any political argument whatsoever - the chance for protest is through the ballot box and anyone who did, and their canditate lost, have every right to moan .... BUT, NO VOTE - NO COMMENT!!! please!!
Also, all the above doesnt matter if you stick to the speed limit does it??
I speed sometimes, of course, if I get caught then its tuff isnt it??
How many of us have witnessed the 17-25 year old screaming around housing estates at 60mph?? - yes, so have I!!!! so lets stop whingeing and stop the b4stards!!!
Pete
Also, all the above doesnt matter if you stick to the speed limit does it??
I speed sometimes, of course, if I get caught then its tuff isnt it??
How many of us have witnessed the 17-25 year old screaming around housing estates at 60mph?? - yes, so have I!!!! so lets stop whingeing and stop the b4stards!!!
Pete
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Guys where does it say on the ballot box or on the Electoral roll that if you don't vote, you have no right to comment?
Show me and I will go away!
Until that time I will say what I want, when I want and if you don't like it tough! It is as simple as that!
Show me and I will go away!
Until that time I will say what I want, when I want and if you don't like it tough! It is as simple as that!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 32,398
Likes: 1
From: Old Codgers Home
You had your chance to register your opinion - you could always 'spoil' the ballot paper - at least you got off your 4rse and bothered to actually DO something.
People who moan and moan - then fail to take advantage of a system to sort out their grievances deserve all they get and have NO right to complain any longer.
IMHO of course!!
Pete
People who moan and moan - then fail to take advantage of a system to sort out their grievances deserve all they get and have NO right to complain any longer.
IMHO of course!!
Pete
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
pslewis, your opinion is rediculous! Are you saying I can't say anything about the governments incompetence for the next 4-years because i didn't vote?
The reason I didn't vote is because I have little faith in any of the parties.
The reason I didn't vote is because I have little faith in any of the parties.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
IMO The only reason for not voting is 'I don't know enough about any of the parties to decide one way or another'
Not voting because you didn't like any of the parties doesn't make any sense to me - it will be assumed you were apathetic - spoil the ballet paper / vote for a joke party if you want your vote to 'count' in this way ?
Gary
Not voting because you didn't like any of the parties doesn't make any sense to me - it will be assumed you were apathetic - spoil the ballet paper / vote for a joke party if you want your vote to 'count' in this way ?
Gary
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,930
Likes: 0
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by bros:
<B>The new Home Secretary, David Blunkett, yesterday issued an instruction to police forces to stop targeting speeders and concentrate on real criminals.
Hoorah!
Mind you, the proof of the pudding etc etc
Bros[/quote]
It's true. David Blunkett did say this ... he also said that rather than the money raised from these cameras used be used to buy CCTV rather than new speed cameras.
<B>The new Home Secretary, David Blunkett, yesterday issued an instruction to police forces to stop targeting speeders and concentrate on real criminals.
Hoorah!
Mind you, the proof of the pudding etc etc
Bros[/quote]
It's true. David Blunkett did say this ... he also said that rather than the money raised from these cameras used be used to buy CCTV rather than new speed cameras.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 32,398
Likes: 1
From: Old Codgers Home
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Veracocha:
<B>pslewis, your opinion is rediculous! Are you saying I can't say anything about the governments incompetence for the next 4-years because i didn't vote?
The reason I didn't vote is because I have little faith in any of the parties.
[/quote]
Yes I am saying that - and my opinion is NOT ridiculous - as I got off my 4rse and voted!!
Having little faith in the offerings is NO excuse, if you are mentally retarded then thats fine - but, posting on here shows you have an opinion, so why not use it??
Surely ONE party offered you a better deal than the others?? if not, turn up and spoil your paper!!!!!!!!!!!
I would make voting mandatory, with a £1000 fine - I bet you would get off your 4rse and DO SOMETHING then - instead of moaning!!!??
Pete
<B>pslewis, your opinion is rediculous! Are you saying I can't say anything about the governments incompetence for the next 4-years because i didn't vote?
The reason I didn't vote is because I have little faith in any of the parties.
[/quote]
Yes I am saying that - and my opinion is NOT ridiculous - as I got off my 4rse and voted!!
Having little faith in the offerings is NO excuse, if you are mentally retarded then thats fine - but, posting on here shows you have an opinion, so why not use it??
Surely ONE party offered you a better deal than the others?? if not, turn up and spoil your paper!!!!!!!!!!!
I would make voting mandatory, with a £1000 fine - I bet you would get off your 4rse and DO SOMETHING then - instead of moaning!!!??
Pete
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
pslewis, whichever party you vote for are going to come down on drivers like a ton of bricks. Like people have said here, catching motorists speeding is a form of revenue.
I feel that this is unjust, so I will moan about it.
You telling people who can and can't voice an opinion is rediculous. I don't think that this should be an argument between us as we are all in the same boat, and as far as having a fun drive goes, it is sinking.
I feel that this is unjust, so I will moan about it.
You telling people who can and can't voice an opinion is rediculous. I don't think that this should be an argument between us as we are all in the same boat, and as far as having a fun drive goes, it is sinking.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 0
From: Bristol
I am over 50 yrs of age and have never voted. Mind you I don't give a **** who is in charge they are all the same. I think you should only vote if you are concerned who gets in. If you don't give a sh!te don't vote. I think it was a conservative that granted my parole once.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 32,398
Likes: 1
From: Old Codgers Home
Bob you should be ashamed of yourself - thousands of people through history have died so you may have a free voice and enter into a democratic world. To say you have not voted in over 32 years is a disgrace, I see people like you all the time as a governor - if they dont like what you are doing, will they get up and do something themselves? will they bollox!!! just a bunch of moaning whingeing girls - if you want things to change - change them!!
Pete
Pete
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
Dec 28, 2015 11:07 PM