'Road Traffic Penalties' Consultation Document - UK Only
30 January 2001, 06:22 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Nr Guildford, Surrey
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As car drivers, you may find the following link of interest.
It contains a Government Consultation Document on possible new 'Road Traffic Penalties'.
What may be of particular concern are the draconian measures being proposed for Motorway speeding (see Figures 4 & 5) which in Phase 2 of their plans could involve a 6 month ban if caught twice speeding at just 76 mph !
I'm not condoning 'excess' speed or dangerous driving, but that is ridiculous !
The document includes an address to which responses to the proposal should be sent ..... but the deadline is only 9th March !
It contains a Government Consultation Document on possible new 'Road Traffic Penalties'.
What may be of particular concern are the draconian measures being proposed for Motorway speeding (see Figures 4 & 5) which in Phase 2 of their plans could involve a 6 month ban if caught twice speeding at just 76 mph !
I'm not condoning 'excess' speed or dangerous driving, but that is ridiculous !
The document includes an address to which responses to the proposal should be sent ..... but the deadline is only 9th March !
31 January 2001, 08:14 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an example of the warped sense of perspective the justice system has with regard to motoring offences consider the following 2 examples of offence and penalty.
Does anyone remember last year I think, a Fireblade owner getting caught doing 168 and being jailed for a few months. No accident, no other people involved, no implication that people other than himself were put in danger but a jail term regardless.
Just this week a bloke has been done for killing someone by firstly running them over and failing to stop or report the incident, then driving a few miles to meet his Dad at the pub WITH THE DEAD BLOKE STILL ON TOP OF HIS CAR WITH HIS LIFELESS ARM HANGING THROUGH HIS SUN ROOF AND TOUCHING HIS SHOULDER. WTF !! The scumbag got a 4 year ban plus 160 hours community service - bet he's glad he wasn't speeding when he mowed the bloke down !!
Chris.
Does anyone remember last year I think, a Fireblade owner getting caught doing 168 and being jailed for a few months. No accident, no other people involved, no implication that people other than himself were put in danger but a jail term regardless.
Just this week a bloke has been done for killing someone by firstly running them over and failing to stop or report the incident, then driving a few miles to meet his Dad at the pub WITH THE DEAD BLOKE STILL ON TOP OF HIS CAR WITH HIS LIFELESS ARM HANGING THROUGH HIS SUN ROOF AND TOUCHING HIS SHOULDER. WTF !! The scumbag got a 4 year ban plus 160 hours community service - bet he's glad he wasn't speeding when he mowed the bloke down !!
Chris.
31 January 2001, 06:54 PM
#5
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a case a few years ago of a Fireblade owner who used to take his bike along the Sutton Coldfield (A38) bypass for a "blast" at 02:00 in the morning. Bear in mind that this road has NO JUNCTIONS WHATSOEVER for the FIVE or so miles between two roundabouts.
It seems as if someone tipped off the Police, so they laid in wait with a trap and nicked him for doing something like 190mph.
When it went to court, he _proved_ that the bike was capable of no more than 165mph, which doesn't say a lot for the accuracy of whatever equipment the Police were using does it! More to the point, if they could get the speed out by at least 25mph, then what is to say that "finger trouble" didn't mean that the error was even worse. How can anyone, in particular magistrates, judges or whatever, trust such flakey evidence from the prosecution?
Oh, silly me, this was a speeding offence - thus big fine, big ban (and i think a short custodial), plus big slaps on the back for the Police for preventing mass murder
mb
It seems as if someone tipped off the Police, so they laid in wait with a trap and nicked him for doing something like 190mph.
When it went to court, he _proved_ that the bike was capable of no more than 165mph, which doesn't say a lot for the accuracy of whatever equipment the Police were using does it! More to the point, if they could get the speed out by at least 25mph, then what is to say that "finger trouble" didn't mean that the error was even worse. How can anyone, in particular magistrates, judges or whatever, trust such flakey evidence from the prosecution?
Oh, silly me, this was a speeding offence - thus big fine, big ban (and i think a short custodial), plus big slaps on the back for the Police for preventing mass murder
mb
01 February 2001, 08:03 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyMc:
<B>Do something positive,write a letter to your MP or join the ABD before its to late.[/quote]
Do both!!!! I'll post my letter here when I've written it so that anyone who wants minimum effort can "borrow" it.
Cheers,
Matt.
<B>Do something positive,write a letter to your MP or join the ABD before its to late.[/quote]
Do both!!!! I'll post my letter here when I've written it so that anyone who wants minimum effort can "borrow" it.
Cheers,
Matt.
Trending Topics
01 February 2001, 12:43 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have also written a response letter and will also be sending it to my MP
What I don't get is when somebody posts a thread about getting caught speeding the thread immediately gets 50 or 100 replies yet threads like this are ignored.
If those same people spent the same amount of time writing a letter to their MP as they do replying to the 'Caught speeding threads' we might actually get somewhere.
Do something positive,write a letter to your MP or join the ABD before its to late
Andy
What I don't get is when somebody posts a thread about getting caught speeding the thread immediately gets 50 or 100 replies yet threads like this are ignored.
If those same people spent the same amount of time writing a letter to their MP as they do replying to the 'Caught speeding threads' we might actually get somewhere.
Do something positive,write a letter to your MP or join the ABD before its to late
Andy
15 February 2001, 10:00 PM
#9
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt,
have you written your letter yet?
mb
p.s. this is as much a reminder to me a you - i want to respond to the Traffic Offenses as well as the Ban Radar Detector proposals!
have you written your letter yet?
mb
p.s. this is as much a reminder to me a you - i want to respond to the Traffic Offenses as well as the Ban Radar Detector proposals!
15 February 2001, 10:14 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Herts.
Posts: 1,727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to ruffle a few feathers when people get political but remember we are expecting a general election soon. Stupidity and hypocrisy with respect to motoring laws are just the tip of the iceberg.
"You're part of the sickness if you're not part of the cure"
PS Will including phrases like 'thick ****' and 'wucking fanckshaft' in any way mean the gov't take my letter less seriously.
[This message has been edited by Boost II (edited 15 February 2001).]
"You're part of the sickness if you're not part of the cure"
PS Will including phrases like 'thick ****' and 'wucking fanckshaft' in any way mean the gov't take my letter less seriously.
[This message has been edited by Boost II (edited 15 February 2001).]
15 February 2001, 11:01 PM
#11
If 'speed kills' then their idea is to make everyone slow down in a broad-brush approach(and make loads of money).
I think speed in innapropriate situations kills. So why not ban anyone who is responsible for an accident (fatal or otherwise)where speed is proven to be the cause. Lets face it the police won't do someone for robbery or burglary just because you see then coming towards you, they do 'em after the event.
They can keep the existing traps at known accident blackspots to warn you and the mobile traps at schools as I agree with these. It would make most sane people think about their speed and how they used it plus it would get the dic* hea** off the road.
I guess it'll be a huge revenue earner and win over the 'greens' so it's bound to get agreed.
Oh well, where can I buy a westie for track days.
F
I think speed in innapropriate situations kills. So why not ban anyone who is responsible for an accident (fatal or otherwise)where speed is proven to be the cause. Lets face it the police won't do someone for robbery or burglary just because you see then coming towards you, they do 'em after the event.
They can keep the existing traps at known accident blackspots to warn you and the mobile traps at schools as I agree with these. It would make most sane people think about their speed and how they used it plus it would get the dic* hea** off the road.
I guess it'll be a huge revenue earner and win over the 'greens' so it's bound to get agreed.
Oh well, where can I buy a westie for track days.
F
much, if not all of these proposals have been shelved.
16 February 2001, 12:02 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Andy Hamp:
<B>You quote some accident figures from recent speed limit reductions, where did you get your figures from as they are new to me.
[/quote]
Andy, I replied to your question directly but my mail server is broken for outbound - so I'll reply here:
The speeding percentages figures were from the mentioned TRL report 323 which is listed pretty fully on the Speedtrap Bible web site. The stuff about the changes in some of the counties were got from Ben Lovejoy's website and the ABD's most recent newsletter.
Hope this helps.
Matt.
<B>You quote some accident figures from recent speed limit reductions, where did you get your figures from as they are new to me.
[/quote]
Andy, I replied to your question directly but my mail server is broken for outbound - so I'll reply here:
The speeding percentages figures were from the mentioned TRL report 323 which is listed pretty fully on the Speedtrap Bible web site. The stuff about the changes in some of the counties were got from Ben Lovejoy's website and the ABD's most recent newsletter.
Hope this helps.
Matt.
16 February 2001, 08:44 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by boomer:
<B>Matt, have you written your letter yet?
[/quote]
OK, guys, here is the letter that I have written to the guy/gal that responses should go back to. Please feel free to use but please please please, re-write it so that it looks like it is from you. If they receive lots of the same looking letter from various people, it will reduce the overall effect. You may wish to remove the bit about having passed your Advanced car and bike tests (unless of course you have passed these!!!).
Here it is:
Jisha Salim
Setencing and Offences Unit
Home Office
50 Queen Annes Gate
London SW1H 9AT
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you to express serious concern after having read the Road Traffic Penalties consultation paper, published December 2000. At first glance it would seem that the document is focused on penalties aimed at dangerous drivers but a closer read of the document reveals little increase in the penalties for the dangerous or careless drivers who cause most accidents. The real thrust seems to be minor infringements of the speed limit for which draconian penalties are proposed, regardless of danger.
Many of the proposals are good ones such as the option of retraining of offenders (at their own cost) to gain a reduction in penalty points. It is concerning however, that this looks set to be targeted at speed offenders rather than at bad drivers who need retraining. It is also concerning that training is only seen as a way of reducing points – there are no incentives for ordinary drivers to take training. I, as a member of the Institute of Advance Motorists, having passed both my Motorcycle and Car Advanced Driving tests, can vouch for the huge benefits driver education has had on my standard of driving and wish that education was far more widely pushed as a method of increasing road safety. I am fed up with the government frequently trying to make the link between speeding and accidents when the Government's own commissioned study by the Transport Research Laboratory in partnership with the DETR produced the TRL Report 323 entitled "A new system for recording contributory factors in road accidents" states that in 7.3% of accidents, speed was one of many factors, and in only 6% of the accidents was it a definite causal factor. Why the government ignores it's own commissioned figures is beyond me but the cynical amongst us would say that these figures do not support the current drive for producing revenue from the motorist - and are therefore brushed to one side. The Road Traffic Penalties consultation document lays out the proposals for huge increases in the penalties for speeding offences, and it is clear to the average motorist that the Government sees them as a cash cow that it will milk for all it's worth under the guise of improving road safety. There are many other recent studies where speeding is shown not to be a major cause of accidents such as in the West Midlands and in Lincolnshire and Suffolk, recent significant speed limit reductions across these counties have actually increased accident rates.
The levels of penalty points suggested in the document will be based not on the level of danger but entirely on the speed over the limit. The thresholds are set at incredibly harsh levels but there is little to deter or change the behaviour of bad drivers. Causing an accident by careless driving gets only five points whereas 76mph on the motorway will get 15. Ordinary motorists who have never had an accident in their lives will be banned and this will cause real hardship, with many drivers loosing their jobs. This will also further reduce the respect for the law, which I would say is already at an all time low. Drivers will compare the new penalties with those given to real criminals like burglars, with further damage done to the respect felt for the law, the Police and the Government.
A perfectly safe driver, banned for two or three minor speeding offences may well be faced with a choice between losing their job and driving while disqualified. It is inevitable that some will choose the latter. This means that previously law-abiding people will be committing serious offences like driving without insurance and may end up in gaol.
I urge you to reject the consultation paper as it is badly thought out, ineffectual and will do nothing to further the aims of improving road safety. Dangerous and careless driving needs to be tackled as these drivers cause the majority of accidents, something which speeding has very little to do with and something the consultation paper should concentrate on, without criminalising ordinary safe motorists. I will also be writing to my local MP to suggest that they speak personally with Jack Straw and John Prescott to ask that these proposals be dropped and a complete rethink be carried out.
Yours faithfully,
I will post the copy I sent to my MP in a mo....
Matt.
<B>Matt, have you written your letter yet?
[/quote]
OK, guys, here is the letter that I have written to the guy/gal that responses should go back to. Please feel free to use but please please please, re-write it so that it looks like it is from you. If they receive lots of the same looking letter from various people, it will reduce the overall effect. You may wish to remove the bit about having passed your Advanced car and bike tests (unless of course you have passed these!!!
).Here it is:
Jisha Salim
Setencing and Offences Unit
Home Office
50 Queen Annes Gate
London SW1H 9AT
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you to express serious concern after having read the Road Traffic Penalties consultation paper, published December 2000. At first glance it would seem that the document is focused on penalties aimed at dangerous drivers but a closer read of the document reveals little increase in the penalties for the dangerous or careless drivers who cause most accidents. The real thrust seems to be minor infringements of the speed limit for which draconian penalties are proposed, regardless of danger.
Many of the proposals are good ones such as the option of retraining of offenders (at their own cost) to gain a reduction in penalty points. It is concerning however, that this looks set to be targeted at speed offenders rather than at bad drivers who need retraining. It is also concerning that training is only seen as a way of reducing points – there are no incentives for ordinary drivers to take training. I, as a member of the Institute of Advance Motorists, having passed both my Motorcycle and Car Advanced Driving tests, can vouch for the huge benefits driver education has had on my standard of driving and wish that education was far more widely pushed as a method of increasing road safety. I am fed up with the government frequently trying to make the link between speeding and accidents when the Government's own commissioned study by the Transport Research Laboratory in partnership with the DETR produced the TRL Report 323 entitled "A new system for recording contributory factors in road accidents" states that in 7.3% of accidents, speed was one of many factors, and in only 6% of the accidents was it a definite causal factor. Why the government ignores it's own commissioned figures is beyond me but the cynical amongst us would say that these figures do not support the current drive for producing revenue from the motorist - and are therefore brushed to one side. The Road Traffic Penalties consultation document lays out the proposals for huge increases in the penalties for speeding offences, and it is clear to the average motorist that the Government sees them as a cash cow that it will milk for all it's worth under the guise of improving road safety. There are many other recent studies where speeding is shown not to be a major cause of accidents such as in the West Midlands and in Lincolnshire and Suffolk, recent significant speed limit reductions across these counties have actually increased accident rates.
The levels of penalty points suggested in the document will be based not on the level of danger but entirely on the speed over the limit. The thresholds are set at incredibly harsh levels but there is little to deter or change the behaviour of bad drivers. Causing an accident by careless driving gets only five points whereas 76mph on the motorway will get 15. Ordinary motorists who have never had an accident in their lives will be banned and this will cause real hardship, with many drivers loosing their jobs. This will also further reduce the respect for the law, which I would say is already at an all time low. Drivers will compare the new penalties with those given to real criminals like burglars, with further damage done to the respect felt for the law, the Police and the Government.
A perfectly safe driver, banned for two or three minor speeding offences may well be faced with a choice between losing their job and driving while disqualified. It is inevitable that some will choose the latter. This means that previously law-abiding people will be committing serious offences like driving without insurance and may end up in gaol.
I urge you to reject the consultation paper as it is badly thought out, ineffectual and will do nothing to further the aims of improving road safety. Dangerous and careless driving needs to be tackled as these drivers cause the majority of accidents, something which speeding has very little to do with and something the consultation paper should concentrate on, without criminalising ordinary safe motorists. I will also be writing to my local MP to suggest that they speak personally with Jack Straw and John Prescott to ask that these proposals be dropped and a complete rethink be carried out.
Yours faithfully,
I will post the copy I sent to my MP in a mo....
Matt.
16 February 2001, 08:48 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
And here is my letter to my MP - once again feel free to use as is, just make sure that you get rid of the Advanced Car and Bike bit if not applicable and if your MP is Stephen Twigg (New Southgate) then please re-write so that it doesn't look like mine.
To get your MP's details go to here:
And here is my letter to my MP - once again feel free to use as is, just make sure that you get rid of the Advanced Car and Bike bit if not applicable and if your MP is Stephen Twigg (New Southgate) then please re-write so that it doesn't look like mine.
To get your MP's details go to here:
16 February 2001, 08:54 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Nr Guildford, Surrey
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent letters Matt. I'm going to redraft the letter i've written to incorporate some of you research points.
You quote some accident figures from recent speed limit reductions, where did you get your figures from as they are new to me.
Well done Matt.
PS - Everyone out there should make this an issue before we can't
You quote some accident figures from recent speed limit reductions, where did you get your figures from as they are new to me.
Well done Matt.
PS - Everyone out there should make this an issue before we can't
16 February 2001, 01:11 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just spotted the bit in the government doc about the offence of careless driving potentially including activities such as eating or drinking while driving. So are manufacturers encouraging us to commit an offence by including cupholders in a car? Or will we soon see cupholders emblazoned with stickers reading "Only for use while the vehicle is parked"??
16 February 2001, 04:36 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt,
Cheers for posting that. Good info - I'll re-write it and reply to Jisha Salim and my local MP over the weekend.
<B>Can I urge anybody who has not yet done so to either write your own letter or use Matt's posted letters here to make yourself heard about this issue.</B>
If we don't stand up and be counted, we should never again complain about the ridiculous speed limits that are being set all over the country and the misguided Speed Kills message.
Keep up the good work Mutant_matt....
MGR.
Cheers for posting that. Good info - I'll re-write it and reply to Jisha Salim and my local MP over the weekend.
<B>Can I urge anybody who has not yet done so to either write your own letter or use Matt's posted letters here to make yourself heard about this issue.</B>
If we don't stand up and be counted, we should never again complain about the ridiculous speed limits that are being set all over the country and the misguided Speed Kills message.
Keep up the good work Mutant_matt....
MGR.
17 February 2001, 05:20 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And just for some variety, try extracting elements of this one so they aren't all too similar. (Apologies for the formatting/layout, originally prepared in Word).
Mike.
Dear Mr Simpson.
I am writing to ask you to oppose the proposals contained in the Road Traffic Penalty consultation document.
These proposals will see ordinary drivers suffering (or living daily) in fear of huge penalties in the scattergun approach of attempting to catch real motoring criminals.
While there are some valid points in the paper covering dangerous and drink driving Etc. They are dwarfed by the Draconian measures proposed for speeding offences (even minor ones).
These proposals are timed after announcements, which double the amount of speed enforcement cameras and plan to reduce speed limits in many areas. The aim appears more revenue generation based than safety, which is a crime in itself!
The proposals will do little if anything at all to reduce accidents. I have done some research on this matter; in 1998, the annual road fatality figure in Suffolk was 24. In 1999, with a huge number of new speed-reduction measures in place, it had doubled to 48. By 2000, with even more anti-speed measures introduced, it had further increased to 56! Indeed, one Suffolk coroner went as far as to blame an inappropriately low speed limit directly for a fatality, pointing out that they create frustration and, by reducing safe overtaking opportunities, encourage drivers to try harder in less appropriate places.
Lincolnshire adopted a zero tolerance regime with the (inappropriately) named “Speed Kills” slogan. Probably the most inaccurate campaign slogan ever! With the end result being that In 1997-99, Lincolnshire saw fatalities increased from 77 to 104!
A recent review relating to the causes of accidents in the West Midlands (extracts of which are available at the following web site address)
Mike.
Dear Mr Simpson.
I am writing to ask you to oppose the proposals contained in the Road Traffic Penalty consultation document.
These proposals will see ordinary drivers suffering (or living daily) in fear of huge penalties in the scattergun approach of attempting to catch real motoring criminals.
While there are some valid points in the paper covering dangerous and drink driving Etc. They are dwarfed by the Draconian measures proposed for speeding offences (even minor ones).
These proposals are timed after announcements, which double the amount of speed enforcement cameras and plan to reduce speed limits in many areas. The aim appears more revenue generation based than safety, which is a crime in itself!
The proposals will do little if anything at all to reduce accidents. I have done some research on this matter; in 1998, the annual road fatality figure in Suffolk was 24. In 1999, with a huge number of new speed-reduction measures in place, it had doubled to 48. By 2000, with even more anti-speed measures introduced, it had further increased to 56! Indeed, one Suffolk coroner went as far as to blame an inappropriately low speed limit directly for a fatality, pointing out that they create frustration and, by reducing safe overtaking opportunities, encourage drivers to try harder in less appropriate places.
Lincolnshire adopted a zero tolerance regime with the (inappropriately) named “Speed Kills” slogan. Probably the most inaccurate campaign slogan ever! With the end result being that In 1997-99, Lincolnshire saw fatalities increased from 77 to 104!
A recent review relating to the causes of accidents in the West Midlands (extracts of which are available at the following web site address)
18 February 2001, 09:16 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll be sending my version off this week. I spend a lot of time driving around various West Yorkshire cities in my job and have had several very scary moments/near misses, usually caused by drivers pulling out of juctions without looking and especially people jumping red lights, none of which involved excessive speeding.
Last year 97% of our fleet cars were involved in accidents (I was not one of them) Most of the accident free drivers have fast cars, strange huh? Oh well, this time next year I'll probably be banned as I often hit 75 in my weekday diesel van on the M1 (Lowlife criminal scum that I am :-)
Last year 97% of our fleet cars were involved in accidents (I was not one of them) Most of the accident free drivers have fast cars, strange huh? Oh well, this time next year I'll probably be banned as I often hit 75 in my weekday diesel van on the M1 (Lowlife criminal scum that I am :-)
19 February 2001, 12:58 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 7,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RB170:
<B>I've received a response from my MP, she says that the points are very interesting and that she will investigate this issue.....Oh Good!!Mike[/quote]
All I got was a postcard acknowledging receipt - thanks very much....
Matt.
<B>I've received a response from my MP, she says that the points are very interesting and that she will investigate this issue.....Oh Good!!Mike[/quote]
All I got was a postcard acknowledging receipt - thanks very much....
Matt.