10-06-2014 7:27 AM - edited 10-06-2014 7:31 AM
www.itv.com/news/story/2014-06-09/maximum-speeding-fine-10000/ ..
Plans to raise maximum speeding fine to £10,000
The maximum fine for speeding on motorways will be increased to £10,000, according to Government plans.
10-06-2014 7:29 AM
Motorists using mobile while driving 'face £4,000 fine'
Drivers caught using a mobile phone behind the wheel will face a £4,000 fine under Government plans to toughen penalties for road offences.
10-06-2014 7:45 AM
For all the squealers out there - The overwhelming majority of Drivers are perfectly capable and do, follow the speed limits
If you can't do that tough - if you do the CRIME pay the fine
Not want to pay a fine - don't break the Law - simple
ALL mobile phone use should be a crime for a driver - including handsfree
10-06-2014 8:01 AM
£4,000 fine for not buying a TV licence: And drivers face £10,000 penalty for motorway speeding
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653485/4-000-fine-not-buying-TV-licence-And-drivers-face-10...
10-06-2014 10:04 AM
Off topic but firms could increase production by banning all use of mobile phones & tablets on work premises.
The hours lost must be staggering.
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
10-06-2014 12:01 PM
@al**bear wrote:For all the squealers out there - The overwhelming majority of Drivers are perfectly capable and do, follow the speed limits
If you can't do that tough - if you do the CRIME pay the fine
Not want to pay a fine - don't break the Law - simple
ALL mobile phone use should be a crime for a driver - including handsfree
I agree, especially about using hand held phones which have been the cause of many accidents and deaths. I often see people driving with a mobile phone to their ear and it makes me mad.
Just a Q - why are handsfree sets dangerous? I don't have one so I don't know how they work.
If it is because you have to press a button, then how is that different from turning on a radio/CD, changing a CD, altering heating controls etc. ?
If it's because you are talking to someone and might not be concentrating, then how is that different from talking to a passenger, or having noisy kids in a car?
I imagine that handsfree sets are very useful to some people like self-employed taxi drivers.
10-06-2014 12:28 PM
"Just a Q - why are handsfree sets dangerous?"
Because you are still yakking on the phone which is a distraction
10-06-2014 1:14 PM
And why is that more of a distraction than yakking to a passenger ?
I see some drivers looking at their passengers instead of the road while talking, which is stupid but some people do it. There is no need to look at a handset.
10-06-2014 1:56 PM
Fines, as they are now, will be determined on a basis of ability to pay, so those on low incomes will still receive low fines while those on higher incomes could face costlier penalties.
I'd guess this is a measure to hit those who can afford it a bit harder, we've heard many times of well know wealthy people getting off with a £2,000 fine which we know is peanuts to them. Well for many £10,000 is peanuts but at least it will add a bit more to the coffers!
10-06-2014 3:34 PM
@suzieseaside wrote:And why is that more of a distraction than yakking to a passenger ?
I see some drivers looking at their passengers instead of the road while talking, which is stupid but some people do it. There is no need to look at a handset.
I think it's something to do with where we go mentally - so when you chat to a passenger next to you, they are there in the physical - you are not having to think about them.
With handsfree you not only chat, part of your mind is moving into a place where you are imagining being with that person - it's difficult to control.
So more of your brain is concentrating on the convo and the person you cannot see but are imagining.
hope that makes sense.
10-06-2014 4:09 PM
They can't even enforce the laws that already exist, I see people driving while talking on mobile phones ( actually holding handsets ) EVERY day of the week; so what increasing fines will do is a joke. Their answer ( or what they'd really like to do ) is to increase surveillance cameras, so that one man can sit there; doing the jobs of several police officers. A big brother state, where we are all on camera 24 / 7 and all illegal activities are detected instantly. They'd better think up a fast track justice system to go with it, otherwise the queue around the court; will make a one direction concert look like the queue at the local library......................on a bank holiday !!
10-06-2014 4:26 PM
"They can't even enforce the laws that already exist, I see people driving while talking on mobile phones ( actually holding handsets ) EVERY day of the week; so what increasing fines will do is a joke. Their answer ( or what they'd really like to do ) is to increase surveillance cameras, so that one man can sit there; doing the jobs of several police officers. A big brother state, where we are all on camera 24 / 7 and all illegal activities are detected instantly. They'd better think up a fast track justice system to go with it, otherwise the queue around the court; will make a one direction concert look like the queue at the local library......................on a bank holiday !!"
You appear to want to see laws enforced but don't like measures to enforce them, so what is the answer?
10-06-2014 4:48 PM
On the whole societies get what they deserve, if it's a high crime rate; it's because people are prepared to tollerate it and find excuses for it. People, on the whole, have morals of covenience, what they don't approve of in others; they are quite prepared to tollerate in their own families. If peoples freedoms are curtailed, it's probably because too many of them have abused those freedoms and the others have sat back and let them do it.............if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. As far as suggesting what others should do to improve things, I stopped wasting my time and breath years ago.
10-06-2014 5:36 PM
I also see people using handsets every day, and just saw a poll where 44% of young people admitted to texting while driving.
Hiking up the fines to a much higher level is not the answer. It is not a deterrent for the wealthy, it's just an easy source of revenue and I think we all know that is the main reason for increasing fines for motoring offences.
Since mobile phone use in known to be dangerous, why not make the penalty fit the crime so it is a proper deterrent? I would say that if people are caught using mobile phones then BAN them for driving for a month in the first instance, and longer if they are caught again.
And the same if their speed is excessive. I don't mean doing 34mph in a 30mph zone - I don't condone it, but I bet almost every driver in the UK has crept over 30mph at some point or another, especially going downhill. I have been behind police cars and ambulances who are not in a hurry but have moved away from me when I have been doing 30, so they were breaking the speed limit. I don't see the point of increasing the fine for going slightly over the limit because for most people it is not intentional and those Driver Awareness Courses are a good reminder. However, if their speed is clearly excessive and shows no intention by the driver to observe the limits, then forget the points system, just ban those people from driving for a month too, and longer for subequent offences.
I have never understood why it is legal for people to buy gadgets that detect speed cameras. When they first came out more than a decade ago it was the wealthy with fast cars who bought them, no doubt so they could speed knowing that they will get a warning sound when a speed camera is coming up. Speeding is dangerous, and I don't see much evidence that it is taken seriously when it is legal to buy a warning system - I gather some sat navs have them now.
IMO it's about time that there was a proper deterrent to stop people driving without regard for safety. At least banning them from driving for a period would inconvenience them, and I think a better solution than just hitting their bank accounts, epecially when that means nothing to some motorists.
10-06-2014 6:14 PM
@aernethril wrote:
@suzieseaside wrote:And why is that more of a distraction than yakking to a passenger ?
I see some drivers looking at their passengers instead of the road while talking, which is stupid but some people do it. There is no need to look at a handset.
I think it's something to do with where we go mentally - so when you chat to a passenger next to you, they are there in the physical - you are not having to think about them.
With handsfree you not only chat, part of your mind is moving into a place where you are imagining being with that person - it's difficult to control.
So more of your brain is concentrating on the convo and the person you cannot see but are imagining.
hope that makes sense.
I suppose that makes some sense aern, although I suspect there are plenty of drivers who cannot control their concentration without the potential distraction of talking to an unseen person - a play on Radio 4 might make some people's minds wander! An old guy smashed into the side of my camper causing £3000 worth of damage, from a stationary position, I guess because he didn't even concentrate enough to look through the windscreen to where he was going. Thank heavens there wasn't a cyclist in front of him. But fair enough, I don't see the need for anyone to just have a 'chat' with someone when they are driving anyway.
However, I think people who have driving jobs, like couriers, licensed taxi drivers etc. could use a handsfree set responsibly. They are most likely better drivers than casual drivers and a handsfree set must be pretty essential these days for them to go about their business.
11-06-2014 6:41 AM
Suzie
Far too many People put MOST, if not all their attention on the Call (handsfree as well as hands on), instead of paying attention to whats happening around them and whats coming up ahead on the road. It is different from chatting to a passenger, it must have something to do with the way the brain processes phone calls.
11-06-2014 7:55 AM
"I have never understood why it is legal for people to buy gadgets that detect speed cameras. When they first came out more than a decade ago it was the wealthy with fast cars who bought them, no doubt so they could speed knowing that they will get a warning sound when a speed camera is coming up. Speeding is dangerous, and I don't see much evidence that it is taken seriously when it is legal to buy a warning system - I gather some sat navs have them now."
Speed cameras are introduced in places that are known to be accident black spots, there has to be a history of accidents on that stretch of road in order for a camera to be put in place. The purpose of those cameras is to encourage people to slow down in those areas. Devices that identify where cameras are positioned lead to drivers slowing down in those areas and therefore Mission Accomplished!