SIGN UP

New Driving penalty Proposals

Avatar Image
youngmafbog | 09:21 Thu 20th Nov 2008 | News
17 Answers
Again we have Labour attempting to impose more laws on us instead of using the ones we have. The proposal is to tighten drug driving, maybe lower dring driving amount and huge fines and endorsements for 20mph over the spped limit.

OK, we need to reduce road death. But will this help? What is the point of lowering the amount you drink when idiots break the higher amount. Do Noo labour really think they will say " Oh no newer limits I must not drink". On the speed 20mph in a 30 is very wrong but 90 on a motorway not the same.

If they were making it 20 mph about town and 80-90 on amotorway with stiffer penalties perhaps more would buy in?

As dor drink driove, use what you have - just make the judges pass more appropiate sentences. Oh you cant can you cos Noo labour havn't built the jails

Answers

1 to 17 of 17rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Noo Labour haven't built the jails? You obviously do not know the facts...

Since Labour came to power, prisons have 25% places

* Incarceration rate is 141 per 100,000, compared with 93 in France

* A first-time domestic burglar is twice as likely to go to jail as ten years ago

* The female prison population has risen 146% in 10 years to 4,463 today

* The number of adults serving sentences under 12 months is up 160% since 1999
On the speed 20mph in a 30 is very wrong but 90 on a motorway not the same.

Well, one is a very cautious 10 mph below the limit while the other is a Clarkson-ish 20 mph above the limit ;o).

Why is it that any proposed tightening up of motoring law brings cries of "more tax on motorists"? No, it's not a tax on law-abiding motorists - but it is a tax on motoring criminals.
It's an improvement on the current system which treats those doing 50 in a 30 zone the same as those doing 32.

The more obviously reckless will now get 6 points whereas those who slipped over the limit because they had to take their eyes of the speedometer for a few seconds to check the road will now get 2 points. That's got to be better.
Yeah But this time you can't say ''Another Tax on the Poor Motorist''. Here's an idea -only let Good drivers on the road.
Wow-!!!
Question Author
Apologies, I meant 20mph above 30 mph is not the same as 20mph above 70 mph.

And who has mentioned tax? I aksed if it was laws being bought in when we already have them.

Gromit, are you saying we have enough jails then? Lets not forget all the Eastern European ciminals new labour imported which mean we need more than other countries.
> Lets not forget all the Eastern European ciminals
> new labour imported which mean we need more
> than other countries.

Actually the foreign prison population (2007) by country is (highest first):

Jamaica, Nigeria, Irish Republic, Vietnam, Pakistan, China, Somalia, Poland, India and Iraq

Of course the number of Eastern Europeans in prison may have gone up in the last year or so.

More here

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/subsection .asp?id=267
'make the judges pass more appropriate sentences'?

You're not a fan of an independent judiciary, then? But if they were put under government control, how many seconds would you wait before whinging about what 'New Labour judges' were doing?
I'm confused

I thought you right wing types were always after stiffer penalties

You're all always yelling for the death penalty or for life to mean life or whatever.

Yet here we have you arguing a typically left-wing line that stiffer penalties don't deter crimes.

Or is it that you don't want stiffer penalties for things you think you might personally commit?

Surely not!
Question Author
The argument is more along the lines of : We are not using the laws we have so what is the point of more? Most Drink drivers are well over the limit, would a lower limti deter them ? Unlikely. Likewise what us right wingers advocate is time to fit the crime, so 20 mph over 30 mph should not be penalised the same as 20mph over 70 mph.

Speed in iteself is not a killer. Inappropiate sped is.
Surely the "appropriate" driving speed is the speed limit (or below if necessary) and not what the Clarkson Contingent consider as safe due to better cars blah blah blah, ignoring the fact that very few drivers have fighter-pilot reflexes?
Well surely that's one of the arguments behind this.

To penalise slight speeding infractions differently from more serious ones.

If someone is 20mph over the limit it's deliberate

If you can't tell you're 20mph over you don't have the skills to be driving.

However if this does come about - my hobby horse of "same day offenses" becomes important - you could get flashed twice on the same journey and get disqualified without getting a warning first for what is in effect the same offense

That will need sorting if this comes about
Did you know that a pedestrian hit at 30mph has a good chance of survival over a pedestrian hit at 35mph ?

Given the above , Why shouldn't 20 mph over 30mph be penalised the same as 20mph over 70mph ?
For speeding this announcement is not a change to the law, but only to the way it is enforced.

The Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines set recommended speed levels above which a fixed penalty (3 points plus �60 fine) is not offered. These are 49mph (in a 30 mph zone) and 95mph (70).

Above this level drivers are summonsed to court. Magistrates� guidelines for 50 (30) and 96 (70) are 4 or 5 points or a ban of up to 42 days. Higher penalties (up to six points and a ban of up to 56 days) are available for higher speeds, although for even higher speeds a longer ban (though no more than 6 points) can be imposed.

As I understand it, the measures announced today will simply bring these penalties within the fixed penalty scheme.
Ludwig, the proposal to only give minor speeders 2 points has been dropped. It will remain at 3.
LeMarchand I'm with you ,but the Clarkson lovers will say -''Speed doesn't Kill'' and '' Looking at the Speedo is Dangerous'' and '' Why do Pedestrians damage our cars by bumping into them?'' and 'It's ALL the fault of Europe,innit ?''
panic button - ok that's not so good, but it's still better that the deliberately reckless are treated more harshly.
For Bertie Wooster: Because there arent that many pedestrians wandering round on the motorways last time I drove on one. FFS.

1 to 17 of 17rss feed

Do you know the answer?

New Driving penalty Proposals

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.