Speeding Fines

This is an interesting one.  We all I would think at some time or other go over the limit usually by accident and a few mph over the limit and we know what we are doing is wrong, but then there are those who think that the speed limits are some sort of guide and need to 'keep the traffic moving' and/or judge their driving skills to be able to drive at higher speeds.

I would actually say that both are equally dangerous. At 50 mph the stopping distance is around 170 feet or 53 meters. At 101 its  500 feet (different websites give different figures). Added to the extra momentum with larger lorries, it all adds up.

You have quoted 50 and 100 on 30 and 70 mph limits, what are they for doing 40 mph in an 30 zone?

t all comes down to money - some councils/politicians have studied the stats and decided that they can make more money that way.  Believe me, there is no danger that our roads will be safer as a result of the higher fines. Those who speed will always do so!

I have too agree the roads wont be much safer as a result of this action.Speeding is habitual with some drivers and i cant see many of them changeing.As regards the financial penalty most seem to be prepared to risk it.More points on the licence would be better.As said higher fines is just a way of getting more money.

v9

Any harsher deterrent has to be a good thing, but catching those who habitually break the speed limits is the problem. Cameras can only do so much, and police services are fully stretched.

Driving dangerously in any circumstances is a problem. Where this results in deaths and serious injury, there is no excuse and custodial sentences, very long bans and harsh financial penalties need to reflect general societies unwillingness to tolerate such behaviour. Our laws and sentences are very complex, but need revising and revisiting to reflect changing behaviours.

I thought if you went above 100mph on a motorway was an automatic ban anyway.Is this not the case now?

Any form of speeding is of course dangerous. However, it did not seem logical to me to have a potential fine 1.5 times larger because it was a motorway. Speeding on normal roads where people may be crossing, there are numerous junctions, people cycling etc. Would seem to carry a much higher risk of injury to others. Personally I would have the higher rate for both. As far as I could see the 40 in a 30 would not allow the court to impose these higher fines.

You are correct, there are fines and costs as well.  

Don't we all have Cruise control and Cruise limiting functions in our modern cars. 

Set the controls and you've no need to worry about exceeding the speed limit.  

Cheers...................K

I don't have cruise control on my van , but a have a dial thinginy that tells me my speed (approx.), also my foot is able to lift off the throttle pedal

As I said yours was an interesting post and made me think quite a bit and probably now agree with you that both should have the higher rate. I wonder who sat and wrote down the 'tariffs' for motorways and 30 mph roads like this and what was their reasoning. I personally think that 'housing estates roads' should be all 20 mph anyway. Thanks for your reply on the 40 mph question