FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

New speed camera fines

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/lounge/626884

Just in case you wanted to hear these people's thoughts from earlier.

I think any deterrent to speeding is good.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

How do they defeat the purpose?

A rich person speeding is doing no more wrong than a poor person speeding, why should they pay more?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How do they defeat the purpose?

A rich person speeding is doing no more wrong than a poor person speeding, why should they pay more? "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

It's likely not a change that's evidence based to be effective

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People who do things they ain't supposed to usually are not planning on getting caught.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i think it sounds fair, hopefully they will have the resources to hit more people, more often too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose "

Not really. Your view is very short sighted imo. I earn a relatively good wage but live on my own which means I pay all the bills and have a small disposable income. Someone who has a smaller income can claim benefits or someone who shares a house and bills may have a larger disposable income so how is that fair??? If one person commits a crime and gets 5 years in jail because they have money and someone who is homeless commits the same crime and only gets 1 year is that really justice??? I think not. If you can afford to drive then the punishment should be the same for everyone. It won't be long before it goes to the high court because of persecution because one person earns more than someone else.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ty31Man
over a year ago

NW London

The points on a licence and the resultant rise in insurance premiums is a far bigger deterent.

Jacking up the fines is pretty much just another way to raise revenue and will likely result in some JAMs (just about managing) being forced into debt.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"How do they defeat the purpose?

A rich person speeding is doing no more wrong than a poor person speeding, why should they pay more? "

Its about putting a financial blow onto someone.. Simple really if you think about it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You wouldn't have a problem with the new legislation if you didn't speed... And before you say 'it's easy to go over a little', this only applies if you go to court - in other words, you were probably way over in the first place. Current fixed penalties and processes are still in place

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose "

One easy way to keep your money...rich or poor ??? just stick to the speed limits.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"You wouldn't have a problem with the new legislation if you didn't speed... And before you say 'it's easy to go over a little', this only applies if you go to court - in other words, you were probably way over in the first place. Current fixed penalties and processes are still in place "

Some leeway is allowed..

The 10% plus 2 method.

E. G in a 40 zone 10% of 40 is 4 + 2 = 6. Add that to the speed limit 40 = 46. So 46 is threshold for a fine.

Thats to allow for speedo accuracy in a car. NOT an excuse to go a bit faster.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *orwegian BlueMan
over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..

It doesn't give far enough as there is a proposed cap to the limit of the fine.

Should also be means tested on how much you actually have..

For those that work but are in debt up to their eyeballs, a huge fine could sink them and for someone that has eo much money they do not need to work, they will get away lightly..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose

Not really. Your view is very short sighted imo. I earn a relatively good wage but live on my own which means I pay all the bills and have a small disposable income. Someone who has a smaller income can claim benefits or someone who shares a house and bills may have a larger disposable income so how is that fair??? If one person commits a crime and gets 5 years in jail because they have money and someone who is homeless commits the same crime and only gets 1 year is that really justice??? I think not. If you can afford to drive then the punishment should be the same for everyone. It won't be long before it goes to the high court because of persecution because one person earns more than someone else. "

I totally agree, why should I be fined more for making more money. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that speeding is okay, far from it, there are limits in place for a reason and I adhere to them. I have had my licence for 20 years and never had any fine or points. Just another money making scheme

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lactontogMan
over a year ago

Clacton on Sea


"How do they defeat the purpose?

A rich person speeding is doing no more wrong than a poor person speeding, why should they pay more? "

Some richer people flaunt the law because they can afford fines mere mortals struggle to pay e.g. parking a roller outside Harrods because a ticket is nothing to them & doing other criminal acts simply because they can, for poorer people breaking the law hitting them in the pocket as always been the norm.

It now makes all classes sit up & think so it can only be a good thing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It doesn't give far enough as there is a proposed cap to the limit of the fine.

Should also be means tested on how much you actually have..

For those that work but are in debt up to their eyeballs, a huge fine could sink them and for someone that has eo much money they do not need to work, they will get away lightly..

"

They should really think about all of this when they're driving and stick to the limit, it's not hard, it's not necessary to speed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe


"

Some leeway is allowed..

The 10% plus 2 method.

E. G in a 40 zone 10% of 40 is 4 + 2 = 6. Add that to the speed limit 40 = 46. So 46 is threshold for a fine.

Thats to allow for speedo accuracy in a car. NOT an excuse to go a bit faster. "

This is an "Old Wives Tale" the limit IS the limit (and always has been). Unless you've modified your car, then your speedo will only ever read faster than you are going... so when you get a ticket for doing 35 in a 30 zone, you probably thought you were doing 40.

Cal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

Some leeway is allowed..

The 10% plus 2 method.

E. G in a 40 zone 10% of 40 is 4 + 2 = 6. Add that to the speed limit 40 = 46. So 46 is threshold for a fine.

Thats to allow for speedo accuracy in a car. NOT an excuse to go a bit faster.

This is an "Old Wives Tale" the limit IS the limit (and always has been). Unless you've modified your car, then your speedo will only ever read faster than you are going... so when you get a ticket for doing 35 in a 30 zone, you probably thought you were doing 40.

Cal"

An old wives tale from a serving Northumbria police traffic officer then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

Some leeway is allowed..

The 10% plus 2 method.

E. G in a 40 zone 10% of 40 is 4 + 2 = 6. Add that to the speed limit 40 = 46. So 46 is threshold for a fine.

Thats to allow for speedo accuracy in a car. NOT an excuse to go a bit faster.

This is an "Old Wives Tale" the limit IS the limit (and always has been). Unless you've modified your car, then your speedo will only ever read faster than you are going... so when you get a ticket for doing 35 in a 30 zone, you probably thought you were doing 40.

Cal"

Habe a look on the internet.

One example:http://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/2016/08/speeding-what-is-the-10-plus-2-rule-and-what-does-it-mean/

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aughtyYorkGentMan
over a year ago

Yorkshire

The 10% + 2 "rule" is guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is only guidance and can be ignored/amended by individual forces or officers, but nevertheless it is formal and entrenched enough to be published for all to see on the government website. And even without this there has to be some leeway shown. Around 70% of motorway drivers are speeding at any given time during the day, 80mph being nearer the normal traffic flow speed for cars. It would be awkward to prosecute them all. A blind eye is turned to this situation because of its prevalence and the fact that 80 is a far more pragmatic speed. I believe the motorway limit would have raised by now (there was a credible proposal to do so not long ago) if it wasn't for the fact that it might encourage driving at over 80, and to avoid making waves with the environmental and safety lobby groups.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.

We are a huge money making scheme for them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.

We are a huge money making scheme for them."

they need more money! loads of main roads are used by far more vehicles than they were designed for,so the upkeep costs more..if the money is from penalising people breaking the law, i see no problem at all in that...would you prefer it was from increased tax?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aughtyYorkGentMan
over a year ago

Yorkshire


"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.

We are a huge money making scheme for them."

Actually I can't imagine anything less "third world" than this issue. Not often you see people pulled over in India for speeding, not wearing a seat belt, or riding 5 to a motorbike with no helmets. Mainly because people over there have more immediate concerns. It's only in our molly-coddled, comfortable world we can afford to dream up rules and regs like those, in the largely futile quest for complete safety. Needless to say, the casualty record in India reflects the situation, but I do believe there is a happy medium somewhere, a point which we passed long ago.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.

We are a huge money making scheme for them.

they need more money! loads of main roads are used by far more vehicles than they were designed for,so the upkeep costs more..if the money is from penalising people breaking the law, i see no problem at all in that...would you prefer it was from increased tax?"

Haven't they just upped the car tax massively on new cars?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.

We are a huge money making scheme for them.

they need more money! loads of main roads are used by far more vehicles than they were designed for,so the upkeep costs more..if the money is from penalising people breaking the law, i see no problem at all in that...would you prefer it was from increased tax?

Haven't they just upped the car tax massively on new cars?"

Yup.! Vehicle ownership is expensive unfortunately

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose "
The new laws are ridiculous, especially if you're in the higher tax bracket! But I guess I'll just be driving extra careful

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rinking-in-laCouple
over a year ago

Bristol


"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.

We are a huge money making scheme for them.

Actually I can't imagine anything less "third world" than this issue. Not often you see people pulled over in India for speeding, not wearing a seat belt, or riding 5 to a motorbike with no helmets. Mainly because people over there have more immediate concerns. It's only in our molly-coddled, comfortable world we can afford to dream up rules and regs like those, in the largely futile quest for complete safety. Needless to say, the casualty record in India reflects the situation, but I do believe there is a happy medium somewhere, a point which we passed long ago."

Absolute nonsense.

Anyone who has ever been to India will know that the police are very vigorous in pulling people and fining them for driving misdemeanours.

India is also not a third world country.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.

We are a huge money making scheme for them.

they need more money! loads of main roads are used by far more vehicles than they were designed for,so the upkeep costs more..if the money is from penalising people breaking the law, i see no problem at all in that...would you prefer it was from increased tax?

Haven't they just upped the car tax massively on new cars?"

good!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

visiting the beach


"Just seen it on the news. Are they fairer? Based on income rather than flat rate? I think they are as a flat rate hits those with less income harder than the richer ones , thereby defeating the purpose The new laws are ridiculous, especially if you're in the higher tax bracket! But I guess I'll just be driving extra careful "

So actually your response shows it not to be ridiculous. As it has achieved it's aim of making people abide by the law...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"This country is becoming like third world countries. The government are always looking for ways to milk money out of us.

We are a huge money making scheme for them.

they need more money! loads of main roads are used by far more vehicles than they were designed for,so the upkeep costs more..if the money is from penalising people breaking the law, i see no problem at all in that...would you prefer it was from increased tax?

Haven't they just upped the car tax massively on new cars?

good!"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *opitinpeteMan
over a year ago

tipton

It wont be long now before a driving offence becomes more serious than murder.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe


"

Have a look on the internet.

One example:http://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/2016/08/speeding-what-is-the-10-plus-2-rule-and-what-does-it-mean/"

A great example, if you read the page, it actually states that the rule isn't actually a rule at all... just a suggestion.

My best friend, a police Sargent and former traffic officer, tells me that they would apply their own discretion when stopping speeders. If you were driving a small & older car for example you would be more likely to be stopped than someone driving a car that's safer at speed such as a newer car or sports car... on the other hand, if it was wet/frosty/foggy, every possible speeder would be stopped.

Cal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acavityMan
over a year ago

Redditch


"The new laws are ridiculous, especially if you're in the higher tax bracket! But I guess I'll just be driving extra careful "

There are no new laws.

They are changing the penalties, presumably because far too many people broke the law previously. So trying to change the deterrent makes sense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *htcMan
over a year ago

MK

just more money income, no doubt to raise foreign aid rate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"just more money income, no doubt to raise foreign aid rate."

where on earth do you get the idea that revenue from traffic fines goes to foreign aid! that's utter nonsense!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not speeding but getting caught on a mobile is now £200 and 6 points.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irceWoman
over a year ago

Gloucester

Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.

What ever happened to a warning first, no it all about monies not safety...bad policing = public hate.

Next we will have to hire a guy to run in front of the car with a warning flag....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.

"

I REALLY doubt that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irceWoman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.

I REALLY doubt that."

Have you looked into it then?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.

I REALLY doubt that.

Have you looked into it then?"

I haven't no.

I just find that very, very hard to believe.

....I'm not saying it COULDN'T be true though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Right or wrongs of breaking the speed limit aside, it's the points that prevent people, not if they can afford the fine.

Just another stelth tax.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 23/04/17 21:46:12]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *corpio67Man
over a year ago

hillingdon

Has anybody actually thought about this?

In a few years time all the roads will be gridlocked!!

Introducing a one mile over the limit will eventually take thousands of cars off the road and make thousands for the treasury !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dsindyTV/TS
over a year ago

East Lancashire

All a bit of a storm in a teacup really.

As has been stated previously, stick to the limit and the fines, however calculated, become irrelevant because they won't be applicable.

As the old saying goes, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".....well, that's what my mum used to say when she sent me to bed without my supper.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I had a £300 fine at court for doing 36 in a 30. The guy before got a £30 for doing 42 in a 30. He had no job I did. He also had no bills unlike me so yes I earn more but that does not mean I can afford to pay much more. If you work hard and are not in debt you will be forced to pay for it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I had a £300 fine at court for doing 36 in a 30. The guy before got a £30 for doing 42 in a 30. He had no job I did. He also had no bills unlike me so yes I earn more but that does not mean I can afford to pay much more. If you work hard and are not in debt you will be forced to pay for it. "

It's all revenue making....they know they can't get blood out of a stone so they get off lighter.

But surely the 6 points you get is a deterrent as if you get another within 4 years....your banned!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rinking-in-laCouple
over a year ago

Bristol


"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.

What ever happened to a warning first, no it all about monies not safety...bad policing = public hate.

Next we will have to hire a guy to run in front of the car with a warning flag...."

That is basically untrue

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.

I REALLY doubt that."

shareholders in what exactly? i dont understand how anyone can be a shareholder in tax revenues...which would be a matter of public record incidentally..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irceWoman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.

I REALLY doubt that.

shareholders in what exactly? i dont understand how anyone can be a shareholder in tax revenues...which would be a matter of public record incidentally.."

Look into IBM please and it is being debated...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irceWoman
over a year ago

Gloucester


"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.

What ever happened to a warning first, no it all about monies not safety...bad policing = public hate.

Next we will have to hire a guy to run in front of the car with a warning flag....

That is basically untrue "

What part deary

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.

I REALLY doubt that.

shareholders in what exactly? i dont understand how anyone can be a shareholder in tax revenues...which would be a matter of public record incidentally..

Look into IBM please and it is being debated..."

can you be a lot more specific please. Look at what exactly?..and debated by whom, and where? im genuinely curious as to how public tax revenue is being sold off as shares (in what?)..to members of the public? which police are as well being police...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *rinking-in-laCouple
over a year ago

Bristol


"Read online a while back that the police force has shareholders, would explain alot.

What ever happened to a warning first, no it all about monies not safety...bad policing = public hate.

Next we will have to hire a guy to run in front of the car with a warning flag....

That is basically untrue

What part deary "

Virtually all of it. The shareholder allegation in particular.

Stakeholder and shareholder is entirely different.

One is a tie based on a mutual requirement for performance criteria to be met and one is a profit based arrangement whereby revenue is shared.

The police don't make any revenue.

They do not get the money from fines.

Stop spreading lies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top