Speeding fines change/increase TODAY, Monday 24/4/17

[cruiser]

Should be a good move to keep people watching their speedometer.

[wazzickle]

Lots I could say but I'll limit it to 'what bollocks'

(go ask your advertisers what they think about saying that please before editing out something that is clearly not swearing)

[jimbouk]

Now people who drive at 30 on a de-restricted road when conditions are good.. they are unsafe.

Like a tractor or a (fast) cyclist? Why are they unsafe trundling along at 30? If one was going to run into the back of them because they were going too fast then think how bad it would have been if there was a broken down car on the road or a horse?

Getting frustrated and trying to overtake when there isn't clear visibility far enough up the road - then guess who is being unsafe?

Is it annoying being stuck behind a 'Sunday driver' - yes. Dangerous? Only if you make it!

[Corky34]

I don't see why there should be a cap. If you are loaded then the fine part is meaningless.

Exactly this, 25-175% of one persons weekly wage means a lot more to some people than others, added to that is the maximum (IIRC) fine is capped at £2500 so in theory someone like a premier league football player could get away with paying less than 25%.

[kalniel]

Like a tractor or a (fast) cyclist? Why are they unsafe trundling along at 30? If one was going to run into the back of them because they were going too fast then think how bad it would have been if there was a broken down car on the road or a horse?

Getting frustrated and trying to overtake when there isn't clear visibility far enough up the road - then guess who is being unsafe?

Is it annoying being stuck behind a 'Sunday driver' - yes. Dangerous? Only if you make it!

I quite agree that dangerously overtaking would be unsafe - far safer to chill out behind the slow driver. And of course, you should always maintain enough visibility to come to a stop should you encounter a stationary obstactle.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So does this mean a speeding ambulance gets fined a percentage of an NHS trust's budget for a week?

[spacein_vader]

So does this mean a speeding ambulance gets fined a percentage of an NHS trust's budget for a week?

Only if it's being driven by the trust. Given corporations & public services don't tend to have physical bodies I'm assuming the trust isn't driving it and an employee is. In which case he's on the hook assuming it isn't a blue light situation.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Only if it's being driven by the trust. Given corporations & public services don't tend to have physical bodies I'm assuming the trust isn't driving it and an employee is. In which case he's on the hook assuming it isn't a blue light situation.

So basically the trust has to pay for the fine still??

So if companies are not liable,what happens for people who are one band companies and their company pays them a "small wage" instead??

Will politicians and police also be fined the same way??

[Jowsey]

So basically the trust has to pay for the fine still??

So if companies are not liable,what happens for people who are one band companies and their company pays them a "small wage" instead??

Will politicians and police also be fined the same way??

I think Vader was being sarcastic. As the company literally doesn't have a body it can't drive anything!

The employee would have to explain why he get the fine, i.e responding to an emergency with full blues. Otherwise the employee that commited the offence will be liable. There is also an allowance for a small handling fee to be put on to cover the trust's/companies time in this manner.

Politicians receive a health salary (IMO, an appropriate salary so that should allow them to focus solely on managing the country... but that's another topic) and will be fined accordingly. Similar to a police officer, if he doesn't have an appropriate reason for the speed he was doing at the time he'll get the fine!

Additionally, a lot of these one man band companies remunerate themselves via dividends and as I've stated above, you'd imagine it would be included in the calculation as it is shown on the most recent tax return. And obviously, not providing full information to a court regarding your financial affairs will have it's own penalties!

[spacein_vader]

So basically the trust has to pay for the fine still??

So if companies are not liable,what happens for people who are one band companies and their company pays them a "small wage" instead??

Will politicians and police also be fined the same way??

No. The trust does not have to pay the fine, the person driving it does.

I've managed vehicle fleets in the public & private sectors, and both company driving policies and more importantly the police make it very clear that regardless of who owns the vehicle or if the driver is an employee, the driver is ALWAYS personally responsible for any driving penalties accrued. The penalty notice will generally be sent to the Transport Manager (if there is one,) or company secretary (if there isn't,) and it will explicitly state that if they were not the individual driving the vehicle they must provide the details of who was and they will take it up privately with them.

It is illegal for the company/organisation to withhold that information or to pay any fine for them.

EDIT: The only exception in the example you've stated would be if the individual could prove they were responding to a genuine blue light emergency.

[peterb]

So basically the trust has to pay for the fine still??

So if companies are not liable,what happens for people who are one band companies and their company pays them a "small wage" instead??

Will politicians and police also be fined the same way??

The change in penalties hasn't affected the basic premise that an individual is responsible for their own actions - the driver is always liable - not the owner or the registered keeper (unless they are the driver). However the registered keeper has a legal obligation to identify the driver to the police when a speeding offence has been committed using their vehicle. As space-invader says, there are exceptions for drivers responding to blue light emergencies, although that does not absolve them from driving with due care and attention - if the hit someone or something while responding to an emergency, they may still face prosecution - obviously there will be mitigating factors in those cases.

There have been many cases of police personnel being fined for traffic offences - similarly for Members of Parliament (e.g. - Chris Hulme - the lib den politician who tried to get his wife to say she was driving when he was caught speeding - with were subsequently also prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice).

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

No. The trust does not have to pay the fine, the person driving it does.

I've managed vehicle fleets in the public & private sectors, and both company driving policies and more importantly the police make it very clear that regardless of who owns the vehicle or if the driver is an employee, the driver is ALWAYS personally responsible for any driving penalties accrued. The penalty notice will generally be sent to the Transport Manager (if there is one,) or company secretary (if there isn't,) and it will explicitly state that if they were not the individual driving the vehicle they must provide the details of who was and they will take it up privately with them.

It is illegal for the company/organisation to withhold that information or to pay any fine for them.

EDIT: The only exception in the example you've stated would be if the individual could prove they were responding to a genuine blue light emergency.

Hundreds of man hours are wasted by trusts each year,trying to appeal 10s of 1000s of fines(most of which actually are not valid) - awesome own goal. Both being paid by the taxpayers and wasting more and more of our money.

I think Vader was being sarcastic. As the company literally doesn't have a body it can't drive anything!

The employee would have to explain why he get the fine, i.e responding to an emergency with full blues. Otherwise the employee that commited the offence will be liable. There is also an allowance for a small handling fee to be put on to cover the trust's/companies time in this manner.

Politicians receive a health salary (IMO, an appropriate salary so that should allow them to focus solely on managing the country... but that's another topic) and will be fined accordingly. Similar to a police officer, if he doesn't have an appropriate reason for the speed he was doing at the time he'll get the fine!

Additionally, a lot of these one man band companies remunerate themselves via dividends and as I've stated above, you'd imagine it would be included in the calculation as it is shown on the most recent tax return. And obviously, not providing full information to a court regarding your financial affairs will have it's own penalties!

Plenty of people use legal tax avoidance,etc to show a lower income so in the end plenty of rich people will not only pay less tax,but get stung even less. Then what about all the people who produce most of their income abroad??

As far as I know only the US actually taxes its citizens based on income they earn anywhere.

It also figures all the politicians will find a loop hole to make the taxpayer pay for them speeding and what is the likelihood they can pull some strings to get off the fines,especially if they annoy someone high level enough who could vote for more cuts to the force.

Its all a blasted farce - overcharge for public transport,use draconian fining systems,for someone going 1 mph over the speed limit,whilst making sure the old boys network gets stung less,since the caps actually mean all their rich buddies will pay a pittance compared to a normal person,and we all know the police will put a blind eye to them if they can avoid it.

Plus does anyone ever think for one minute that the police can "mis-calibrate" their speeding cameras a few mph downwards so they can fine more people - how is anyone going to fight them if they are actually beneath the speed limit?? Their word against the police.

Its not about public safety,its about generating more income.

The change in penalties hasn't affected the basic premise that an individual is responsible for their own actions - the driver is always liable - not the owner or the registered keeper (unless they are the driver). However the registered keeper has a legal obligation to identify the driver to the police when a speeding offence has been committed using their vehicle. As space-invader says, there are exceptions for drivers responding to blue light emergencies, although that does not absolve them from driving with due care and attention - if the hit someone or something while responding to an emergency, they may still face prosecution - obviously there will be mitigating factors in those cases.

There have been many cases of police personnel being fined for traffic offences - similarly for Members of Parliament (e.g. - Chris Hulme - the lib den politician who tried to get his wife to say she was driving when he was caught speeding - with were subsequently also prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice).

Between 2009 and 2014,there were nearly 24000 speeding fines issue to ambulances. Nearly 99% were eventually not upheld - NHS staff are spending 100s of hours a year trying to appeal these,plus the 100s of hours of time spent in all the legal paper work by other people for the cases. All being paid by the taxpayer,and all wasting money.

This is the sad thing about what has happened to this country - the answer for every problem is to up the price of everything.

Not about education or about spending money in the correct places.

Its all about trying to make a quick buck in anyway possible and trying to rook people.

The government lies through their teeth about diesel cars,getting millions to buy them and now to make another quick buck goes on the anti-diesel bandwagon to screw those people over.

Lets jack up the cost of public transport,then owning a car whilst at the same time screwing people over when it comes to affordability of housing,etc.

No wonder millions of people in this country are using food banks.

[spacein_vader]

Hundreds of man hours are wasted by trusts each year,trying to appeal 10s of 1000s of fines(most of which actually are not valid) - awesome own goal. Both being paid by the taxpayers and wasting more and more of our money.

I imagine the vast bulk of those will be automated fines issued by fixed cameras, I'd also imagine it doesn't take long to sort out those which were under blue light conditions. Do you have a solution that would stop the automated cameras from issuing fines to blue light services?

Plenty of people use legal tax avoidance,etc to show a lower income so in the end plenty of rich people will not only pay less tax,but get stung even less. Then what about all the people who produce most of their income abroad??

As far as I know only the US actually taxes its citizens based on income they earn anywhere.

It also figures all the politicians will find a loop hole to make the taxpayer pay for them speeding and what is the likelihood they can pull some strings to get off the fines,especially if they annoy someone high level enough who could vote for more cuts to the force.

Not really sure how any of that is any different than it was under the old fining system that was in place until this week?

Its all a blasted farce - overcharge for public transport,use draconian fining systems,for someone going 1 mph over the speed limit,whilst making sure the old boys network gets stung less,since the caps actually mean all their rich buddies will pay a pittance compared to a normal person,and we all know the police will put a blind eye to them if they can avoid it.

Assuming (and it's a big assumption,) the above is all true, how often do you suppose people get successfully prosecuted for doing 1mph over the limit? It happens occasionally and when it does it makes the papers, but in all the (rare) cases I've seen the driver in question either had it dropped or was offered a speed awareness course.

Plus does anyone ever think for one minute that the police can "mis-calibrate" their speeding cameras a few mph downwards so they can fine more people - how is anyone going to fight them if they are actually beneath the speed limit?? Their word against the police.

You can (and many do,) request the calibration certificate from the camera that caught you. If they don't provide it, or it wasn't checked that very same day then the matter is dropped. It's probably one of the most common ways people overturn speeding tickets.

Its not about public safety,its about generating more income.

Citation needed.

[peterb]

Hundreds of man hours are wasted by trusts each year,trying to appeal 10s of 1000s of fines(most of which actually are not valid) - awesome own goal. Both being paid by the taxpayers and wasting more and more of our money.

So are you suggesting that ambulances should be exempt from all speed limits?

Plenty of people use legal tax avoidance,etc to show a lower income so in the end plenty of rich people will not only pay less tax,but get stung even less. Then what about all the people who produce most of their income abroad??

As far as I know only the US actually taxes its citizens based on income they earn anywhere.

The operative word is legal - and I think it was a US judge who famously said that no-one is obliged to pay a penny more tax than they are legally obliged to, which is perhaps why it is US companies that are some of the more aggressive participants in tax avoidance schemes.

Failing to declare income in this country is a an offence - as is failing to declare income to a court when required.

And IIRC - the US requires its citizens to declare all income earned abroad, but does not tax it if tax has been paid on those earnings to the jurisdiction where it was owned - there is no double taxation.

It also figures all the politicians will find a loop hole to make the taxpayer pay for them speeding and what is the likelihood they can pull some strings to get off the fines,especially if they annoy someone high level enough who could vote for more cuts to the force.

This is so ludicrous, it doesn't really deserve an answer - there are plenty of documented cases where politicians have face criminal charges - I cited one. The only exemption an MP gets is immunity from civi prosecution for slander for comments made within the precincts of Parliament.

Its all a blasted farce - overcharge for public transport,use draconian fining systems,for someone going 1 mph over the speed limit,whilst making sure the old boys network gets stung less,since the caps actually mean all their rich buddies will pay a pittance compared to a normal person,and we all know the police will put a blind eye to them if they can avoid it.

Speeding is, by its nature, an absolute offence. If the limit is set at 30 - then its 30 and as soon as you exceed that you have... well, exceeded it. However, the ACPO guidelines exist to give police officers some guidance, and if a case goes to court, a magistrate also has the power to exercise discretion - its called the judicial process. And as for the other 'allegations'... The increase in the cap has gone some way to address that.

does anyone ever think for one minute that the police can "mis-calibrate" their speeding cameras a few mph downwards so they can fine more people - how is anyone going to fight them if they are actually beneath the speed limit?? Their word against the police.

So more unsubstantiated allegations of police corruption? The equipment is calibrated independently - the calibration is checked before use - so you are saying that all police forces in the country are part of a big conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

Its not about public safety,its about generating more income.

There is some evidence for that - a Chief Police Office went on record to say that he was considering rigorously enforcing speed limits on a section of the M1 to raise revenue - I think he was subsequently reprimanded. Some speed camera schemes have been criticised for this - on the other hand some areas have discontinued the use of fixed cameras as they had negligible effect on accidents and were too expensive to maintain.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I imagine the vast bulk of those will be automated fines issued by fixed cameras, I'd also imagine it doesn't take long to sort out those which were under blue light conditions. Do you have a solution that would stop the automated cameras from issuing fines to blue light services?






Not really sure how any of that is any different than it was under the old fining system that was in place until this week?

If anybody who has worked with imaging and automatic image recognition systems(like I have),yeah its not hard to match the plates to various databases if required. It might be magic to people but really isn't.

The difference is now,they stand to make even more money from rooking people. But I suppose the current system is easier,since it means people can justifying needless work so there won't be any real push to do proper automation.

Assuming (and it's a big assumption,) the above is all true, how often do you suppose people get successfully prosecuted for doing 1mph over the limit? It happens occasionally and when it does it makes the papers, but in all the (rare) cases I've seen the driver in question either had it dropped or was offered a speed awareness course.

Actually everything is indicating they are going to be even more draconian with these laws,ie,there was a 10% leeway on top,but with the pending police and council budget cuts,I doubt it. This is not the first they tried to push more stricter laws for fining people going 1mph over the speed limit - it was vetoed a few years ago.

But my viewpoint if people are desperate to get rooked,they deserve it.

You can (and many do,) request the calibration certificate from the camera that caught you. If they don't provide it, or it wasn't checked that very same day then the matter is dropped. It's probably one of the most common ways people overturn speeding tickets.

Which again you assume they will still keep doing and the fact of the matter,is you are relying on the same not to fudge things - I expect as the budget cuts get more and more severe they will find more and more creative ways to solve things.

Citation needed.

You mean the last decade of the police and councils using speed cameras and traps to generate extra income,and even !

Some of the forces have mentioned they want to use stricter laws to train and gain more income.

I love how people trust the councils(remember our one pushed through an old people's home by making sure a consultation was sent at a convenient time of year),and the governments,the same lot who lied about what cars to buy and the same lot who push us into various wars by lying about that.

Its like with the council and its parking - remember a mate parked in one area next to a big sign which stated the times you needed to buy a ticket(basically said no ticket needed on a sunday) and got ticketed. Then lo and behold it seems you need to have a ticket,so he sent a picture of his car parked next to the sign with the times. Apparently that was the old sign - there was another small sign which was fully overgrown with plants,which they conveniently left hidden in a corner. Did they budge nope.

Now he should have just taken them to court,but in the end it was just cheaper and less hassle to pay the fine.

People are just gullible if they actually believe any of this is for the good of the public - this is why millions in this country have to use food-banks. You get screwed with housing,screwed with transport costs,loads of people on rubbish contracts,etc.

I suppose most of us on Hexus,are relatively more comfortably off since we are on a tech forum talking about what new non-essential tech toy we need so it all "sounds" a good idea.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So are you suggesting that ambulances should be exempt from all speed limits?

Yes,as nearly 99% of ambulances speeding are except anyway and all the hours wasted in filing counter claims is hours not spent actually doing what the NHS is meant to do.

Or are all the people here going to start moaning if an ambulance gets late,etc and start blaming the NHS for not seeing to their loved ones quick enough.

If that is not important then lets electronically limit all cars to not more than 60mph.

The operative word is legal - and I think it was a US judge who famously said that no-one is obliged to pay a penny more tax than they are legally obliged to, which is perhaps why it is US companies that are some of the more aggressive participants in tax avoidance schemes.

Failing to declare income in this country is a an offence - as is failing to declare income to a court when required.

And IIRC - the US requires its citizens to declare all income earned abroad, but does not tax it if tax has been paid on those earnings to the jurisdiction where it was owned - there is no double taxation.

Whereas,sadly for you all those people who have their earnings abroad,and keep them abroad won't be paying a percentage of their income,just whatever they earn here.

Plus all those millionaires will still get charged a pittance relatively speaking.

This is so ludicrous, it doesn't really deserve an answer - there are plenty of documented cases where politicians have face criminal charges - I cited one. The only exemption an MP gets is immunity from civi prosecution for slander for comments made within the precincts of Parliament.

So if the PM's motorcade breaks the speed limit,they give her state car a ticket and expect them to pay - OK then.

Speeding is, by its nature, an absolute offence. If the limit is set at 30 - then its 30 and as soon as you exceed that you have... well, exceeded it. However, the ACPO guidelines exist to give police officers some guidance, and if a case goes to court, a magistrate also has the power to exercise discretion - its called the judicial process. And as for the other 'allegations'... The increase in the cap has gone some way to address that.



So more unsubstantiated allegations of police corruption? The equipment is calibrated independently - the calibration is checked before use - so you are saying that all police forces in the country are part of a big conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?

LMAO,so the last couple of decades of the police and council getting into trouble,when found out about various things never happened - you mean all those famous high profile cases when all the crap comes out.

I love how you seem to trust councils,the police and the government 100% and will never question them - you mean the same country where we invaded Iraq on made up stuff and not a single person has been taking to task criminally for 1000s of dead and injured soliders,billions of pounds of destroyed and worn out equipment and the radicalisation of Muslims in this country.

The billions wasted on public projects and rarely do we ever get someone investigated for these.

What about diesel cars - the government pushed those for years,and now suddenly they are all bad,buy something else.

Its all about rooking people,and making a fast buck - this is why we have crap public transport which is not even affordable for many people,and not even flexible enough so people buy cars,but then its the wrong type of cars....

No,no never ever question the government or anybody they have shown over the last 40 years,they always have the best interests of the public.

The reason why this culture of rooking people has happened here,is people just accept it and accept it and accept it.

Then people are shocked when they hear so many millions are on food assistance in such a rich country.

No wonder when people are hit with stealth taxes hook,line and sinker,and get less and less back.

I honestly feel sorry for the younger generation.

There is some evidence for that - a Chief Police Office went on record to say that he was considering rigorously enforcing speed limits on a section of the M1 to raise revenue - I think he was subsequently reprimanded. Some speed camera schemes have been criticised for this - on the other hand some areas have discontinued the use of fixed cameras as they had negligible effect on accidents and were too expensive to maintain.

Do you honestly think with crashing police funding,there is no impetus to try and race more funds via other means,just like with hospitals whacking up the cost of parking.

Why is this all happening - because our lovely leaders screwed up so now all of us will be paying an increasing cost for decades.

Wait until they start trying to fine more and more people for driving "too slow".