Points on the licence...

[PBancroft]

No, not me. Of course I mean the proposal for excessive speeders getting six points on the licence, rather than just three.

What do folk think? Will it work?

I've been saying for a while that personally I'd want to see the back of the whole points system. Do something dangerous behind the wheel of a car and you should have to retake your test. So for me this doesn't go quite far enough, but its a step in the right direction if it goes ahead.

 

[HLaB]

I think its a quite good idea and will hopefully reinforce how dangerous excessive speeding is. Hopefully I'm proved wrong but my only worry it might indicate to some people's psyche that lesser speeding is trivial.

 

[BSA]

I havent read the details of how this would work but I hope they would be a distinction between excessive speed in residential areas and excessive speed on a motorway.

Any speeding in residential areas deseveres to be dealt with severely. Doing 90mph on a motorway at night is less serious, although I suspect they will be treated the same.

 

[dondare]

It'll have no effect on my commute, because there are no speed cameras. If there were, then just about every motorist would be banned by the end of the week.

 

[robz400]

Any speeding in residential areas deseveres to be dealt with severely. Doing 90mph on a motorway at night is less serious, although I suspect they will be treated the same.

+1

Also were they not suggesting that a lesser offence would warrent 2 instead of 3 points. Surely that reinforces the view that 35-40 in a 30 is ok.

I don't think speeding is the major problem, most deaths happen on country roads and therefore its poor driving skills that cause it. Maybe the driving test should start to include road reading skills such as the vanishing point etc..

 

[BentMikey]

I'm very pro this, it's excellent. Speeding is nasty anti-social stuff, and it's dangerous to boot. Not only does it increase the chance of a crash, but it makes the consequences much worse too.

 

[summerdays]

I think it is a good idea, and if someone is just over the limit then they should be penalized less than someone who is exceeding the limit by alot. But I would also like to see that anyone who does loose their licience would have to have additional classroom sessions on the dangers of speed before they could retake their test.

 

[Eat MY Dust]

I would say excessive is anything over the limit.

It was heartbreaking to hear the couple on the news yesterday morning as they explained the last day of their kids life. The thing that really hit me was the police estimated that they were doing 69 mph. They estimated the footballer in the Range Rover was doing 97 mph. How do you protect yourself against this? BTW I'm sure there will be idiots out there that will be saying "if they were doing 97 mph as well, they wouldn't have been involved in the accident"

 

[jezhiggins]

I don't think speeding is the major problem, most deaths happen on country roads and therefore its poor driving skills that cause it. Maybe the driving test should start to include road reading skills such as the vanishing point etc..

There may well be more deaths on rural roads than urban roads (haven't checked), but that's probably because average urban speeds are lower - more traffic, more junctions, etc. However, that doesn't mean speed isn't a problem in urban areas. It is, because it contributes to an air of danger, to a feeling that the streets are not safe. It not pleasant, at best, to be walking on the pavement with cars whipping past your elbow at 30, 40, 50 mph.

 

[dondare]

Define excessive? Because I thought if you are going at a certain speed above the speed limit you get a court summons and not a NIP.

If it were my decision, I'd say about 35% above the speed limit would count as excessive. So 40mph in a 30 zone, 80 in a 60, and 95 in a 70.

 

[swee'pea99]

If it were my decision, I'd say about 35% above the speed limit would count as excessive. So 40mph in a 30 zone, 80 in a 60, and 95 in a 70.

That seems to me on the right sort of lines. I'd also like, as others have suggested, some kind of account taken of circumstances - 90 on a clear motorway in the middle of nowhere at 3 in the morning can be no danger of even inconvenience to anyone else; 33 on a rainy city street around school run time should be stamped on.

Other than that, I'm not quite so convinced as most seem to be about this. As someone said, almost everyone who drives speeds sometimes, to some extent. To me it seems a bit punitive to say that anyone caught once should be automatically banned next time. 'Three strikes' seems to me a good compromise: first offense, four points and a fine - 'don't do it again'; second time, four more, Big Fine and 'this is your last chance'; do it again and you're off the road.

 

[bazzadigz C+]

Whats the point? LOL

Now lets stick up a billion more speed cameras, give fines to the already strained public just when we're about to go through very uncertain times, while we're about it why dont we just go back to horse drawn carriages!

How about instead of giving fines/points and charging motorists we should do something like 1, caught the first time and the driver has to pay to go to an education center. 2, Caught the second time the driver has to retake his test. 3, Caught the 3rd time the driver should be banned.

I dont think points work and that education is the KEY!!

 

[John the Monkey]

Why do "most people who drive" speed though, swee'pea? Why can't they obey what is probably one of the clearest, and easiest to obey traffic laws on the statute book?

 

[Eat MY Dust]

Whats the point? LOL

Now lets stick up a billion more speed cameras, give fines to the already strained public just when we're about to go through very uncertain times

It always makes me chuckle a little bit when people bang on about the "strained" public. You can't be that strained if you can afford to run a car. Anyway, is'nt it Mr Paul who calls speeding fines and points "voluntary" which I think is spot on. If you don't want to get caught speeding then don't speed. It's pretty straight forward.

 

[km991148]

I would say excessive is anything over the limit.

It was heartbreaking to hear the couple on the news yesterday morning as they explained the last day of their kids life. The thing that really hit me was the police estimated that they were doing 69 mph. They estimated the footballer in the Range Rover was doing 97 mph. How do you protect yourself against this? BTW I'm sure there will be idiots out there that will be saying "if they were doing 97 mph as well, they wouldn't have been involved in the accident"

That was pretty bad I seen it but exesive speed was not the major contributing factor here - the footballer (cant rem who he was) was over twice the drink drive limit. I dont want to start a major debate about this - its one of those threads that will run forever! but I would like to see better policing on the roads that stop all the properly dangerous acts that include speeding on busy sections of motorway or in town, but not at say doing 100 on a sunday afternoon with no one about. It also includes tailgating at speed (or at all!) lane jumpers, overtaking lane hogers causing people to undertake, undertakers etc etc.. I would prefer this to more policing by numbers which lead to people driving save through a radar/camera then driving like knob heads for next 20miles or so..

There may well be more deaths on rural roads than urban roads (haven't checked), but that's probably because average urban speeds are lower - more traffic, more junctions, etc. However, that doesn't mean speed isn't a problem in urban areas. It is, because it contributes to an air of danger, to a feeling that the streets are not safe. It not pleasant, at best, to be walking on the pavement with cars whipping past your elbow at 30, 40, 50 mph.

+1

Also were they not suggesting that a lesser offence would warrent 2 instead of 3 points. Surely that reinforces the view that 35-40 in a 30 is ok.

I don't think speeding is the major problem, most deaths happen on country roads and therefore its poor driving skills that cause it. Maybe the driving test should start to include road reading skills such as the vanishing point etc..

The same show that Eat MY Dust was watching (Think it was bbc breakfast) also had an interview with an mp (I cant rem who, only briefly caught it on way out) that actually said this, where they would come down heavy on those doing 90 in a 70 (again regardless of road conditions etc) but dont want to penalise those who 'accidently' slip over to 34 or 35 in a 30. I mean wtf, wasnt there an ad about the chances of killing a child are halved when hit at 35 (maybe it was 40) compared to 30. Why shouldnt people be penalised for accidental speeding when it is dangerous? Just creeping over should not be acceptable in some situations.. It shows that someone wasnt paying attention to all functions of the car..

I am a firm believer into driving to the conditions, that means driving at 90+ on clear sunny empty motorways esp if a nice new car etc and slowing to 50 when wet/ dangerous rather than just driving at 70 all the time as thats what the sign says!

Anyways - rant/long post over!