Serves him right

[snowdog]

As speed increases, the chances of causing an accident increases. If you want to have fun, go on a track day or buy some private land. The public road, which is maintained for everyone's benefit, is not there to be enjoyed for fun (though it often can be completely legally within the speed limit) and breaking the rules which we agree with in order to continue using it isn't big or clever.

Do you have proof for that, because I doubt it. I think the chance of an accident is mainly by some far worse offenses like cutting someone up, not giving right of way, etc...

I'm not even on about just the fun factor, I'm in favor of increasing mobility and hate anything that reduces it. If I had to stick to UK or Dutch speed limits on the autobahn I'd lose up to 2 hours of time when I go to my family.

The entire point of speed limits enforced by fines, is to "encourage" people to not drive at reckless speeds. Yes the limit is entirely arbitrary, but it is what it is. It's entirely aimed at risk reduction.

The alternative is that we don't have a limit and people are only punished once they kill or maim someone through reckless speed, and with subsequent higher levels of road deaths, people in prison etc.

The alternative is far more fair imho. But people aren't killed through reckless speeds, they are killed by a disregard of other rules or failing to control the car.

 

[Captain_Slick]

Thats fair enough, but if my fine was going to be 25 grand to make it a real deterrent, well **** that, it is only speeding after all.

A line must be drawn.

As for the poor person in america not getting bail, well **** happens thats life, communism dont work, we are not all going to be equal.

You would only get fined £25k if that was the same, proportionally, to you as £1500 is to you now and £300 is to a poorer person.

It's not about us all being equal or communism. It's about justice being fair.

 

[Captain_Slick]

Do you have proof for that, because I doubt it. I think the chance of an accident is mainly by some far worse offenses like cutting someone up, not giving right of way, etc...

I'm not even on about just the fun factor, I'm in favor of increasing mobility and hate anything that reduces it. If I had to stick to UK or Dutch speed limits on the autobahn I'd lose up to 2 hours of time when I go to my family.

I don't need proof for it. It's common sense. The faster an object moves, the greater the chance of it colliding with something/losing control/going wrong. Hence why they don't test supercars on public motorways at full speed and land speed records aren't contested on freeways.

The autobahn is different, because drivers in Germany have more training on there than we do here in the UK particularly with regards to lane discipline (we don't have any on the motorway unless you do Pass Plus). I'm not in favour of arbitrary speed limits, but until the requirements for being allowed to drive a vehicle at such speeds are seriously increased with regards to training and aptitude, speed limits do save lives.

 

[DM]

You would only get fined £25k if that was the same, proportionally, to you as £1500 is to you know and £300 is to a poorer person.

It's not about us all being equal or communism. It's about justice being fair.

Its SPEEDING we are talking about here, what on earth is fair about a huge fine?

Without sounding like a **** here i pay more in tax than most people earn, i do my bit proportionally for this country, i dont need it stuck up me again for a speeding fine.

 

[Captain_Slick]

Its SPEEDING we are talking about here, what on earth is fair about a huge fine?

Without sounding like a **** here i pay more in tax than most people earn, i do my bit proportionally for this country, i dont need it stuck up me again for a speeding fine.

Then don't speed.

I don't speed recklessly because I know I can't really afford to pay any fines or lose my license.

It's fair because getting a fine that is the same proportion of your income (after tax of course) is mathematically fair. What's hard to understand about that?

If I earn £1100 a month, then £300 is a fair whack of that. However, if you earn £3300 a month, £300 isn't as big a proportion of that.

 

[DM]

Then don't speed.

I don't speed recklessly because I know I can't really afford to pay any fines or lose my license.

My speeding offence was doing 104 on an empty motorway at 3am, for appx 1 mile.

I seldom if ever exceed 80 on a motorway, first driving offence in 20 years.

Do you really think that deserves a huge fine, be honest?

 

[stockhausen]

... i pay more in tax than most people earn, i do my bit proportionally for this country, i dont need it stuck up me again for a speeding fine.

Are you suggesting that people who "pay more in tax than most people earn" should have some sort of special dispensation to break the law with impunity

Do you really think that deserves a huge fine, be honest?

Yes, seems fair.

 

[Captain_Slick]

My speeding offence was doing 104 on an empty motorway at 3am, for appx 1 mile.

I seldom if ever exceed 80 on a motorway, first driving offence in 20 years.

Do you really think that deserves a huge fine, be honest?

Then you should have known better. If I would have gotten fined £1500 for doing that, whilst earning much much less, that wouldn't be fair would it?

 

[DM]

Then you should have known better. If I would have gotten fined £1500 for doing that, whilst earning much much less, that wouldn't be fair would it?

No it wouldnt and im not arguing with that.

What im saying is there does need to be a cap put on it though.

 

[snowdog]

I don't need proof for it. It's common sense. The faster an object moves, the greater the chance of it colliding with something

Errr? That does not apply to all situations, fair enough to some it does ( because of the laws of physics) but not to all.

/losing control/

Lack of skill is the problem here, not the speed.

going wrong.

Mechanically you mean? This is a problem of the car/tyre/part itself, not the speed.

The autobahn is different, because drivers in Germany have more training on there than we do here in the UK particularly with regards to lane discipline (we don't have any on the motorway unless you do Pass Plus). I'm not in favour of arbitrary speed limits, but until the requirements for being allowed to drive a vehicle at such speeds are seriously increased with regards to training and aptitude,.

Why aren't you in favor for police more strictly checking of people keep to the left, don't cut people up, etc and increasing the fines for that, rather than speeding.

speed limits do save lives

That I agree with, but does it affect the number of accidents ? I understand that hitting someone at 120mph is more lethal than hitting someone at 20mph, but the speed is hardly the cause of both accidents is it ? You most often hit someone if you fail to abide other rules.



It's all politics, what do you prefer, more fun&mobility or more safely, I certainly prefer the first. Hopefully if all goes well, the parties who agree with me and have had plans to raise the speed limits over here will succeed in forming a government and will undo the left wing speed limit lunacy of the past years here.


Imo any normal police patrol should stop checking for speed limits and should rather fine people who do not give the right of way, go through a red light, not keeping to the left, not keeping enough distance, cutting people up, etc...

 

[DM]

Are you suggesting that people who "pay more in tax than most people earn" should have some sort of special dispensation to break the law with impunity


Yes, seems fair.

No im saying that some semblance of sanity needs to be applied.

I dont give a **** how fast you drive 2k is enough of a fine for that offence.

 

[Captain_Slick]

No it wouldnt and im not arguing with that.

What im saying is there does need to be a cap put on it though.

That's the argument though.

A cap would mean that those who are much better off get punished comparatively less than those earning less. That isn't fair.

Yes, it is only speeding but if everyone can fined for doing it, it should be fair punishments for everyone too.

 

[DM]

That's the argument though.

A cap would mean that those who are much better off get punished comparatively less than those earning less. That isn't fair.

Yes, it is only speeding but if everyone can fined for doing it, it should be fair punishments for everyone too.

We are going to have to agree to disagree here fella.

Where do you stop it, 10k fines for dropping litter.

15k for gobbing out your car window, get where im going here?

The fine has to relate to the crime and only to the person up to a point.

Lifes not fair, let that inspire you to crack on and get a few quid

 

[Captain_Slick]

Errr? That does not apply to all situations, fair enough to some it does ( because of the laws of physics) but not to all.


Lack of skill is the problem here, not the speed.

Mechanically you mean? This is a problem of the car/tyre/part itself, not the speed.


Why aren't you in favor for police more strictly checking of people keep to the left, don't cut people up, etc and increasing the fines for that, rather than speeding.

That I agree with, but does it affect the number of accidents ? I understand that hitting someone at 120mph is more lethal than hitting someone at 20mph, but the speed is hardly the cause of both accidents is it ?



It's all politics, what do you prefer, more fun&mobility or more safely, I certainly prefer the first. Hopefully if all goes well, the parties who agree with me and have had plans to raise the speed limits over here will succeed in forming a government.

Are you seriously suggesting that the laws of physics aren't universal?

I am in favour of greater police intervention and stricter rules (for example, making the highway code properly enforceable somehow). However, the chances of that happening in the UK are pretty slim so we have to make the best of the regulations we have at the moment.

Speed isn't the cause of that accident, no. It is however, the reason the person is dead rather than just having a broken leg or something. I didn't say speed was the cause of the accident though, I said the chances of having accident greatly increase as speed does because of physics and because most drivers aren't really able to handle cars at those speeds due to lack of training and skill.

 

[Captain_Slick]

We are going to have to agree to disagree here fella.

Where do you stop it, 10k fines for dropping litter.

15k for gobbing out your car window, get where im going here?

The fine has to relate to the crime and only to the person up to a point.

What are the going rates for litter fines and public disorder fines? I'm sure that even proportionally they would only get to those amounts if they were given to those earning almost millions... in which case I'd fully support it because that's the only way they'd have any sort of impact which is the whole point of them.

 

[DM]

What are the going rates for litter fines and public disorder fines? I'm sure that even proportionally they would only get to those amounts if they were given to those earning almost millions... in which case I'd fully support it because that's the only way they'd have any sort of impact which is the whole point of them.

Like i said we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[snowdog]

Are you seriously suggesting that the laws of physics aren't universal?

http://maps.google.nl/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...=tREN-8Xz9a6i78O4yHgmNg&cbp=12,286.45,,0,4.18

Imagine that motorway, at 3am, no roadworks and completely empty, do you really think the chance of an accident is higher at 120mph than 60 mph ?

 

[Captain_Slick]

I guess so.

My main point is just that the rich shouldn't get away with murder (figuratively speaking) simply because they can afford to pay fines as if they're throwing away spare change.

I think the actual legislative guidelines for fines should be given in percentages, though we'd then have to work out some way of making the persons tax information available to police/the courts.

It would be a nightmare to get right, but fair is fair an' all that.

 

[Jokester]

The alternative is far more fair imho. But people aren't killed through reckless speeds, they are killed by a disregard of other rules or failing to control the car.

Yes, because we have speed limits that people largely stick to. The consequences of losing control at higher speeds are far greater due to the kinetic energy increasing to the square of your speed.

 

[Captain_Slick]

http://maps.google.nl/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...=tREN-8Xz9a6i78O4yHgmNg&cbp=12,286.45,,0,4.18

Imagine that motorway, at 3am, no roadworks and completely empty, do you really think the chance of an accident is higher at 120mph than 60 mph ?

Yep.

If you hit a rock/debris or a wild animal/person runs out at 120mph, the effect will be greater than if you hit it at 60mph. Speed exacerbates accidents and makes them worse, and in some cases is the actual cause.

Training and skill only helps up to a point.