Is the Swiss/Fin method of speeding ticket a more effective deterrent?

DBT85

DBT85

DBT85

Soldato
Joined
8 Oct 2006
Posts
5,784
Location
Midlands
Some of you may have heard a few stories over the years of people getting caught speeding in Switzerland/Finland. Essentially they take into account your income as well as your speed to calculate a speeding fine.

In January 2010 a millionaire Ferrari driver who drove 60 mph (nearly twice the 30 mph limit) through a small village got a $290,000 fine.

Also the head of Finnish communications giant Nokia was ordered to pay a $103,000 fine for his speeding ticket in 2002. Officers pulled over Anssi Vanjoki on his cherry red Harley Davidson in Helsinki after he was clocked driving 47 mph in a 31-mph zone.

So, would such a system be better in the UK that what we currently have? And would it encourage you to stick to the limits set?
 
No not really.

Why should rich man who has done well for his self have to pay more than average joe for going 8mph over the speed limit?
 
Well, yes, I think it should be proportional. But we need to make sure that there is a minimum level as well. People on benefits should have money taken directly out in my opinion.

Rybo89 said:
No not really.

Why should rich man who has done well for his self have to pay more than average joe for going 8mph over the speed limit?
Click to expand...

Because £60 to a footballer makes not a blind bit of difference
 
i think they should consider applying short term, inconsequential, bans.

you get caught speeding, youre banned for a week or two. no implacation on your licence for point or with your insurer.

but, with the beauty that is ANPR, if youre caught on the road you get rogered royally... driving without a licence, im sure, comes with strong consequences and you loose big time.

the inconvenience of the small ban should shock you into behaving
 
Rotty said:
£60 doesn't overly bother most people, it's the points that are the real punishment
Click to expand...

I agree, but if we could generate a bit of revenue - why not? Would help pay for all sorts. Even if the person fined had to pick from a list of charities, would still be a cracking idea.

Matt82 said:
i think they should consider applying short term, inconsequential, bans.

you get caught speeding, youre banned for a week or two. no implacation on your licence for point or with your insurer.

but, with the beauty that is ANPR, if youre caught on the road you get rogered royally... driving without a licence, im sure, comes with strong consequences and you loose big time.

the inconvenience of the small ban should shock you into behaving
Click to expand...

Another good idea, but a short ban for a first offence seems harsh. Maybe a 1 day, 3 day, then 7day bans?
 
Rotty said:
£60 doesn't overly bother most people, it's the points that are the real punishment
Click to expand...

This

If you had that kind of system, it would need to go to court and then you'd lodge appeals which would clog up a already clogged legal system.

Also the bans is a bit much, it's a traffic offence not a criminal one - people could lose their jobs for going over the speed limit by 4 mph once!
 
Rybo89 said:
No not really.

Why should rich man who has done well for his self have to pay more than average joe for going 8mph over the speed limit?
Click to expand...

In his car which is likely to be of a much higher quality with better braking abilities and a friendlier attitude to pedestrian collisions.....

We can't moan about inequality on the one hand and then say it's fair to punish wealthier people more for the same crimes that poorer people would be punished less for.

I'm with Rybo on this one.
 
I would only support harsh punishment for speed limits if we had a situation where 100% of the speed limits in this country where rational and logical.

We don't - you can drive down rural roads with good tarmac, plenty of width, few junctions and no houses which are subject to a 50mph speed limit but which have the odd junction to a tiny single track lane which is subject to a 60mph speed limit.

We have in Plymouth a new road layout into town. The centrepeice is a 1 mile long peice of road with no junctions and no houses. There is even a sign specifically prohibiting pedestrians. There are no pavements. The speed limit is 30mph - the reason given is because 'There are no barriers between inbound and outbound traffic'. What, like.. any normal road? :S The road is policed by SPECS average speed cameras.

As long as have such an illogical, irrational approach to speed limits many motorists will continue to offer them little respect and frankly who can blame them?
 
Todge said:
So, would such a system be better in the UK that what we currently have? And would it encourage you to stick to the limits set?
Click to expand...

The limits are wrong and a very bad way of attempting to improve safety on the roads...

Why are you supporting the Swiss system when it's substantially worse than what we already have?

Speed "limits" are a form of taxation... nothing more.
 
I would support the removal of points and harsher absolute fines, but not fines based on income. This means that poor people can't speed but the rich in fast cars are free to do as they please.
 
PMKeates said:
I would support the removal of points and harsher absolute fines, but not fines based on income. This means that poor people can't speed but the rich in fast cars are free to do as they please.
Click to expand...

poor people simply wont pay. 10p a month until the year 2030. they just wont pay.
 
Matt82 said:
i think they should consider applying short term, inconsequential, bans.

you get caught speeding, youre banned for a week or two. no implacation on your licence for point or with your insurer.

but, with the beauty that is ANPR, if youre caught on the road you get rogered royally... driving without a licence, im sure, comes with strong consequences and you loose big time.

the inconvenience of the small ban should shock you into behaving
Click to expand...

insurance companies would decide if they rate on it or not, their underwriters choose what they want to rate on, which is why some insurance companies cover IN10 offences and most dont
 
PMKeates said:
If you can't pay you have to go to dinner parties where rich people can throw tomatoes at you and generally denigrate you as a subhuman being.
Click to expand...

years ago i did a stint at southend mags for work experience. they (poor people) would turn up for hearings related to outstanding fines in their bright white kappa trainers with their kicker jumpers (this was quite a long time ago) and their staffy tied up outside.

they would have half of the elizabeth duke catalogue on one hand, the other half round their neck, and then claim they could not afford the repayments.

they would be offered a silly repayment plan which they would claim they could not afford and in the end it would just be dedicted from their benefits, in effect stealing from peter to pay paul.

perhaps give the fine a time limit, if its not paid the driving licence expires and the car gets crushed, then the chav cant drive.
 
Todge said:
Essentially they take into account your income as well as your speed to calculate a speeding fine.
?
Click to expand...

So basically a guy in Aston Martin would pay a mortgage worth while unemployed chav in a rundown Escort would pay an equivalent to a days worth of pub binge if both were to try and do 90 on a motorway? How does that make sense on any level? Which car and car owner is more likely to be actual danger to anyone at speed do we think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom