Editor's Blog1 min ago
Clearly The Governement Have Sorted All The Problems Of The Day....
33 Answers
http://
Time to give the motorists another kicking!
Time to give the motorists another kicking!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Whilst I'm all for conforming to any laws we may have imposed upon us I'm with NewJudge on this one. It will be some considerable time before this gets anywhere near the statute books and the chances are it will not be implemented as it reads in the report, so i'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
How draconian a punishment is has marginal affect on transgression. Likelihood of getting caught has a greater affect. That pointed out, going faster than some arbitrary limit someone you may not even agree with is not something to be used as a cash cow. Hardly earth shattering evil. As one can see on any motorway where it is the minority who are not speeding past me. This sort of thing falls into the "nothing better to do" type of activity for those with power but, well, nothing better to do than to make life more stressful.
It will not actually make a blind bit of difference though, OG. As I have pointed out the sentencing guidelines are not to be amended and at present virtually nobody convicted of these types of offences is fined anything like the current statutory maximum. I would think the average fine for speeding for those appearing in court is probably in the order of £200.
I agree with Ed here. These fines are only used for guilty motorists, and yet we have people who seem to want to defend them. I normally drive about 20,000 miles a year and I see people using mobile phones, texting, etc every day. Can't be hard enough on these people in my opinion.
Not sure that the change on the law for gay marriages has anything to do with this whatsoever. A reasonably competent government, even our present Tory one should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Not sure that the change on the law for gay marriages has anything to do with this whatsoever. A reasonably competent government, even our present Tory one should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
NJ...I bow to your superior knowledge on this and other legal subjects but it seems to me that it is counterintuitive to believe that raising the penalty for a crime, can't have any effect on the number of offenders.
To use on example...use of hand-held phones is now an epidemic on our roads. If you stand at a crossroads anywhere in the country, you can see many people using Mobiles without hands-free apparatus. I have just arrived back in Swansea from Cardiff, a journey of 40 miles and about 50 mins. I started to count the number of people using their Mobiles by hand and gave up after 18. And yet not one Police car, not one.
Its seems to me that we need a multi-agency approach to this hugely growing menace. We seem to have more Mobile phones than cars in Britain. We need more Police cars on our roads, especially on the Motorways and we need the Bench to come down like a ton of bricks on the offenders when they are caught. When I am driving at night, it is obvious who is texting or using a laptop, because you can see the glow in the car from the screens when you pass them.
I can't imagine a more stupid thing to do than watching a film on a laptop, when driving, but an increasingly larger amount of people are doing it.
To use on example...use of hand-held phones is now an epidemic on our roads. If you stand at a crossroads anywhere in the country, you can see many people using Mobiles without hands-free apparatus. I have just arrived back in Swansea from Cardiff, a journey of 40 miles and about 50 mins. I started to count the number of people using their Mobiles by hand and gave up after 18. And yet not one Police car, not one.
Its seems to me that we need a multi-agency approach to this hugely growing menace. We seem to have more Mobile phones than cars in Britain. We need more Police cars on our roads, especially on the Motorways and we need the Bench to come down like a ton of bricks on the offenders when they are caught. When I am driving at night, it is obvious who is texting or using a laptop, because you can see the glow in the car from the screens when you pass them.
I can't imagine a more stupid thing to do than watching a film on a laptop, when driving, but an increasingly larger amount of people are doing it.
Mikey; I agree that drivers should not use telephones while at the wheel, but as long as they are not texting, which is unforgivable, they still have their eyes on the road and have one hand on the wheel - which is only the same as when changing gear. Much worse I think, is fiddling with cd players and radios etc. which which involves looking away from the surrounding driving conditions. I know someone who wrote-off his car and nearly killed himself doing just that, which he admitted (at least to me).
Khandro...with the greatest respect, nonsense !
Driving whilst using a Mobile, without a hands-free apparatus is an offence, and quite rightly so. It takes a second or two to change gear, not the length of an average phone call. To make a phone call, you have to fiddle around with tiny buttons, which, by the very nature of it, takes your eye and attention of the road ahead.
Driving whilst using a Mobile, without a hands-free apparatus is an offence, and quite rightly so. It takes a second or two to change gear, not the length of an average phone call. To make a phone call, you have to fiddle around with tiny buttons, which, by the very nature of it, takes your eye and attention of the road ahead.
And the worst aspect of all (which means that hands-free calls should also be banned) is the diminished reaction times which people involved in phone calls exhibit. Many studies suggest that using a phone whilst driving is actually worse in that respect than driving with excess alcohol. It has nothing to do with "fiddling with buttons" (which can be dealt with by the careless driving law). However, we digress.
The crux of my argument is this, Mikey:
What the government is proposing is a fourfold increase in the maximum fines available for any offence that is dealt with by way of a fine, not a fourfold increase in sentences. This will make no difference whatsoever because there are no plans to amend the sentencing guidelines.
To take speeding as an example, the current guidelines for disposal of a speeding offence which is heard in the Magistrates' Court is a maximum fine of one week's net income (reduced by a third in the event of a guilty plea). In fact the usual maximum for any offence is just one and a half week's net income (although there are provisions for some offences to be dealt with by way of higher fines, but they need not concern us here). Magistrates are bound to follow these guidelines unless there are compelling reasons to sentence outside them. Any sentences beyond the guidelines imposed without good reason are likely to result in a successful appeal.
The current maximum fines for speeding are £2,500 on a motorway, £1,000 elsewhere. So, unless a defendant has a net income of £1,000 pw (or £2,500 for a motorway offence) there is absolutely no chance that they will receive a fine of anything like the current maxima. Since the average income in the UK is around £23,000 it follows that the average fine for speeding imposed in the Magistrates' Court following a guilty plea will be around £300.
This is a typical example of a government wishing to be seen to be doing something when nothing is necessary. The current maxima are quite sufficient when compared to the current guidelines and newspaper headlines suggesting that drivers will be fined £10k for speeding are ridiculous.
The crux of my argument is this, Mikey:
What the government is proposing is a fourfold increase in the maximum fines available for any offence that is dealt with by way of a fine, not a fourfold increase in sentences. This will make no difference whatsoever because there are no plans to amend the sentencing guidelines.
To take speeding as an example, the current guidelines for disposal of a speeding offence which is heard in the Magistrates' Court is a maximum fine of one week's net income (reduced by a third in the event of a guilty plea). In fact the usual maximum for any offence is just one and a half week's net income (although there are provisions for some offences to be dealt with by way of higher fines, but they need not concern us here). Magistrates are bound to follow these guidelines unless there are compelling reasons to sentence outside them. Any sentences beyond the guidelines imposed without good reason are likely to result in a successful appeal.
The current maximum fines for speeding are £2,500 on a motorway, £1,000 elsewhere. So, unless a defendant has a net income of £1,000 pw (or £2,500 for a motorway offence) there is absolutely no chance that they will receive a fine of anything like the current maxima. Since the average income in the UK is around £23,000 it follows that the average fine for speeding imposed in the Magistrates' Court following a guilty plea will be around £300.
This is a typical example of a government wishing to be seen to be doing something when nothing is necessary. The current maxima are quite sufficient when compared to the current guidelines and newspaper headlines suggesting that drivers will be fined £10k for speeding are ridiculous.
Latest Posts
The Cricketer Tea Break Crossword
Crosswords3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News54 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.