Should motorways have lower speeding fines than urban roads?

monument

Should motorways have lower speeding fines than urban roads? / Should urban roads have lower speeding fines than motorways? And should there be a scaling of the fine depending on by how much the limit was broken?

In 2012, this is how scaling fines worked in the Netherlands:



From here.

I like the idea of a 5km/h allowance given before being fined, rather than our mythical allowance of 2-3km/h or whatever.

Note: Yes, this is the correct forum for this thread, speeding affects more than just any one road user.

Banjoxed

No. Higher, and they should be enforced. My reasoning is that your proposal creates the idea that enforcement would be even more lax than it is at present on the motorways and that dangerous driving of all sorts would be a lesser crime on the motorways than on the rest of the road network.

Irresponsible behaviour on the motorways effectively rewarded? A no from me.

corktina

a no from me too , although I do think that penalties need to be graduated depending on the amount over the limit. It's daft that you get the same points/fine for being 10k over as you do for 40k over the limit

Jawgap

No.

Irish drivers don't know how to use / drive on motorways. The Guards don't know how to police them and the RSA doesn't know how to correct problems 1 and 2.

Maybe at some point in the future, but until we learn how to drive on them we need stronger not softer enforcement.

Uriel.

Banjoxed wrote: »

No. Higher, and they should be enforced. My reasoning is that your proposal creates the idea that enforcement would be even more lax than it is at present on the motorways and that dangerous driving of all sorts would be a lesser crime on the motorways than on the rest of the road network.

Irresponsible behaviour on the motorways effectively rewarded? A no from me.

I'd agree with this. The target shout be to stop speeding in danger zones (I. E. Low speed zones). So those fines should rise not motorway fines coming down.

Doing 128 in a 120 zone should not attract the same penalty as doing 58 in a 50 zone.

If we were actually serious about Road safety the focus would be on discouraging speeding in low speed areas.

Imagine a 250euro fine on a 50zone.... Maaaaad

Amirani

Banjoxed wrote: »

No. Higher, and they should be enforced. My reasoning is that your proposal creates the idea that enforcement would be even more lax than it is at present on the motorways and that dangerous driving of all sorts would be a lesser crime on the motorways than on the rest of the road network.

Irresponsible behaviour on the motorways effectively rewarded? A no from me.

That's a weird way of viewing things? How is it rewarded? It's just punished less. If someone decided to punch you in the face 5 times and the person beside you 10 times, would you feel effectively rewarded?

As regards the proposal in the OP. I think the scaling fines make sense, breaking the limit by 5 km/hr is clearly quite different to breaking it by 20 km/hr. On the different Road types I'm not as certain.

monument

corktina wrote: »

a no from me too , although I do think that penalties need to be graduated depending on the amount over the limit. It's daft that you get the same points/fine for being 10k over as you do for 40k over the limit

Is it not equally daft that you get fined the same amount for speeding on a motorway and speeding in an urban area (with people walking and cycling, children playing, driveways and at-grade junctions)?

Banjoxed

NiallSparky wrote: »

That's a weird way of viewing things? How is it rewarded? It's just punished less. If someone decided to punch you in the face 5 times and the person beside you 10 times, would you feel effectively rewarded?

As regards the proposal in the OP. I think the scaling fines make sense, breaking the limit by 5 km/hr is clearly quite different to breaking it by 20 km/hr. On the different Road types I'm not as certain.

I am quite sure you didn't mean it that way, but your post appears to make the Gardaí enforcing the law the moral equivalent of being punched in the face..

I agree though with Corktina on grading fines/points according to speed over the limit.

corktina

monument wrote: »

Is it not equally daft that you get fined the same amount for speeding on a motorway and speeding in an urban area (with people walking and cycling, children playing, driveways and at-grade junctions)?

No I don't think so. Those hazards are already taken into account with the lower speed limit.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Is it not equally daft that you get fined the same amount for speeding on a motorway and speeding in an urban area (with people walking and cycling, children playing, driveways and at-grade junctions)?

No its not. The limit is the limit, once you go over it then you should get fined regardless of the area concerned. Having said that, some of the limits are just plain silly when in a 30kph zone you could get fined for speeding if you do 32kph which is hardly speeding. I think when they put up these signs they must have mixed up their kph with their mph.

foggy_lad

Hilly Bill wrote: »

No its not. The limit is the limit, once you go over it then you should get fined regardless of the area concerned. Having said that, some of the limits are just plain silly when in a 30kph zone you could get fined for speeding if you do 32kph which is hardly speeding. I think when they put up these signs they must have mixed up their kph with their mph.

That extra 2kph could mean the difference between life and death or difference between hitting a person or being able to swerve into something less fragile like a wall or tree.

A zero tolerence approach is needed to stop people thinking that the rules either dont apply or can be bent a bit by them depending on how late they might be for work etc.

Fines and points in urban areas should be increased at least X2 and increased by one half for national roads and motorways. Also no removal or quashing of points or fines unless done by a judge in the District Court.

Talk of fines and speed limits etc is pointless when there is no proper enforcement and that situation is only likely to get much worse!

monument

corktina wrote: »

No I don't think so. Those hazards are already taken into account with the lower speed limit.

Not really.

First, 10km/h+ over on a motorway does not make a huge amount of difference but 10km/h+ over on a road or street in an urban area can fairly radically increase the chances of death if a collision occurs.

A common complaint from motorists is that they get ticketed on major roads where there's little or no children / people walking / people cycling / junctions etc.

I think there's logic to that and those caught on motorways, and other large roads should be fined the same as somebody breaking the limit in areas around schools, homes, and shops.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

No its not. The limit is the limit, once you go over it then you should get fined regardless of the area concerned. Having said that, some of the limits are just plain silly when in a 30kph zone you could get fined for speeding if you do 32kph which is hardly speeding. I think when they put up these signs they must have mixed up their kph with their mph.

Saying that going 2km/h above the limit is "hardly speeding" is a massively contradictory clause to your "limit is the limit" nonsince.

I can say that because I don't agree with such strictness and would fully support a 5km/h buffer between the limit and when you can get fined by automated systems.

Victor

I think it should be incremental based on how much over the limit the vehicle is. I'm not sure about lower fines associated with less urban roads. While a motorway may generally be safer, people are still killed on them. Doing 150 km/h on a motorway means the vehicle has 25 times as much energy as the same vehicle doing 30 on a city street.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

No its not. The limit is the limit, once you go over it then you should get fined regardless of the area concerned. Having said that, some of the limits are just plain silly when in a 30kph zone you could get fined for speeding if you do 32kph which is hardly speeding. I think when they put up these signs they must have mixed up their kph with their mph.

The limit is the limit. Why 32? Why not 34 or 36 or 40?

monument

Victor wrote: »

While a motorway may generally be safer, people are still killed on them. Doing 150 km/h on a motorway means the vehicle has 25 times as much energy as the same vehicle doing 30 on a city street.

Err... Yeah, and that's also reflected in the scale...

30km/h in 30km/h zone = €0
(35km/h in 30km/h zone = €50)

150km/h in a 120km/h zone = €155

Not saying we have to follow their fines, but the scaling for both area and speed over limit seems to be good.

corktina

monument wrote: »

Not really.

First, 10km/h+ over on a motorway does not make a huge amount of difference but 10km/h+ over on a road or street in an urban area can fairly radically increase the chances of death if a collision occurs.

A common complaint from motorists is that they get ticketed on major roads where there's little or no children / people walking / people cycling / junctions etc.

I think there's logic to that and those caught on motorways, and other large roads should be fined the same as somebody breaking the limit in areas around schools, homes, and shops.





.

But that's already taken into account by allowing you to travel at 120k on a motorway vs a lower limit on other roads. As I said already, there should be bigger fines the more you go over the limit, but there is no need for a differential between motorways and other roads.

Truckermal

corktina wrote: »

a no from me too , although I do think that penalties need to be graduated depending on the amount over the limit. It's daft that you get the same points/fine for being 10k over as you do for 40k over the limit

And to back up your point read the article on the journal today about the accidents on the M8 earlier today.

monument

corktina wrote: »

But that's already taken into account by allowing you to travel at 120k on a motorway vs a lower limit on other roads. As I said already, there should be bigger fines the more you go over the limit, but there is no need for a differential between motorways and other roads.

The main part of what I said is:

10km/h+ over on a motorway does not make a huge amount of difference but 10km/h+ over on a road or street in an urban area can fairly radically increase the chances of death if a collision occurs.

How exactly is having the same fine for both already taken into account by the current limits?

Truckermal wrote: »

And to back up your point read the article on the journal today about the accidents on the M8 earlier today.

Not sure what you think a single freak incident with no major injuries proves.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

Not really.

First, 10km/h+ over on a motorway does not make a huge amount of difference but 10km/h+ over on a road or street in an urban area can fairly radically increase the chances of death if a collision occurs.

A common complaint from motorists is that they get ticketed on major roads where there's little or no children / people walking / people cycling / junctions etc.

I think there's logic to that and those caught on motorways, and other large roads should be fined the same as somebody breaking the limit in areas around schools, homes, and shops.






Saying that going 2km/h above the limit is "hardly speeding" is a massively contradictory clause to your "limit is the limit" nonsince.

I can say that because I don't agree with such strictness and would fully support a 5km/h buffer between the limit and when you can get fined by automated systems.

I was speaking about being fined for speeding at such a slow speed Monument. Nonsense? Whats nonsense is supporting breaking the limit when you have advocated safety on the roads on this forum.
Supporting a buffer is only supporting raising that limit as that what will happen. If you know that you will not get done for going over the limit by up to 5kph you will drive on the limit or just over it instead of under it. It will mean people will be driving faster. I know that you are a fan of the bike but do you drive daily Monument?
Personally i dont agree with speed limits but support a bit of cop on when driving but unfortunately there are far too many that doesnt have any when driving so the speed limits are needed.
10kph over the limit on a motorway wont make a difference? It will will make a big difference if you get a blow out or if you loose concentration .

Hilly Bill

Victor wrote: »

I think it should be incremental based on how much over the limit the vehicle is. I'm not sure about lower fines associated with less urban roads. While a motorway may generally be safer, people are still killed on them. Doing 150 km/h on a motorway means the vehicle has 25 times as much energy as the same vehicle doing 30 on a city street.
The limit is the limit. Why 32? Why not 34 or 36 or 40?

The 32 Victor was about being fined for speeding when its actually slow and not about raising any limits. They could make a limit 5kph and you could get done for speeding for going 8kph.

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I know that you are a fan of the bike but do you drive daily Monument?

The answer to this is the same for if you're asking this to me as anybody else -- read the charter.

corktina

monument wrote: »

The main part of what I said is:

10km/h+ over on a motorway does not make a huge amount of difference but 10km/h+ over on a road or street in an urban area can fairly radically increase the chances of death if a collision occurs.

How exactly is having the same fine for both already taken into account by the current limits?





Not sure what you think a single freak incident with no major injuries proves.

I think I already answered that but.... it's 10 km/h over a higher limit. I agree that the penalties should be higher according to the amount over the speed limit but the speed limit itself is acknowledging the issue you are talking of.

cdebru

monument wrote: »

Should motorways have lower speeding fines than urban roads? / Should urban roads have lower speeding fines than motorways? And should there be a scaling of the fine depending on by how much the limit was broken?

In 2012, this is how scaling fines worked in the Netherlands:



From here.

I like the idea of a 5km/h allowance given before being fined, rather than our mythical allowance of 2-3km/h or whatever.

Note: Yes, this is the correct forum for this thread, speeding affects more than just any one road user.

It makes perfect sense I have always said that the penalty points, fines system that takes no account of how far over and where you were driving is completely unfair. The fact that you get the same penalty for doing 130 on a motorway as you do for doing 70 in a built up area is complete nonsense and takes no account of which one is far more dangerous.

However, it may not fit into the whole fish in a barrel concept of policing speed in this country.

cdebru

Banjoxed wrote: »

No. Higher, and they should be enforced. My reasoning is that your proposal creates the idea that enforcement would be even more lax than it is at present on the motorways and that dangerous driving of all sorts would be a lesser crime on the motorways than on the rest of the road network.

Irresponsible behaviour on the motorways effectively rewarded? A no from me.

I would prefer to see it as targeting the punishment at those that behave more dangerously rather than a blanket punishment that takes no account of the fact that 10km over the speed limit on a motorway is a completely different offence than 10km over the speed limit in a 30km zone outside a school.
To suggest that both are equally irresponsible and deserve the same punishment is imo complete nonsense.
Just as it is complete nonsense that someone who drifts over the 30km limit to say 33km/h is as bad as someone who goes through at 50km/h completely different level of offence and should carry different penalties.

cdebru

Hilly Bill wrote: »

No its not. The limit is the limit, once you go over it then you should get fined regardless of the area concerned. Having said that, some of the limits are just plain silly when in a 30kph zone you could get fined for speeding if you do 32kph which is hardly speeding. I think when they put up these signs they must have mixed up their kph with their mph.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here? The limit is the limit but you think it is wrong that someone doing 32 should be punished?? You can't have it both ways, what the OP posted is just common sense that you apparently agree with. 32 in a 30 is not the same as 50 in a 30 or 80 in a 50, the offence is completely different so the punishment should reflect that.

monument

corktina wrote: »

I think I already answered that but.... it's 10 km/h over a higher limit. I agree that the penalties should be higher according to the amount over the speed limit but the speed limit itself is acknowledging the issue you are talking of.

That's just taking into account of at what point you can fine / prosecute at, it's not taking into account of the of the potential harm.

The potential harm of, and quite simply the percentage difference in speed of 40km/h in a 30km/h zone or 60km/h in a 50km/h zone is far greater than 130km/h in a 120km/h zone.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

I was speaking about being fined for speeding at such a slow speed Monument.

You think 30km/h is low. Some people think 70km/h approaching a zebra crossing is fine.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Whats nonsense is supporting breaking the limit when you have advocated safety on the roads on this forum.

That's only nonsense because I have not advocated speeding.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Supporting a buffer is only supporting raising that limit as that what will happen.

If you know that you will not get done for going over the limit by up to 5kph you will drive on the limit or just over it instead of under it. It will mean people will be driving faster.

It's already widely known that there's a buffer for automated detection of around 3-4km/h, if not 5km/h.

Eat into your buffer and you risk getting ticketed. And it's not like I'm suggesting a buffer of 10km/h or more and I support lower limits in higher risk areas.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

10kph over the limit on a motorway wont make a difference? It will will make a big difference if you get a blow out or if you loose concentration .

Did somebody say anything amounting to "10kph over the limit on a motorway wont make a difference"? Because I clearly did not say that. I said it won't make a huge difference comparable to 10km/h over in urban areas.

It varies but the body of research out there tends to show something around about the same, as in that:

-- hitting a person at 40km/h means around a 40% chance of death, but at 30km/h the chance of death after being hit is only at around 10%.

- hitting somebody at 50km/h means around an 80% chance of death while hitting them at 60km/h increases that to around 100% chance of death.

corktina

monument wrote: »

That's just taking into account of at what point you can fine / prosecute at, it's not taking into account of the of the potential harm.

The potential harm of, and quite simply the percentage difference in speed of 40km/h in a 30km/h zone or 60km/h in a 50km/h zone is far greater than 130km/h in a 120km/h zone.




.

No, the speed limit has been fixed at a maximum that it is safe to travel at. The potential harm done over that speed is therefore the same. If a penalty was calculated based on the percentage over that limit, that would achieve what you are suggesting in a far more simple way. It's not a straight comparison to compare 40 in a 30 and 60 in a 50etc. There is no case to have a differential penalty level for motorways

cdebru

corktina wrote: »

No, the speed limit has been fixed at a maximum that it is safe to travel at. The potential harm done over that speed is therefore the same. If a penalty was calculated based on the percentage over that limit, that would achieve what you are suggesting in a far more simple way. It's not a straight comparison to compare 40 in a 30 and 60 in a 50etc. There is no case to have a differential penalty level for motorways

That makes no sense, the potential harm is different depending on the actual speed and location, 10 over the speed limit in close proximity to pedestrians and cyclists has a much greater potential for harm than 10 over on a motorway.

And then you just accept that it is not a straight comparison which is exactly the point ???

And of course there is a case for having differential penalty levels for motorways, it is not a carte blanche to do what you like on motorways it is a recognition of what is the real dangerous speeding and that is not 10 or 20 km over the limit on a motorway. That is not the same as saying it is alright, it is just accepting that it is not as bad as booting around a housing estate at 10 or 20 over the limit.

BTW I don't accept that speed limits are set at the maximum safe speed limit, I have seen roads in this country that are basically boreens with 80 speed limits no way is it safe to do 80 and I have seen what are basically dual carriage ways with 50 limits.

monument

corktina wrote: »

No, the speed limit has been fixed at a maximum that it is safe to travel at.

That's sadly often not true -- for example, in urban areas the limits are often too high compared to EU norms, and on larger roads there's cases of limits being too low.

corktina wrote: »

The potential harm done over that speed is therefore the same.

No. Potential harm differs.

For example, the probability of killing a pedestrian after hitting them at 60km/h is much the same as hitting them at 70km/h or 100km/h. But the difference between 50km/h and 60km/h is larger and the difference between 50km/h and 30km/h is even larger again.

Examples already given, but her's another: "The risk of a casualty crash approximately doubles with each 5km/h increase in speed on a 60km/h speed limited road, or with each 10km/h increase in speed on 110km/h roads."

Why don't we have 20km/h zone? Because like the difference between 60km/h and 70km/h, there's also little difference between 30km/h and 20km/h.

corktina wrote: »

If a penalty was calculated based on the percentage over that limit, that would achieve what you are suggesting in a far more simple way.

Ah come off it! There's no way percentage over that limit is a far more simple way! Percentage differences are more complicated / confusing to most people.

corktina wrote: »

It's not a straight comparison to compare 40 in a 30 and 60 in a 50etc.

No, it's not and the scale reflects how 40 in a 30 is worse and is treated as such.

corktina wrote: »

There is no case to have a differential penalty level for motorways

There clearly is given the well established comparably less danger on motorways, and the lesser increase in risk 10km/h makes on a motorway compared to an urban road.

corktina

cdebru wrote: »

That makes no sense, the potential harm is different depending on the actual speed and location, 10 over the speed limit in close proximity to pedestrians and cyclists has a much greater potential for harm than 10 over on a motorway.

And then you just accept that it is not a straight comparison which is exactly the point ???

And of course there is a case for having differential penalty levels for motorways, it is not a carte blanche to do what you like on motorways it is a recognition of what is the real dangerous speeding and that is not 10 or 20 km over the limit on a motorway. That is not the same as saying it is alright, it is just accepting that it is not as bad as booting around a housing estate at 10 or 20 over the limit.

BTW I don't accept that speed limits are set at the maximum safe speed limit, I have seen roads in this country that are basically boreens with 80 speed limits no way is it safe to do 80 and I have seen what are basically dual carriage ways with 50 limits.

a percentage is not 10 over the limit now is it?

corktina

monument wrote: »

That's sadly often not true -- for example, in urban areas the limits are often too high compared to EU norms, and on larger roads there's cases of limits being too low.




No. Potential harm differs.

For example, the probability of killing a pedestrian after hitting them at 60km/h is much the same as hitting them at 70km/h or 100km/h. But the difference between 50km/h and 60km/h is larger and the difference between 50km/h and 30km/h is even larger again.

Examples already given, but her's another: "The risk of a casualty crash approximately doubles with each 5km/h increase in speed on a 60km/h speed limited road, or with each 10km/h increase in speed on 110km/h roads."

Why don't we have 20km/h zone? Because like the difference between 60km/h and 70km/h, there's also little difference between 30km/h and 20km/h.




Ah come off it! There's no way percentage over that limit is a far more simple way! Percentage differences are more complicated / confusing to most people.



No, it's not and the scale reflects how 40 in a 30 is worse and is treated as such.



There clearly is given the well established comparably less danger on motorways, and the lesser increase in risk 10km/h makes on a motorway compared to an urban road.

Percentage more complicated ? How?

10 % over the limit 1 point
20% over the limit 2 points
30% over the limit 3 points

Just how is that complicated?

Red Silurian

I drive the m7 twice a week and get very frustrated at people overtaking me when I'm doing a speed of 120kmph,

Most annoying is when there are 2 cars in close proximity and I attempt to overtake both in one manoeuvre only to find these drivers overtaking me ON THE INSIDE LANE putting myself, themselves and anybody in a car near us at risk!

Of anything we need higher fines to further deter these people not lower ones!

corktina

First, why does it bother you that others may be exceeding the speed limit (or is it your speedo over-reading I wonder?)

Second, I assume you mean one of these speeders undertaking you whilst you approach the second car having passed the first one? If he has room to do that, you should have moved in after passing the first one.

cdebru

colmtheperson wrote: »

I drive the m7 twice a week and get very frustrated at people overtaking me when I'm doing a speed of 120kmph,

Most annoying is when there are 2 cars in close proximity and I attempt to overtake both in one manoeuvre only to find these drivers overtaking me ON THE INSIDE LANE putting myself, themselves and anybody in a car near us at risk!

Of anything we need higher fines to further deter these people not lower ones!

Why would that frustrate you ?

People who frustrate me on the motorway are those people that sit out in the overtaking lanes thinking they should control what speed other people are doing, if they are speeding let those charged with catching them worry about it.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

The answer to this is the same for if you're asking this to me as anybody else -- read the charter.

Whats with the bold type? I only asked if you drive daily. Do you? The charter wont tell me if you drive or not.

Hilly Bill

cdebru wrote: »

You seem to be contradicting yourself here? The limit is the limit but you think it is wrong that someone doing 32 should be punished?? You can't have it both ways, what the OP posted is just common sense that you apparently agree with. 32 in a 30 is not the same as 50 in a 30 or 80 in a 50, the offence is completely different so the punishment should reflect that.

Thats not what i said. You have read it wrong.

cdebru

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats not what i said. You have read it wrong.

I have read it again and it is exactly what you said, the limit is the limit and you should be punished if you exceed it no matter where it is.
You then say that 32 in a 30 isn't really speeding, and it is just silly.

Which to me is contradicting yourself, either the limit is the limit everywhere or it isn't.

cdebru

corktina wrote: »

First, why does it bother you that others may be exceeding the speed limit (or is it your speedo over-reading I wonder?)

Second, I assume you mean one of these speeders undertaking you whilst you approach the second car having passed the first one? If he has room to do that, you should have moved in after passing the first one.

Correct people don't realise that your car speedo can be 10%+ over measuring your speed and be OK it just can't under measure the speed, or that things like tyre wear or indeed changing the size of your tyres will affect your speedometer.
At 120km if your car is over measuring your speed by 10% then you are actually doing 108 and those cars overtaking you could be well within the speed limit.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

That's just taking into account of at what point you can fine / prosecute at, it's not taking into account of the of the potential harm.

The potential harm of, and quite simply the percentage difference in speed of 40km/h in a 30km/h zone or 60km/h in a 50km/h zone is far greater than 130km/h in a 120km/h zone.




You think 30km/h is low. Some people think 70km/h approaching a zebra crossing is fine.




That's only nonsense because I have not advocated speeding.




It's already widely known that there's a buffer for automated detection of around 3-4km/h, if not 5km/h.

Eat into your buffer and you risk getting ticketed. And it's not like I'm suggesting a buffer of 10km/h or more and I support lower limits in higher risk areas.




Did somebody say anything amounting to "10kph over the limit on a motorway wont make a difference"? Because I clearly did not say that. I said it won't make a huge difference comparable to 10km/h over in urban areas.

It varies but the body of research out there tends to show something around about the same, as in that:

-- hitting a person at 40km/h means around a 40% chance of death, but at 30km/h the chance of death after being hit is only at around 10%.

- hitting somebody at 50km/h means around an 80% chance of death while hitting them at 60km/h increases that to around 100% chance of death.

Yes i think 30kph is low , what is it 20mph or so? and adding the bit about the zebra crossing just seems random.
Hitting a car at 130kph will make huge difference than hitting a car at 40kph regardless of the area it happens.
To answer your OP, the fines should be the same regardless of where you get caught up to the point where if you have seriously taken the wotsits with your speed the forget the fine and go straight to a charge of reckless driving .

Hilly Bill

cdebru wrote: »

I have read it again and it is exactly what you said, the limit is the limit and you should be punished if you exceed it no matter where it is.
You then say that 32 in a 30 isn't really speeding, and it is just silly.

Which to me is contradicting yourself, either the limit is the limit everywhere or it isn't.

2 different comments in the same post. One focusing on the limit and the other focusing on how silly one of them limits is seeing how slow it is. I didnt say that you shouldnt be fined for going over that limit.
If the limit is 5mph should you be done for SPEEDING if you just go over it the same as someone doing 100mph in a 30mph zone?
Doing 32kph / 20mph is hardly speeding unless you are coming out of your driveway at that speed.

Hilly Bill

colmtheperson wrote: »

I drive the m7 twice a week and get very frustrated at people overtaking me when I'm doing a speed of 120kmph,

Most annoying is when there are 2 cars in close proximity and I attempt to overtake both in one manoeuvre only to find these drivers overtaking me ON THE INSIDE LANE putting myself, themselves and anybody in a car near us at risk!

Of anything we need higher fines to further deter these people not lower ones!

If you are overtaking 2 cars that are going slower than you then how can other cars undertake you . ?
Higher fines wont change anything to those that are intent on driving like lunatics.

Victor

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Yes i think 30kph is low , what is it 20mph or so? and adding the bit about the zebra crossing just seems random.
Hitting a car at 130kph will make huge difference than hitting a car at 40kph regardless of the area it happens.

You seem to be only thinking about cars. About 50% of casualties aren't in cars.

Hilly Bill

Victor wrote: »

You seem to be only thinking about cars. About 50% of casualties aren't in cars.

Seeing that the thread is about speeding fines then yes im only thinking about cars.

cdebru

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Seeing that the thread is about speeding fines then yes im only thinking about cars.

Then you are missing the point I think, vehicles speeding in built up areas are a danger to cyclist, pedestrians as well as all other road users, vehicles speeding on motorways do not pose a risk to cyclists or pedestrians and as they are separated from oncoming traffic do not pose a risk to them either, as such motorway driving is a lower risk as is motorway speeding.
What the OP is asking is should that be recognised rather than treating all speeding no matter where or what speed as the same offence. We do it in other aspects of law for example assault, stealing etc we don't lump a bank robber and someone grabbing a can of coke in the same bracket do we ?

Hilly Bill

answer is still no. Same fine all areas. Your can of coke would be the fine and reckless driving can be your bank robber.

cdebru

Hilly Bill wrote: »

answer is still no. Same fine all areas. Your can of coke would be the fine and reckless driving can be your bank robber.

But that just ignores the reality, speeding in a built up area is far more dangerous than speeding on a motorway, at present both receive the exact same penalty and driving a couple of kilometers over the limit gets the exact same penalty as driving 20 kilometers over the limit.
It has already been pointed out that the danger of killing someone if you hit them at 50km is much greater than hitting them at 35 so shouldnt the law punish more those people doing 50 in a 30 than 35 in a 30.
It is fine to say that should be reckless driving but that is not what happens both get the same fine and same points on their licence.

Hilly Bill

cdebru wrote: »

But that just ignores the reality, speeding in a built up area is far more dangerous than speeding on a motorway, at present both receive the exact same penalty and driving a couple of kilometers over the limit gets the exact same penalty as driving 20 kilometers over the limit.
It has already been pointed out that the danger of killing someone if you hit them at 50km is much greater than hitting them at 35 so shouldnt the law punish more those people doing 50 in a 30 than 35 in a 30.
It is fine to say that should be reckless driving but that is not what happens both get the same fine and same points on their licence.

No

cdebru

Hilly Bill wrote: »

No

Well you have obviously put a lot of thought into that well reasoned argument.


We already grade drinking driving offences, and the punishment attached to those offences are graded depending on how much someone is over the limit. Why in one area does it make sense to not just have a blanket you are over the alcohol limit same punishment for everyone no matter whether you are a little over or 3 times the limit, but not apply the same logic to speeding ??

You can give a simple yes or no to this question do you accept that not all speeding offences are the same and that the risks associated with speeding vary depending on the speed and the type of road the speeding takes place on ?

Hilly Bill

Thats where the charge of reckless and careless driving comes in which is above the normal fine for just going over the limit.

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats where the charge of reckless and careless driving comes in which is above the normal fine for just going over the limit.

Are you suggesting mandatory court appearances on the charge of reckless or careless for anybody over the limit in urban areas?

The Dutch have mandatory court appearances for those over the limit by 30km/h or more. But to have it for all over the limit in urban areas would be daftness.

cdebru

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats where the charge of reckless and careless driving comes in which is above the normal fine for just going over the limit.

So you are accepting that there is a big difference between speeding on a motorway and in a built up area. Thats great at least that is progress. Now that you have accepted that there is a difference and they require different punishments why in the name of god would you defeat the whole purpose of the penalty points fixed charge system by clogging up the courts with thousands of minor motoring offences .

At what speed and where does speeding turn into careless driving, is it any speed over the limit in a built up area ? is it 5, 10, 15, 20 over ?
Is it on any road over the a certain limit ? what exactly are you proposing ?

munchkin_utd

to be honest, the dutch and german models where built up areas/ out of town are considered differently and also staggered towards heftier fines the faster you go is along the proper way of doing it.

a flat fine of 80euro regardless of being 1kmh or 10 or 100kmh over the limit is just plain daft.