The Cost of Speeding

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Beyondgone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm guessing that by "vulnerable" you mean "useless". If so, that Nirvana is close. Very close.

Capt'n Midnight

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Surely that can't be legal? You can't have two people in front of you in court for the same offence and fine one more than the other because of their earnings?

By god yes.

Before penalty points the £50 speeding fine was treated as a business expense by some. Get a good local lawyer and offer a donation to the poor box and you might not even get a criminal record.


We need the same punishments for rich and poor. Fixed fines for the rich are pocket change so they aren't punishments.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454

businessman Reima Kuisla was caught doing 103km/h (64mph) in an area where the speed limit is 80km/h (50mph), authorities turned to his 2013 tax return, the Iltalehti newspaper reports. He earned 6.5m euros (£4.72m) that year, so was told to hand over 54,000 euros.

So in reality that €54,000 would have affected his lifestyle less than a £50 fine would have affected mine back in the day when our reps told me about the poor box.

please helpThank YOU

copy cat Irish Government copying Sweden . Swedish driver world biggest ever speeding fine 650,000 euros.

gctest50

All just in time for the arrival of Average Speed Cameras

endacl

gctest50 wrote: »

All just in time for the arrival of Average Speed Cameras

Another waste of cash. Why can't we have Above Average Speed Cameras? How much more would they cost?

jackofalltrades

diomed wrote: »

You think effort should be put into catching tailgaters and blind overtakers. How would you prove these offences?

Analysis of dachcam footage.
There's a whole thread in the motoring forum of dangerous driving caught on camera.

The RSA are a one trick pony, and are doubling down on the whole "speed kills" mantra since the number of roads deaths went up last year.
Road deaths are increasing because the government gutted the Traffic Corp through budget cuts.
Obviously the government don't want to increase the budget, because they're too busy increasing spending in other areas so as to buy votes.
So the RSA come out with dumb ideas like this, to justify their existence and continued funding.
Can't wait for autonomous vehicles to put them out of a job.

I love Sean nos

pontoonz wrote: »

ps you can believe the word of the speed-trap-operator

very honest people

honest

Why would they lie? They already have the state's (our) money.

Pinch Flat

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Analysis of dachcam footage.
There's a whole thread in the motoring forum of dangerous driving caught on camera.

The RSA are a one trick pony, and are doubling down on the whole "speed kills" mantra since the number of roads deaths went up last year.
Road deaths are increasing because the government gutted the Traffic Corp through budget cuts.
Obviously the government don't want to increase the budget, because they're too busy increasing spending in other areas so as to buy votes.
So the RSA come out with dumb ideas like this, to justify their existence and continued funding.
Can't wait for autonomous vehicles to put them out of a job.

So, it's the Gardai's fault people are being killed on the roads?

I love Sean nos

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The government spend a lot of time thinking up things like this

Do they? According to the article, this was an idea submitted to the minister from the RSA, who would appear to have read about it in the UK this week.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

is there even any evidence that this initiative will save lives? Like the automatic off the road if any drink has been taken initiative recently?

My understanding is that the "initiative" as you put it is still only a proposal. It is yet to become law and is unlikely to do so due to rural lobbying.

Shenshen

Omackeral wrote: »

Preposterous suggestion. That is all. Doesn't even deserve debate. Justice should be blind.

Sure it'd never see the car coming, then?

Shenshen

I think the fairness of the suggestion is arguable - if both a rich lady and a poor guy pay the same money, it makes less of a difference to the rich lady.
If they pay the same percentage, it should (in theory) affect both of them equally.

However, I would object to this on purely practical terms. How much hassle is it going to be to determine how much exactly the offender is earning to determine every single speeding fine? For self-employed people, income can vary dramatically month to month, for example. What about income from, say, rental properties? Will this be taken into account? And if so, how? What about the person who just this month inherited their parent's savings after they passed away?
You'd need to employ droves of accountants to make a system like this work.

It's an absurd suggestion and utterly impractical suggestion. If you want to crack down on speeding, increase the number of camera vans out there and get round to fixing the legislation that stops the country putting fixed cameras on the roads.

Wibbs

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I usually find the best way to avoid these fines is to drive within the speed limit. Worked for me since 1987 anyway.

Could a post be any more po faced?

I love Sean nos

Wibbs wrote: »

Could a post be any more po faced?

He's got a point though. Can you think of another lawbreaking activity that would be discussed in the same way? Would a group of burglars open a thread to discuss the latest amendments to the criminal justice act of whatever?

"Ah it's terrible, it'll never work, we don't have enough Gardai or prison places. Why should I pay a heftier fine than Damo? I'm the one who robs the better houses. I need my balaclava and crowbar for work, etc."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

So what happens one when one's chauffer is caught speeding? Is one fined on the basis of one's income or one's chaufffer's income?

I love Sean nos

This makes the point better than I ever could.

DanWall

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I usually find the best way to avoid these fines is to drive within the speed limit. Worked for me since 1987 anyway.

Unless you spend 100% of the time looking at your speedo and not the road you are going to drift up slightly over the limit, do it at the wrong time and you are caught

I love Sean nos

DanWall wrote: »

Unless you spend 100% of the time looking at your speedo and not the road you are going to drift up slightly over the limit

Only if you have Parkinson's.

Shenshen

And we seem to be back in the "It's humanly impossible not to speed"-discussion these threads inevitably turn into....

Boom_Bap

Q. Has the problem of speeding been solved with all attempts of fines, ramps, cameras, etc been solved so far?
A. No.

Q. Is it time to try something new?
A. Yes.

Q. Is this new proposed system going to work?
A. Probably not.

infogiver

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Q. Has the problem of speeding been solved with all attempts of fines, ramps, cameras, etc been solved so far?
A. No.

Q. Is it time to try something new?
A. Yes.

Q. Is this new proposed system going to work?
A. Probably not.

The states coffers will get more money though to spread around which is always good.

Boom_Bap

infogiver wrote: »

The states coffers will get more money though to spread around which is always good.

But if it deters people from speeding, then they get nothing.

hungry hypno toad

Boom_Bap wrote: »

But if it deters people from speeding, then they get nothing.

Other than safer roads. (Not defending this in any way, just saying )

CoolHandBandit

Beyondgone wrote: »

Not at all. One worked harder than the other, got up earlier and put in waay more effort - obviously you fine them far more than the lazy cnut who stayed in bed and hit snooze. It's the new real. Didn't you get the memo?

Nice stereotyping. I earn fcuk all but i love my job. Took it because it's zero stress and i get great job satisfaction. I get up early also can you believe it :eek: You think some guy earning 200k a year working for Well's Fargo works harder than a lad on a building site for instance? Will you ever stop talking tripe...

Wibbs

I love Sean nos wrote: »

He's got a point though. Can you think of another lawbreaking activity that would be discussed in the same way? Would a group of burglars open a thread to discuss the latest amendments to the criminal justice act of whatever?

Ah right, compare burglary to going 90 in an 80 zone. Brilliant.

Shenshen wrote: »

And we seem to be back in the "It's humanly impossible not to speed"-discussion these threads inevitably turn into....

With the Sheldon Cooperesque binary thinking and piety of Mr and Mrs Perfect O'Citizen on t'other side, with both sides apparently ignorant of the notion of nuance, or that there are quite simply bloody awful drivers regardless of speed. Yesterday I was on the M50 for my sins and coming off the limit goes from 100 to 60 on the off ramp. Grand. I watched one muppet driving at 90 on the main drag, so being a Good Little Citizen, then hauling on the brakes as he saw the 60 on the ramp and dropped to down to 50 as fast as his ABS would allow, with drivers behind getting twitchy. I was way back already already scrubbing speed as I drive defensively aware of the far too many muppets out there who shouldn't be let near anything more powerful than a pedal car.

I'd bet that if the car in its current form was invented today the vast majority of drivers wouldn't pass the stringent requirements such a new method of transport would have. Of the men and women I know and have known with driving licences it would be my humble at least a third are a danger to themselves and others*. TBH I'm pleasantly surprised how low the death and injury rates on our roads are.

Autonomous electric cars can't come soon enough for me. Though in the pofaced holier than thou high horse stakes you'd have to travel far on a full charge before you'd meet worse than electric car aficionados.



*one muppet I know is constantly having small oops moments. There is barely a panel on his car that doesn't look like someone went at it with a hammer in a fit of pique. Another eejit is about as coordinated as a drunk daddy long legs and couldn't judge distances if his life depended on it, which it does. He gave up cycling because he was falling off too many times. A woman I know is short and has the steering wheel a centimetre from her chest and the seat full forward with the seat back positively inclined. That's before we get to those who are nervous drivers in a low level state of panic every time they take to the roads, driving at a speed continental drift wouldn't envy, while their brake lights go on so often you'd swear they were hazard lights. Or the muppets who think because they have ABS, SRS, traction control etc drive around feeling "safe". Or those driving for decades, who still think they're in command of a Morris Minor. None of them should be in command of a car IMHO. This was grand back in the days where for most cars 60Mph was rocket ship territory and there were far fewer cars on the roads, but not today where your average car is capable of 100MPH upwards.

Wibbs

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Q. Has the problem of speeding been solved with all attempts of fines, ramps, cameras, etc been solved so far?
A. No.

Eh yeah, it has. Or certainly has been reduced massively. Look at the overall road stats for crashes, deaths and injuries over the last 40 years. They have continuously fallen. And this is over a period where the population, car ownership, miles travelled and average speeds have gone up by significant margins. Indeed the fact that average cars are capable of and do travel at higher average legal speeds would suggest "speed kills" is a moronically simplistic notion. Then again people tend to like such simplistic notions.

I've had a full licence since the mid 80's and have put a far number of miles under my arse and have certainly noticed fewer speeders these days when compared to then. General bad driving IME has gone up, but that's more about the fact more people are around and driving, the percentage is the same. Like the poor muppets will always be with us.

Boom_Bap

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh yeah, it has. Or certainly has been reduced massively. Look at the overall road stats for crashes, deaths and injuries over the last 40 years. They have continuously fallen. And this is over a period where the population, car ownership, miles travelled and average speeds have gone up by significant margins. Indeed the fact that average cars are capable of and do travel at higher average legal speeds would suggest "speed kills" is a moronically simplistic notion. Then again people tend to like such simplistic notions.

I've had a full licence since the mid 80's and have put a far number of miles under my arse and have certainly noticed fewer speeders these days when compared to then. General bad driving IME has gone up, but that's more about the fact more people are around and driving, the percentage is the same. Like the poor muppets will always be with us.

It has not been solved as there are people still speeding.
What is in place is certainly a deterent, but until there is no speeding, it is not solved.

Apologies, I'm very balck and white about this

Wibbs

Boom_Bap wrote: »

It has not been solved as there are people still speeding.
What is in place is certainly a deterent, but until there is no speeding, it is not solved.

You do know how humans and human systems work, right? It appears not. Humans are not characters in The Sims. No amount of legislation or thinking happy thoughts, or binary thinking will stop a percentage of people who will speed/drive drunk/tired/use phones/[insert pet hate here]. This is a plain fact.

All one can do is try to reduce that percentage as much as is possible taking the actual real world dynamics into account. Which is what has been attempted and with pretty high success rates as real world statistics that clearly show death and injury on the roads have been falling at a consistent rate since the 1960's. That's how humans and human systems work.

It will never be "solved" until humans are taken out of the equation. IE autonomous cars.

Boom_Bap

Wibbs wrote: »

You do know how humans and human systems work, right? It appears not. Humans are not characters in The Sims. No amount of legislation or thinking happy thoughts, or binary thinking will stop a percentage of people who will speed/drive drunk/tired/use phones/[insert pet hate here]. This is a plain fact.

All one can do is try to reduce that percentage as much as is possible taking the actual real world dynamics into account. Which is what has been attempted and with pretty high success rates as real world statistics that clearly show death and injury on the roads have been falling at a consistent rate since the 1960's. That's how humans and human systems work.

It will never be "solved" until humans are taken out of the equation. IE autonomous cars.

Bravo for removing an important line from my post that you quoted which explains MY stance on this so that you can wedge in a condescending responce about my intelligence. Bravo.

And your assesment is incorrect about autonomous cars. Although you preach that you may know something about humans, you forget that humans have the abilty to adapt and change through learning.
If humans learn not to speed, the problem is solved without reliance on technology.

Ash.J.Williams

I have 6 points. Besides the cost of the fines, it also added 300 Euro PA to my insurance, and has added an extra complexity to job hunting. 300 x 3 is 900 so it's actually cost me over 1000 euro.