[tommytwotanks]

talking to fellow drivers recently, a growing number agree that a motoring fine should be based on the book price of you car, ie breaking the 30mph in a £1000 car could cost £30, whereas a premiership footballer in a £180,000 super car gets a £5400 fine, based on 3% value of the car, i think that would be fairer,

joe bloggs working in a local factory takes home £200+ a week, so £30 is a big wedge out of his pay, but a business owner, footballer or celebrity earning many thousands a week, it has no impact what so ever :eek:

[98selitb]

I agree with your idea but I think it should be based on income, as someone with not a great deal of money could have won a car in a competetion or been lucky to get a bargain when the car may be worth a lot more. LIkewise, a rich person could, knowing this rule (if it existed), deliberately buy a really cheap old banger and commit all their offences in that, then hardly having to pay any fines because the car has a low value. That would not be fair.

I completely agree with your principle, because a millionaire will not be stopped from constantly parking illegally or speeding by fines of £60.

[tommytwotanks]

they need to do something, as these rich people will find ways to make it look like they dont earn much in relation to the car they drive. like having the wife as the Principal earner, or the car is registered in a company name and the driver/owner claims to be the chauffeur

[wagolynn]

Why fines, they don’t do anything towards correcting the problem? How about a radical rethink? Say any relevant traffic offence involves a re-test within a specified time; this may include theory if appropriate. Or a short driving course, tailored to the offence.
Many years ago I was stopped on the M1 by a south Yorkshire cop, he had spotted me from a bridge, followed me but was unable to get a fix as I worked the traffic. He eventually stopped me, told me what had been going on then said because I had been driving safely and had not troubled anyone he was not going to book me, we discussed driving for while, he got his points over and off we went. That did more good than any fine.

[Rolebama]

My particular grievance is ininsured drivers. What is the point of fining someone £200, if they get caught, when the cost of their insurance is £1000+. Not really a penalty, and many consider it a worthwhile gamble. Fines for driving without insurance should be higher than the premium. WIth jail sentences being introduced if fines not paid. In this circumstance, I don't think means testing should be used. As to speeding, I think it should be a sliding scale depending on circumstances, and again, means testing could be introduced so the penalty acts as a deterrent. Eg, 10% of annual salary. Maybe a bit harsh, but I believe it would make people think before acting.

[tommytwotanks]

talking of no insurance, i think the hampshire polce do it and maybe a couple of others do, but they impound your vehicle for up to 14 days @ £15 a day + £105 recovery fee + the fine for no insurance,
no 7 days to produce your paperwork, it's all these a.n.p.r camera's :eek:

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by tommytwotanks

talking of no insurance, i think the hampshire polce do it and maybe a couple of others do, but they impound your vehicle for up to 14 days @ £15 a day + £105 recovery fee + the fine for no insurance,
no 7 days to produce your paperwork, it's all these a.n.p.r camera's :eek:

They can do that anywhere in the country. If they stop you and their records show you are not insured they can take your car 'on the spot' It is down to you to prove that you are legally insured to drive.

As much as I agree with this, There have been times when people have been insured and had their cars taken off them because the PNC (or whichever computer holds the info) has incorrect records.

I always carry a photocopy of the insurance policy with me but, I'm pretty sure the average Cop would just dismiss it as proof of insurance - At least you can give them the info for them to call the insurance company to check though.

Sadly, It is not much of a deterrent as these uninsured drivers just use old cheap cars. If they get caught the car is taken off them and in a short time they have another old car to continue their illegal driving.

The only way you can stop it is to impound the drivers themselves and of course in our great land of 'brown rice and sandals' everyone would be concerned that it was an infringement of their human rights. It is a shame people never think of the rights of the victims of these peoples actions.

[MrDanno]

I agree that the fines should be based on your income. However, If it works anything like income tax I'm sure someone will find a way to pay less than they should.

I know some self employed people end up paying zero income tax because they have a good accountant.

[Snowball]

An interesting topic. In some cases, basing fines on a person's income may seem fair, in order that those with thick wads in their wallets are made to feel the punishment.

However, there can be situations when this would be completely unfair.
Consider your footballer with the £180,000 car who happens to drive at 40 mph in a 30 mph limit; technically breaking the law yet not necessarily putting anyone at risk.
Now compare this to an uninsured driver in a Ford Fiesta who also drives at 40 mph in a 30 mph limit and, although nobody is hurt, several people have to get out of the way quickly.
Would you apply a much higher speeding fine to the footballer, as opposed to the uninsured driver?

The problems is one of having to decide, when an offence is committed, is that person being punished for the offence, or for having a well paid job?

For the majority of people, motoring laws infringements are all we will ever encounter. But there are other crimes which are far more heinous than driving offences. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Why should motoring offences be scaled according to tha ability to pay, anymore than other crimes?

[98selitb]

Although I believe speeding fines should be calculated by income, I also belive there should be no such thing as "pleading poverty" to get out of paying a fine that you truly deserve to have to pay, whether it's a fine, court damages, or compensation to a victim of your actions. Anyone who is in that position should have thought more carefully about not breaking the law in the first place. Alleged poverty is no excuse for escaping a punishment that you deserve.

[tommytwotanks]

so are you saying that the poor shouldnt drive because they cant afford the fines, or the rich can drive how they want because they will only get a piffling fine compared to there income/value of car

the footballer vs the student

a 3% fine based on value of car for speeding has nothing to do with the insurance issue,

thats why the wealthy dont think about parking, they want to stop, they stop, they had a program about it a few months back on the bbc, somebody from one of the foreign embassy's with a £75,000 range rover, the debt collectors working for the local council, one vehicle with 43 unpaid parking tickets, is spotted and catch up with the driver, and threaten to impound the car unless they pay, its only then that they get the £12,750 cash out

the wealthy dont consider the money aspect, its the same with the congestion charge, its just another cost to them

they only notice, when it starts to hurt

[Snowball]

If someone is ignoring parking and speed regulations because they are wealthy, then extended driving bans, community service orders (fixed for times most inconvenient to the culprit), etc. are already available to the courts.
Just because someone earns a large salary and an expensive car, it doesn't mean they have a vast amount of disposable income to hand. A person may have a very large lxurious home, be mortgaged up to the hilt, and have a dependent family. The dependents aren't guilty of anything; can you really justify hitting out at them? And wives often have their own large incomes; what if the car belongs to the wife?

I am retired, and cetainly not wealthy, but to use that kind of punishment based on earnings differential smells of envy to my mind.

Also, the wealthy may be daft enough to break the law, due more to letting off steam than a deliberate act, whereas the illegal drivers are the greatest danger on our roads. These people will go out and drive just as dangerously as soon as they are free to walk the streets again. And no matter how hard you come down on the wealthy offenders, this will not take one dangerous illegal driver off the roads.

If you want safer roads, just ask yourself how this can be achieved. Whilst police targets are based on camera revenue and crime clearance rates (the easiest crimes to solve thus getting the priority), then the difficult-to-catch illegal driver will carry on causing death and destruction on our roads. At least 90% of the legitimate drivers caught on camera have not truly created dangerous situations (how many have actually been taken to court?); they have been caught by a technicality: exceeding the speed limit.

[smudger]

Good points there Snowball, but how are they going to handle them folk who carry on driving, even after they have been fined and banned?
It seems they simply do not care what happens to them or the other people they may kill of injure due to their reckless driving:(
I've seen that happen on that Road Wars program, where they caught a bloke just like I mentioned above, and he simply did not care, and that is a worrying thought:eek:
Cheers, Smudger.

[Rolebama]

Sorry, Snowball, can't agree with: 'they have been caught by a technicality: exceeding the speed limit.' They are supposed to be in control of the vehicle, and comply with the law. I appreciate the circumstance you describe on another thread, but speed limits and camera warning signs are generally too well posted. There is a definite attitude of disregard.
As to comments about causing hardship to families etc, there is a very old saying: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. It is up to them to drive within the parameters of the law.

[Snowball]

I think you missed my point Rolebama. I am by no means condoning speeding. But the vast majority have only been caught on a technicality; the presence of a speed camera. Without that, there would be no evidence of the offence being committed, because there was no accompanying incident.
My claim that the only way to make our roads safer is to get rid of the very significant army of illegal drivers. During discussion with the police regarding my recent hit-and-run incident, even they had to admit to the size of the problem.

On the subject of how to keep them off the road, it may eventually have to be done by technology; probably in the form of something like a credit card with a unique code which changes each time it is used.
This technology actually exists. Installing it across all the UK vehicle network would be an immense task , but the still escalating volume of illegal drivers, coupled with the mayhem they cause, may well force us down that road.
Not planned for today, maybe, but who can say what kind of situation will develop (and how soon) to produce such a necessity.

[wagolynn]

Good law is workable law. Speeding laws are not workable because they are based on a fallacy. When did you see an accident that was not clearly an error judgment, often by both parties? If you look carefully you will find this applies to any combination of vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes. Speed is just a symptom not the root cause. Don’t forget the red flag and all that went with it, was that correct?

[tommytwotanks]

im not trying to wined anybody up, it's just that it seems like one of the biggest offender's is the company car driver, one of the big influence's on this group is the company saying you've got 6 appointments and 275 miles to cover today, or if they dont meet there sale's target for that month/quarter, it's all pressure,
if the company was held part responsible for the driver having to break to speed limit when driving,
so a rep in a £20,000 bmw, the company could be fined 3% of it value, so they could get fined £600 for encouraging there employee to drive in an anti-social way,

it's only a thought :D

[Rolebama]

That is, unfortunately, all too true. I have met far too many delivery drivers of one type or another, who feel pressured into speeding, faced with the employer's attitude of 'if you won't do it, there are plenty that will'.
Snowball, yes, apologies, I had put a different spin on your post above.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by tommytwotanks

im not trying to wined anybody up, it's just that it seems like one of the biggest offender's is the company car driver, one of the big influence's on this group is the company saying you've got 6 appointments and 275 miles to cover today, or if they dont meet there sale's target for that month/quarter, it's all pressure,
if the company was held part responsible for the driver having to break to speed limit when driving,
so a rep in a £20,000 bmw, the company could be fined 3% of it value, so they could get fined £600 for encouraging there employee to drive in an anti-social way,

it's only a thought :D

It concern the mythical company more if that guy was out of action for say half a day on a driving course. Re pressure to speed, I agree been there done that.

[Snowball]

There ar two distinct types of drivers on our roads who put the rest of us in danger.

First, the illegal drivers, for whom, at present, the government and police have found no effective deterrent. But the problem is escalating and will have to be addressed at some time in the not too distant future.

Second, there are the legal drivers who, once they get behind a wheel, just seem to think they are invulnerable, and refuse to obey driving laws of which they are fully aware, because they made sure to observe them during their driving test.
Many of them are in responsible jobs, so lack of intelligence cannot be forwarded as an excuse. Most of them would probably never cross the line in the course of their everyday duties, except when they are driving. Why?
When they board a plane, they expect the flight crew to be absolutely professional to the letter. If they are to undergo an operation, they expect the surgeons and supporting medical staff to be totally fault-free.
And they probably scold their children for pranks in which they (the children) might hurt themselves. Yet they will climb into a car and place those very same children in far greater danger than that of the prank for which they were scolded.
Why should discipline and safety be of any less importance when driving?

Is the man or woman with the right answers still yet to be born?

[tommytwotanks]

*** Many of them are in responsible jobs, so lack of intelligence cannot be forwarded as an excuse. Most of them would probably never cross the line in the course of their everyday duties, except when they are driving. Why? ***

maybe its to do with control, at home the wife tell's them what's what, at work the boss is expecting more and more, and better and better, the only time they have any say in what they are doing, is behind the wheel, the only time they can vent there frustrations, is behind the wheel :(

[smudger]

Someone mentioned meeting impossible dead lines earlier. I have had personal experience of being given impossible dead lines, and it does put a lot of stress onto the driver, and encourages him to breal the speed limit.

I think if the people who make up these travel lists, should have experience driving them, before they get the job of making up them up.
Then they would know what they are asking the drivers to do.
Cheers, Smudger.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by smudger879n

Someone mentioned meeting impossible dead lines earlier. I have had personal experience of being given impossible dead lines, and it does put a lot of stress onto the driver, and encourages him to breal the speed limit.

I think if the people who make up these travel lists, should have experience driving them, before they get the job of making up them up.Then they would know what they are asking the drivers to do.
Cheers, Smudger.

Where a driver is found guilty of speeding to meet impossible deadlines I believe, on production of such a schedule, the company/transport manager who set such deadlines should be heavily fined.
Not only would it make the roads safer, it would give drivers some protection from arrogant bosses.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by tommytwotanks

*** Many of them are in responsible jobs, so lack of intelligence cannot be forwarded as an excuse. Most of them would probably never cross the line in the course of their everyday duties, except when they are driving. Why? ***

maybe its to do with control, at home the wife tell's them what's what, at work the boss is expecting more and more, and better and better, the only time they have any say in what they are doing, is behind the wheel, the only time they can vent there frustrations, is behind the wheel :(

May be true up to a point, but often the irresponsible driver is the boss or the wife.

I have found that women tend to exceed the 30 limit as often as men, but men are more likely to hop around between lanes to gain a place further up the lines of traffic.

Having said that, I did once have a woman pass me on the inside by using a bus lane during restricted hours, then cut right, between me and the car in front, continue right across the next lane, then brake to await a gap in oncoming traffic for a right-hand turn.
Now, how crazy was that?

[Rolebama]

In conversation with TrafPol PCs, this has come up. Quite simply, the driver is responsible, and the chances of using 'pressure of work' as mitigating circumstances in Court are very slim. If they could get other drivers working for the company to corroborate, they would probably get reduced penalties, but what driver is going to put his job on the line by slagging off his employer in Court?

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Is the man or woman with the right answers still yet to be born?

Hello there snowball re post #20; I think that post highlights the perversity of human nature and hear lies the core of the problem.
Motorised vehicles historically have been a male thing. Back when venturing outside ones home patch was an adventure. Motoring became synonymous with the risk taker, the virile male. His car would be referred to as ‘she’ and he took ‘her’ out and dominated her and gave her good thrashing etc. in fact the same as horses before. Where there are males and power sex will not be far behind. So mechanized vehicles and the driving of them gets mixed up with virility and sex. This makes a very potent brew and unfortunately to a large degree these attitudes persist today. We talk of engine size and power and is mine bigger, more powerful or faster than his? The ‘rules of road’ evolved always lagging behind rarely logical. At first they were on, the whole designed, (if there is any design in them) not to inconvenience the gentry in their frivolous pursuit of entertainment in their vehicles. From this period, ‘motorist’ became a dirty word, a motorist was someone to be corralled and contained. Generally speaking it was/is fair game to soak him and now her for as much money as possible. How dare they display virility and sex on the open road? Again, this attitude is also still afoot. I have been a guest at local authority meetings and the venom that is spat out is baffling, the same people then leave the meeting get in their car and go for a drink. But we must forgive them; our relationship with alcohol is equally confused. It is not so very long ago when ‘one for the road’ was considered the norm. In society all these attitudes still prevail, we sell cars as, being sexy, freedom of the open road and they are a rite of passage. Does this explain the apparent illogical behaviour of motorists for you? Until this is recognised no amount of people stuffed into jail or fined until their pips squeak will make the slightest difference.

[Snowball]

Hi, wagolynn. Frankly, these days I do not see much difference between men and women when it comes to driving behaviour. Both exceed speed limits, and both show inconsideration to other road users.

Concerning the original question in the thread, "should fines be based on the value of your car", I have come to one conclusion.

For several reasons, it could be wrong to have variable costs of a fine based on income/value of car. And for mega-rich drivers, even that may not be a prohibitive deterrent.

But, even for the most wealthy, a driving ban is the most feared. So the simple answer is to substantially increase the length of driving bans where appropriate.

Oh, and one other thing. any ban should be mandatory and in keeping with the seriousness of the offence; some form of control to prevent successful cosying up to law administrators by the wealthy and the influential must be a priority.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

But, even for the most wealthy, a driving ban is the most feared. So the simple answer is to substantially increase the length of driving bans where appropriate.

Try reading my post #13 in ‘Caught speeding but no camera’ thread, It could be ,I think, the cure we are looking for attacking the problem not the symptoms.

[98selitb]

Well here is a hand-picked perfect case study thanks to RAC News!

http://www.rac.co.uk/know-how/motori...6671242132996A

"A Norwegian millionaire has been fined £71,000 and banned from driving for two years after being caught drink-driving...
...Courts in Norway set drink-driving fines based on income and personal wealth. The unnamed driver earns £76,000 a year and has assets worth £24 million."

[Rolebama]

I just read that, and I am assuming the fine was means-tested with regard to his income, as opposed to his assets. The decision of 18-days against a drink-driving course seems risible when you take into account he was 9 times over their limit.