[Snowball]

Re. the Norwegian millionaire.
Had I been the magistrate, I would have banned the idiot for at least 5 years. With a fortune like that, he could have had arranged to be chauffeir-driven on any occasion when he was likely to be drinking alcohol.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sorry but that smells of revenge to me.
A ban until he can demonstrate that he has done something about his alcohol problem and pass a driving test, this should take as long as it takes. The jail sentence is pointless.
On alcohol any evidence of consumption within the last 12hrs should be the limit. One drink is more than likely to lead to the second and so on.
I read some reaserch that was suggesting 90% of the UK population were addicted or on the verge of addiction to alcohol. That is a very sobering thought. How are we to get the legislation right when you count the bars in the House of Commons?

[Rolebama]

Wagolynn: Your comment: 'Sorry but that smells of revenge to me.' I am curious, how? (That is a genuine question, as I do not feel particularly vengeful, and try not to make ambiguous postings.) I merely compare the two options written, and do not put forward an alternative penalty, although, in honesty, I do agree with your suggestion, in the same way I agree to the removal of the license from anyone who proves unfit to drive through a physical impairment.

[Snowball]

Actually, wagolynn, it isn't the number of bars or where they are placed that is the problem. The problem is the lack of discipline by those who buy and drink alcohol.
I often enjoy a glass or two of wine with my evening meal, but only at home and when I am not going to drive for at least 12 hours.
On the afternoon when a hit-and-run driver crashed into my car, I had consumed nearly three glasses of wine with my early evening meal on the previous day. But my breathaliser test still showed ZERO.

Because it was 3 glasses, I had ensured that it was about 18 hours before I drove.
I always apply the rule, you can drink OR you can drive.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Actually, wagolynn, it isn't the number of bars or where they are placed that is the problem. The problem is the lack of discipline by those who buy and drink alcohol.
I often enjoy a glass or two of wine with my evening meal, but only at home and when I am not going to drive for at least 12 hours.
On the afternoon when a hit-and-run driver crashed into my car, I had consumed nearly three glasses of wine with my early evening meal on the previous day. But my breathaliser test still showed ZERO.

Because it was 3 glasses, I had ensured that it was about 18 hours before I drove.
I always apply the rule, you can drink OR you can drive.

Here Here.:)

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

Wagolynn: Your comment: 'Sorry but that smells of revenge to me.'

I was attempting to comment on what the last few posts had implied to me, not your post in particular. Sorry if it read like that.
I do think that much of the motoring legislation does nothing to cure the problems. We soon will have people put in jail for parking in the wrong place. Re-phrase that; we can have people slung in jail for parking in the wrong place under the anti-terrorism laws. That aside I hope you can see what I mean. The punishment should, and could, reflect the crime and correct the criminal, our current media driven law does not, it seeks revenge. As a society we are heading back to ‘an eye for an eye’. But as I have said in other posts, I differentiate between someone who uses a vehicle as a weapon to kill and maim and accidental killing and maiming. The latter is usually caused by ignorance, brain overload and poor road design. Until these issues are addressed all the rest is just appealing to the mob.

[Snowball]

Getting back to the thread, "should fines be based on the value of your car?", I have the feeling that neither the value of the car, nor the driver's income, will have any noticeable affect on road safety; and here's why I say that:

On the Motor Insurers Bureau website, it states that 3 people per hour are injured by hit-and-run and uninsured drivers across the UK.
Now this is one heck of a lot of accidents per year. The number of drivers caught must, as a percentage of the whole, be very insignificant and, of those caught, a fair number probably go back on the road very soon after they regain their freedom.
The failure to make inroads into getting , and keeping, these drivers off the road probably means that the numbers are growing rather than dropping.

Because they are so elusive, these drivers do not have to consider speed limits, speed cameras, or other traffic calming measures. If they wreck or abandon one old car, they simply get hold of another one.

If the police and associated authorities really want to make the roads safer, then this is the element that must be eradicated. Has anyone given thought to what kind of a dangerous situation will develop on the roads if this illegal element is not effectively dealt with very soon?
Someone in authority must have an idea of just how much percentage of road carnage is down to the illegals; simply by deducting the number of accidents involving legal drivers (reported ones) from the total number of accidents on record. Even an unreported crash (abandon and run away) results in a recordable incident. And where a hit-and-run driver crashes into another vehicle, then it should go down as an illegal-driver cause; not as an own-fault against a legitimate driver.

Have they got the figures, but dare not publish them? If the worst scenario is as bad as it seems, then there could be immense anger from the legitimate drivers who are paying out speed camera fines for what are mainly infringements of the limits (often marginal) without any hazard to road safety. Those responsible for allowing this situation to go unresolved have got away with sitting on the fence for too long.

[Rolebama]

I remember seeing an article in the paper a while ago that said that in the US, they were trying out a system where banned drivers were being tagged with a gizmo which would not allow them to start a car equipped with an immobilizer. There was only one American manufacturer who showed interest in the scheme, but I can't remember which one. The article stated that the unit could stop them being carried as a passenger in such a car, and a spokesman for UK was quoted as saying that we could not have it here as it would be against their human rights for a tagged person to be denied access to a car as a passenger.

[Snowball]

Ah, that old Human Rights chestnut again.
I have often wondered why these "rights" are always quoted for the protection of the offenders, and not for the benefit of preventing more victims.

[Orange_Van]

Originally Posted by 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:

I drive a company vehicle worth 3 times my own cars value , do i need to pay more if i get a fine ? , No .. What a stupid idea - IMHO

[Orange_Van]

Originally Posted by Orange_Van

I drive a company vehicle worth 3 times my own cars value , do i need to pay more if i get a fine ? , No .. What a stupid idea - IMHO

BTW , A fine usually comes a as FIXED penalty .
Same for everyone ;)

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Orange_Van

I drive a company vehicle worth 3 times my own cars value , do i need to pay more if i get a fine ? , No .. What a stupid idea - IMHO

This is another reason why I don't agree that a fine should be based on the value of the car.
But it has to be conceded that a fine needs to be adjustable so that the very wealthy cannot **** their noses at a fine. But it would also be wrong to create a situation where a driver's fine causes hardship to dependent family who are innocent of any offence.

Deciding on an effective deterrent is not quite as simple as we would like it to be.
Although, I supose, it could be argued that an expensive motor could be confiscated to provide the funds for a fine, and the residue, if any, handed back.
There could then be a ban, points, AND a period where the size of car is limited.
At the end of the day, no idea will ever be found that agrees with everyone.