Drivers caught speeding could face much tougher penalties from next week under new sentencing guidelines.
Motorists who commit the most serious speeding offences will face much harsher fines from Monday, April 24.
Courts in England and Wales will have the power to dish out longer sentences and stiffer fines thanks to strict new guidelines designed to make drivers think twice.
All talk and no bluster really.
The poor saps who commit the heinous act of going 5mph over the limit (which although still speeding is hardly worthy of increased insurance and a three digit fine) will still suffer 3 points and £120 fines but the ones who really deserve to get hammered and lose their license will bleat about “Oh my employees will suffer if I cant drive” or “I need to take my sick mother to hospital” hardship ■■■■■■■■ and basically get away with it.
They need to actually start ignoring the “hardship” get out clause for the worst offenders and start removing licenses. Its the only way itll work.
But then again, removing licenses stops the fine money coming in and we cant have that
The-Snowman:
All talk and no bluster really.
The poor saps who commit the heinous act of going 5mph over the limit (which although still speeding is hardly worthy of increased insurance and a three digit fine) will still suffer 3 points and £120 fines but the ones who really deserve to get hammered and lose their license will bleat about “Oh my employees will suffer if I cant drive” or “I need to take my sick mother to hospital” hardship [zb] and basically get away with it.
They need to actually start ignoring the “hardship” get out clause for the worst offenders and start removing licenses. Its the only way itll work.
But then again, removing licenses stops the fine money coming in and we cant have that
It’s actually often less dangerous and therefore ( should be ) a much lesser offence to be doing 100 mph + at 3 am on the M40 for example than 35 mph in a 30 limit when the appropriate speed can be 20 mph or less.
Carryfast:
It’s actually often less dangerous and therefore ( should be ) a much lesser offence to be doing 100 mph + at 3 am on the M40 for example than 35 mph in a 30 limit when the appropriate speed can be 20 mph or less.
Given that 100mph is about 45 metres per second and the average car headlights shine less than 50 metres, that doesn’t give you much of a margin for error and could hardly be classed as safe!
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
It’s actually often less dangerous and therefore ( should be ) a much lesser offence to be doing 100 mph + at 3 am on the M40 for example than 35 mph in a 30 limit when the appropriate speed can be 20 mph or less.Given that 100mph is about 45 metres per second and the average car headlights shine less than 50 metres, that doesn’t give you much of a margin for error and could hardly be classed as safe!
And since when has an Austin Allegro ever done 100 mph? 
Evil8Beezle:
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
It’s actually often less dangerous and therefore ( should be ) a much lesser offence to be doing 100 mph + at 3 am on the M40 for example than 35 mph in a 30 limit when the appropriate speed can be 20 mph or less.Given that 100mph is about 45 metres per second and the average car headlights shine less than 50 metres, that doesn’t give you much of a margin for error and could hardly be classed as safe!
And since when has an Austin Allegro ever done 100 mph?
I dream of 100mph!
Evil8Beezle:
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
It’s actually often less dangerous and therefore ( should be ) a much lesser offence to be doing 100 mph + at 3 am on the M40 for example than 35 mph in a 30 limit when the appropriate speed can be 20 mph or less.Given that 100mph is about 45 metres per second and the average car headlights shine less than 50 metres, that doesn’t give you much of a margin for error and could hardly be classed as safe!
And since when has an Austin Allegro ever done 100 mph?
could be the ‘Vandem Plas’ edition with the bently style grille - big enough hill, engage the optional Aberdeen Overdrive and you never know you luck. - it be a bloody mracle if the wheels stayed on 
Bluey Circles:
Evil8Beezle:
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
It’s actually often less dangerous and therefore ( should be ) a much lesser offence to be doing 100 mph + at 3 am on the M40 for example than 35 mph in a 30 limit when the appropriate speed can be 20 mph or less.Given that 100mph is about 45 metres per second and the average car headlights shine less than 50 metres, that doesn’t give you much of a margin for error and could hardly be classed as safe!
And since when has an Austin Allegro ever done 100 mph?
could be the ‘Vandem Plas’ edition with the bently style grille - big enough hill, engage the optional Aberdeen Overdrive and you never know you luck. - it be a bloody mracle if the wheels stayed on
I think CF’s dentures would also fall out with all the vibration…
Evil8Beezle:
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
It’s actually often less dangerous and therefore ( should be ) a much lesser offence to be doing 100 mph + at 3 am on the M40 for example than 35 mph in a 30 limit when the appropriate speed can be 20 mph or less.Given that 100mph is about 45 metres per second and the average car headlights shine less than 50 metres, that doesn’t give you much of a margin for error and could hardly be classed as safe!
And since when has an Austin Allegro ever done 100 mph?
I don’t know what speed it had been doing but I had to recover one from the Heathrow Garden Centre that was partly in a fish pond some thirty feet from the road. There were no tyres marks on the grass, the engine mounts had sheared and the six foot high chain link fence was still in situ. We had to dismantle the fence to get it out.
My mate…
Bought a cut and shut from a dodgy East End car dealer. The front half was an Allegro and the back half was a Rover.
It was known as a Legover.
boom tish
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
It’s actually often less dangerous and therefore ( should be ) a much lesser offence to be doing 100 mph + at 3 am on the M40 for example than 35 mph in a 30 limit when the appropriate speed can be 20 mph or less.Given that 100mph is about 45 metres per second and the average car headlights shine less than 50 metres, that doesn’t give you much of a margin for error and could hardly be classed as safe!
By that logic it’s not ‘safe’ to drive at a car at 70 mph or a truck at 90 kmh either if you’re talking about relying on dipped lights on an unlit motorway.
Meanwhile autobahns strewn with the wreckage of crashed cars every night.Bearing in mind that 3-6 am isn’t exactly pitch black dark there or here in mid summer. 
quote carryfast.
It’s actually often less dangerous and therefore ( should be ) a much lesser offence to be doing 100 mph + at 3 am on the M40 for example than 35 mph in a 30 limit when the appropriate speed can be 20 mph or less.
[/quote]
^
This
Speed doesnt kill, inappropriate speed does. The problem it seems is in the UK the govt has brainwashed most into classing speeders as criminals. A few km over the limit does no one any harm whatsoever…
AndrewG:
The problem it seems is in the UK the govt has brainwashed most into classing speeders as criminals.
To be fair France is no longer the driving utopia it once was in that regard.More like as bad as America in having clear open roads designed for 100 mph + speeds with silly over enforced limits and even sillier penalties. 
While as for Switzerland. 
Added to which is the issue now of cross border ‘co operation’ regarding the issuing of penalties.Which will inevitably eventually end up in the situation of people receiving UK levels of points on UK licences issued by UK courts for foreign speed infringements on fast clear French etc roads. 
Make no mistake that is going to kill the performance car market in the longer term.With only what remains of the unlimited German autobahn network keeping it alive.
speed dosent kill you, it’s the sudden stop that gets you
Carryfast:
AndrewG:
The problem it seems is in the UK the govt has brainwashed most into classing speeders as criminals.To be fair France is no longer the driving utopia it once was
I must just be lucky then, 100kph through France for a very long time now has only resulted in two tickets. Some surfaces on many Bahns leave a lot to be desired but the 911 bri’geid still like to Vmax.The AR’s though are near perfect albeit with silly low limits…
It’s a good idea but needs to be implemented like it is across the water, get caught get stopped and pay up at the roadside cash or card at the ready. No need to let it go to court and waste more taxpayers money.
McGurke:
It’s a good idea but needs to be implemented like it is across the water, get caught get stopped and pay up at the roadside cash or card at the ready. No need to let it go to court and waste more taxpayers money.
Thats ok but ‘fines’ vary according to what car/truck youre driving and which nationality ecilop youre stopped by. Spanish ecilop are the worst (or best depending on how you look at it) 
Captain Caveman 76:
Carryfast:
It’s actually often less dangerous and therefore ( should be ) a much lesser offence to be doing 100 mph + at 3 am on the M40 for example than 35 mph in a 30 limit when the appropriate speed can be 20 mph or less.Given that 100mph is about 45 metres per second and the average car headlights shine less than 50 metres, that doesn’t give you much of a margin for error and could hardly be classed as safe!
Interesting point about the headlights and speed.
I was talking to a Traffic cop who had been involved in a serious RTA whilst exceeding 70mph on an unlit stretch of motorway where he hit a car in lane 3. The injured parties were taking legal action based on the Police car having been travelling too fast for the distance he could see - which is one of the principals of their advanced driving techniques.
Apparently it is also being raised that his headlights were flashing/winking which limited his vision further.
The poor cop felt he had no support from his bosses but actually agreed the other party were correct - he couldn’t see very well and in the heat of the ‘chase’ was getting carried away with his speed. (Three figures I believe).
However - his Legal people were countering with the fact that on an unlit stretch of motorway, no car should be exceeding about 40mph because of limited headlight range and are now arguing motorways should, by default be lit and that the Government are at fault!!!
Taking the argument to it’s illogical conclusion then all roads outside of built-up areas would be required to be lit. This goes against the current policy of reducing street lighting.
How often do you hear of a driver stating the collision occurred due to him/her not being able to see due to poor headlights?
Fincham:
Taking the argument to it’s illogical conclusion then all roads outside of built-up areas would be required to be lit. This goes against the current policy of reducing street lighting.
Not really - if "lights are good for seeing 100 metres on full beam ■■?
Then travelling at 70 mph will give 3 seconds to react and stop (1.2 seconds reaction time would mean stopping in 62 metres)
100mph gives only 2.25 seconds to react and stop - (1.2 seconds reaction time would mean stopping in 46 metres)
As for the harsher penalties - it seems to be aimed at the reckless, those doing above 50 in a 30 ! if it was up to me they would be loosing licence permanently.
