Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Fines to increase by 400%
FightBack Forums > Discussion > Government Policy
roythebus
Whether this will ever be adopted, on the news this morning government proposals that the maximum fines for offences such as speeding on the motorway, phone use, not wearing a crash helmet, will increase to a maximum of £4000!

There was some debate with a lawyer as to whether anyone except the likes of a professional footballer would have the means to pay such a huge fine, but the government seems to blindly believe that the higher fines would prevent the "crimes" being committed in the first place. Hanging didn't deter murderers.
jdh
Saw that on the news last night, more on the BBC http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27774455
It's going to mean plenty of calls of 'cash cow'.
enjoy-life
QUOTE (roythebus @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 09:00) *
Whether this will ever be adopted, on the news this morning government proposals that the maximum fines for offences such as speeding on the motorway, phone use, not wearing a crash helmet, will increase to a maximum of £4000!

For some reason, the powers-that-be decided to delete my thread on exactly this topic, which I set up last night.

I'm afraid it is much worse than you've stated. Look here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...t-to-10000.html

For example, the maximum fine for motorway speeding increases not to £4,000 (as you state) but to £10,000! (Currently, it is £2,500).

The proposed £4,000 maximum relates to other dual-carriageway speeding.

Pedantically - the maximum fines have increased fourfold. That is an increase of (or by) 300%, not 400%.

Bet that doesn't make you feel better! This is a scandalous proposal.
Unzippy
Ive been thinking, in a way of a sneaky politician, about this.

Headline: 10000 Fines.
Creates uproar, they reduce it to let the public 'win' to £5000.

Double the potential revenue and please Joe Bloggs.

May just be me tho and my mistrust of government...
sgtdixie
Whilst I cannot understand why they would increase the fines to such disproportionate levels, the simple fact is that it is irrelevant. Fines are based on income, and if you are so rich you can afford such a fine it is unlikely to bother you. For virtually everyone it won't make a scrap of difference. Typical drama out of nothing.
StuartBu
AND no mention of any proposals to clarify what exactly "using" a mobile phone means.
enjoy-life
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 09:55) *
Whilst I cannot understand why they would increase the fines to such disproportionate levels

How strange you claim not to understand the reason, when just 17 minutes earlier here you made your thinking clear on what should be done with the proceeds of the scammerati etc.:

QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 09:38) *
my pensions do need topping up.

smile.gif
Jlc
Article says fixed penalties are £60....... dry.gif

Anyway, if they want to raise serious cash then up this to £150/£200+ wink.gif
The Rookie
As their appears to be no new magistrates guidelines coming, this appears to be a clear effort to make the very rich pay more for the pleasure of contesting it than they do now, other as a deterrent from contesting it, or so the 'system' at least breaks even on fighting it!
BaggieBoy
Isn't it actually an increase of 300%? (Based on a increase of 100% would be a doubling etc).
sgtdixie
QUOTE (enjoy-life @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 10:42) *
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 09:55) *
Whilst I cannot understand why they would increase the fines to such disproportionate levels

How strange you claim not to understand the reason, when just 17 minutes earlier here you made your thinking clear on what should be done with the proceeds of the scammerati etc.:

QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 09:38) *
my pensions do need topping up.

smile.gif

I always got 60% of on the spot fines issued to foreign nationals my team gave out anyway.
mynamegoesinhere
There's a trivially simple way to avoid paying these fines you know.
Jlc
QUOTE (mynamegoesinhere @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 13:13) *
There's a trivially simple way to avoid paying these fines you know.

Don't get caught?
southpaw82
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 09:55) *
Whilst I cannot understand why they would increase the fines to such disproportionate levels, the simple fact is that it is irrelevant. Fines are based on income, and if you are so rich you can afford such a fine it is unlikely to bother you. For virtually everyone it won't make a scrap of difference. Typical drama out of nothing.


Exactly.
mynamegoesinhere
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 13:18) *
QUOTE (mynamegoesinhere @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 13:13) *
There's a trivially simple way to avoid paying these fines you know.

Don't get caught?


Well I was going to say don't exceed the posted limit, as that's significantly easier than not getting caught.

Anyway, as above, this is only increasing the maximum fine. They will still be means tested, so for 99% of defendants it won't make a whit of difference.
enjoy-life
QUOTE (enjoy-life @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 09:11) *
Pedantically - the maximum fines have increased fourfold. That is an increase of (or by) 300%, not 400%.


QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Tue, 10 Jun 2014 - 13:00) *
Isn't it actually an increase of 300%? (Based on a increase of 100% would be a doubling etc).

roythebus
Ermm, hang on, wasn't this idea tried a few years ago with certain fines being linked to income. There was an outcry after a rich b'stard in Dorset was fined some silly amount, say £3k for doing 40 in a 30, while Joe slob was fined £60 for the same offence. Needless to say it didn't work and was quietly dropped.

so, if there's no amendment to the mags guidelines, there must be a change to primary legislation, unlikely to happen before the election.
mynamegoesinhere
QUOTE (roythebus @ Wed, 11 Jun 2014 - 00:11) *
Ermm, hang on, wasn't this idea tried a few years ago with certain fines being linked to income. There was an outcry after a rich b'stard in Dorset was fined some silly amount, say £3k for doing 40 in a 30, while Joe slob was fined £60 for the same offence. Needless to say it didn't work and was quietly dropped.

so, if there's no amendment to the mags guidelines, there must be a change to primary legislation, unlikely to happen before the election.


Fines are already linked to income. This is simply an increase in the maximum.
Also it's an increase across the board, nothing specific to driving offences, so for some sections of the media to dress it up as an assault on the poor beleaguered motorists is laughable.
AFCNEAL
QUOTE (mynamegoesinhere @ Wed, 11 Jun 2014 - 13:26) *
.....an assault on the poor beleaguered motorists is laughable.


Or atleast come degree of recognition that traffic offences are often based upon incorrect signage, stupidly low limits, overt revenue raising and other Highways Agency and Local Authority madness? Not the same as 'absolute' crimes against property, person etc?
southpaw82
QUOTE (roythebus @ Wed, 11 Jun 2014 - 00:11) *
so, if there's no amendment to the mags guidelines, there must be a change to primary legislation, unlikely to happen before the election.


Fine levels are set by statutory instrument. I believe it's already been laid before Parliament, so the change is imminent.
enjoy-life
QUOTE (AFCNEAL @ Wed, 11 Jun 2014 - 14:45) *
degree of recognition that traffic offences are often based upon incorrect signage, stupidly low limits, overt revenue raising and other Highways Agency and Local Authority madness? Not the same as 'absolute' crimes against property, person etc?

+1
sgtdixie
QUOTE (enjoy-life @ Wed, 11 Jun 2014 - 20:33) *
QUOTE (AFCNEAL @ Wed, 11 Jun 2014 - 14:45) *
degree of recognition that traffic offences are often based upon incorrect signage, stupidly low limits, overt revenue raising and other Highways Agency and Local Authority madness? Not the same as 'absolute' crimes against property, person etc?

+1

-1

Incorrect signage will probably make a sign unenforceable. The vast majority of such defences become apparent not when the offence is committed by a confused driver but only after a lot of research finds a loophole.

The appropriateness of a restriction may not be obvious and is irrelevant. I would love to see the evidence that relevant authorities are cresting restrictions to raise revenue from criminal offences. Stupid suggestion.
The Rookie
Given how rarely signage errors are uncovered in the speeding forum, that is clearly a straw clutching exercise even if the rest were all valid.
enjoy-life
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Thu, 12 Jun 2014 - 14:29) *
The appropriateness of a restriction ... is irrelevant.

A classic, sarge - this is up there with your All Time Greats. You surpass yourself. smile.gif
Rusty Horn
It's a good job everybody reports all of their income, and that accountants are just book keepers, rather than tax avoidamce consultants. What about the kids with rich parents?
Fredd
QUOTE (Rusty Horn @ Mon, 14 Jul 2014 - 09:05) *
It's a good job everybody reports all of their income, and that accountants are just book keepers, rather than tax avoidamce consultants. What about the kids with rich parents?

Huh?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.