If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Descrier)   Britain proposes fining drivers caught speeding £10,000 in attempt to make sure drivers caught speeding never, ever stop for the police   (descrier.co.uk) divider line 61
    More: Stupid, speeds, bus drivers  
•       •       •

2429 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2014 at 11:33 AM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-10 09:09:34 AM
Anyone else read, "Britain porpoises fining drivers"?  Or was it just me?
 
2014-06-10 09:28:45 AM
Stopping for police - lol.  With all the cameras our there, this will all be done automatically, for safely of course.
 
2014-06-10 10:16:09 AM
Now THAT is something Britain should put on the telly - police chases on the farm roads.  They complain that their homegrown cop shows are boring.  Stage it if you have to!
 
2014-06-10 11:40:13 AM
Britain is covered with CCTV, they can do this without even going outside.
 
2014-06-10 11:42:02 AM

Crewmannumber6: Britain is covered with CCTV, they can do this without even going outside.


Good thing, cuz people will kill over that amount of money.
 
2014-06-10 11:44:16 AM
A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?
 
2014-06-10 11:44:30 AM
And this is in a country where it is ILLEGAL to propose laws or fines for the purpose of generating revenue...

The fines have to be to promote safety etc.

£100, £1000, £10,000 makes no difference whether someone speeds.
 
2014-06-10 11:44:33 AM
Offender convicted of criminal damage or racially aggravated disorder would also face similar fines, with the penalties increased for each level of offence.

huh?
 
2014-06-10 11:45:20 AM

spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?


should have the fine based on your wealth, not earnings.
 
2014-06-10 11:48:11 AM

dready zim: And this is in a country where it is ILLEGAL to propose laws or fines for the purpose of generating revenue...

The fines have to be to promote safety etc.

£100, £1000, £10,000 makes no difference whether someone speeds.


Horseshiat.

The level of punishment and perceieved odds of getting caught are absolutely factored into the decisions many (some people are retarded) people make.

I speed a lot. I wouldn't go a mile over if the fine were 10k.

/this is still a stupid idea unless it would only be applied to people going 30mph over on non-highways or something like that
 
2014-06-10 11:50:39 AM

gfid: Offender convicted of criminal damage or racially aggravated disorder would also face similar fines, with the penalties increased for each level of offence.

huh?


"Offending immigrants?"
 
2014-06-10 11:51:26 AM

dready zim: And this is in a country where it is ILLEGAL to propose laws or fines for the purpose of generating revenue...

The fines have to be to promote safety etc.

£100, £1000, £10,000 makes no difference whether someone speeds.


Well that's just all around wrong, I'd never speed if there was a fine that huge.
 
2014-06-10 11:52:27 AM

Ender's: Anyone else read, "Britain porpoises fining drivers"?  Or was it just me?


I believe the saying includes "crossing estate lions for immoral porpoises."

img.fark.net
 
2014-06-10 11:53:07 AM

gfid: Offender convicted of criminal damage or racially aggravated disorder would also face similar fines, with the penalties increased for each level of offence.

huh?


That means racially motivated threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour... Rather awkward phrasing though I agree.
 
2014-06-10 11:53:09 AM
Don't speed £10,000, people. It's too risky.
 
2014-06-10 11:55:30 AM
wtf is a tyre?
 
2014-06-10 11:56:21 AM

dready zim: spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?

should have the fine based on your wealth, not earnings.


So, a person with no assets should pay how much?   1% of zero?
 
2014-06-10 11:56:47 AM
Nah - leave it a lower fine for just speeding, maybe 250 for up less then 10 over the limit and 500 for more than 10 over the limit.

Not stopping when the police pull you over? There is your 10,000 Pound fine.
 
2014-06-10 11:56:56 AM

gfid: Offender convicted of criminal damage or racially aggravated disorder would also face similar fines, with the penalties increased for each level of offence.

huh?


If they're talking about the victims, then I'm guessing it's like a civil rights violation.
 
2014-06-10 11:58:10 AM
And I see I am having one of those 'my spelling sucks today' kind of day...
 
2014-06-10 11:59:27 AM
Daaayum....ten thousand pounds for driving with worn out tires?

That's probably more than the whole car is worth!
 
2014-06-10 12:00:35 PM
These proposals are just suggesting increasing the maximum limits to give judges more latitude for the more egregious offences, hardly seems controversial - note that unlike the US, speeding fines aren't a funding method for local government, so they aren't really abused as a revenue scheme.
 
2014-06-10 12:04:28 PM

dready zim: spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?

should have the fine based on your wealth, not earnings.


This, but with a minimal threshold.
 
2014-06-10 12:04:29 PM
I was driving from Florida to Kansas.  I sped the entire way, except for Georgia.  Not because of the fine amount, but because they actually enforce it.

For one part of the trip, I saw a sign which read $1,000 for littering.  I don't litter anyway, but I was careful not to even let a straw wrapper flutter out the window.
 
2014-06-10 12:05:32 PM

shouldhavebeenathrow: gfid: Offender convicted of criminal damage or racially aggravated disorder would also face similar fines, with the penalties increased for each level of offence.

huh?

That means racially motivated threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour... Rather awkward phrasing though I agree.


It sounds more like someone who has a mental disorder that was aggravated by their skin color.

Fun fact:  In a recent survey 30% of Brits admitted to being at least a little racist.
 
2014-06-10 12:06:05 PM
Was alcohol involved in this decision making process?
 
2014-06-10 12:09:36 PM

scanman61: Daaayum....ten thousand pounds for driving with worn out tires?  That's probably more than the whole car is worth!


Which is the problem with fines as penalties.  Those who are well off can easily pay them.  The poor can't.  If they couldn't afford tires before, they sure won't be able to after paying your fine.

Of course, maybe that is the intent.  If you're too poor to afford proper maintenance for your vehicle, you shouldn't be driving it.  But instead of doing a roadside fine, maybe the crown can check for that annually when the owner renews the registration.  Some states and provinces check out the overall condition of your vehicle when you go to get your annual emissions testing.

As for places that use proportional fines [to your income] instead of fixed penalties, all that is likely to do is ensure that every officer on traffic duty is hanging out in the nice part of town.  The chief needs a new ergonomic chair to go with his mahogany desk.

Get rid of the fines and just assign people to crap like litter patrol or invasive plant removal along the roadways that suck up time instead.
 
2014-06-10 12:12:28 PM

dready zim: spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?

should have the fine based on your wealth, not earnings.


That could work as well.

Where I live its earnings though. Rich dude drives drunk, enjoy your 100k fine.
 
2014-06-10 12:12:43 PM

spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?


Because the poors. Duh.
 
2014-06-10 12:21:48 PM

Dinjiin: scanman61: Daaayum....ten thousand pounds for driving with worn out tires?  That's probably more than the whole car is worth!

Which is the problem with fines as penalties.  Those who are well off can easily pay them.  The poor can't.  If they couldn't afford tires before, they sure won't be able to after paying your fine.

Of course, maybe that is the intent.  If you're too poor to afford proper maintenance for your vehicle, you shouldn't be driving it.  But instead of doing a roadside fine, maybe the crown can check for that annually when the owner renews the registration.  Some states and provinces check out the overall condition of your vehicle when you go to get your annual emissions testing.

As for places that use proportional fines [to your income] instead of fixed penalties, all that is likely to do is ensure that every officer on traffic duty is hanging out in the nice part of town.  The chief needs a new ergonomic chair to go with his mahogany desk.

Get rid of the fines and just assign people to crap like litter patrol or invasive plant removal along the roadways that suck up time instead.


Or maybe the system tries to take everyone equally seriously.
 
2014-06-10 12:22:16 PM

AugieDoggyDaddy: dready zim: spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?

should have the fine based on your wealth, not earnings.

So, a person with no assets should pay how much?   1% of zero?


Are we to subsidize the speeding of people who are deep in debt?
 
2014-06-10 12:31:32 PM

StatelyGreekAutomaton: spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?

Because the poors. Duh.


I assume you're being sarcastic, but all the same, it hits the poor as hard as the rich. Relatively speaking.

Of course, with repeated, or serious enough infractions, you'd also lose your drivers license, and potentially your car.
 
2014-06-10 12:32:57 PM
Well that would certainly make cruise control worthwhile.

I live in Pennsylvania, where only the state police are allowed to use radar. That's good, because the speed limits are insanely low.
 
2014-06-10 12:35:43 PM

Tyrosine: dready zim: spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?

should have the fine based on your wealth, not earnings.

This, but with a minimal threshold.


Sure, wealthy people pay more to provide an equal disincentive.

So, they should also be assigned less jail time for an equal offense because their time is worth more money and so they will require fewer days as a disincentive to commit a given crime.

Unless the argument is that rich people are bad or something, but I doubt it, since that would be a stupid generalization.
 
2014-06-10 12:39:30 PM

a flying monkey made me do it: Now THAT is something Britain should put on the telly - police chases on the farm roads.  They complain that their homegrown cop shows are boring.  Stage it if you have to!


they do have chases on country roads on TV shows. Its usually a lot more interesting than the whole 50 police cars follow one car at speeds that some times go above the speed limit that is common for US cop shows.
 
2014-06-10 12:51:42 PM

TheYeti: Tyrosine: dready zim: spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?

should have the fine based on your wealth, not earnings.

This, but with a minimal threshold.

Sure, wealthy people pay more to provide an equal disincentive.

So, they should also be assigned less jail time for an equal offense because their time is worth more money and so they will require fewer days as a disincentive to commit a given crime.

Unless the argument is that rich people are bad or something, but I doubt it, since that would be a stupid generalization.


The argument is that the fines are a deterrent, and they are set such that the average person feels the impact but can still carry on. For example, if someone is making $30,000/yr, a $500 fine is significant, but not crippling, and serves as a reminder for the future. To someone making $3,000,000/yr the same fine is insignificant and they may see it simply as a trivial cost of engaging in a particular behavior. Increase the fine to $50,000 and it will have the same impact as the smaller fine did on the guy making less.


/ I believe some Finland has done this for some time.
 
2014-06-10 01:00:44 PM

Tyrosine: TheYeti: Tyrosine: dready zim: spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?

should have the fine based on your wealth, not earnings.

This, but with a minimal threshold.

Sure, wealthy people pay more to provide an equal disincentive.

So, they should also be assigned less jail time for an equal offense because their time is worth more money and so they will require fewer days as a disincentive to commit a given crime.

Unless the argument is that rich people are bad or something, but I doubt it, since that would be a stupid generalization.

The argument is that the fines are a deterrent, and they are set such that the average person feels the impact but can still carry on. For example, if someone is making $30,000/yr, a $500 fine is significant, but not crippling, and serves as a reminder for the future. To someone making $3,000,000/yr the same fine is insignificant and they may see it simply as a trivial cost of engaging in a particular behavior. Increase the fine to $50,000 and it will have the same impact as the smaller fine did on the guy making less.


/ I believe some Finland has done this for some time.


From Wikipedia:

A day-fine or day fine or unit fine is a unit of payment that, above a minimum fine, is based on the offender's daily personal income. A crime is punished with incarceration for a determined number of days, or with fines. As incarceration is a financial punishment, in the effect of preventing work, a day-fine represents one day incarcerated and without salary. It is argued to be just, because if both high-income and low-income population are punished with the same jail time, they should also be punished with a proportionally similar income loss. An analogy may be drawn with personal income tax, which is also proportional to income, even progressively.
 
2014-06-10 01:02:42 PM

xria: These proposals are just suggesting increasing the maximum limits to give judges more latitude for the more egregious offences, hardly seems controversial - note that unlike the US, speeding fines aren't a funding method for local government, so they aren't really abused as a revenue scheme.


VA came out with some horseshiat that was a $3000 dollar civil fine. But only for VA residents. And since it was civil rather than criminal, guess who the burden of proof was on. I don't think it lasted very long.
 
2014-06-10 01:02:54 PM
I'M OK WITH THIS.JPG

Slow down, really.  Driving like a maniac, behind the wheel of a deadly weapon... you SHOULD be fined stupid amounts for breaking the law.

I WISH they pulled people over for speeding more.  And also the license re-testing.  And the having a different license for a "smart car" than a "muscle car".  AND the retesting.  Also, the retesting.  It's way too easy to  kill someone drive a car in the US.  The farking society has become  dependant on single occupancy driving.  It's pretty much one of the few, if not the only, country in the world like this.  FFS they don't even have sidewalks in Atalanta.  Meanwhile, in Scotland even the tiniest crap road has a well-worn footpath next to it.

Fat-ass pansies.
 
2014-06-10 01:04:02 PM

spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?


Why don't speed limits discriminate based on GDP contributions to state and country?

Why do I have to go the same speed as a ditch digger?  Obviously I'm more important than him and contribute more to the nation's GDP.

I contribute more to the state's road maintenance through higher taxes.  Why can't I go faster?
 
2014-06-10 01:07:34 PM

TheYeti: Sure, wealthy people pay more to provide an equal disincentive.


Not always
static3.businessinsider.com
static4.businessinsider.com
static4.businessinsider.com

The Army has a shiat-ton of money, and they get away with a 150 dollar fine?
 
2014-06-10 01:25:41 PM
Level 4: Maximum fine increases from £2,500 to £10,000 for offences including speeding on the motorway

Sure, increase fines for speeding on the safest roads where speeding has the least consequences, but where the greatest number of people are likely to speed (most people, no matter what artificial speed limit is set by authorities, will drive at a speed that is safe and prudent for the circumstances. If most people speed, the speed limit is too low). Then convince the masses that it is all for their safety and not at all for generating revenue. All you need are a couple of high profile cases that play well on the news and people will accept this as fact.
 
2014-06-10 01:30:07 PM

AugieDoggyDaddy: dready zim: spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?

should have the fine based on your wealth, not earnings.

So, a person with no assets should pay how much?   1% of zero?


Who is this person?  A homeless guy who borrowed a friend's car?
 
2014-06-10 01:31:48 PM
Cops are going to make a killing on bribes.
 
2014-06-10 01:32:06 PM
Sounds like someone is really stepping up their efforts to get Jeremy Clarkson fired.
 
2014-06-10 01:38:47 PM
Oh noes, they're putting up the maximum fine a court can impose for speeding!!

Basically, in the UK, if a speeding ticket makes it as far as court then it's only for one of the following reasons.

1) you pled not-guilty to the speeding ticket and therefore it goes to court (you'd have to have a damn good reason to do this usually)
2) you gave the policeman who pulled you over a massive amount of lip and he decided not to deal with it at the roadside.
3) You were going so far over the limit you've made a mockery of the law.

If you get caught by a speed camera you get sent a £75 fine in the post (unless #3 applies), which drops to £50 if you pay within 21 days
If you get pulled over they generally give you the choice of dealing with it at the roadside (again, £75 dropping to £50 for early payment) unless #2 or #3 applies (it's a post in fine, you don't give to the policemen)

Considering I got pulled over doing 120-something on the motorway (70mph limit) and got given a side of the road fine, it takes a LOT to get to court.
 
2014-06-10 01:44:20 PM

spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?


THIS. Speeding fines should be proportionate to income. The way it works now, rich farkers can go 120 in their Mercs and Porsches, and pay the fine without blinking. Meanwhile, some working stiff gets caught going 82 in a 65, and he winds up losing the Chevy to pay the fine.
 
2014-06-10 01:47:56 PM
Awesome.  Since I don't drive in Britain, I can't wait to see all the traffic cam footage of each day's reenactment of Death Race 2000 as some idiot tries to avoid the fine.  Excelsior!
 
2014-06-10 01:48:59 PM

nickerj1: spawn73: A maximum of 10.000Pounds sounds low.

Why have a maximum, instead of garnishing a % of peoples wage?

Why don't speed limits discriminate based on GDP contributions to state and country?

Why do I have to go the same speed as a ditch digger?  Obviously I'm more important than him and contribute more to the nation's GDP.

I contribute more to the state's road maintenance through higher taxes.  Why can't I go faster?


Because people aren't more important because they're richer.

Also, people going super slow would be annoying.
 
2014-06-10 01:58:48 PM
Just give all your money to the Gov't and they will reward you if you drive OK.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report