|
| Search |
| Feedback |
| Contact Us |
Campaigns & Current Issues
Graduated Fixed Penalties for Speeding Offences – Consultation Response I am pleased to respond to the above consultation on behalf of GEM Motoring Assist (formerly The Guild of Experienced Motorists). GEM Motoring Assist is a motoring association with around 65,000 members. It also provides the administrative back-up for the GEM Road Safety Charity. Before answering the specific questions within the consultation document, I would like to offer the following general viewpoint. GEM Motoring Assist is aware from correspondence and telephone calls from members that the issue of speed enforcement is an emotive and important issue. We are also aware that many of the views expressed have been moulded by inaccurate and bias reporting, particularly on the subject of safety cameras. However, the Government has, up until now, through the Think road safety campaign, been consistent in reminding motorists that excessive and/or inappropriate speed is a major influence in both the number of road crashes and in their severity. This work has been vital to us and others in encouraging a more rational debate on the issue. Generally speaking, this correct message is, we believe, beginning to be accepted and communities are demanding more speed limit enforcement. The majority of motorists accept the need for speed limits and therefore the need for these limits to be enforced and for penalties to be imposed on those not adhering to them. Any penalties imposed should reflect not only the severity of the offence but the possible consequences and risk caused by the offence. Research commissioned and approved by the Department for Transport has long established the link between speed and road crashes. Therefore, any review of the penalties for speeding offences must have regard to this underlying research. Thus any proposed reduction of penalty must be backed by best available research showing a corresponding reduction in risk. To the best of our knowledge no such evidence exists. Within this general framework I offer our response to the specific points raised in your consultation document. Question 1. Do you agree with the Government’s view that there is a case for fixed penalties for speeding to be more graduated, with higher penalties for more serious categories of speeding, and lower penalties for less serious cases? Answer We believe that there is evidence showing greater risk at high speeds and, therefore, support the call to implement a graduated penalty scheme that increases the penalty for those that infringe the limit by a large margin. However, in the case of areas within a 30 or 40 mph, there appears to be no evidence to suggest that driving up to 39 mph in a thirty limit or 50 mph in a forty limit poses a lesser risk and thus there is no justification for reducing the penalty level. Indeed, given that such limits are imposed only in sensitive areas where it is the vulnerable road users who are particularly at risk, the proposal to reduce the penalty level is in our opinion, totally flawed. The Department’s own publicity regarding pedestrian safety and speed clearly indicates the increased risk to pedestrians as vehicle speeds rise. To reduce the penalty for those exceeding these critical limits sends totally the wrong message to drivers and increases the risk level to pedestrians and cyclists. Such a move would largely undo many years of road safety campaigning which successive Governments and other bodies have undertaken. We do, therefore, strongly oppose a reduction of penalties for those drivers exceeding the 30 or 40 mph limits. Question 2. If you do not agree with a graduated system, do you support the present structure of penalties, or would you wish to see an alternative approach? Answer We do accept that at speeds above 50mph it would be possible to offer slightly reduced levels of penalty as outlined in the consultation document. However, as stated above, we strongly object to any such reduction at speeds below 40mph. We are also concerned that the proposals create greater confusion in the minds of drivers regarding the level of risk posed by different offences. It is proposed that the penalty for using a hand-held telephone be increased to 3 penalty points plus a fine. Is this offence more risky than driving at 39mph in a residential area? Fines for blocking a box junction or travelling in a bus lane are often far greater than the proposed fine for exceeding the 30mph limit. Once again we are greatly concerned about the effect of such mixed messages being sent out by the Government. Question 3 The table below illustrates a possible structure for graduated penalties. Ministers would welcome comments on it, without prejudice to statutory consultation on future proposals, and comments which you may wish to submit on that statutory consultation. Answer As outlined above, we do not accept the proposals as outlined in the table in so far as they apply to 30 and 40mph areas. Any graduated penalty system should reflect risk and safety considerations, particularly those affecting vulnerable road users. We agree with the proposals to increase the penalty levels for those exceeding the limit by large margins outlined in the table. Question 4 It has been suggested that fixed penalties should be higher for repeat speeding offences. Do you have views on this? Answer We would wish to see more details on this proposal. However, given that repeat offenders are subject to the ‘totting-up’ penalty points system, we believe the current system is acceptable. In many cases it is the addition of penalty points not the level of fine which acts as the greatest deterrent to further offending. Question 5 Should other factors be taken into account, such as the location where the speeding occurred, or other factors? Answer We strongly reject the proposal that any location factors should be taken into account in penalty levels. Again, this would lead to confusion and resentment. The current clear message is that breaking the speed limit in any location presents risks and dangers. This clear and unambiguous message must be preserved. However, we do believe that there is a separate and valid debate to be conducted about the appropriateness of some limits and would wish to see a more urgent conclusion to the proposed revision of circular 1/93 allowing local authorities greater powers to amend limits having regard to local circumstances. I hope this information will be of help to the Government in their deliberations into this vital matter. Yours sincerely, David Williams, MBE FIRSO Chief Executive © Copyright GEM Motoring Assist 2005 Top of Page |
| Other Headlines |
| Campaigns & Current Issues |
