Speeders could lose their driving licence altogether under new proposals
20 November 2008

Drivers could lose their licence after two speeding offences under new government proposals.

Motorists would automatically receive six penalty points if they were caught breaking the speed limit by a significant margin. Currently, drivers are disqualified if they amass 12 points on their licence.

Excessive speeds are likely to be defined as 50mph in a 30mph zone, 70mph in a 50mph zone or over 90mph on the motorway.

Until now only courts could endorse a driving licence with more than three points. If police believe a stiffer punishment than the standard three-point fixed penalty is required, they must pass the case on to the courts.

Government ministers want six-point fixed penalties to be imposed without a court hearing.

The consultation document containing the proposals also suggests a 'sliding scale' of punishment for speeding offences. Minor infringements – where drivers are caught at only a few mph over the speed limit – could warrant just 2 points.

Motoring groups estimate that 40 per cent of drivers have received penalty points for speeding.

Will Powell

Join the debate

Comments
6

20 November 2008

Sensible plans, mainly. I, like many, have received 3 points for minor speed limit infringments. A bit of context and differentiation between that instance and the 60mph-past-a-school brigade is welcome.

However, I still feel that the focus must move to poor driving ahead of blind speed limit enforcement. Poor driving is rife on our roads, is usually much more dangerous than speeding itself, and goes completely unpunished.

20 November 2008

There was a piece on this on BBC breakfast this morning.

"On the sofa", was a family who had been affected by an accident caused by a drink driver who was doing over 90mph when he impacted their car. Sadly their son had died and the father was still in great pain. My sympathy goes out to these people and at this point I want to state in no way do I want to demean their situation.

What I took acception to was the way the BBC reported the regulation changes and the "anti speed" propaganda in relation the family they had in the studio. Their situation was caused by drink driving, not speed (although speed was involved, but it was not the primary cause of the accident).

Again, driving fast was demonised by the media in an inappropriate and ill informed situation.

Speed doesn't kill! Bad driving does!

 

 

It's all about the twisties........

20 November 2008

[quote TegTypeR]

Their situation was caused by drink driving, not speed (although speed was involved, but it was not the primary cause of the accident).

Again, driving fast was demonised by the media in an inappropriate and ill informed situation.

Speed doesn't kill! Bad driving does!

[/quote]

Completely agree.

On topic though, sounds interesting, but only if minor infringements carry a lower penalty. Also, I think the major infringement limit for motorway speeds should be 110mph, not 90 (for that matter, the existing 70mph general limit is miserable). Even that speed isn't anywhere vaguely near as dangerous as 50mph in a 30 zone can be.

21 November 2008

These proposals were chucked out a couple of years ago, thankfully. TRL323 and a more recent report by DFT both state that a significant number of accidents are caused by inattentive driving, that is not looking to see where you or others are. Much more than excessive speed.

If you look at the roads today, how many people are speeding? Yet this still has a lower accident rate than drink and drug driving. What about those who continue to insist on having a mobile phone stuck to their ear? When is real action going to be taken against that danger?

The only reason that speeding motorists are being targeted is because you can tax them. If road safety was genuinely the goal we'd be putting in engineering solutions to dangerous roads.

21 November 2008

[quote TegTypeR]

There was a piece on this on BBC breakfast this morning.... "On the sofa", was a family who had been affected by an accident caused by a drink driver

[/quote]

I feel sorry for them that someone has told them it was speeding which was the cause and that their sorry had been hijacked by someone to use as anti-speeding. Simply put the disease was drunk driving, speeding and not being in control of the vehicle was the symptoms.

21 November 2008

Agree with TegTypeR in the matter.

I belive that Motorways are far safer at 90 which is 20mhp over the legal limit than doing 50 in 30.. no good driver would EVER do 50MPH in a built up area, when you could have children running out in front on them etc & any driver that does needs to given 6 points & big fine.

it is not speeders who worry me it is bad driver who have no understanding of speed, road condtions or what is around them... who will drive long a country road that is a 60 limit at 47 then drive through a 30 at 47 again

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

  • Citroën C3 Aircross
    First Drive
    17 October 2017
    It's got funky looks and a charming interior, but it's another small SUV, and another dynamic miss. Numb steering is just one thing keeping it from class best
  • Skoda-Karoq 2.0 TDI 4x4
    First Drive
    16 October 2017
    Diesel version of Skoda’s junior SUV is unobtrusive and undemanding, but we’d still go for the silkier petrol version of the Karoq
  • Audi Q7 e-tron
    First Drive
    16 October 2017
    Expensive and flawed but this understated diesel-electric Audi Q7 has a lot to offer
  • Citroën C3
    First Drive
    16 October 2017
    Is the third gen Citroën C3 ‘fresh and different’ enough to take on its supermini rivals? We spend six months with one to find out
  • BMW X3
    First Drive
    15 October 2017
    A satisfying rework of the X3 that usefully improves its handling, cabin finish, space and connectivity to make this BMW a class front-runner again