http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22563657

So it seems we've either become far worse drivers, or the plague of speed cameras and incessant rise in insurance prices has made more criminals out of ordinary people if they have to open new courts just to deal with all those caught.

People only make 'criminals' out of themselves

You choose to speed

You choose to risk driving without insurance

You choose to answer that mobile phone call

No-one makes you

There is a simple answer to each of the above, but people prefer to put two and two together and get five

Totally agree with brimma , you engineer your own destiny if you got a speeding ticket , you where probably speeding ?

It sounds like a good idea to me

I think it's fewer magistrates courts ,not more criminals.

It all boils down to cutting costs .

I think it's fewer magistrates courts ,not more criminals.

It all boils down to cutting costs .

Nail hit firmly on head :(

Hey, I didn't say anything more than obviously a lot more people are getting caught

Hey, I didn't say anything more than obviously a lot more people are getting caught

I wasn't referring to you personally, just people generally

I can also say that these traffic courts run say once or twice per month, instead of the workload being spread throughout the month into ordinary courts

The main aim is to reduce costs, so a police lay presenter prosecutes instead of a solicitor/barrister from CPS, to allow them to work on more serious cases, for example

.

You choose to speed

.

You can't the price of petrol and diesel makes it unattractive plus it's difficult because of the poor state of the roads!!!!

I agree with bilun777, the councils etc have had their budgets cut so have probably reduced the level of courts and judges available. Possibly with the exception of insurance offences, I don't think the level of motoring offences has risen? Has it?

I agree with bilun777, the councils etc have had their budgets cut so have probably reduced the level of courts and judges available. Possibly with the exception of insurance offences, I don't think the level of motoring offences has risen? Has it?

The councils have sweet FA to do with running the courts, they're run by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Servce (HMCTS)

And yes, HMCTS have had severe budget cuts, so severe it's amazing that the court system is still running :(

Totally agree with the insurance / tax side of things but thing there is far to much emphasis put on speed,

I had quiet a bad accident not long after passing my test years ago, head on with a transit on a NSL road due to a car on wrong side of road overtaking coming up to a blind bridge,

After that i enrolled with the IAM and went out with one of them and eventually did my test which i passed and i have to say i thing it should be compulsory as it taut me so much,

Its not speed that kills it the idiots doing it with no sense of whats happening in front of them

People only make 'criminals' out of themselves

You choose to speed

You choose to risk driving without insurance

You choose to answer that mobile phone call

No-one makes you

There is a simple answer to each of the above, but people prefer to put two and two together and get five

That sentiment is spot on. We seem to live in a society where nobody is accountable for their actions any more.

Traffic courts are nothing new, in fact most courts have operated them for decades setting aside a court room and bench once per week to hear such matters. The big difference now is the government having to accept they've cut too much capacity from the CJS and are having to re-open mothballed sites. I wonder how much they 'saved' in the long run...

People only make 'criminals' out of themselves

You choose to speed

No-one makes you

There is a simple answer to each of the above, but people prefer to put two and two together and get five

You're ignoring that the enforcing authorities have changed the social contract with respect to how laws are being enforced, especially the one about braking the speed limit, without necessarily gaining the support of those the laws are meant to protect.

The purpose of speed limits is to reduce the frequency of accidents and injury. Ideally people would be prosecuted solely for unsafe driving, (careless, dangerous), but speed limits were used as a proxy guide to what is generally safe.

In some circumstances speed limits are generally supported but in other cases they are not. An example of the latter is that the vast majority of drivers of all types of motorised vehicles do not believe that 20 mph is an appropriate speed limit past a school in the dead of night. Likewise, the majority of car drivers on motorways do not believe that 70 mph is an appropriate limit - most of those driving below the limit are doing so because of fuel prices rather than a feeling that it is unsafe to drive faster than the limit. Many drivers do not believe the NSL is an appropriate speed limit on rural country roads.

In the past there was a tendency for only gross violations of speed limits to be prosecuted, and speed limits were generally set based on what people thought was appropriate for the road in question. One common idea was that drivers ought to have a reasonably good idea of the prevailing speed limit based on the road environment.

These days minor violations are easily detected and the initial steps towards prosecution can be taken without human involvement from the enforcing authority side, that is, it has become cheap and easy to do. Speed limits are now often chosen as a means of controlling driver behaviour rather than primarily for safety, so are less respected by road users. Moreover, in many places it has become impossible to guess what limit is in force just by looking at the hazard density.

Examples are easy to find pretty much wherever you look across the UK. One example is primary routes where the limit has been reduced from NSL to 50 mph while all the very minor side roads are still signed as NSL. Another is buffer zones around urban areas; the reasoning is that some drivers slow down after the start of a lower limit, so the urban limit is extended beyond the urban area, and/or intermediate buffer limits are added.

If the justification for extending a 30 mph limit into the countryside is to make sure that drivers are going at no more than 30 mph by the time they enter the urban area, then it is diabolical for speed traps to be used to catch drivers going faster than 30 mph before they have entered the urban area.

Edited 18 May, 201313 yr by AnotherGareth

I didn't realise we were governed by 'social contracts', whatever they are, we are governed by legislation and secondary legislation

What else am I forgetting?

Speed doesn't kill - suddenly coming to a stop does.

Speed doesn't kill - suddenly coming to a stop does.

So does suddenly being hit by a fast moving heavy object.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

Speed doesn't kill - suddenly coming to a stop does.

For speed cameras?

So what speed must people have been doing approaching the speed camera to require a slamming on of the anchors?

So it was effectively the initial speed which would be the cause, it doesn't really matter which way you dress it up

Fines for speeding are nothing more than an exercise in revenue generation. I doubt that this government, or any before, actually gives two hoots about the number of people killed on our roads.

Fines for speeding are nothing more than an exercise in revenue generation. I doubt that this government, or any before, actually gives two hoots about the number of people killed on our roads.

I disagree with this statement entirely. Do you keep paying out £60 and receiving three points or do you toe the line and obey the limit? That it was high-jacked by a government hell bent on excessive revenues (Labour) should not detract from the values of a well placed speed camera/ detector van. I welcome the van whenever its parked up on the main road by our house because it means i'm not going to encounter the usual transit travelling at 55 mph trying to get out of a restricted sight junction.

Fines for speeding are nothing more than examples of people breaking the law of the land

Just thought that needed correcting