Morning:
8°c
New drivers to face ban for speeding only once
Nicholas Cecil, Chief Political Correspondent20.11.08
NEW drivers could be banned from the road if they commit a single offence of doing 45mph in an 30mph zone.
Under tough speeding penalties proposed by ministers today, motorists could get six points on their licence for such a breach.
That is enough to revoke the licence of a driver who has been on the road for less than two years. More than 1.6 million people would be affected.
More experienced drivers would face a ban after two six-point penalties for speeding.
Motoring groups warned a crackdown on drivers doing 45mph in a 30mph zone risked a public backlash.
However, they backed a plan to impose six penalty points for breaking the speed limit by 20mph on motorways and in 50mph zones. The measures are part of a wider road safety package which includes:
●A new offence of drug driving.
●Further consultation on whether the drink-drive limit should be lowered.
●Better enforcement of seatbelt laws.
●New measures to crack down on careless driving.
Currently, most speeding offences lead to a three-point penalty and a fine, and cases are only taken to court if police are seeking a tougher penalty.
Ministers will now consult on whether the definition of excessive speeding should be 45mph or 50mph in urban areas. Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA, raised concerns about defining 45mph in a 30mph zone as "excessive" speeding. "It could cause confusion among motorists or make them feel they are hard done by," he said. The RAC Foundation said it supported the new system in principle.
But its research manager, Elizabeth Dainton, added: "It's really important that the Government understands the public mood on this issue and pitches the points at the right level so that they don't anger the public.
"If they get it wrong, some motorists will be unfairly penalised and may lose their licence as a result."
Road safety minister Jim Fitzpatrick, insisted the Government was targeting the worst speeders: "This is about making sure that the minority who are are endangering other road users and vulnerable pedestrians are not allowed to get away with it."
Under the drug-drive rules, police would be issued with devices to measure how much cannabis, cocaine or heroin motorists have taken.
Mr Fitzpatrick told BBC Radio 4: "Drugs are killing people on our roads." He said motorists also risked a criminal record if they drove under the influence of "even some prescription drugs ... if people drive when the medical advice says that you should not".
He said research showed that about one in five of the 3,000 people killed on the roads each year had "illegal substances in their system". Ministers want to target regular users who are mainly men aged between 25 and 35.
Reader views (18)
How are we to enforce these new rules? The main thing that everybody agrees is that speed cameras only catch those who are legal owners of cars that are insured taxed etc. The real villains have satnavs that tell them where the cameras are and enjoy abusive driving away from them.
Put the bobby back on the beat, and increase the number of car patrols. Above all, give back discretion to the Police officer. Not every stop requires a court appearance!
- Dene Wood, Grays, Essex, That little country by the sea that used to have
Liz reckons this law "targets those who are trying to obey the law" and is "another reason not to vote Labour".
Rubbish. 45 in a 30 zone is not trying to obey the law - it is deliberately breaking it. Would she vote Tory to allow her to keep on speeding?
- Austen, London
To target soley speeding is missing the point. Yes, target speedsters, but we also need to target dangerous driving that is missed by relying on cameras; the amount of people who undertake, swerving in and out of lanes constantly; the people who chat on their mobiles and wander across the road, this is but an example of some of the things I see each time I get into my car. We need to see a return to more high visibility policing on the roads.
- Claire, North London
"i slow down in front of the lights so that i am forced to stop in the box." - Mr S.Port
In that case you are either going far too fast (speeding), your car requires a service, or your own reaction times are too slow for you to safely be on the road. As a competent driver myself who looks after his car, I have no trouble whatsoever never stopping in the box.
The reason I mention cyclist boxes in road safety discussions is that motorists who occupy them are signalling their intention not to respect other rights of pedestrians and cyclists on the road. Failure to respect the advance stop lines also reduces visibility at junctions, which is as big a cause of serious accidents as speed itself.
- Reg, London
Considering that there 500,000 completely unlicensed drivers ploughing their way around London, this is just another piece of unnessecary and expensive legislation that lazily targets those who are trying to obey the law, rather than going after the realy problem on the roads - the unlicenced driver.
Another reason not to vote Labour.
- Liz, London
Yeah Fly you're so right, speed doesn't kill anyone. It's the people who hog the middle lane and leave their fog lights on, they've killed thousands. I'm sure it make's no difference either if you hit a child at 20mph or 60mph does it?? Of course speed kills! along with idiot drivers, like the ones that think speeding doesn't matter.
- Julian, Bracknell
Reg, what is it with you and cycling boxes the question is about speeding, bringing it up for attention will not stop drivers from entering them, i should know i slow down in front of the lights so that i am forced to stop in the box.
- Mr S.Port, London
Nothing to do with genuine road safety and everything to do with further persecution of motorists by the knee jerk car hating lobby.
If Labour were really interested in actual road safety then they would return proper traffic police to our streets.
- Matt, London, UK
It's good and sensible Govt. and will save lots of lives. Some of the 'Jack/Jill the lad' drivers I have seen speeding is horrifying. That goes for putting on their make-up on a dual carriage way too..!
- Paul, Bromley
Most everyday drivers are quite safe driving 100 on the motorway and react well keeping good distance between cars etc etc .The main problems arise with infrequent drivers who are unsafe at any speed on the motorway so why not ban them instead of punishing the people who will be the least danger but at most risk of this stupid new law. STUPID STUPID STUPID. All transport is getting faster so why is road transport getting slower because of legislation to get votes not save lives.
- Greentea02, London UK
Bruce - a £50 on the spot fine is the going rate I believe. Same as for a car illegally parked on the pavement, completely blocking the pedestrian highway and forcing pensioners into the road - a far more common occurrence than pavement cyclists around our way.
Yet Justice was never so blind as when proceeding past a pavement-parked car in a police beret.
Not sure what the going rate is for fining a motorist in a cyclist box at red lights. Has one, indeed, ever been fined in the UK?
- Reg, London
This would be a common sense move.
However, I won't be holding my breath. Unlike speed cameras, this initiative will probably not make a profit.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster
The UK military and others round the world have long used amphetamines to enhance performance. Apparently British troops used 72 million tablets in the second world war.
And there are plenty of legal prescription drugs that impair driving.
So it is wrong to suggest that all illegal drugs are bad in all circumstances. Amphetamines are addictive enough that their use is rightly discouraged, but don't confuse addictiveness with road danger. And don't get me started on the criminality arguments. We have enough evidence from prohibition to show that illegality drives it underground.
But they are on the right track. Because if they can quantify the specific dangers from specific drugs and do it sensibly, then that is a very good thing.
- Chris, london
...What are you telling me that the school teacher that lives opposite me, a regular smoker and supplier of Cannabis who drives children too and from school in the school minibus, is doing so illegally?
Then try telling that to Wiltshire Constabulary, they don't give a "hoot"
- Sharon S***, Salisbury England
Reg, what penalties do you suggest for cyclists who don't stop at lights, ride on pavements, talk on the phone while riding etc?
- Bruce, London
Why worry about how much cocaine, heroin or cannabis is present in the bloodstream? Unlike alcohol, all these substances are illegal, so ANY quantity detected in a driver should result in an instant ban. That might make druggie numpties think twice before indulging their vile habit.
- The Gene Genie, Croydon
Quite right. But let's also focus on junctions, where inconsiderate driving causes many accidents. The same two strikes and you're out rule should apply to any goods vehicle caught in a cyclist box, or found overtaking a cyclist on a bend at a junction, overtaking too closely or fishtailing a cyclist.
But 40mph and 60mph should be the excessive speed limits, not 50mph and 70mph, for 30mph and 50mph areas. That's plenty of leeway for competent drivers with no neurological problems.
Goods vehicles should have even less leeway as it is far harder for them to brake safely at speed, and due to considerations of momentum every mph over the limit is far more sigificant than for a smaller vehicle.
- Reg, London
Drink driving - yes
Drug driving - yes
speeding - This is ridiculous, speed is not a killer, idiot drivers are the real killer i.e. those who can't drive, those who sit in the middle lane of a motorway for their entire journey, those who keep their fogs lights on at night, those use a phone etc etc - give up the speeding thing on concentrate on proper policing!!
- Fly, london
