Speeding (Revised 2017)

Bikers beware! This could get expensive!!

There is a looming change to the way in which speeders will be penalised, and this will not only affect the points applied to your licence and any prison sentance that you maybe due, as well as the fine that you will look at facing.

The main change to the law seems to be about how the fine will now be dependent on your income, so you will be fined a higher % of your weekly income (this will not affect ‘timid’ speeders with a fixed penalty points & fine)…..meaning those that have a higher income, will feel the sting as much as those with  lower income – at least that’s the picture that they would like to paint. The reality in fact is those who have lower income, will feel this considerably more than the rich, with huge sums of savings!

Maybe thats the point and will actually affect the numbers of speeders every year? If you can’t afford to speed, maybe you wont !?!? or is this just another way to milk that age old cash cow?!?!

This will be coming into effect from: –   24.04.17

Be sure to spread this around!

Will this slow you down when you’re out on a bimble, or do you believe your riding to be safe and considerate regardless of the speed you’re going?

This change will affect those who are in court facing more serious speeding charges.

===========================================================================

Steps 1 and 2 – Determining the offence seriousness

The starting point applies to all offenders irrespective of plea or previous convictions.

Speed limit (mph) Recorded speed (mph)
20 41 and above 31 – 40 21 – 30
30 51 and above 41 – 50 31 – 40
40 66 and above 56 – 65 41 – 55
50 76 and above 66 – 75 51 – 65
60 91 and above 81 – 90 61 – 80
70 101 and above 91 – 100 71 – 90
Sentencing range Band C fine Band B fine Band A fine
Points / disqual Disqualify 7 – 56 days OR 6 points Disqualify 7 – 28
days OR  4 – 6 points
3 points
  • Must endorse and may disqualify. If no disqualification impose 3 – 6 points

Band ranges

Starting point Range
Fine Band A  50% of relevant weekly income  25 – 75% of relevant weekly income
Fine Band B  100% of relevant weekly income  75 – 125% of relevant weekly income
Fine Band C  150% of relevant weekly income 125 – 175% of relevant weekly income
Fine Band D  250% of relevant weekly income 200 – 300% of relevant weekly income
Fine Band E 400% of relevant weekly income 300 – 500% of relevant weekly income
Fine Band F  600% of relevant weekly income  500 – 700% of relevant weekly income

The court should then consider further adjustment for any aggravating or mitigating factors. The following is a non-exhaustive list of additional factual elements providing the context of the offence and factors relating to the offender. Identify whether any combination of these, or other relevant factors, should result in an upward or downward adjustment from the sentence arrived at so far.

Factors increasing seriousness

Statutory aggravating factors:

  • Previous convictions, having regard to a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the current offence; and b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction
  • Offence committed whilst on bail

Other aggravating factors:

  • Offence committed on licence or post sentence supervision
  • Poor road or weather conditions
  • Driving LGV, HGV, PSV etc.
  • Towing caravan/trailer
  • Carrying passengers or heavy load
  • Driving for hire or reward
  • Evidence of unacceptable standard of driving over and above speed
  • Location e.g. near school
  • High level of traffic or pedestrians in the vicinity

Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting personal mitigation

  • No previous convictions or no relevant/recent convictions
  • Good character and/or exemplary conduct
  • Genuine emergency established

Step 3 – Consider any factors which indicate a reduction, such as assistance to the prosecution.

The court should take into account sections 73 and 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (assistance by defendants: reduction or review of sentence) and any other rule of law by virtue of which an offender may receive a discounted sentence in consequence of assistance given (or offered) to the prosecutor or investigator.

Step 4 – Reduction for guilty pleas

The court should take account of any potential reduction for a guilty plea in accordance with section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Guilty Plea guideline.

Step 5 – Totality principle

If sentencing an offender for more than one offence, or where the offender is already serving a sentence, consider whether the total sentence is just and proportionate to the overall offending behaviour in accordance with the Offences Taken into Consideration and Totality guideline.

Step 6 – Compensation and ancillary orders
In all cases, the court should consider whether to make compensation and/or other ancillary orders.

Step 7 – Reasons
Section 174 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes a duty to give reasons for, and explain the effect of, the sentence.

Edit:

=================================================================

Approach to offenders on low income

An offender whose primary source of income is state benefit will generally receive a base level of benefit (for example, jobseeker’s allowance, a relevant disability benefit or income support) and may also be eligible for supplementary benefits depending on his or her individual circumstances (such as child tax credits, housing benefit, council tax benefit and similar). In some cases these benefits may have been replaced by Universal Credit.

If relevant weekly income were defined as the amount of benefit received, this would usually result in higher fines being imposed on offenders with a higher level of need; in most circumstances that would not properly balance the seriousness of the offence with the financial circumstances of the offender. While it might be possible to exclude from the calculation any allowance above the basic entitlement of a single person, that could be complicated and time consuming.

Similar issues can arise where an offender is in receipt of a low earned income since this may trigger eligibility for means related benefits such as working tax credits and housing benefit depending on the particular circumstances. It will not always be possible to determine with any confidence whether such a person’s financial circumstances are significantly different from those of a person whose primary source of income is state benefit.

For these reasons, a simpler and fairer approach to cases involving offenders in receipt of low income (whether primarily earned or as a result of benefit) is to identify an amount that is deemed to represent the offender’s relevant weekly income.

While a precise calculation is neither possible nor desirable, it is considered that an amount that is approximately half-way between the base rate for jobseeker’s allowance and the net weekly income of an adult earning the minimum wage for 30 hours per week represents a starting point that is both realistic and appropriate; this is currently £120. The calculation is based on a 30 hour working week in recognition of the fact that many of those on minimum wage do not work a full 37 hour week and that lower minimum wage rates apply to younger people.

With effect from 1 October 2014, the minimum wage is £6.50 per hour for an adult aged 21 or over. Based on a 30 hour week, this equates to approximately £189 after deductions for tax and national insurance. To ensure equivalence of approach, the level of jobseeker’s allowance for a single person aged 18 to 24 has been used for the purpose of calculating the mid point; this is currently £57.90. The figure will be updated in due course in accordance with any changes to benefit and minimum wage levels.

Source: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/speeding-revised-2017/

7 Comments Add yours

  1. BikeTuna says:

    Seriously brutal – it will certainly leave people of lower income much much worse off than people of higher income. It will also put a lot more people off the road with short term bans, where people with lower incomes will not be able to afford the public transport whereas people with money or savings will be able to.

    When the same rules apply to dangerous driving concerns like mobile phones we might think that the rules are being made to help, rather than cash in.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. SMIDSY says:

      Sometimes we have to wonder about why the Government insist on calling them safety cameras……

      Like

  2. S jimmison says:

    So it seems highway robbery has now been legalized. In all honesty my personal feeling is its collect as much cash as you can off the motorists and get cars off the road.im all against speeding but this is f**king stealing off the common working people

    Liked by 1 person

  3. harry thompnso says:

    amen !!

    Like

  4. jamie dalton says:

    Nothing to do with safety its just an excuse to get money out of you, many years ago a young girl & her elderly aunt crossed a main duel carraigeway at the bottom of detling hill & were knocked over & both killed, some time later there was a bridge built for local residents so any further dangers were never going to happen again, then there were 2 speed cameras put up with a 50mph speed limit..nothing to do with safety just another way of money grabbing.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Legless says:

    Oh ffs!
    If SMIDSY is a valid excuse then SOIWLAMS (Sorry Officer I was Not Looking At My Speedo ) is an equally valid excuse!
    End of!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s