An Mp On Tthe Ball

[New Judge]

Drivers should be spared penalty points if they edge over the speed limit in a 20mph zone, according to former Education Secretary Kit Malthouse.

The senior Conservative MP is trying to change the law to help drivers who feel "almost persecuted" by the "explosion" in traffic cameras. Under Mr Malthouse's plans, anyone caught speeding between 20mph and 30mph would not get penalty points but would have to attend a speed awareness course.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/new-law-proposed-for-drivers-caught-breaking-uk-20mph-speed-limits/ar-AA1nmrla?ocid=msedgntp&;pc=ASTS&cvid=777d3d5154694925ecccb5374e4161a9&ei=11

I wonder if anybody has told Mr Malthouse that his plan would see drivers worse off. Courses are already offered up to 31mph and enforcement is not normally taken below 24mph.

[Old_Geezer]

Unless I was desperate not to get further points I think I've a nice phrase somewhere to let authorities know where any awareness course should be put.

 

Authorities should have better things to do than make a patchwork quilt of different limits where no obvious reason exists for change, apparently simply in order to bully citizens, give them a record, and extort wealth from them. Perhaps they need a compulsory awareness course on serving the public and not having a go at them.

[Gromit]

// different limits where no obvious reason exists for change //

Hit a toddler at 20mph, and they will be injured. Hit one at 30mph and it is more likely to be fatal.

and the difference is some random points that won't stop bad inconsiderate drivers driving.

[THECORBYLOON]

Currently,  offenders attending a speed awareness course can't attend another one within three year of the offence.

The proposed legislation would allow an awareness course without a time restriction.

 

[Old_Geezer]

Then don't let your toddler out on it's own to wander into the road. Poor parents ought not try to find excuses.

[tomus42]

//Hit a toddler at 20mph, and they will be injured//

So you support toddlers being injured then.

I'd like to bring it down to 5 mph which will mean no one gets injured, however old they are. 

[New Judge]

"The proposed legislation would allow an awareness course without a time restriction."

Yes thanks Corby.

I had an idea that may be the case. I've just looked up Mr Malthouse's opening remarks to his Bill and see that is the proposal. 

I think that's a bit silly. It would mean that a driver could repeatedly break the 20mph speed limit and suffer no sanction other than to pay for and participate in successive (identical) courses. 

TThere's only so many times you can "educate" a driver in respect of the speed limits. At present drivers are offered a course (just once in three years as you say) but any transgressions after that see points imposed. They usually have to commit four offences before being banned.

I think that is reasonable (in fact I believe it is more than reasonable). A serial offender must face some harsher sanction if he continues to offend. What do you think?

It's not clear, but as well as that, if courses are to receive recognition in law (currently they are completely unsanctioned by any legislation) I would suggest that insurers would be entitled to demand disclosure from drivers subject to them (currently insurers do not - Admiral group once did, but they stopped about five years ago).

[Khandro]

I wonder how many accidents are caused by people taking their eyes off the road to see if they are doing 31 mph not 29 mph ?

[ichkeria]

Not many I'd warrant.

I have just been driving around an estate with a 20mph limit. I don't know how enforced it can be, but such is the layout of the place anything over 20 would border on reckless.