B990 – Road Safety (Speeding) Bill 2016 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
B990 – Road Safety (Speeding) Bill 2016, TSR Labour Party

ROAD SAFETY (SPEEDING) BILL 2016
An Act to ensure that vehicle insurance companies monitor the speed of customers' vehicles.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: DEFINITIONS
"Monitoring device" shall refer to a device that measures and records a vehicle's speed and can transmit the resulting data to the relevant insurance company.

2: MONITORING SPEED
(1) Vehicle insurance companies will be required to insert monitoring devices into their customers' vehicles.
(2) Should the customer's vehicle exceed 110% of the speed limit then this will be reported to the police.
(3) Insurance companies will be required to share any data collected via monitoring devices to other vehicle insurance companies upon request.

3: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (MOT) TEST
(1) The monitoring device will be checked as part of the MOT test.
(2) If a vehicle undergoing an MOT test is found to not have a functioning monitoring device then said vehicle will receive a ‘refusal of an MOT test certificate’ from the test centre.

4: OFFENCES
(1) Where it is found that a vehicle insurance company failed to comply with 2.1 of this Act they will be fined £1000 for each vehicle owned by a customer of theirs that does not have a monitoring device installed.
(2) Attempting to manipulate a monitoring device such that it reports inaccurately shall be an offence including a penalty not greater than a ten thousand pound fine and/or a one-year custodial sentence.

5: COMMENCEMENT, SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
(1) This Bill may be cited as the Road Safety (Speeding) Act 2016;
(2) This Bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
(3) Shall come into force on the 1st January 2017


NotesIn 2015, the number of injuries or fatalities on British roads rose for the first time in 18 years, with 194,477 being killed or injured in reported road traffic incidents. It is known that driver behaviour, i.e. speeding, is a major contributor to such incidents. Monitoring devices may act as a deterrent, reducing incidents and saving lives.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/ro..._recorders.htm
http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/a...technology.pdf
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
This is lowering the speed limit? The allowance currently is 110%+2mph?

Also I'm unsure weather forcing everyone to get a black box is a great idea. At least energancy vehicles should be granted an exception here... And would this put all of our speed cameras out of commission?
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
Nay

This country is already the one of the most watched countries in the world and I see this as just another way of keeping watch over people.

What is the next step? For it to transmit the location of where every car is?
0
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
Nay - far too authoritarian for my taste.

1
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Nay
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Hell no.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Aye. To those objecting on the grounds of liberty: ask yourself if your liberty is useful in this case, where there is nothing but liberty to gain (there is no instrumental benefit), and the cost is lives. Is being unobserved worth people dying?
1
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by joecphillips)
Nay

This country is already the one of the most watched countries in the world and I see this as just another way of keeping watch over people.

What is the next step? For it to transmit the location of where every car is?
Why is being watched a bad thing when it produces good results?
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
Madness as usual. Most importantly, we don't want a nanny state! Second, speeding is actually a minor factor—if you want fewer casualties, you should focus on intoxication, incompetent drivers, insufficient maintenance, and bad weather. There are also huge differences between the stopping distances of individual cars so it's unreasonable to limit someone in an R8 to go only as fast as someone in an old Peugeot. All this speed nonsense is being enforced mostly because it's very easy for the police to make some cash off drivers who drive over the limit on a sunny day with no other cars around.

I bet you any money that incompetent schmucks cause more accidents than competent drivers who happen to be speeding.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Why is being watched a bad thing when it produces good results?
Based on that why not propose a motion to put cameras in people's houses just think of the results that would make it would likely reduce domestic violence and many other crimes, while also monitoring people in case they decide to plan a murder or any other crime?

It would produce good results so it can't be bad
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Life_peer)
Madness as usual. Most importantly, we don't want a nanny state! Second, speeding is actually a minor factor—if you want fewer casualties, you should focus on intoxication, incompetent drivers, insufficient maintenance, and bad weather. There are also huge differences between the stopping distances of individual cars so it's unreasonable to limit someone in an R8 to go only as fast as someone in an old Peugeot. All this speed nonsense is being enforced mostly because it's very easy for the police to make some cash off drivers who drive over the limit on a sunny day with no other cars around.

I bet you any money that incompetent schmucks cause more accidents than competent drivers who happen to be speeding.
I suspect you're wrong about the minor factor point: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/adv...inappropriate/

Furthermore, it's funny to see you combining anti-immigration politics with complaining about a nanny state, when limiting immigration is possibly the most 'nanny state' policy possible.

Unfortunately making the rules complex enough to be dependent on cars would be counter-productive as it would lead to people being unaware of speeding limits.

Your last point is irrelevant.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by joecphillips)
Based on that why not propose a motion to put cameras in people's houses just think of the results that would make it would likely reduce domestic violence and many other crimes, while also monitoring people in case they decide to plan a murder or any other crime?

It would produce good results so it can't be bad
Yes, that's a great idea tbh, privacy has no intrinsic value. I also strongly support ID cards, microchips and a DNA database, and anyone who doesn't values wishy-washy concepts like liberty and privacy more highly than human life.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by Life_peer)
Madness as usual. Most importantly, we don't want a nanny state! Second, speeding is actually a minor factor—if you want fewer casualties, you should focus on intoxication, incompetent drivers, insufficient maintenance, and bad weather. There are also huge differences between the stopping distances of individual cars so it's unreasonable to limit someone in an R8 to go only as fast as someone in an old Peugeot. All this speed nonsense is being enforced mostly because it's very easy for the police to make some cash off drivers who drive over the limit on a sunny day with no other cars around.

I bet you any money that incompetent schmucks cause more accidents than competent drivers who happen to be speeding.
This bill could be extended to require a blood/breath sample to start the car? The technology is available...
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I suspect you're wrong about the minor factor point: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/adv...inappropriate/

Furthermore, it's funny to see you combining anti-immigration politics with complaining about a nanny state, when limiting immigration is possibly the most 'nanny state' policy possible.

Unfortunately making the rules complex enough to be dependent on cars would be counter-productive as it would lead to people being unaware of speeding limits.

Your last point is irrelevant.
You may suspect, but I cited an article which makes a reference to a statistic provided by the Department for Transport. The considerable dispersion between sources is likely due to methodological differences and manipulative presentation in order to prove their point. Speed can be a major factor, but it can also be a minor contributing factor.

Is it, now? :rolleyes: It means that “the government is regarded as overprotective or as interfering unduly with personal choice” so anti-immigration policy would have to be overprotective and unwanted by the citizens for what you claim to be true, which is obviously untrue since immigration needs to be regulated to protect everything from safety to economy, and such regulation is demanded by most people.

Two or three categories based on stopping distances which are well-known would suffice. No need for complexity as you're trying to paint it.

No, it isn't. Labour want to hassle responsible motorists who sometimes go a bit faster to score some popular points with the ignorant populace (though I'm sure a stupid ‘big brother’ proposal like this would be met with universal backlash IRL) and make no difference instead of targeting major causes of traffic incidents, i.e. ignorant schmucks who don't know how to use their mirrors or who constantly play with the radio while driving.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by Aph)
This bill could be extended to require a blood/breath sample to start the car? The technology is available...
No, thanks. On my own estate, I will be driving as intoxicated as I please.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by Life_peer)
Two or three categories based on stopping distances which are well-known would suffice. No need for complexity as you're trying to paint it.
I still disagree with the rest, but I suspect I can't convince you.

I'd just like to highlight this as a good point which you've convinced me with.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
(Original post by Life_peer)
No, thanks. On my own estate, I will be driving as intoxicated as I please.
Your rights end the moment you put another at risk.
0
Life_peer
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I'd just like to highlight this as a good point which you've convinced me with.
Hallelujah! I'm opening champagne. :teehee:

(Original post by Aph)
Your rights end the moment you put another at risk.
Not on my estate, they don't. If someone gets injured… bad luck. Just like in the old days when people weren't pussies.
0
McRite
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
Have already expressed my views about this bill, abstain.
0
Mactotaur
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Why is being watched a bad thing when it produces good results?
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", right?

Right?

No.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (62)
15.12%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (41)
10%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (78)
19.02%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (60)
14.63%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (44)
10.73%
How can I be the best version of myself? (125)
30.49%

Watched Threads

View All