Add Your Idea

Enviromental/safety tax on vehicle speed, in addition to the usual criminal motoring charge for most dangerous speeds

Comment 22nd July 2010

 

 

An environmental/safety tax on speeding, in tandem with fines and charges for the highest levels of speeding. 

Money would be raised to purchase more cameras, speed limit signs, safe road crossing bridges etc for children, plus funds for A & E equipment, ambulances and helicopters. 

All cars would be trackable for identity by modern devices.  An  instant tax "bill" is sent to a person who has gone over the limit . 

At higher levels of speeding, the imposition is as a criminal motoring fine or charge as nowadays (part of the cash from this charge can go into the “tax” fund).

Such measures would reduce harmful emission levels and save fuel, and also reduce road deaths and injuries.

Residents or other drivers who are concerned about selfish speeding in certain areas would be able to be provided with a more discrete speeding camera which can be erected by their community on certain telegraph poles or buildings in the area where speeding occurs. The police will not be totally in control of such things (since they do not believe residents when they say there is constant selfish speeding, and they are not on top of the speeding problem).

There should be more, better speed camera everywhere (so often that nobody is prompted to do sudden stops when the see one). The technology is linked to tracking devices which will be on all cars and lorries.

At the lower levels of speeding an instant tax is imposed, drivers being sent bills for this.  At certain levels of speed this can be a higher amount, and it is also higher for heavier and foreign lorries

For example, if the in-town or residential limit were lowered  to, say, 28mph. speeding up to 34 mph would be a "tax", which would be paid in a similar way to a bill.  This might not be very much money (if  decided thus).

 Between 35 to 41 mph this would be an increased level of fine, and anything above would be a criminal  fine or charge as nowadays. The levels to set the particuar speeding limits for each level of tax would be decided by road safety experts.

Special limits should be introduced for narrow scenic rural roads, at similar levels to the 28 residential ones. Drivers ignore the potential for cyclists and walkers being just around the next bend.  Such scenic routes should never become rat-runs, or cut throughs; people must learn to slow down and be part of rural life.

In towns, the 40 mph limit would be changed to about 38:-  speeders taxed at certain level 38 to 43, taxed higher at 43- 50;  fined when going faster.

Similarly stepped  taxes and fines would apply in roads having 50 mph sections.

A new 67 limit (or lower) on faster roads such as dual carriageways and motorways would bring considerable savings in fuel. 

Special lane rules for lorries and other heavy or slower vehicles would be developed. Private cars would have different overtaking opportunities..

Slightly different limits and taxes could apply at junctions and near to slip roads of motorways according to prevailing local dangers and conditions..

Car speeders at 67 – 74 pay tax, at 74 – 78 a slightly higher tax, and speeders at over 78 would be charged. (Quick overtaking for safety of one or two vehicles could be used to plea to get some taxes reduced after the event but might be inconvenient). 

Any selfish person travelling at 90 or over would receive a hefty fine and have their hame published in local/national papers. 

Regarding speeding at night:- Recently a young lad was killed while walking on a motorway at night (his body having been smashed into by numerous vehicles).  People who speed at night would not be permitted the excuse that "there was nobody else on the road".  There are also numerous instances of accidents through deer and other large unexpected obstacles (such as parked-up vehicles) being present on roads.

To be “free” to drive is a special privilege.  There is no reason why the current worsening selfish speeding and so many (under-reported) deaths and injuries should be permitted to continue.

Why does this matter?

It must be emphasised in the publicising of this tax be publicised  that its aim is, in addition to the reduction of death on the road, the lessening of global-warming vehicle-emissions and saving of fuel as the result of lower speeds on roads.

Nothing is being done to lessen the number of people being injured or killed on our roads by drivers. There is a lack of publicity about these regular tragedies.  It is about time that money was extracted regularly and fairly as a tax from people who drive in an antisocial manner. If people cause death on the roads, then we should sacrifice our "freedom" to drive anywhere and anyhow we want.

It was very surprising that when the Princess Diana fund was started after the death of the princess that none of it had anything to do with road safety charities despite her having been killed on the road.

In order to initiate this different (perhaps thought to be "anti-freedom") method, there should be distributed and press-described accounts and lists of all the family tragedies caused by cars going back to the birth of motoring.

Improved standards of driving could arise from this method and the whole thing eventually become accepted.  Accounts of any deaths and injury during this period should appear in all national newspapers – if these lessen in amount then we can see that speed control is working.


1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Highlighted posts


Comment on this idea

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea