Jump to content

Meaningless seatbelt fixed penalty!


TOPGUN749
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sunak didn’t bother with a seatbelt and got a fixed penalty of £100, he is so wealthy that he could ignore seatbelt laws on every journey if he wanted to.£100 to him is like a penny to people like us.If a £100 fine to a typical worker equals 10 hours take home income,should there not be a fines system based on wealth/ income? Shouldn’t law breaking hit us all in a meaningful way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both have a point, but after all it is a fixed - and non endorsable - penalty. As with other similar examples, repeated 'offences' at a level which reflect a contempt of the law should be penalised. Initially, not by increasing the financial award but by something appropriate and similar to the driving awareness course which should attract an appropriate fee and increasing in severity for those who don't get the message. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rim Fire said:

so where do you start and finnish and in-between £1 to how many Thousands to how many million 

Something like a percentage of income/savings& property ownership,earn £20,000 a year pay £50, Earn £100,000 a year pay £250,Earn £250,000 and have wealth of 1 million pay £10,000.Even if the prime minister had to pay a million pound penalty it wouldn’t hurt him as much as the worker on £20,000 paying £100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ditchman said:

to be honest i didnt know it was illegal to ride in the back of someones car without a seat belt on............

Neither did I kids yes but adults well 

anyway they will be dishing out some tickets shortly when the pope visits or the kings coronation not to mention all security guards 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ditchman said:

to be honest i didnt know it was illegal to ride in the back of someones car without a seat belt on............

 

6 hours ago, Old farrier said:

Neither did I kids yes but adults well 

anyway they will be dishing out some tickets shortly when the pope visits or the kings coronation not to mention all security guards 

I think it as simple as this, aged under 14, the driver is responsible.

14 and over the individual is responsible for their own foolishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

 

I think it as simple as this, aged under 14, the driver is responsible.

14 and over the individual is responsible for their own foolishness.

Unless someone is in the front as its assumed the driver should notice the person is not wearing their seat belt and as the operator of the car is also culpable. If my memory serves me anyway 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Someone who has never worked pays peanuts, whereas someone who has grafted their way to the top, by hard work etc gets penalised more, despite contributing more to the economy. 

How does that work?

/\  This - and also how doe you judge someone is 'wealthy'?

  1. Single parent, not working and on benefits - presumably not wealthy, standard fine.
  2. Pensioner, state pension (around £10K) - presumably not wealthy, standard fine.
  3. Average 'worker' - about £30K (apparently) with 2 kids wife not working and mortgage - wealthy?  Higher fine?
  4. Average worker (£30K), no kids, lives with parents - wealthy?  Higher fine?
  5. Higher worker (e.g. £60K) + wife working (£30K) - wealthy?  Higher fine?
  6. Professional - (£100K) with wife working (£30K) - big mortgage and 3 kids - wealthy?  Higher fine?
  7. Professional - (£100K) with wife working (£30K) - kids independant and mortgage paid off - wealthy?  Higher fine?
  8. Farmer/owns family farm, income £30K, but owns £1M business in the farm) - wealthy?  Higher fine?
  9. Small business owner, self employed, has good years and bad years, £20K to 60K - wealthy?  Higher fine?
  10. Business owner, £100K salary and owns £10M business and £1M house - wealthy I assume.

The above illustrates the wide diversity and there will be wide differences in who is 'seen to be wealthy'.  Clearly 1 and 2 are not wealthy and 10 is wealthy, but the others?

Edited by JohnfromUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought it was the driver who was responsible and could get a fine for the passengers not wearing a seatbelt. But hey I don't know all the laws and fixed penalties etc. 

And as for a wealth based penalty. Would you suggest as I own two properties I'm more wealthy? You could say I'm asset rich but my bank account tells me I'm not cash rich right this second... I was just lucky when younger to be able to hold on to a property. Why should I pay more for the offence?! You either wear a belt or you don't, wealth has nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...