The punishment for “excessive” speeding is to increase to six points on your driving license, from the existing three. There is no denying that those who excessively break the speed limit deserve far greater runishments than those who go just a few mph over.

However, the government is not going to be decreasing the penalties for minor speeding offences, renegading on a previous commitment.

Really, to do this properly, then all speeding penalties should take into account the road conditions at the time of the offence. Meaning that if it is “safe” to drive at an “excessive” speed, then the driver should get only the standard three points. But if the conditions are bad, the “excessive” speed limit should be much lower than normal, making the options that ministers are considering between:

under the harsher option, drivers would get six points for driving 15mph above the limit in 20mph and 30mph zones; the other option is a 20mph margin, meaning that drivers would not get six points unless doing 40mph in a 20mph limit or 50mph in a 30mph limit. (The Times)

look really rather stupid. A fixed limit is inappropriate, as whether speed is “excessive” must, obviously, depend on the context.

Speed kills; that no-one is denying. But the way the givernment seems detemined to try and reduce it are absurd. Rather than speed cameras, get traffic police on the roads who can actually use common sense in their decisions.

One thing that does annoy me is the proposal that “passing too close to a cyclist” will become a punishable by a three-point fixed penalty. Rather than that, just build some bloody cycle lanes! But I suppose cycle lanes don’t rake in the cash like fines do. They just save lives.