Drivers given a prison term or suspended sentence could face a levy of �30, and those fined for speeding or driving without insurance could pay an additional �5 or �10.

However, organisations such as Victim Support feel that services for victims should come out of core government funding.

On Tuesday the Prime Minister, Tony Blair defended the plans when taking part in a phone-in on LBC radio although he promised to listen to people's views about the controversial new proposals.

What do you think of the government's proposals? Will they make a difference to road safety? And will victims of crime benefit?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

On the whole I agree with any method to stop speeding. However I have a problem when a country road, which has not have any accidents, has a 40 mph limit imposed a year ago followed by a speed camera. Are the speed limits on roads being reduced so that more cars can be caught speeding?
Caron, England

Yet another stealth tax on Joe Public. This government has now lost my vote.
Peter, East Yorkshire

Police Forces and Councils throughout the country rely heavily on new and emerging stealth technologies to catch speeding motorists - but they deem it illegal for drivers to use technology such as radar detectors to alert them to such devices. This clearly is a case of double standards.
Mark Pittman, Scotland

I think this will be another wedge driven between the public and the police. As an ex-police officer it is sad to see that a government can destroy all good will. Remove all the cameras and let's have the officers back on the streets doing their job.
Dave, London UK

Another day, another tax.
Toni Hooper, Kettering

Too many people trivialise speeding. When in 30 mile per hour limits however good a driver you are there is a chance a child or elderly person may step out and you may not be able to stop. How unimportant would people think speeding was if they killed someone. However I think that any funds raised should go to the victims of accidents caused by speeding drivers.
Tracy, Leics

Recognise speeding for the dangerous crime it is Martin Gittins, London

I think that this is a good idea in principle but the way it has been presented by the government has been terrible. Motorists who think that they are being 'stealth taxed' need to wake up and recognise speeding for the dangerous crime it is.
Martin Gittins, London

Is there no government who will listen to us? When will there be a party for common sense or moral values? Yet again the motorist is the easy target for revenue, the law abiding ones anyway.
Graham, Crewe

I generally have little sympathy for speeding motorists whose behaviour I see cause accidents on a regular basis. On this occasion though, the proposal is both ludicrous and immoral. By all means levy a surcharge to pay to victims of road traffic accidents, but why should the motorist pay to compensate the victims of crime? Should not the fines for that type of crime carry the surcharge?
Ian Homewood, Southport, UK

How about placing tolls on all roads and using the money to buy Play stations and new TVs for prisoners?
Ian, UK

It's a clear case of the government trying to wash its hands of its responsibility to its people Niki, UK

At the end of the day the tax man will take his share and then these support agencies will take a share for 'administration purposes', so only a small percentage of the fine will actually go to the victims. It's a clear case of the government trying to wash its hands of its responsibility to its people and also to make a buck or two in the process.
Niki, UK

While the government is tackling road traffic crimes, I hope that it will move on and also introduce taxable registration on cyclists and enforce the 1890's criminal act of "furious cycling" and subject them to a hefty fine to help the community and help us pedestrians.
Maz, London

As a 22 year old driver, I can honestly say that the current fine of �60 or the newly suggested �90 is no deterrent to speeding. Even as a student with a part-time job the fine is little more than an inconvenience. How about we have a realistic deterrent - �1000 for speeding offences and the courts can collect by selling your car and giving you the change? Think of all the extra police and public services the extra income could cover. People might even stop speeding!
Chris Adams, East Kilbride, UK

It's getting ridiculous - drivers are being targeted AGAIN! I was recently fined �60 and 3 penalty points for 37mph in a 30 zone, yet when my car was broken into the police weren't interested. It seems that real crimes are too much effort for them to get involved in, whilst speed cameras give easy pickings.
Hayley, Sussex, UK

Just stick to the law John, Nottingham

I can't believe how many people on this site see this as a new tax. A tax is something you are obliged to pay. With this you have the option of not paying - just stick to the law.
John, Nottingham

Just a thought, but wouldn't the money be better spent on preventing crime in the first place? I personally was offended by the complete lack of interest I was shown by the Met police when (ironically) my car was stolen. Frankly, the inappropriate "victims of crime" information I was sent following only added to the insult.
Dan, UK

What happens to the money raised through ordinary fines? Can't that just be redeployed to victim support rather than paying �3000 a time for a new judge's wig or �500,000 for a house for them to live in near to crown courts?
Peter, Leeds

As a driver and pedestrian, I've got no sympathy whatsoever for those who genuinely drive stupidly, but the anti-driving lobby are getting far too smug and arrogant and need to be stopped blaming drivers for every conceivable ill. Just for a change, how about picking on the many cyclists who run red lights, ignore zebra crossings, ride on pavements and swear at any pedestrian who dares to get in their way?
James, Coventry, England

Let's strip criminals of their ill-gotten gains to pay their victims Tony, Shrewsbury, England

I don't know why so many motorists are whining so much about fines. As many others say, don't speed and you won't get fined! However, I do agree that motorists should not be paying victims of other crimes. Let's strip criminals of their ill-gotten gains to pay their victims. Oh, and while we're at it, why not bring in chain gangs and make the criminals do something useful for society?
Tony, Shrewsbury, England

Better to place a levy on burglaries and violent crimes only. This will encourage police to solve them and not to use the easy option of the motorist again.
Ed Bates, Bristol, England

Why do they think that people who do not bother to insure their cars will bother to pay the fine? Again it will be the honest motorist who pays. Also some of the replies talk of speeding motorists who deserve the fine. Two of my work colleagues have been caught speeding, both on dual carriageways at 42 and 44 mph so hardly terrorising housing areas.
Katherine Eady, Northampton, UK

I think it about time the police and law enforcement agencies begin to realise that in persecuting and alienating the motorist they are, in fact, creating a barrier between most of the population and the police. After all most of the population are motorists and we are beginning to feel persecuted - or at least I am and I have, all my life supported the police, but at 60 I am now finding an increasing unwillingness to offer that support. On the contrary, I believe they are more interested in the statistics and pursue the 'easy' option and chase the motorist where the result is probably more positive for them.
Colin Walker, Malton, England

I fully support expansion of services and compensation for crime victims. I wonder though what is the problem with diverting some of the current fines into the support program. I can only think of one reason and that is if the funds are already budgeted for as revenue!
Martin, Welwyn, Herts

Once again, a measure to implement soft target enforcement. This is not about right, wrong or the severity of the offence, but money and assets. Very worrying times, especially when DEFRA have already looked at the notion of "irrebbutable presumption" - namely guilt with no chance of proving otherwise.
Brian, Stansted, Essex

If you don't speed, you won't pay. Quite simple really.
Dave, England

It's got nothing to do with justice and everything to do with economics Anthony, Mytchett Surrey

Since when has speeding been a crime? It is an offence, speeding in itself does not cause injury or distress. If you are driving dangerously fair enough but speed cameras have nothing to do with catching dangerous drivers anyway. It's got nothing to do with justice and everything to do with economics.
Anthony, Mytchett Surrey

I am the victim of a horrific motorcycle crash after being smashed into by a drunk driver who was doing 20mph in a 60mph zone. How did speeding laws protect me? How about �5-10 for putting more police drunk-driver patrols on the road?
Huw Scott, London

The cause is noble but illogical because it is a smoke screen for raising general purpose cash. The idea of a speeding fine and prison is to punish motoring offences. The additional levy is just an indiscriminate way of raising cash from drivers who have not necessarily caused any victims. The government targets motorists because it can always impound their car in case of an unpaid levy, whereas collecting from an ordinary criminal is very difficult. Unfortunately, the idea of this new levy has all the hall-marks of a proposal that will soon become law because no one will seriously argue publicly against the rights of victims in general.
Charles, S�o Paulo Brazil

So a speeder is not only to pay a fine for speeding but also a levy for someone who has been mugged or a relative of someone who has been murdered? Does this mean that the Treasury has run out of money for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or just another example of budget cutting with the public taking up the slack?
Si_W, Darlington, County Durham

So many people are saying that the government should be fining criminals not motorists. But if you commit a traffic offence you are a criminal! If you don't want to pay the fine, don't commit the crime. It's not that hard to drive properly!
Kari Fay, Nottingham, England

Instead of coming clean and admitting that speed cameras are strategically placed to generate maximum revenue, the government has cynically attempted to claim the high moral ground by claiming that speed cameras save lives and, consequently, they are justified to further tax the 'criminal' motorist. Strange, I seem to recall that the government's own figures show that road deaths have actually increased year-on-year despite the thousands of cameras. Why not just increase the fines, after all this is just a cynical manoeuvre to justify an increased fine. Speeding is largely a victimless crime, the 99.99% of speeding motorists (name me one person who has never exceeded the speed limit by so much as 1mph) who never cause or are involved in accidents are just an easy target. How about jacking up the cost of crimes with victims instead.
Chris Hann, San Jose, USA

Next, the speeding fines will be increased to fund reconstruction in Iraq. The cause of the problem is that non-motoring fines are not always paid and there is a huge gap in collections, while motorists pay the fines usually on time. Easy pickings. No, I'm not condoning speeding - far from it. But jacking up speeding fines to fund unrelated projects is not done.
VJ, London, UK

Yet another stealth tax!
John, Workington Cumbria

The government has to justify expenditure in its own right Ken Charman, Wokingham, UK

The government undermines the whole basis of public finance by introducing these spurious links between raising and spending tax money. There is no more connection between a speeding motorist and the victim of a mugging than there is between stamp duty and the victim of a burglary. Public finance all goes into one big pot. The government has to justify expenditure in its own right and not by drawing false correlations between vice and virtue. Do they think anyone believes them?
Ken Charman, Wokingham, UK

Even a child could understand the unfairness of these proposals. This is not a logical way to fund victims of crime, and the public will never accept this.
Patrick Loftus, Milton Keynes, Bucks

Perfectly reasonable. I'd also like to see much higher fines for drivers of those ugly 4-wheel-drive monstrosities. As well as needlessly polluting our environment, they're far more dangerous to pedestrians and other road users when they're involved in a crash.
Jaydee, Hull, England

Anyone caught speeding is a potential killer and should be made to see the error of their ways by hitting them in the pocket. That is the only way some people can be 'persuaded' that they have to obey the rules of the road, as the vast majority of drivers do. If you don't want to pay the fine, don't do the CRIME.
J F M, London

If you speed quite simply you are committing a crime! Ed, UK

Totally fair and right. Much needed and a good move by Mr Blunkett. I just love the outcry from all the "hard pressed" motorists. If you speed quite simply you are committing a crime! As someone whose property is blighted by speeding motorists I welcome this move. To all the whingers.... please be quiet. If you don't speed you won't get fined. It really is that simple.
Ed, UK

Outrageous. Baroness Scotland has seriously misjudged the public if she thinks that people will support measures like this. I fully support the idea of payments being made to victims, but not from completely unrelated offences - the perpetrator must be made to pay, not the motorist.
Ed Courtenay, Yeovil, Somerset

How about making prison inmates work/work harder to pay for the victim support fund rather than the motorist?
Chris Noakes, Southampton, UK

Yet another absolutely disgraceful charge. This is totally unfair. Make those who cause crime pay the victims, not drivers who already pay fines for speeding. How about taking some of the extortionate tax we pay on petrol duty to pay the victims?
Henry, Ossett, England

An expensive and pointless sound bite of an idea Martin, England

No doubt there will be a whole new government department created to administer this, costing twice as much as the fines will actually raise. An expensive and pointless sound bite of an idea.
Martin, England

If the government actually made an attempt to collect all the outstanding and defaulted fines they'd make far more money, and perhaps they'd get some respect rather than the usual outrage and derision that accompanies their weekly attempt to blame drivers for all the nation's problems.
David Priddy, Slough, UK

So finally New Labour admits that speed cameras are revenue generators! Something that the beleaguered British motorist has known for years. This is yet another excuse for me NOT to vote for New Labour at the next election.
Taz, UK

What next, �100 fine for walking on the cracks in the pavement? The chancellor's pockets are empty - he got his sums wrong, so now we are seeing the 21st century equivalent of window tax.
Rick Hough, Knutsford, Cheshire

Whilst I would agree with the principle that criminals should compensate their victims for their crimes against them, once again we find the motorist as an easy source of revenue for the Treasury. The question is when will it stop? As soon as the Labour government is finally kicked out of office.
C. Beaven, Stevenage, Herts

At last, it's good to see the UK doing something about supporting the victims of crime. As for those people who think this is a bad idea to levy speeding fines - if you don't like it, don't speed in the first place! By speeding, you are putting lives at risk.. especially through urban areas.
Stewart Hector, Toronto, Canada

If this levy does not raise sufficient money will victims of crime not be supported? With taxes being raised all the time I would hope not. Will we be employing even more civil servants for this exercise? Why not just raise the fines and guarantee victims of crime will be looked after out of general taxation?
John Ley, London, UK

This is totally ridiculous Bill D, Herts

Speaking as a police traffic officer, I have to say this is totally ridiculous. If offenders are to have additional fines placed on them to fund support for their victims then the offenders targeted should be those committing offences that place a demand on VSS and criminal injuries - offences such as burglary, criminal damage and those committing violent crimes, not those committing simple motoring offences.
Bill D, Herts

Proof positive that this government have finally lost the plot. Here's a novel idea - why not get the money for victims from the people who commit the crime, not just someone who commits a totally unrelated offence. Insane.
Steve, Huddersfield, UK

The money must come from somewhere and what better place than from those who commit crimes which leave victims to be cared for? I think the fines and levies should be even higher so they might also act as a deterrent.
Sadie, UK

This is outrageous. Yet again the government target the average motorist whilst the real criminals get away with murder literally. Perhaps the real criminals should be made to pay for their crimes not the motorist again.
Martin, UK