Attempted Robbery In Cape Town
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Double points
29 Answers
Is the proposal to give 6 points to people caught doing above 45 in a 30 zone a good idea? http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_ style/driving/article2836449.ece 57 or above on a 40mph road, or above 97 on a 70mph would be the same
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I wonder if in the not too distant future GATSO type cameras will be confined to the museum. To penalise someone for a momentarily lack of concentration and where over 10% of drivers have been caught doing this I foresee more use will be made of the 'average speed' between two points. This is fairer and also safer and there should not be a sudden application of the brake pedal.
This current proposal is fair because to exceed a speed limit by such a large anount suggests to me the driver should not be on the road at all.
This current proposal is fair because to exceed a speed limit by such a large anount suggests to me the driver should not be on the road at all.
A NIP is a �Notice of Intended Prosecution�, China Doll.
This is a document that the registered keeper of the vehicle is sent if his vehicle is caught by a speed camera.
Jake�s argument (if I�m correct) is that the principle of �totting up� is to deter consistent bad driving and that offenders are reminded (by means of the penalty points) that they need to mend their ways or face the consequences.
In the circumstances he describes (�banned in a day�) the offender has no opportunity to moderate his behaviour between the two offences taking place.
The flaw in the argument is that under the rules a NIP has to be sent so as to arrive within 14 days. So, moving from his extreme (two cameras ten yards apart) to the other, you could commit two speeding offences 13 days apart and argue that you had not been given the opportunity to mend your ways because you were not made aware of the first potential prosecution.
The Highway Code makes two references to the rationale behind the penalty points system:
�...is intended to deter drivers from following unsafe driving practices�
�...acts as a warning to drivers that they risk disqualification if further offences are committed�
So whilst the �warning� aspect of the principle is accepted, I do not agree that it is exclusive and must be allowed at all costs. In my view the purpose of the totting up rules is to punish drivers who commit a series of traffic offences which, each taken alone would not result in a ban. In short, to punish persistent bad driving. If this persistency occurs in a single day or even a single journey then so be it. Case law provides for the circumstances where cameras are closely sited together and is used to determine whether multiple offences have been committed.
This is a document that the registered keeper of the vehicle is sent if his vehicle is caught by a speed camera.
Jake�s argument (if I�m correct) is that the principle of �totting up� is to deter consistent bad driving and that offenders are reminded (by means of the penalty points) that they need to mend their ways or face the consequences.
In the circumstances he describes (�banned in a day�) the offender has no opportunity to moderate his behaviour between the two offences taking place.
The flaw in the argument is that under the rules a NIP has to be sent so as to arrive within 14 days. So, moving from his extreme (two cameras ten yards apart) to the other, you could commit two speeding offences 13 days apart and argue that you had not been given the opportunity to mend your ways because you were not made aware of the first potential prosecution.
The Highway Code makes two references to the rationale behind the penalty points system:
�...is intended to deter drivers from following unsafe driving practices�
�...acts as a warning to drivers that they risk disqualification if further offences are committed�
So whilst the �warning� aspect of the principle is accepted, I do not agree that it is exclusive and must be allowed at all costs. In my view the purpose of the totting up rules is to punish drivers who commit a series of traffic offences which, each taken alone would not result in a ban. In short, to punish persistent bad driving. If this persistency occurs in a single day or even a single journey then so be it. Case law provides for the circumstances where cameras are closely sited together and is used to determine whether multiple offences have been committed.
Your view is one thing it seems from your quotes that the highway code view is another - that rather seems to take my side doesn't it?
I don't agree that the 13 day argument is a flaw, I consider it to be an inherent part of the argument.
The purpose of points is to serve as a warning
At the moment the system is rather getting away with it because 4 seperate offences so close is:
a) improbable and
b) unlikely to be received sympathetically
I predict that if this comes in we'll see more "banned in a day" cases under the totting up and it'll move up the agenda.
We'll have to wait and see I guess
I don't agree that the 13 day argument is a flaw, I consider it to be an inherent part of the argument.
The purpose of points is to serve as a warning
At the moment the system is rather getting away with it because 4 seperate offences so close is:
a) improbable and
b) unlikely to be received sympathetically
I predict that if this comes in we'll see more "banned in a day" cases under the totting up and it'll move up the agenda.
We'll have to wait and see I guess
Latest Posts
Body & Soul7 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
