Lawbreaking motorists (not Electrics)

[stillp]

The Road traffic Offenders Act 1988 section 28
(4) Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly).
(5) In a case where (apart from this subsection) subsection (4) above would apply to two or more offences, the court may if it thinks fit determine that that subsection shall not apply to the offences (or, where three or more offences are concerned, to any one or more of them).

 

[JohnW2]

That would be like having four cameras at 50 metre intervals.

Quite so.

I believe they work under the premise that the main intention is to get people not to speed, that's why speed cameras are conspicuous with even a prior warning.

Indeed - and that's one reason why I don't think that contrived multiple convictions (and multiple penalties) for what is essentially 'one offence' (e.g. "driving for 2 miles at 85 mph") is really appropriate.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The Road traffic Offenders Act 1988 section 28 .... (4) Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them ...

Does that not beg the question as to the definition of(committed on) "the same occasion". How far apart in time or space do the offences have to be to be "different occasions" = 10 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day, 1 month ... or 50 metres, 500 metres, 2000 metres etc. etc. ??

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

How have we got from new house wiring to Gatsos?

 

[JohnW2]

How have we got from new house wiring to Gatsos?

It all happened because BAS wanted those who 'sign off' meter tails buried (without protection) in plaster to be dealt with by "hanging, drawing and quartering", or something like that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I've certainly heard of that happening with multiple illegal tyres but, as I said before, I think that's rather different. If what you say actually happened, I think that's fairly ridiculous if it all happened in a relatively short span of time and distance.

Do you have a definition of "relatively short"?

'Speeding' obviously does not happen at a single point in time.

But it's detected at pretty much a single point in time. And space.

Let's face it, if they wanted to play that game, I would imagine that the technology could exist for them to measure a car's speed at, say 200, 150, 100 and 50 metres from the camera, so anyone 'caught' would be prosecuted for 4 offences, and hence probably disqualified.

If someone went past a speed camera (too fast) on 4 consecutive Mondays, should that be 1 offence, or 4?
If someone went past a speed camera (too fast) on 4 consecutive days, should that be 1 offence, or 4?
If someone went past a speed camera (too fast), on the same day at 12:00, 13:00, 14:00 and 15:00, should that be 1 offence, or 4?
If someone went past a speed camera (too fast), on the same day at 12:00, 12:01, 12:02 and 12:03, should that be 1 offence, or 4?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fair enough, you are taking what I wrote absolutely literally, whereas I feel sure that you are intelligent enough to have understood the poingt I was making!

Actually, no, I am struggling to understand that.

I confess that I did write in the form 'if someone did something .... whereas if someone else did exactly the same thing (on a different road).....', but the point I was making was not actually about different people. I could have written "if someone did something .... whereas if the same person did exactly the same thing on a different road, then ....'

Or you could have written "if someone burgles a house in Newtown .... whereas if the same person did exactly the same thing in Marketown, then ...."

I'm wondering if the reason I am struggling to understand your point is that at the heart of it seems to be the concept that a person's culpability, or even the existence of a wrongdoing, somehow depends on whether the same wrongdoing by them (or another) would not have been detected under different circumstances? Because that makes no sense.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The Road traffic Offenders Act 1988 section 28
(4) Where a person is convicted (whether on the same occasion or not) of two or more offences committed on the same occasion and involving obligatory endorsement, the total number of penalty points to be attributed to them is the number or highest number that would be attributed on a conviction of one of them (so that if the convictions are on different occasions the number of penalty points to be attributed to the offences on the later occasion or occasions shall be restricted accordingly).
(5) In a case where (apart from this subsection) subsection (4) above would apply to two or more offences, the court may if it thinks fit determine that that subsection shall not apply to the offences (or, where three or more offences are concerned, to any one or more of them).

I don't suppose "same occasion" is defined?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think that contrived multiple convictions (and multiple penalties) for what is essentially 'one offence' (e.g. "driving for 2 miles at 85 mph") is really appropriate.

When does it become appropriate?

5 miles?

20?

200?

If the person drives for one mile, then does a 180° at a roundabout (at a lot less than 85mph, and within the speed limit), and then drives as much as is left of the next mile at 85mph, is that one offence, or two?

If a person is clocked through 2 cameras at an excessive speed, how far apart in time and distance would you want the cameras to be for it to not be a contrived multiple offence? Then, taking your threshold, if someone was over it what would you think of a defence which said "I did not slow down between the two cameras - it was not two separate offences"?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It all happened because BAS wanted those who 'sign off' meter tails buried (without protection) in plaster to be dealt with by "hanging, drawing and quartering", or something like that!

No, nothing so barbaric.

If we are to have laws, and if we are to have punishments for transgression with the aim of deterring transgressors, then we ought to have deterrents which do actually work. Because if they don't work then there is no point having them, and no point in having the relevant laws.

 

[JohnW2]

If someone went past a speed camera (too fast) on 4 consecutive Mondays, should that be 1 offence, or 4?
If someone went past a speed camera (too fast) on 4 consecutive days, should that be 1 offence, or 4?
If someone went past a speed camera (too fast), on the same day at 12:00, 13:00, 14:00 and 15:00, should that be 1 offence, or 4?
If someone went past a speed camera (too fast), on the same day at 12:00, 12:01, 12:02 and 12:03, should that be 1 offence, or 4?

Exactly.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

When does it become appropriate? ... 5 miles? .... 20? ... 200?

Exactly.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm wondering if the reason I am struggling to understand your point is that at the heart of it seems to be the concept that a person's culpability, or even the existence of a wrongdoing, somehow depends on whether the same wrongdoing by them (or another) would not have been detected under different circumstances? Because that makes no sense.

You still don't seem to understand what I have been saying ....

Consider one person who does not dispute the fact that he committed the 'wrongdoing' of "driving for 2 miles at 85mph". Would you really think that it 'appropriate' that, say, whether he received one fine and 3 points or four fines and 12 points (aka probable disqualification) for that one particular, non-disputed, 'wrongdoing' should depend solely on how many functional speed cameras had been installed in the stretch of road in question? That surely would not be 'right'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Exactly.

Very funny.

Now please answer each of those questions.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Exactly.

Very funny.

Now please answer each of those questions.