Lawbreaking motorists (not Electrics)

[ban-all-sheds]

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

In places I have not, quite possibly because of the lack of logic and consistency in it.

However I do clearly understand that the message you are sending is that you are unhappy with particular scenarios but are unable or unwilling to explain at what point(s) you become happy/unhappy.

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'?

I think we can safely assume that you would not think it right?

Given that, you must know at what point you would consider it right. If 2 miles and 4 cameras are not right, what about 40 miles and 2 cameras? What about 400 miles and 5 cameras? What about that 2 mile stretch with just one camera, but the person commits the wrongdoing on two separate occasions? If those occasions are a day apart, does that make it different than if they are an hour apart? Or a minute apart? Or 10 seconds apart?

You must know where you consider the "not right" conditions end and the "right" ones begin. If you don't then you have no right to brand any conditions right or wrong, as you are making it all up.

 

[JohnW2]

Given that, you must know at what point you would consider it right. If 2 miles and 4 cameras are not right, what about 40 miles and 2 cameras? What about 400 miles and 5 cameras? What about that 2 mile stretch with just one camera, but the person commits the wrongdoing on two separate occasions? If those occasions are a day apart, does that make it different than if they are an hour apart? Or a minute apart? Or 10 seconds apart? You must know where you consider the "not right" conditions end and the "right" ones begin.

It's only at the extremes that I can really express a view as to what is "right" (or, rather, "not right"). I've already said that I do not think it "right" that someone should be disqualified (12 points, from 4 cameras) for driving at 85mph for 2 miles. Taking your questions above, I would hope that we could agree that it "would not be right" for someone to be disqualified (12 points) for driving at 85mph on four occasions 10 seconds apart, or even 1 minute apart.

When it gets less silly than that, it's difficult to know where the line should be drawn. At the other 'extreme', speaking personally, I would certainly say that speeding n two occasions on 'different days' (>24h apart) should count as two offences. However, between those extremes, opinions as to where 'the line should be drawn' will undoubtedly vary considerably.

There is another complication. We've been talking about speed cameras, a feature of which is that one does not know (at least, not for sure) that one has been 'caught' in real time. I would personally say that it is rather different if one is stopped by the police and given a 'ticket' for speeding. In that situation, I don't think that it would be unreasonable to consider it a separate offence if one was 'caught' again just a few minutes later.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Actually, there have been cases of multiple speeding where the same vehicle has been captured by several cameras.

Where it has been proven to the court that all of those offences were committed on one journey, it has been deemed by the judge that only one offence should be recorded.

See here:
https://richardsilver.co.uk/news/ca...journey-how-many-penalty-points-will-you-get/

Ban, I'm sorry if this namby-pamby, wishy-washy approach does not meet with your approval.
I suggest you write to the law-makers and complain, rather than making futile rants here!

 

[JohnW2]

Where it has been proven to the court that all of those offences were committed on one journey, it has been deemed by the judge that only one offence should be recorded."

That's exactly the sort of thing I would have expected. However, I didn't dare mention "during one journey" to BAS since I can just imagine the interrogation that would have followed ("Please define 'journey' - is that a drive to the corner shop just down the road, a drive from London to Birmingham, or to Edinburgh or to Madrid, or what?? - and what if you stopped briefly for a snack or a 'comfort break' - would that make it two journeys??" !!).

For similar reasons, I generally avoided mentioning 'common sense', although that's what I would like to think might be applied!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's exactly the sort of thing I would have expected. However, I didn't dare mention "during one journey" to BAS since I can just imagine the interrogation that would have followed ("Please define 'journey' - is that a drive to the corner shop just down the road, a drive from London to Birmingham, or to Edinburgh or to Madrid, or what?? - and what if you stopped briefly for a snack or a 'comfort break' - would that make it two journeys??" !!).

But those are all relevant considerations.

If you think you have a rule which determines whether or not multiple detections should be treated as separate instances, but then when you try to apply it you find that it does not produce a determination then you are mistaken in believing that you have a rule.

 

[JohnW2]

But those are all relevant considerations.

Quite so - which, as I said, is the reason I did not mention "during one journey".

If you think you have a rule which determines whether or not multiple detections should be treated as separate instances, but then when you try to apply it you find that it does not produce a determination then you are mistaken in believing that you have a rule.

As I've said, I don't "have a rule" (other than 'at the extremes'). However, in order to achieve some degree of fairness and consistency, we really need a rule - but I am not a law-maker or rule-maker.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

When it gets less silly than that, it's difficult to know where the line should be drawn. At the other 'extreme', speaking personally, I would certainly say that speeding n two occasions on 'different days' (>24h apart) should count as two offences. However, between those extremes, opinions as to where 'the line should be drawn' will undoubtedly vary considerably.

Indeed they will. And then we encounter essentially the same problem of inconsistency which concerned you here:

If the penalty for speeding is a fine of Y and 3 penalty points, should someone who drives at 85mph along a fairly short stretch of M25, passing X speed cameras as (s)he does, get a fine of X*Y and 3*X penalty points, whereas someone driving at 85mph for the same distance along a road that has only one speed camera in that strench, the penalty is just Y plus 3 points?

only this time the difference is the magistrate you happen to be up before.

There is another complication. We've been talking about speed cameras, a feature of which is that one does not know (at least, not for sure) that one has been 'caught' in real time. I would personally say that it is rather different if one is stopped by the police and given a 'ticket' for speeding. In that situation, I don't think that it would be unreasonable to consider it a separate offence if one was 'caught' again just a few minutes later.

So you consider that the knowledge that one has been caught once makes the second instance a second offence.

The problem here is that getting caught, or not, makes no difference as to whether you have committed the offence, or not. If you drive at 85mph then you have broken the speed limit whether or not you are detected. You think that the separation of two instances by a known detection event separates what would have been a single speeding offence into two - a quite reasonable "you got caught speeding, and then you decided to go ahead and do it again, so it's two offences".

But then if a driver is having to slow down at times, because of traffic, signals, road features, full bladder, empty stomach, whatever, surely every time he subsequently decides to carry on accelerating past the speed limit he has decided to commit another offence?

If someone burgles No.9, doesn't get caught, comes out and decides to burgle No.11, surely that is two offences?

I've already said that I do not think it "right" that someone should be disqualified (12 points, from 4 cameras) for driving at 85mph for 2 miles.

If one takes the view that the reason we have cameras, laws, penalties etc is to deter people from speeding, then why not?

After all - it's not a hard thing for someone to avoid having happen to them - all they have to do is not speed.

 

[JohnW2]

But then if a driver is having to slow down at times, because of traffic, signals, road features, full bladder, empty stomach, whatever, surely every time he subsequently decides to carry on accelerating past the speed limit he has decided to commit another offence?

Quite so. It's the fact that such is so 'silly' which indicates why we need clear 'rules'.

If one takes the view that the reason we have cameras, laws, penalties etc is to deter people from speeding, then why not?

'Fairness'. It would make no sense if the penalty for committing exactly the same speeding 'wrongdoing' could be dramatically different according to which stretch of the same road one committed it on.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

How have we got from new house wiring to Gatsos?

We got bored with electrickery.

 

[stillp]

It would make no sense if the penalty for committing exactly the same speeding 'wrongdoing' could be dramatically different according to which stretch of the same road one committed it on.

But the likelihood of being caught is dramatically different.
Anyway, are we talking about Gatsos, or average speed camera?

 

[securespark]

We got bored with electrickery.

 

[JohnW2]

But the likelihood of being caught is dramatically different.

That depends on what parameters one considers (time and/or distance) and, probably more relevant, the arrangement of the road. The M25 and M42 are good examples. In the 'variable speed' sections, there are very frequent gantries, all of which I think have cameras - so it would be very easy to pass 4 or more in a couple of miles of driving. In other sections, one might have to drive a good few miles to pass even one camera.

Anyway, are we talking about Gatsos, or average speed camera?

Gatsos (well, at least I am!). In the sense we are talking about, average speed cameras (or, at least, a single pair of them) are much fairer, since they produce just a single figure for speed over the stretch of road being monitored, so that there can be no suggestion that more than one 'offence' has been committed - whereas there could be several Gatsos on the same stretch of road.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Quite so. It's the fact that such is so 'silly' which indicates why we need clear 'rules'.
'Fairness'.

Fairness?

So what about the Newtown vs Marketown CID competence example?

If Newtown has a particularly talented CID, but neighbouring Marketown has a bunch of no-hopers, should Newtown have to let go without charge some of the people it catches because Marketown would not have caught them? If not, would it not be unfair that the penalty for committing exactly the same wrongdoing could be dramatically different according to which town one committed it in?

It would make no sense if the penalty for committing exactly the same speeding 'wrongdoing' could be dramatically different according to which stretch of the same road one committed it on.

How do you know it's exactly the same?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

it would be very easy to pass 4 or more in a couple of miles of driving. In other sections, one might have to drive a good few miles to pass even one camera.

If we are of the view that we do not want drivers to speed, and therefore we put in place systems to detect those who do, and punish them for their misdeeds, what could be wrong with the rule "one camera, one offence"?

After all - it is a simple message: If you don't want to risk being disqualified, obey the law. How hard is that to do? Why should we be unhappy with a system which works better in some places than others?

If we are unhappy, what would be best - improve the system in areas where it doesn't work as well, or degrade the system where it is working better to remove that superiority?

It's a question which applies, generically, to all sorts of areas - basically do we want to iron out "unfairness" by making everything the same as the worst example, or by striving to make everything the same as the best?

 

[JohnW2]

If Newtown has a particularly talented CID, but neighbouring Marketown has a bunch of no-hopers, should Newtown have to let go without charge some of the people it catches because Marketown would not have caught them? If not, would it not be unfair that the penalty for committing exactly the same wrongdoing could be dramatically different according to which town one committed it in?

I keep telling you that I'm not talking about people who don't get caught. I'm talking about people who do exactly the same thing and get caught but who, due to technicalities (the number of cameras installed), could get dramatically different penalties.

Kind Regards, John