Nuxx:GBk8l.170646$Gh5.45230@newsfe16.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!xlned.com!feeder3.xlned.com!news.astraweb.com!border1.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!transit4.hitnews.eu!feeder.news-service.com!69.16.177.246.MISMATCH!cyclone03.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe16.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: A Simple Question Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:40:52 +0000 References:  <738ed50d-7d1d-441d-b71b-39e3011e73b0@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Lines: 36 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <738ed50d-7d1d-441d-b71b-39e3011e73b0@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe16.ams2 1231148492 82.21.204.127 (Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:41:32 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:41:32 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 3557 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:682277

Jon wrote: > On 3 Jan, 21:32, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > >> A motorist makes a trip from A to B, then back again. An hour or so >> later, he does the same thing. Along the route between A and B is a >> stretch of road [which was NSL until a few years ago, but now] (irrelevant) has a 30mph limit,[ despite nothing else about the road having changed, and despite there having never been any accidents on the stretch which were caused by anyone driving too fast or speeding.] (Irrelevant)  Today, a mobile >> camera is raking it in by sitting, hidden*, on this particular >> stretch. Our motorist friend unsurprisingly doesn't see the hidden >> van, and drives by it each time at speeds between 35mph and 37mph. >> Accordingly, he later receives four speeding tickets, taking him to 12 >> points, and a probable ban. >> >> So the question is: "Does the punishment in this case fit the >> 'crime'?" >> > Presumably you suggest that the offender's having committing all four > offences on the same day should lead to these being treated as one > offence. To compare this with other crimes, if a persistent shoplifter > visited the same shop four times in one day and stole something of low > value each time, the same principle would imply that they should > receive one conviction for theft, not four as would happen at present, > if later identified & prosecuted. This does raise the question of why > committing multiple crimes in the same day should be regarded as being > less serious then committing them on different days? You do not > clearly explain why you think this principle should apply.

Your example is flawed, since the shoplifter should reasonably be aware that his actions are unlawful. Given that the motorist is well aware that the camera is theoretically infallible, and that he knows he'll always be caught if he speeds past a camera, its reasonable to believe that he wasn't aware that he was breaking the law.

Without wanting to answer for the OP, I think he's suggesting that its probably an over-reaction to effectively ban a driver for what is effectively a single mistake. Its definitely appropriate that a sanction is applied, but a ban *is* probably too heavy for that.