Nuxx:0d155685-644a-471a-b60c-9a23c41e42b3@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <0d155685-644a-471a-b60c-9a23c41e42b3@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: A Simple Question Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:55:32 -0800 (PST) References:  <738ed50d-7d1d-441d-b71b-39e3011e73b0@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com> Lines: 42 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.160.137.186 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231458933 21963 127.0.0.1 (8 Jan 2009 23:55:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 23:55:33 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.160.137.186; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3752 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:682572

On Jan 5, 12:02=A0am, Jon  wrote: > On 3 Jan, 21:32, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > A motorist makes a trip from A to B, then back again. =A0An hour or so > > later, he does the same thing. =A0Along the route between A and B is a > > stretch of road [which was NSL until a few years ago, but now] (irrelev= ant) has a =A030mph limit,[ despite nothing else about the road having chan= ged, and despite there having never been any accidents on the stretch which= were caused by anyone driving too fast or speeding.] (Irrelevant) =A0Today= , a mobile > > camera is raking it in by sitting, hidden*, on this particular > > stretch. =A0Our 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.

I was simply asking whether you, and others, thought that travelling at between 35 and 37mph on four separate occasions through an ex-NSL stretch which had now been made 30mph for questionable reasons was deserving of a ban. I'm not really concerned whether the "offences" took place on different days or not. Is it reasonable to ban a driver for doing something which normal, respectable people do millions of times a day, which the average passenger probably wouldn't even notice, and which can be done in complete safety? Surely driving bans should be reserved for those who have committed genuinely dangerous and reckless acts, which the average person would instantly be able to identify as such were they in the passenger seat or nearby the car concerned?