7 Times in 6 Days!

[V8 Bob]

[urlhttp://www.cumbriacrack.com/2015/02/05/driver-caught-speeding-7-times-6-days-disqualified/]|url[/url]

[Transiter]

http://www.cumbriacrack.com/2015/02/05/driver-caug...

[R8VXF]

21 points. He wins.

[Chris Type R]

I wonder if the stretch of road has been a 30 for a long time.

[singlecoil]

Seems unnecessarily severe.

[ging84]

singlecoil said:

Seems unnecessarily severe.

Guess it's one of those rules is rules situations

can't tell if those £35 fine were out of a bit of sympathy, or simply what you get when you means test someone on a basic state pension

[leigh1050]

He had to pay a VICTIM surcharge! Who was injured?

[Pit Pony]

singlecoil said:

Seems unnecessarily severe.

in the days before speed cameras, the police would point the radar gun at you, and then another bod would stop you 200 yrds up the road. Three Points. Next day you'd know to be careful. Once you had 9 points, you'd definately be driving like a saint. (unlike my mate who got done at 102 when he had 9 points)

These days you could be banned by the time you get home if you go past 4 speed cameras, and you were being a bit erm quick.

[andygo]

My brother got banned for the same. Temp speed limit, new place of work, miles away from home, series of love letters from the scammers.

He should have been a bit more careful and observant, but he normally drives likes Miss Daisies super slowmo driver.

[ging84]

leigh1050 said:

He had to pay a VICTIM surcharge! Who was injured?

around 20 thosand people a year are killed or seriously injured on the road

But i don't think that is how the victim surcharge work, it's not specific to the type of crime you have committed, it's a big fun which everyone who gets fined by a court is paying into, then it all gets paid out to the super markets and councils who are best at lobbying

[Nigel Worc's]

Proof to the doubters that the bd scammers do ping you at 35 in a 30 limit.

[LoonR1]

leigh1050 said:

He had to pay a VICTIM surcharge! Who was injured?

Daft comment is daft.

[Mr GrimNasty]

LoonR1 said:

leigh1050 said:

He had to pay a VICTIM surcharge! Who was injured?

Daft comment is daft.

You win, again.

[V8 Fettler]

Did not the driver receive the NIP for the first offence before he committed the second offence?

[annsxman]

V8 Fettler said:

Did not the driver receive the NIP for the first offence before he committed the second offence?

He probably didn't get the NIP for the first before he committed the last

[singlecoil]

The moral of the story is that it's probably not a good idea to speed, especially frequently, even by relatively small amounts. I normally reckon to drive at an indicated 35mph on long clear 30mph roads, true speed is about 33mph and I've not had a problem so far. The extra 3 or 4mph isn't going to make much of a difference except legally, so best not to do it.

[Willy Nilly]

leigh1050 said:

He had to pay a VICTIM surcharge! Who was injured?

The children

[Sheepshanks]

singlecoil said:

Seems unnecessarily severe.

Agree. What public interest is served here?

Sending him on a driver improvement course would have been more appropriate.

[mybrainhurts]

Cumbria scammers, I might have guessed. This was Stevieboy's stomping ground when he first came here with his arrogant attitude.

Another reason why cameras are A Bad Thing.

He was caught by the camera several times before he received the NIPs through the post. If plod had stopped him for a word on day one, he wouldn't be in this mess.

In fact, he would have got off with a bking if plod was doing a good job.

Call this justice? More like State abuse of power.

[Sheepshanks]

The stupid thing about fixed cameras is it's mainly middle aged to older people, like this guy, who get caught by them. They're the demographic who are generally the safest drivers.