Driver sets off 32 speed cameras.

[Rpp999]

The motorist was eventually stopped between junctions 14 and 15, near Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, on Monday.


The 32 speeding offences could land him 96 points on his licence. He faces up to 11 more for other motoring raps.


The car was found to have two bald tyres — which carries a three-point penalty.


And the driver was uninsured — which usually results in six to eight points.


Central Motorway Police Group tweeted: “M6 J14-J15 BMW stopped due to activating 32 speed cameras at very high speeds.


“Whilst following it we recorded its average speed of 83mph in the roadworks 60s in thick fog. Driver detained.”

 

[st13phil]

Why to I get the impression that any sanction other than imprisonment will be ignored by this particular miscreant?

 

[Deleted member 126969]

Next time they'll just add “driving whilst banned” to the list, with the usual non-penalty applied. Trouble is, rules only matter to those that follow them.

 

[BTB 500]

IIRC you can argue in court that activating multiple speed cameras is a single speeding offence. It does make sense - if you were followed by a police car for a couple of miles going over the speed limit and then pulled over that would only be treated as one offence.

32 cameras might be pushing it a bit though

 

[Stratman]

We keep hearing of drivers who ignore bans and just carry on driving and when they appear at court the sentence is another ban, which will undoubtedly be ignored. If courts are limited in what they can do for 'driving while disqualified', could they not view repeat offenders as being in contempt of court, an offence which can carry severe penalties?

 

[E55BOF]

The maximum sentence for driving while disqualified is six months' imprisonment. The prisons are full, however, and prison sentences for other than serious offences are rare for that reason.

I don't give a monkey's for the 'human rights' of petty criminals; they don't give a monkey's for the rights of law-abiding citizens, so why should they have the benefit of a system they don't respect or conform to? The problem is, it costs a fortune to keep people in prison, and an absolute fortune to build a new prison. Now, if only somebody could come up with a way to do it on the cheap...

Fence off sink estates with the best escape-proof walls money can buy, with heavily-guarded access/exit points to control who goes in and out; move the decent people out, and put all the scum in there to prey on each other until they've served their time? Hmmmmmm... Nah, it would never work; there aren't enough sink estates...

(Yes, I know all the statistics show prison doesn't work as a deterrent to future offending, but if they're locked up they're not offending, are they? What I would most like to see is a justice system which, first and foremost, stops the bastards doing it; rehabilitation comes a distant second. I think most of the population would agree.)