Speed Camera Surprises Man Twice

RobBrady · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:02 pm Post subject: Speed Camera Surprises Man Twice

Dean Kenworthy, a 50 year old white van driver, got a shock when he realised that he was caught speeding at 57mph by a mobile speed camera.

His van, which was leased, was limited by law to 50mph in 60mph speed zones - a fact that he claimed no knowledge of.

Kenworthy already had 11 points on his licence and feared disqualification from driving.

He expressed his surprise and disbelief in the universal way of raising both his hands in the air.

His second surprise was that Humberside police captured an image of that precise moment - not having both hands on the wheel of a moving vehicle equates to failing to have proper control, a prosecutable offence.

Kenworthy pleaded guilty to both speeding and failing to have proper control of the vehicle, but wasn't disqualified from driving as the court heard that would cause him exceptional hardship, essentially removing his means of earning a living.

Three penalty points were added to his licence, he was fined £250, ordered to pay costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £25.

Source

_________________
Robert Brady

sussamb · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:14 pm Post subject:

Wonder why there was a '£25 victim surcharge' ... who was a 'victim' in this case?

DennisN · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:47 pm Post subject:

Another cowboy whitevanman who needs taking off the road. If he doesn't know the speed limit, he's not fit to be on the road. He'll be just another of those who believe it's OK to hammer down the motorway at 80 because it's only a mile over the tolerance, so heavily loaded that his headlights on dipped beam are blinding everybody else.

And he gets away with this for exceptional hardship. It would have been a very different report if he'd killed a poor innocent child, or a poor innocent father of five. He already had 11 points for goodness sake. Does that mean he's an innocent on the roads?

This was a WRONG result. Evil or Very Mad

_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

DennisN · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:52 pm Post subject:

sussamb · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:00 pm Post subject:

I certainly agree he should have been banned, as you say he already had 11 points so clearly he's not learning any lessons, just can't see why he had to pay a victim surcharge Confused

DennisN · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:13 pm Post subject:

Isn't it simply payment into a fund for the benefit of victims of crime and stuff? I think all fines nowadays also get an addition of some amount for victim surcharge?

Like value added tax? What value?
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

sussamb · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:16 pm Post subject:

Ah that would make sense Embarassed

sussamb · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:17 pm Post subject:

aj2052 · Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:07 pm Post subject:

As all government and council services are now or appear to be self funding why do we pay taxes ?
_________________
Moto G5s Plus, Sygic 17.4.8

shires999 · Lifetime Member Joined: Nov 09, 2006 Posts: 96

Should have been banned. He's a serial speeder and mobile phone user. Danger to everyone on the roads

batman · Occasional Visitor Joined: Aug 09, 2004 Posts: 13

In this case nobody was hurt or kiilled (by dumb luck) but this driver could now hurt or kill somebody by continuing to drive when he really should be banned. They didn't ban him becuase this would affect his income. Ah, Diddums!

Another excellent example of the system showing more concern for the wrongdoer than for his victims (actual or potential).

I wonder how the judge or magistrate who didn't ban him will feel if this joker kills somebody soon?
_________________
Robin

Garmin 3490LMT in the Batmobile

M8TJT · Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:52 pm Post subject:

In common with most civil servants (allegedly), he won't give a toss.

DennisN · Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:09 pm Post subject:

	PocketGPS
	Web