12pts in a week - driving ban

This is just awful
and a huge worry. It makes me mad as drivers are being hammered with this. I live in fear of letters as whatever any driving angels here say, it’s just so easy to go over 20mph. I think write a letter from the heart, like you say you don’t suddenly become a dangerous driver overnight and I hope very much they show some common sense and compassion here. Good luck!!🤞🤞🤞

Is the signage clear, because if not you may have a case.

Appeal it in court. There was a case in the newspapers about a man who drove 300 miles, and by the time he'd arrived at his destination, he'd clocked up 12 points and an automatic ban. He appealed and won, on the basis that he hadn't had due notice to change his behaviour. You'll probably have to take 3 points, but not the full 12. If all the letters turn up on the same day, that's not given you proper chance to change your habits. This is the problem with automated systems.

IMO it is only harsh if the speed signs and the camera signs weren't clearly visible for some reason.

If the signs aren't clear then a good excuse.

But it really seems like the OP is one of those drivers that drives the same route every day and gets away with a lack of paying attention because they know the route so well that they to some degree switch off when driving and their ability to evaluate the road and awareness has suffered because of that.

Now they move to a new route their evaluation and awareness skills just aren't up to it.

Ultimately a licence to drive is a licence to drive everywhere on routes you don't know and are able to evaluate everywhere appropriately the conditions and instructions such as speed limits.

There are people driving with a lot more points than that, they plead via an experienced solicitor.

i would definitely get a lawyer who specialises in traffic offences to petition to get your punishment reduced. It seems way harsh.
i had to engage the services of one a few years back and it was just so worth it.

Reducing it below 20mph wouldn’t affect the death-rate significantly as it’s so low anyway. It’s the difference between 20mph and 30mph which has saved so many lives, and doesn’t make that much difference in extra time travelling, as you’re unlikely to be travelling huge distances in built-up areas.

It's non linear. The probability of dying by being hit by a car at 30 mph looks to be about 85%, but at 20 mph is about 12%.

So there is a massive reduction in deaths going from 30 mph to 20 mph, but much less so going from 20 to say 10 (10 is about 5%).

Above 20 mph the danger of death really increases rapidly as a function of increased speed, so 20 mph is about the sweet spot in balancing speed of progression for car drivers with risk of death for pedestrians.

Plus of course it is often unwise to progress faster than 20 mph in built up areas because of other dangers.

In fact when you look at the stats, to me there is a lot more justification for picking 20 mph as the limit in built up areas than picking 30 mph - I suspect there was very little science/stats behind the original 30 mph pick.

At 20mph, except in car parks.

Is this genuinely difficult to grasp?!

That can be extrapolated to 5mph is safer, where does it stop?

@Checkenberger It doesn't. There was clarification recently from the court of appeal that specifically mentioned this

Feel sorry for you... that's terrible luck. Hopefully you can appeal and not get a ban.

I once had 3 parking fines come through as one week in work I decided to park somewhere I shouldn't. As you said by the time you are alerted you're doing something wrong it's already too late.

in the future you may be best of taking public transport like trains if you work a way a lot just to give you that peace of mind. Seems everyone is out to get you unfortunately.

It would be easier to stick to speed limits if larger engined cars were discouraged- no one needs a 2 litre engined car (or electric equivalent) unless perhaps towing a caravan.

I advocate two categories of car licence, the second being for larger engined cars and all SUVs. If you had to take your test again in such a vehicle, or even have a set period of time without any motoring convictions, many would end up with smaller cars.

Or people who could be fined and banned without losing their job or home…

Not anymore by default - otherwise only the unemployed or retired etc. would be able to be banned.

I feel your pain. Last year, my husband drove into a zone he shouldn’t have been in (traffic restriction at certain times), realised and panicked so turned around and immediately drove into a one way road trying to escape. He got two tickets in the space of about 3 mins. He tried to appeal on the grounds it was all the same mistake - it didn’t work and he had to pay. Good luck.

Why?

It's basically anywhere that had a default of 30 previously. So mostly built up suburban areas.

It changed about 5 years ago, and a bunch of roads that were 30 were kept at 30, and some have been reverted back in the time in between, but generally if your on a residential street, and you've not seen a speed limit sign then it's a 20.

It doesn't tend to catch most Welsh people out, because it was really well publicised before it came into force. But most English people don't seem to be aware of it, and I know a few who've been caught out.

It is

Losing your house or losing your job is not exceptional hardship.

You should be offered a speeding course for the first offence, then 9 points total for the remaining 3offences.
If you do end up getting 12 points, You can plead hardship based on the fact you would be unable to pay your mortgage if your income would reduce and may lose your house.
Do not pay £5000 for a motoring lawyers 4 you type scam. They will not get you a more favourable outcome than a local criminal solicitor.

You illegally name them as the driver at the time(s) of one or more NIPs (NIP = Notice of Prosecution).Opening you both up to prosecution for Criminal actions. It’s illegal, immoral and plain stupid.

Oh, and depending how you get the other person to take ‘your’ points you could be open to prosecution for coercive control.

I think the expression is ‘a shit show’.

Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce were sentenced to 8 months each, according to Google. And an MP for Peterborough and her brother were sentenced to 3 months and 10 months, respectively, for the same offence.

Didn’t a politician (or possibly his wife, or both) go to prison for it?

"Splitting points" is pretty common. I know a few people who've done it. I don't agree with it, but it happens probably more often than you'd think.

I witnessed the aftermath of a fatal RTA a few years ago, which has probably coloured my view of dangerous driving. The driver in this case was found not be at fault. The child ran out in front of her, and she had no chance to react, but that didn't make the incident any less traumatic for those involved.

I didn't see the crash itself, I was working in a shop when I heard a scream, and a car braking hard. We in the shop were first on scene, and it was absolutely horrific, not so much the scene itself, but the emotional response from the driver and the parent and siblings of the boy who was hit. It's a situation I never want to be in, either as a parent or a driver.

It was close to a roundabout, so I doubt the driver was going very fast, but the height of the child vs the size of the car meant he was hit head-on. He died in the air ambulance en route to the hospital. The driver later told me that the police assured her the nature of his injuries meant he would have had no awareness of what happened.

I never met the mother again, but the driver called into the shop a couple of months after to thank us for looking after her. She was absolutely traumatised, heavily medicated, and as far as I am aware, has never driven since.

Getting to your destination a few minutes earlier is not worth the risk, no matter how small you judge that risk to be. 20 is plenty.