Bonefishblues wrote:Bicycler wrote:Not necessarily habitual but at the very least occasional and most likely regular or habitual. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he could have only ever exceeded the limit on three occasions. The odds would be so unbelievably small as to be incredible. Would anybody care to estimate the odds of a single incident of speeding being detected and the driver issued with points rather than just being advised of their speed?
In any case the driver knew the law and had been caught on two previous occasions for the same offence. Would we view any person caught three times for any other criminal offence as "unlucky"?
It only requires a single incident of speeding to endanger others so it should only require a single incident to be punished. Can we imagine the excuses of just being unlucky to get caught or needing a pee working in the case of a workplace safety violation?
You may well be right, but Courts deal in evidence, not supposition.
In a criminal case they deal in evidence that something is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. It would be unreasonable to doubt that someone caught speeding three times has broken the speed limit more than three times, because the chances of that happening are unreasonably small.