How many points do you get on your licence for speeding?
Speed limits help keep people safe, and safety is paramount when on the road for all users.
Speeding can ruin lives – the faster a vehicle travels, the greater the force of impact in a crash, and the more severe the injuries or even death that can occur.
How many points do you get on your licence for speeding?
The minimum penalty for speeding is a £100 fine and three penalty points added to your licence.
The Government website states that you could be disqualified from driving if you build up 12 or more penalty points within a period of three years.
You can also check your driving licence record online to see if you have points on your licence.
What happens if a speed camera flashes you?
If you're caught by a speed camera, then usually within a few weeks of your car being caught speeding you'll be sent a:
Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP)
Section 172 notice
You must return the Section 172 notice within 28 days, telling the police who was driving the car.
You may have to go to court if you ignore the notice, the Government website advises.
After you've sent the Section 172 notice back, you'll be sent either a:
Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN)
letter telling you to go to court
If you're still within two years of passing your driving test, your driving licence will be revoked (taken away) if you build up six or more penalty points.
How long do points stay on your driving licence?
The RAC notes that penalty points will remain on your driving licence for three years.
'They will also remain on your driving record from 4 to 11 years, depending on the severity of the conviction,' they say.
'You can be disqualified from driving if you acquire 12 or more penalty points within three years.'
Your driving licence will also have a code on it for four years.
Each endorsement has a special code and is given 'penalty points' on a scale from one to 11. (You get more points for more serious offences).
Recommended reading:
You if you are caught speeding then you may be given the option of attending a speed awareness course if:
the police decide it's appropriate for your offence
you have not been on a speed awareness course in the past three years
Speeding is dangerous for many reasons, and you could be endangering your own life as well as the lives of others.
Stay focused on your own driving and the road ahead – remembering to adjust your speed in different weather conditions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
MSPs weighing up Suzanne's Law should be clear on what it means
Introduced to Parliament more than two years ago, the Government and MSPs are considering final amendments to the legislation. This is the last chance for politicians and campaigners to shape the final flagship criminal justice reform of this SNP administration. One proposal featured prominently in the media last week. Sponsored by the new LibDem MSP Jamie Greene and backed by Victim Support Scotland, 'Suzanne's Law' would require the Parole Board to 'refuse killers parole if they withhold the location of their victims' bodies'. The amendment is named after Suzanne Pilley, who disappeared in 2010. David Gilroy was convicted of her murder in 2012 but remains tight-lipped about where her body might be. Relatives of Pilley and other families who have lost loved ones – and remain in the dark about where their bones are interred – gave a powerful press conference in Glasgow last week, describing the predicament as a 'form of mental torture'. READ MORE: 'Absolutely crazy': Scottish jazz artist scores new film by Hollywood director They argue the uncertainty about the fate of their loved ones makes that elusive thing – 'closure' – even more difficult to find. Homicide convictions are not common but have featured prominently in a number of high-profile documentaries from High Court murder trials in recent years. They range from the disappearance of Arlene Fraser and the subsequent prosecutions and convictions of her husband Nat in 2012, to Margaret Fleming's disappearance from Inverkip, resulting in the conviction of Edward Cairney and Avril Jones in 2019, despite the lack of a murder weapon, physical evidence proving how murder could have been committed or even physical evidence establishing that Fleming had passed away as a result of foul play. To understand this campaign, you need to understand something of the law as it currently applies. If someone is convicted of murder in Scotland, the court is required to hand down a life sentence. The judge sets what is normally called the 'punishment part' of the sentence, which is the minimum period of time the prisoner will remain in custody before being eligible to apply for parole. Decisions on whether or not to release life prisoners from custody are made by the Parole Board. The board is composed of a mixture of legal and criminal justice professionals and is independent of government. Their key role is to 'ensure that those prisoners who are no longer regarded as presenting a risk to public safety may serve the remainder of their sentence in the community on licence under the supervision of a supervising officer'. In taking these decisions, the Parole Board is concerned with risk to the public – not further punishment. News reports suggest that in response, Cabinet Secretary for Justice Angela Constance has accepted some kind of amendment to the parole rules which will require the board to treat non-disclosure of where a victim's remains might be found as a factor in decision-making. While details haven't been published, this would fall short of the principle of 'no body, no parole' requiring the Parole Board to automatically refuse to release a prisoner who won't provide information about what happened to their victim. This proposal has been met by some sceptical responses from parts of the legal world. The first argument is: there's no point in introducing laws like this. Speaking to the media last week, lawyers pointed out that Parole Board rules already direct them to consider whether or not the prisoner has revealed the whereabouts of their victim's body. READ MORE: Anas Sarwar blasted as 'hypocrite' after branding Benjamin Netanyahu 'war criminal' On Radio Scotland, advocate Edith Forrest rightly pointed to Rule 12 of the Parole Board Rules which already applies to parole hearings involving someone serving a life sentence for murder or culpable homicide. Where the Parole Board 'does not know where and how the victim's remains were disposed of' and believes the prisoner 'has information about where and how the victim's remains were disposed of' then it can take this into account in terms of deciding whether or not to release them on licence. This looks, as Forrest says, much like the rules which the Scottish Government is now proposing to add to the statute book. Holyrood has, yet again, been caught relegislating for things the law already deals with. Jamie Greene's response is he thinks 'it's important to get this stuff in black and white on the face of legislation'. But there are other reasons why MSPs would be wise to approach introducing rules like this carefully. As the name suggests, the whole campaign is premised on a particular scenario: a factually guilty person, behind bars, maliciously refusing to yield information about their victim's final resting place, presented as a form of coercive control beyond the grave, or as a further act of spite to rub salt into the wounds of families broken by grief. Presented in this way, who could reasonably object to the idea of keeping dangerous characters like this in custody? But try looking at the proposal from another angle. Try thinking of this not as Suzanne's Law but just as a law which will apply to all kinds of prisoners. While Greene's proposals might answer a sense of justice in one context, they are guaranteed to create more injustice in others. In the miscarriages of justice literature, this is sometimes called the 'innocent prisoner's dilemma'. Consider the case of Andy Malkinson, by way of illustration. Malkinson was convicted of rape in 2004. The conviction relied on the evidence of the victim, who picked Malkinson out of a life-up, saying she was '100% sure' he was the man. She was mistaken. He was convicted by majority verdict and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge set the punishment part at six years and 125 days. Subsequent forensic re-examination of the victim's clothing found DNA matching the profile of another man on the national database. On the basis of this new evidence, the Court of Appeal in London finally quashed Malkinson's rape conviction as unsafe in the summer of 2023. He spent 17 years in custody. READ MORE: Former Knesset speaker urges '1 million Jews' to file Israel war crimes complaint Failures in the handling of Malkinson's case have now precipitated the collapse in the leadership of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The CCRC is responsible for reviewing potential wrongful convictions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. But there was another step in the criminal justice process which helped keep Malkinson in custody for 17 years: the parole process. Although eligible to apply for release on license after spending six years and 125 days in custody, the Parole Board applied a principle like Suzanne's law to his case. In essence, it said: if you don't admit you did this, we're going to leave you in prison until you do. Rules like this demand of wrongfully convicted people an impossible question: which is more important to you, the truth or your liberty? Choose. As the Court of Appeal explained in its 2023 judgment vindicating Malkinson, 'throughout those many years', he 'adamantly maintained that he was innocent of the crimes and had been wrongly convicted'. And 'he did so in the knowledge that he was thereby delaying his release from prison' – for years, and years, and years. This is the innocent prisoner's dilemma. Malkinson described it as his catch-22. If he just admitted to committing the rape he was convicted of and went through the dishonest motions of engaging with the behavioural programmes in prison requiring him to reflect on his wrongdoing, he'd have been released from prison long before he was. If he refused, more years were guaranteed to pass him by, protesting his innocence in custody. Similar considerations apply to Suzanne's Law. You can't give the authorities information about a murder you did not commit. You cannot specify a deposition site if you didn't kill your victim. Given the small numbers of people involved, perhaps you're comfortable with a utilitarian calculus which sees a small number of innocent people like Andy Malkinson spending more time in custody for crimes they did not do, if it visits lengthier punishments on guilty men, determined to inflict a final twist of the knife on families they've already bereaved. In backing this campaign, that's the choice MSPs will be making.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Fed-up Melburnian exposes the terrifying problem plaguing her city and leaving her in fear: 'I'm sick of it'
A Melbourne resident says she is so terrified about living in her crime-ridden suburb that she is moving out of her house and putting it up for rent. Kiwi woman Chrissy Skye said she was 'getting the f*** out' of her Altona home, in south-west Melbourne, after she was left feeling 'unsafe at night'. She claims three cars have been stolen and that her house was broken into. Ms Skye said that a group of five boys made off with her $100,000 car. 'I'm going to go live in an apartment because I'm sick of it,' she said in a TikTok video. 'I feel so unsafe at night because of the crime in Melbourne. It's disgusting, and the government doesn't care.' She claimed the bail laws were too lenient and that the group of thieves had been released. Social media users slammed the crime rate in Melbourne. 'I've been offered a job transfer from NZ to Melbourne. I said hell no,' one wrote. Another added: 'Wake up Australia our women and children should be safe in their own homes.' Ms Skye shared her experience as Libertarian MP David Limbrick vows to overhaul the state's self-defence laws to give homeowners greater powers to protect their houses. 'People tell me they are worried about their safety and confused about what they are allowed to do, so I think it's high time we strengthened and clarified the laws about self-defence,' Limbrick told the Herald Sun. 'There have been disturbing cases where people protecting their families have been jailed while awaiting bail, and nearly ruined by legal costs, even though they were exonerated. 'The government should not tie residents' hands behind their backs. 'I want criminals who fool around to find out that you can vigorously protect yourself and your family in your own home.' Limbrick intends to move a motion in parliament this week demanding the Victorian Law Reform Commission review current self-defence laws. The UK's 'castle doctrine' could also be examined as a possible solution. The doctrine allows residents to defend themselves against intruders and use 'reasonable force'. 'If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully,' a published guidance note states. The number of break-ins has soared in Melbourne over the last decade. In 2015, there were 2,300 break-ins, with the figure soaring to 5,000 in 2024. The number of thieves using weapons also rose from 36 in 2017 to 65 in 2024.
Powys County Times
6 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Shabana Mahmood vows to send foreign criminals ‘packing' when they are jailed
Foreign criminals will be sent 'packing', deported immediately when they receive a custodial sentence, the Justice Secretary has pledged. Shabana Mahmood has proposed a law change, which could save taxpayers an average £54,000 per year, per prison place. The changes would apply to prisoners serving fixed-term 'determinate' sentences, and authorities would retain their power not to deport a criminal but instead keep them in custody, for example, if the offender was planning further crimes against the UK's interests or national security. 'Our message is clear,' Ms Mahmood said. 'If you abuse our hospitality and break our laws, we will send you packing.' She also said: 'Deportations are up under this Government, and with this new law they will happen earlier than ever before.' Almost 5,200 foreign national offenders have been deported since July 2024, a 14% increase on the 12 months prior, according to the Government. The Justice Secretary's announcement follows a tweak in the law in June, expected to come into force in September, so prisoners face deportation 30% into their prison sentence rather than the current 50%. The Government will need Parliament to greenlight its proposal to bring this down to 0%. According to a Labour source, the previous Conservative government relied on prison transfer agreements with other countries to deport foreign national offenders, in deals which allow inmates to serve their custodial sentence in their 'home' country. This saw 945 prisoners sent to jails abroad between 2010 and 2023, equal to less than one-and-a-half criminals per week. Foreign national offenders make up around 12% of the prison population. Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said: 'In Starmer's topsy turvy world investors are fleeing the country in their droves while record numbers of violent and sexual offenders from abroad are put up in our prisons. It's a farce. 'Yet again Starmer has refused to confront our broken human rights laws. 'He needs to grow a backbone and change them so we can actually deport these individuals. 'The safety of the British public is infinitely more important than the 'rights' of sick foreign criminals. 'If countries won't take back their nationals, Starmer should suspend visas and foreign aid. His soft-touch approach isn't working.'
