30 years without a license.

[screenman]

http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2017/07/driver-stopped-police-lincoln-hadnt-held-licence-30-years/

Just goes to show the chances of getting stopped are very slim, we cannot blame cut backs as they are quite recent.

 

[Oxo]

I'm just surprised they were surprised.

 

[Drago]

How can they be disqualified if they've never held a licence?

 

[JoshM]

How can they be disqualified if they've never held a licence?

Disqualified from obtaining a licence perhaps?

 

[Drago]

For thirty years?!

 

[Levo-Lon]

Ive not had a ticket or been pulled over since 1995..
Its easy if you behave..or dont get cought

 

[JoshM]

For thirty years?!

Would certain medical conditions not disqualify you for that length of time. I knew a girl who went to sit her test at 17 and failed the read the reg number test. Her optician told her her eyesight could not be corrected sufficiently to allow her to pass her test. Absent any medical breakthroughs isn't she 'disqualified' for life?

 

[JoshM]

Ive not had a ticket or been pulled over since 1995..
Its easy if you behave..or dont get cought

That's the trick isn't it? ANPR can tell police if a car is taxed and insured but it doesn't tell them who is driving and if they've got a licence. If you give the police no reason to pull you, you're unlikely to get caught.

@Drago or others will correct me, but I thought the police had to have a reason for pulling you over? A light out, or speeding etc. They couldn't just pull you over to check you were road legal.

 

[Tim Hall]

The thread title is misleading though. Surely it should read "30 years without a licence"?

 

[gbb]

I got pulled over circa 1990 maybe, officer didn't see the kids in the car and thought I was a boy racer type , prior to that was 1978 I think. I was a boy racer type back then and attracted plenty of (deserved with hindsight) attention.
So twice in roughly 40 years.

 

[Drago]

@Drago or others will correct me, but I thought the police had to have a reason for pulling you over? A light out, or speeding etc. They couldn't just pull you over to check you were road legal.

They can pull you at any time simply to inspect your documents, but it is preferred to have a reason to do the stop. Courts don't like fishing trips and your reason for 'randomly' stopping someone might be called into question if you spot a kg of cocaine on the passenger seat (ie, it may be implied that you've been unlawfully targetting someone without a RIPA). So, if its reasonably possibly they would rather you had a brake light out, broke the speed limit by 1 MPH, weren't wearing a seatbelt etc before stopping you, that that's preference, not regulation.

I only stopped someone cold once when demonstrating the process to a student officer, and lo and behold they had no insurance! 100% strike rate!

 

[I like Skol]

If you give the police no reason to pull you, you're unlikely to get caught

If you can drive for 30 years without a licence and not raise concern with police or public then maybe you are a better driver than many of the people who do actually have a licence?

 

[Lonestar]

@Drago or others will correct me, but I thought the police had to have a reason for pulling you over? A light out, or speeding etc. They couldn't just pull you over to check you were road legal.

A light out? Blimey they should have pulled half of East London by now.

 

[Drago]

Of course, the Met have their own procedures for this sort of thing...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ed-attacking-car-after-driver-refuses-to-get/

 

[screenman]

The thread title is misleading though. Surely it should read "30 years without a licence"?

It does.








Now.