A case for confiscating the car?

[Drago]

What is the benefit of crushing the car? Was it a willing accomplice to the crime?

Revenge, minor deterrence, refuces the villains abilty to reoffend.

Id lose possession of my shotguns, why should kinetic weapon owners be treated more leniently?

Can you imagine if the people on this thread were allowed to write the Sentencing Guidelines??

The roads would be much safer, that's for sure.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Id lose possession of my shotguns, why should kinetic weapon owners be treated more leniently?

There is a difference between losing possession & crushing/destroying the item, I believe we have agreed in the past there is nothing inherently dangerous about a car, a motorbike, a handgun, a shotgun in themselves, it is only when you introduce a human they become such.

I agree the offender should lose possession, the item(s) should be sold, the proceeds given the the victim (if there is one) or the proceeds given to a worthy cause, if only plods coffers.

 

[matticus]

...
The roads would be much safer, that's for sure.

Well, they might well be, I agree!

At least until the prisons fill up, and drivers realise the courts were having to let people walk ...

 

[matticus]

the courts were having to let people walk ...

Oops. Think I might have left an open goal there. Oh well, let's see what response I get ...

 

[BoldonLad]

Why is the law so soft on motoring crime?
Could it be that the basic laws were drawn up in the early days of private motoring when drivers were of a certain status and seen in the community as pillars of society not to be compared with the lower classes? Their motoring crimes were considered to be minor mistakes (accidents) not to be compared with knifings, shootings, housebreaking, bank robbing etc. and thus not deserving of severe punishment.
It seems that motoring law has never adjusted to the fact that nowadays almost everyone regardless of their sense of responsibility can be driving private motor vehicles.

You could well be correct.

However, my theory is that, because a high proportion of the population drives a car (or, can drive a car), and, most people, if they are honest, would admit to at least one bit of folly (even if minor) when driving, or, could at least imagine one of their relatives committing such a bit of foolishness, there is no real public appetite for stricter control.

An example. One of my Sisters-in-law, a none driver, who would often complain about drivers travelling too fast, was a passenger in her son's car, when, he was pulled over for doing 40 in a 30 limit. But, she thought that, "unfair". I don't think she is unique.

 

[flake99please]

At least until the prisons fill up, and drivers realise the courts were having to let people walk ...

Great idea. They’re less likely to kill someone if they’re having to walk everywhere.

 

[Drago]

I agree the offender should lose possession, the item(s) should be sold, the proceeds given the the victim (if there is one) or the proceeds given to a worthy cause, if only plods coffers.

Thats a fine idea, although we then miss out on watching them fall to their knees and sob as the car rolls into the crusher!

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Thats a fine idea, although we then miss out on watching them fall to their knees and sob as the car rolls into the crusher!

So here's your dilemma, which is more important, having that pleasure, or causing more environmental damage by creating another car.

 

[mistyoptic]

didn’t think I was going to provoke this level of ire. Having said that, I guess my vote was in the title. Really, there is no excuse for setting the vehicle in motion in that state. If you can have your car crushed because you didn’t tax it, which doesn’t have the potential to cause a serious accident, this is no worse

 

[gbb]

I've done some stupid stuff in cars when I was young but that really really gets my goat.
Seen it myself, came out a snowy shopping centre some years ago, onto a short section of dual carriageway, almost stationary traffic. The car next to me was nearly as bad as that...a one ft squ hole in a screen of snow.
I honked, she opened her window....I shouted 'are you fookin nuts or something ?'
She gesticulated towards the screen in front of her as though it was the screens fault....beggars belief.

 

[I like Skol]

I've seen this elsewhere and commented their car should be crushed and the driver banned for life.... and that was my lenient view!

For driving up the road without clearing the snow off his car?

Yes. Someone so incapable of seeing the serious consequences of such behaviour should NEVER be allowed to drive, EVER.

So here's your dilemma, which is more important, having that pleasure, or causing more environmental damage by creating another car.

You are missing the point spectacularly, and possibly/probably intentionally? Crushing their car is a euphemism for depriving them of that property without financial recompense. IMO a fair lesson and sends a valuable message to other road users about the seriousness of their actions. It would certain!y mame people think twice if they thought 'foolish' actions might cost them a £25k car?

 

[irw]

Re snow on the roof. Its actually only an offence if it slides off onto the windscreen or into the path of another vehicle.
I only know that because I read it recently so googled it..... and its correct.

I think it was somewhere on here I once read something along the lines of "If you don't clear the snow off your bonnet, you're driving in your own snowstorm. If you don't clear the snow off your roof, someone else will be driving in your snowstorm".

 

[Dave7]

I think it was somewhere on here I once read something along the lines of "If you don't clear the snow off your bonnet, you're driving in your own snowstorm. If you don't clear the snow off your roof, someone else will be driving in your snowstorm".

Yes......I agree with those sentiments but apparently the law is as I stated.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

You are missing the point spectacularly, and possibly/probably intentionally? Crushing their car is a euphemism for depriving them of that property without financial recompense. IMO a fair lesson and sends a valuable message to other road users about the seriousness of their actions. It would certain!y mame people think twice if they thought 'foolish' actions might cost them a £25k car?

I could say the same about your comments, nowhere have I said that the punishment should not be the removal of their property/chattels, my point is what is the benefit to society & the environment in crushing the vehicle?

 

[Brandane]

Here is what can happen when some nobber decides to drive without first clearing his windscreen. At least it wasn't a cyclist he drove into, but an innocent oncoming car driver. A slap on the wrist at court, too.

BBC report.