Driving Bans

[Alex321]

Ah, my mistake, I was thinking of the sentence in the drunk 4x4 driver thread.

I agree, that sentence was ridiculously light.

He had stopped, then decided to drive over her. That, at a minimum, is causing GBH with intent, for which the starting point (assuming culpability B, injury Cat 1) is 7 years.

I agree lifetime bans are not on the cards, but things are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.

I'm old enough to have covered one of the earliest death by dangerous cases around 2000.

Previously, killing someone on the road was pretty much a free hit.

Since then we've had other new offences such as death by careless, causing serious injury by dangerous, and other enhanced offences relating to the condition of the driver.

Twenty odd years is about a generation, which in terms of the law is quite rapid progress.

It's a reasonable expectation that general attitudes will continue to move in what most of would say is the right direction.

They will, although I have to be honest here, and say I am slightly dubious about whether it is right to have sentences that depend so much on the outcome, rather than the action.

 

[Drago]

I don't think there is the slightest chance of enough shift in public perception for any government to even consider such a draconian change to the law.

Why is it draconian for drivers to face the prospect of lifetime bans, but quite acceptable for others who display dangerous, reckless or careless behaviour that has the potential to harm others?

No one seems able or willing to explain this disparity.

 

[Pale Rider]

I am slightly dubious about whether it is right to have sentences that depend so much on the outcome, rather than the action.

Good point.

As a long time observer of the courts, it seems to me the law either reaches an acceptable compromise on this thorny question or completely fudges it - depending on your view.

No one seems able or willing to explain this disparity.

I'm afraid you are mangling the true position of other professions/activities in a bid to make a point.

The overwhelming majority of bans or strike offs are time limited, and there is often a liberty to apply for reinstatement well before the ban expires.

It comes down to the gravity of the original behaviour.

Should someone be banned for life for doing 60mph in a 40 limit?

I would say no, but I'm all in favour of longer bans, possibly lifetime, for dangerous and killer drivers.

 

[Alex321]

Why is it draconian for drivers to face the prospect of lifetime bans, but quite acceptable for others who display dangerous, reckless or careless behaviour that has the potential to harm others?

No one seems able or willing to explain this disparity.

There is not the disparity you seem to think there is.

There are very few other situations where a few incidents of careless or or one of reckless behaviour lead to an automatic lifetime ban.

But it is irrelevant anyhow, a change to make any driving ban permanent would be a draconian change, regardless of any other laws.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

As far as the disparity based on out come is concerned I would say that it is similar to the situation in other cases

for example
If I was a qualified builder and I build a wall
but, being stingy, I used rubbish mortar and skimped on wall ties and other structural stuff

If I was found out by a building inspector I presume I would get a fine and told to go away and do it properly

if, however, there is some bad weather and the wall falls down just as a pregnat woman with a kid in a pram walks past
and the whole walls falls on the killing them

then all hell would break loose and I would be in deep doo doo

same as driving
if I drink too much and get caught then I get punished
if, however, I get unlucky (like the builder with the bad weather, and there is an accident then my punishment ramps up mostly based on the effect the 'accident' had on the victims (not including me if I got hurt as well)
so if someone if hurt - then it is one thing
if someone if killed then it goes up

Of course - what the culprit does next does have an effect - so running over the victim and driving off makes it worse
but then if the builder shredded all the documents giving evidence of the cheap material and

 

[Dogtrousers]

Sitrep. We're well into the vote and it's 10 to 6 in favour of making any ban a lifetime one.

Interesting that not one of those in favour of reinstating licences has explained why it would be OK for car drivers, but not for doctors, train drivers, pilots, shotgun users, etc, others in a position to cause danger, or why they think drivers should be a special case over them. I suspect @Pale Rider 's second paragraph above explains this phenomenon.

Taking the case of pilots, I'm an expert* on this area. Not all investigations that find fault with the pilots will result in a lifetime ban. Some might involve demotion and/or retraining.

So with drivers. An indefinite ban should be (but isn't) available to the courts. But it would only be for use in certain circs (and probably only when custodial sentences were involved). Most bans would still be time limited.

* I've seen a few YouTube videos. That passes for expert.

 

[Alex321]

Taking the case of pilots, I'm an expert* on this area. Not all investigations that find fault with the pilots will result in a lifetime ban. Some might involve demotion and/or retraining.

So with drivers. An indefinite ban should be (but isn't) available to the courts. But it would only be for use in certain circs (and probably only when custodial sentences were involved). Most bans would still be time limited.

* I've seen a few YouTube videos. That passes for expert.

Indefinite band are available to the courts, for the most severe offences. But normally they will ban for at most 10 years, with a requirement to take an extended driving test afterwards before getting a licence back.

 

[Drago]

I'm afraid you are mangling the true position of other professions/activities in a bid to make a point.

The overwhelming majority of bans or strike offs are time limited, and there is often a liberty to apply for reinstatement well before the ban expires.

Interesting. My Dad is a pilot, and he tells me once your licence is gone for reason of arsing about it's gone for good.

I'm a shotgun licence holder and I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt that once its gone its gone. I've seized enough of other people's shotgun over they years on the order of the court. It doesn't even need to be anything related to the shotgun in order to earn a ban.

Ditto train drivers. Punch the boss you might get a suspension, but do something reckless or dangerous in the cab you'll never be in thwt cab again.

Medical suspensions can be just that, suspensions. Those are usually for malpractice that doesn't involve patients, or at least danger. Anything actually involving improper behaviour with patients, anything causing danger, they will be gone for good.

And ditto with teachers. Anything minor you might be suspended from teaching, but Anything too unsavoury and you will be out for good and barred. Mrs D is a qualified teacher and confirms this.

Ditto police officers. Hell, you don't even need to endanger anyone to get on a barred list.

So yes, some of the examples I have cited there are scenarios where someone my receive a suspension, but anything involving the potential danger to others almost inevitably result a lifetime ban.

Should someone be banned for life for doing 60mph in a 40 limit?

Now you're doing the mangling. That was never the contention, either explicit or implied. A ban through totting up is not for doing 60 in a 40, but a ban for multiple incidents, for persistent dangerous, reckless or negligent behaviour over a relatively short period of time. Such bans are well deserved.

As aforementioned early on, you really have to work hard to lose a driving licence. It takes effort. Having gone to those lengths to do so why should anyone be allowed back in that position again? That is a question is is assiduously being avoided in this discussion. Using words like disproportionate or draconian does nothing by way of an explanation or excuse, they simply give such objections a name.

It's draconian. So what?

It's disproportionate. And your point is what exactly...?

Tell is the reasons why people who have so badly abused this privilege should ever be allowed to enjoy that privilege again.

 

[Pale Rider]

Now you're doing the mangling

Not really, your poll question is: 'Should banned drivers ever be allowed back behind a wheel?'

You appear to support the answer 'yes'.

A ban is a ban, no matter how long or how it was 'earned'.

If I do a ton on the motorway, there's every chance of a ban of a month or so.

Should I be banned for life?

I agree losing a licence is very difficult, despite what I've heard many times from defendants' lawyers in magistrates' courts.

 

[presta]

I suspect complete lifetime driving bans with no possibility of driving ever again, would probably end up working a bit like prohibition and you'd have a mass of unlicensed/uninsured drivers around

I heard a Chief Constable argue that the police maintain law & order by consent, not by force, and that consent comes because the majority of the population feel honest. If you attempt to introduce a law that criminalises the majority of the population, it won't be respected because the majority don't feel like criminals.

Hence you get people cutting speed/ULEZ cameras down, and pulling up LTN bollards etc. It just demonstrates the danger of allowing people to develop a sense of entitlement to something: it's likely that any attempt at withdrawal will be unenforceable.

another question would be how we managed to build a transport system that means many people are practically forced to drive and maintain an expensive vehicle, merely to be part of society

It's the same for houses, gas, (piped) water, electricity, phone, radio, TV, internet, banking etc., the problem is that whilst we were busy creating a society dependent on cars, nobody saw the downsides until it was "too late" (see above).

 

[Dogtrousers]

Indefinite band are available to the courts, for the most severe offences. But normally they will ban for at most 10 years, with a requirement to take an extended driving test afterwards before getting a licence back.

I didn't know that. But I do now.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Not really, your poll question is: 'Should banned drivers ever be allowed back behind a wheel?'

You appear to support the answer 'yes'.

A ban is a ban, no matter how long or how it was 'earned'.

If I do a ton on the motorway, there's every chance of a ban of a month or so.

Should I be banned for life?

I agree losing a licence is very difficult, despite what I've heard many times from defendants' lawyers in magistrates' courts.

I think the problem is maybe that the poll is rather too draconian

maybe a few in between options could make it a bit more likely to display people's actual thoughts

ask me about the options I would put in when I am not approaching the bottom of abottle of red!!!