Serial offending by disqualified drivers

[ebikeerwidnes]

A hardship plea should work first time

After several bans then you are bringing this on yourself so any problems it causes are something you have done to yourself

can't get to work?? - oh dear - don't they have taxis round you then
or busses
after a severe warning it is not valid to claim the same hardship - especially for someone with money

or whose boyfriend buys them a posh car!!!

 

[Electric_Andy]

A first offence of driving while disqualified should bring a further disqualification of double the original period and a £1000 fine

Or maybe a fine of x% of the person's estate. A grand would be nothing to some famous or rich types, although IIRC Katie Price declared bankruptcy some time ago. I'm not in favour of a lifetime ban, but perhaps 5 years, and only reinstated if they can prove they're off drugs, and have to take an extended higher level driving test? Lifetime ban could discrimintae those who have turned their life around and need to drive for work etc

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

A hardship plea should work first time

After several bans then you are bringing this on yourself so any problems it causes are something you have done to yourself

can't get to work?? - oh dear - don't they have taxis round you then
or busses
after a severe warning it is not valid to claim the same hardship - especially for someone with money

or whose boyfriend buys them a posh car!!!

Should it really though? If your job involves driving whether to/from or during then it's on you to take responsibility for it, not use hardship pleas as a getout.

Example: I drive company vehicles in my job, but Im not a driver, I require (due to location and lack of transport infra) my own mode of transport to get there, that can be driving, cycling or motorcycling. One of these days I will paddleboard across

You get 12 points worth of chances, so there should be NO movement on that or a claim of hardship. You got a chance and didn't learn

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Lifetime ban could discrimintae those who have turned their life around and need to drive for work

Tough. Lifetime bans are extremely rare and dished out for very serious offending. If you get a lifetime ban you need to look for employment that doesn't require driving as part of it or to get to it..

 

[fossyant]

she needs to go to prison, but won't - she'll get away with it, claiming supporting her disabled son - who doesn't live with her anyway.

 

[Drago]

Tough. Lifetime bans are extremely rare and dished out for very serious offending. If you get a lifetime ban you need to look for employment that doesn't require driving as part of it or to get to it..

Exactly! IMHO there should be none of this hardship bollards. If you don't like hardship then don't be a prat.

 

[matticus]

You get 12 points worth of chances, so there should be NO movement on that or a claim of hardship. You got a chance and didn't learn

Completely agree.

But I do have a But ...
I don't think long bans are a sensible penalty. Mainly because you can't physically stop someone driving (unless they are in prison), and becuase they'll be uninsured when they do, which has knock-on effects if they are inherently negligent twats.
And also because we don't do it for other offences: stab someone to death - banned from knives? No; they get an appropriate prison sentence, or remand, counselling etc.

It's just not a reasonable punishment (and nor is crushing cars while we're on the subject - what is the point??)

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Apparently she has pleaded guilty to drunk driving along with driving without insurance and something else

The drunk bit was in the papers but not in the Police press release as far as I know

 

[All uphill]

Exactly! IMHO there should be none of this hardship bollards. If you don't like hardship then don't be a prat.

I'm with you on that.

I used to prosecute in magistrate's courts for a public body. We pushed hard for no excuses or exceptions and, over a period of a couple of years, the word got out that it just wasn't worth breaking the law in that area because there was a high degree of certainty that there would be an unpleasant consequence. Not surprisingly offences dropped quite sharply.

 

[steveindenmark]

Indeed, but Katie Price will have a good lawyer who will argue that a prison sentence would be inappropriate as she has dependents.

She had dependants before she got in the car as she did the last time and the time before that. I cannot see it being used in motivation.

 

[icowden]

She had dependants before she got in the car as she did the last time and the time before that. I cannot see it being used in motivation.

Her legal representative will continue to try and use it as mitigation. It is down to the Judge whether they believe she should get custodial. The update suggests that they are trying to avoid it.

 

[Drago]

It's just not a reasonable punishment (and nor is crushing cars while we're on the subject - what is the point??)

It makes reoffending a bit harder, although id be just as happy as selling the vehicle at a government auction (although crushing while the offender looks on does sound like fun).

If I misused my shotgun id lose my ticket and have it taken off me. Why should the user of a kinetic weapon be treated more leniently and allowed to retain the tool that facilitated their offending?

 

[matticus]

It makes reoffending a bit harder, although id be just as happy as selling the vehicle at a government auction (although crushing while the offender looks on does sound like fun).

If I misused my shotgun id lose my ticket and have it taken off me. Why should the user of a kinetic weapon be treated more leniently and allowed to retain the tool that facilitated their offending?

It's not about leniency - I could kill people with a £50 car, or a hire-car. Seizing (or crushing) those would be no punishment of note!

I don't think seizing shotguns (or licences) stops people having shotguns - it's just a brief inconvenience. We've seen from the Price example and MANY others that bans don't prevent lethal driving - and the unintended consequences might actually be worse.

I'll repeat - I am totally behind firmer punishments; let's just do something useful and logical, not knee-jerk "take their toys away!" responses.

 

[icowden]

If I misused my shotgun id lose my ticket and have it taken off me. Why should the user of a kinetic weapon be treated more leniently and allowed to retain the tool that facilitated their offending?

Firstly a car is not a kinetic weapon. That is not a use case for a car. A shotgun is a weapon. That is it's use case. That's one reason why a car driver might be treated more leniently than a gun owner.

I actually agree with you that it might be better if the driver's car was impounded, although this is complicated if the driver is not the owner, and doesn't stop the driver trying to get hold of another car to drive.

 

[Oldhippy]

A car is very much a kinetic weapon in the wrong hands, say, under the influence of drugs or alcohol.