Page 5 of 7

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 8 Apr 2019, 8:35pm
by thirdcrank
Does anybody believe that the possibility of avoiding a totting-up ban by pleading exceptional hardship doesn't weaken the deterrent effect, especially when some people seem convinced that a finding of "special reasons" not to disqualify is almost guaranteed?

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 8 Apr 2019, 8:46pm
by Bonefishblues
I can believe those who could afford to make alternative arrangements for transport might be careless about the possibility, but I don't think that the average person either believes it's a dead cert, nor relishes an appearance before the Magistrates.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 8 Apr 2019, 10:49pm
by pwa
Bonefishblues wrote:But it's the probability of being caught, not the severity of the punishment that drives behavioural compliance.

He does get caught. With monotonous regularity, hence the copious points.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 8 Apr 2019, 11:04pm
by basingstoke123
Bonefishblues wrote:But it's the probability of being caught, not the severity of the punishment that drives behavioural compliance.

Someone who already has points already has been caught! And to get close to 12 points, caught more than once. It seems that some always have points - as points expire, they gain more.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 8 Apr 2019, 11:32pm
by Bonefishblues
You both miss my point, I think.

This gentleman has indeed been caught multiple times doing something (although we don't know how he accrued his points, do we, unless I missed it?), but road enforcement is such that there's a widespread (and well-founded, according to many posters here) perception that one can continue to drive as one wishes almost with impunity.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 9 Apr 2019, 5:42am
by brynpoeth
"exceptional hardship" is suffered by those who are killed or crippled by criminal drivers

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 9 Apr 2019, 6:48am
by Cunobelin
Bez wrote:I’m compelled to wonder what is the ulterior motive here.



A couple of weeks without free advertising?

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 9 Apr 2019, 8:11am
by Bonefishblues
brynpoeth wrote:"exceptional hardship" is suffered by those who are killed or crippled by criminal drivers

Indeed, for the latter in any event. But what we need is a better definition* in the particular context of this thread - if any - I know there is a significant school of thought which would wish for it to be an automatic ban, irrespective of circumstances or hardship caused.

*or better, and more consistent application, perhaps.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 9 Apr 2019, 8:39am
by reohn2
The system is there to be abused if one knows the ropes,it's similar to taxes avoidance,the "loopholes" are written in IMO.
Add to that a total lack of traffic policing and you have the current free for all witnessed daily on UK roads.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 9 Apr 2019, 8:57am
by thirdcrank
Re "exceptional hardship," this is a case of unintended consequences. When compulsory totting up bans were introduced, there were cases of magistrates not imposing the ban for what might be termed "hardship." eg Driver losing their job. In a futile attempt to tighten this up, the term "exceptional hardship" was introduced. Little changed: largely the same attitudes among magistrates, well-publicised cases of people with a shedful of points keeping their licence, and unnecessary deaths like the one in my most recent link. I have posted before about the difficulties of enforcing driving bans but I fancy their are few disqualified drivers regularly employed driving an HGV.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 9 Apr 2019, 9:36am
by Bmblbzzz
brynpoeth wrote:"exceptional hardship" is suffered by those who are killed or crippled by criminal drivers

A good point that deserves wider publicity.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 9 Apr 2019, 6:40pm
by fastpedaller
In my book these poor drivers should just get the bus or use a bike - If they need a car (and will suffer hardship without it) then they should drive correctly so there's no danger of losing their licence! Simple as that.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 9 Apr 2019, 6:49pm
by irc
fastpedaller wrote:In my book these poor drivers should just get the bus or use a bike - If they need a car (and will suffer hardship without it) then they should drive correctly so there's no danger of losing their licence! Simple as that.


Correct. If someone with 9 points feels their licence is vital then avoid speeding. Simple.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 9 Apr 2019, 7:17pm
by Lance Dopestrong
fastpedaller wrote:In my book these poor drivers should just get the bus or use a bike - If they need a car (and will suffer hardship without it) then they should drive correctly so there's no danger of losing their licence! Simple as that.


You got my vote.

Re: Nick Freeman Attacks "exceptional hardship"

Posted: 9 Apr 2019, 10:04pm
by Bonefishblues
fastpedaller wrote:In my book these poor drivers should just get the bus or use a bike - If they need a car (and will suffer hardship without it) then they should drive correctly so there's no danger of losing their licence! Simple as that.

And the drivers who accrue points for any one of 2 or 3 dozen reasons unrelated to poor driving, would they be treated in the same way?