Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
Back to the point.
I would welcome a stop to this completely and utterly. If you have committed a crime then pay. No exceptions what so ever. I would go further and have a steeply sliding scale for each additional offence. Lets say a thousand pounds for the first point, so 3 for 3 points. 2 thousand for anything up to say 6 points. All starting again from the second set so creeping to 6 points will cost an additional 12 thousand quid. Ban at this time for say one year. . Keep on the same way and at 12 points ban for life.
No sympathy what so ever.
I would welcome a stop to this completely and utterly. If you have committed a crime then pay. No exceptions what so ever. I would go further and have a steeply sliding scale for each additional offence. Lets say a thousand pounds for the first point, so 3 for 3 points. 2 thousand for anything up to say 6 points. All starting again from the second set so creeping to 6 points will cost an additional 12 thousand quid. Ban at this time for say one year. . Keep on the same way and at 12 points ban for life.
No sympathy what so ever.
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
One further issue with totting up bans is that all points are cleared after the ban expires whereas normally they'd remain for 3 (4?) years.
I've had the view for sometime that we need to be far more proactive and strict with suspension of licenses, driving should be treated as a privilege, not a right.
There should be an independent panel, similar as for hgv licensing, that deals with such matters. Much of the issues around driving sentencing stem from the way we've conflated the higher bar of driving that society sees as 'criminal' with that which is simply unsafe to others.
I've had the view for sometime that we need to be far more proactive and strict with suspension of licenses, driving should be treated as a privilege, not a right.
There should be an independent panel, similar as for hgv licensing, that deals with such matters. Much of the issues around driving sentencing stem from the way we've conflated the higher bar of driving that society sees as 'criminal' with that which is simply unsafe to others.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
Totally agree. Move most of this into a framework of privilege of use and licensing, rather than one of criminal justice.Stevek76 wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 11:59amI've had the view for sometime that we need to be far more proactive and strict with suspension of licenses, driving should be treated as a privilege, not a right.
There should be an independent panel, similar as for hgv licensing, that deals with such matters. Much of the issues around driving sentencing stem from the way we've conflated the higher bar of driving that society sees as 'criminal' with that which is simply unsafe to others.
I don't know about the HGV analogy, and I use licensing of pilots when I'm trying to explain this
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 11010
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
See my example immediately above. We disagree, I've explained, without need of daft examplePete Owens wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 11:24amWhich is of course the way ALL loopholes come into being.Bonefishblues wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 8:32amNo it isn't. This was built into the law very deliberately. It is simply being overused and needs reining in.
Unless you are suggesting tthere are some laws that come into statute accidently due to a random slip of the quill on the goat skin.
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
Do bans work?
Many people just ignore the ban and carry on driving.
There are,allegedly,up to 1million uninsured vehicles on the road at any given time.There must be a reason for this.Being banned could be one reason.I'm not suggesting all are uninsured because the driver is banned but I'm guessing many will be.
Many people just ignore the ban and carry on driving.
There are,allegedly,up to 1million uninsured vehicles on the road at any given time.There must be a reason for this.Being banned could be one reason.I'm not suggesting all are uninsured because the driver is banned but I'm guessing many will be.
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
As the OP says, on the face of it this is a move to support. But I can't help feeling there must be some sort of trick if "Mr Loophole" is backing it. Maybe though that's as simple as him reckoning it will increase demand for his services?
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
Actually, Mr Loophole isn't really backing it completely. A bit of advocate's licence on my part. He's criticising abuses of the system, but not the service he provides. From my link
But Nick Freeman, the lawyer nicknamed Mr Loophole, after getting a string of high-profile celebrities off motoring charges, said the system was being exploited.
He said: “The spirit of the law was to allow people who had committed a relatively trivial offence one more chance if they have exceptional circumstances.
“But what is happening with these drivers with more than 60 points, is that they are committing multiple offences all over the country and then are bundling them together and going before one magistrate where they are successfully arguing exceptional hardship.
“It is a loophole that is borne out of poorly drafted legislation. It was never the intention of parliament and it is being exploited by lawyers. I have been arguing for years that this is something that ought to be addressed.”
- kylecycler
- Posts: 1378
- Joined: 12 Aug 2013, 4:09pm
- Location: Kyle, Ayrshire
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
Apparently the substantial majority of those who go down under the New Drivers Act - accumulating six points or more within the first two years of passing the Driving Test - and are then required to reapply for, retake and pass the Theory and Practical Tests to regain their licence - get their six points for being uninsured. A considerable proportion, can't remember exactly, never re-present for a test, which would suggest they either just give up or continue driving uninsured and unlicensed regardless.Hellhound wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 12:34pm Do bans work?
Many people just ignore the ban and carry on driving.
There are,allegedly,up to 1million uninsured vehicles on the road at any given time.There must be a reason for this.Being banned could be one reason.I'm not suggesting all are uninsured because the driver is banned but I'm guessing many will be.
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 19 Jun 2021, 7:17pm
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
Yes. And although using a hand held mobile phone to make a call is distracting and dangerous, at least there's a chance the driver has their eyes on the road. Whereas looking at the phone to text, or check email they won't even be looking where they're going, a lot of the time.Bonefishblues wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 10:40amThis for sure.thirdcrank wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 9:15am I thought that "Loophole" was one of the most successful marketing gimmicks in history bring fame and fortune to an otherwise unremarkable solicitor and his company and at no cost (other than the fee for the copyright.)
As an example of a 'proper' loophole, I'd cite the fact that the law on handheld devices in vehicles had to be changed since the law was initially written to include making a call only.
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
This is taking us off at quite a tangent, but perhaps there are grounds for reforming the insurance system. Maybe third-party insurance should be included in the VED of all vehicles, for instance, or in some other way made more accessible. The reason I say this is because I expect the expense of insurance for new drivers, especially as most new drivers are young, is most likely the reason they don't have it. And once they've been banned for not having it, it becomes even more expensive, which is likely to perpetuate the problem. And the consequences of this are borne by anyone they might end up in collision with – even if the uninsured driver is clearly not at fault, they're unlikely to hang around to exchange details or call an ambo. Bundling TP insurance in with VED, or in some other way spreading the risk amongst the whole pool of motorists, would end this problem.kylecycler wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 1:21pmApparently the substantial majority of those who go down under the New Drivers Act - accumulating six points or more within the first two years of passing the Driving Test - and are then required to reapply for, retake and pass the Theory and Practical Tests to regain their licence - get their six points for being uninsured. A considerable proportion, can't remember exactly, never re-present for a test, which would suggest they either just give up or continue driving uninsured and unlicensed regardless.Hellhound wrote: ↑6 Aug 2021, 12:34pm Do bans work?
Many people just ignore the ban and carry on driving.
There are,allegedly,up to 1million uninsured vehicles on the road at any given time.There must be a reason for this.Being banned could be one reason.I'm not suggesting all are uninsured because the driver is banned but I'm guessing many will be.
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
The risk of uninsured drivers is already pooled among all insured drivers by the Uninsured Drivers Agreement and its predecessors
https://www.mib.org.uk/media/166917/201 ... -wales.pdf
One of the things I find surprising is that insured drivers seem to find picking up this tab acceptable; at least, there's never much pressure for dealing with uninsured drivers.
https://www.mib.org.uk/media/166917/201 ... -wales.pdf
One of the things I find surprising is that insured drivers seem to find picking up this tab acceptable; at least, there's never much pressure for dealing with uninsured drivers.
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
That is the issue with bans, limited by police staffing and justice system funding.
There are other measures that could help a little. Anpr checks at fuel stations with filling refused for cars without an insured driver/tax/mot.
Also the penalty for driving without a license would need to be very stiff, though perhaps with some sort of tagging system as an alternative to custodial sentences.
There are other measures that could help a little. Anpr checks at fuel stations with filling refused for cars without an insured driver/tax/mot.
Also the penalty for driving without a license would need to be very stiff, though perhaps with some sort of tagging system as an alternative to custodial sentences.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
This is about the application of "totting up" which currently eventually results in disqualification for repeat offenders - subject to various conditions being met - unless they successfully plead "exceptional hardship." It's not easy to research the history of the this online because there are endless pages of offers from learned friends offering their services. It seems that endorsements of convictions on driving licences was introduced under s 111 of the RTA 1960 - although there's nothing there about "totting up" which I presume was the subject of regulations.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/El ... 11/enacted
I think part of the reason for endorsing certain convictions on licences was that there was no other national system. ie Summary convictions were only recorded locally which wasn't a big deal in the days of a largely static population but drivers generally travelled much further afield.
IIRC, the original endorsements were all equal and with "three strikes an you're out" ie three endorsements within three years = mandatory disqualification. Originally, any waggle room in sentencing was restricted to the circumstances of the offence, but magistrates were reluctant to disqualify those whose job depended on driving. There was little check on that as the prosecution is not concerned with the sentence.
AIUI, the introduction of the "exceptional hardship" restriction was to stop that approach but the perception is that it's failed to do so: create an exception and it will be used.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/El ... 11/enacted
I think part of the reason for endorsing certain convictions on licences was that there was no other national system. ie Summary convictions were only recorded locally which wasn't a big deal in the days of a largely static population but drivers generally travelled much further afield.
IIRC, the original endorsements were all equal and with "three strikes an you're out" ie three endorsements within three years = mandatory disqualification. Originally, any waggle room in sentencing was restricted to the circumstances of the offence, but magistrates were reluctant to disqualify those whose job depended on driving. There was little check on that as the prosecution is not concerned with the sentence.
AIUI, the introduction of the "exceptional hardship" restriction was to stop that approach but the perception is that it's failed to do so: create an exception and it will be used.
-
- Posts: 2519
- Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
Hello, The big problem with motoring offences and punishments is that when a ban is applied, which isn't always the case, we have the issue of it being enforced?
A few years ago, when I was a lollipop I had a driver regularly coming through my site who was a very silly chap. One of his little japes was to drive straight at me when I was established in the road pole up! His excuse for such stupidity was that he was playing a joke on his son, who was among a group of children crossing?
But it got worse, I was informed that he was actually a disqualified driver! I reported the matter to my superior, nothing came of my complaint!
Then another incident reinforced my opinion of his fitness to be on the road - He came through whilst giving his wife driving lessons!
I jest you not.
This time I ignored my boss but went direct to the police. Result? Sweet F A. .
Having informed the school I was told that it didn't surprise them in the least, he was a known lout. I quit. MM
A few years ago, when I was a lollipop I had a driver regularly coming through my site who was a very silly chap. One of his little japes was to drive straight at me when I was established in the road pole up! His excuse for such stupidity was that he was playing a joke on his son, who was among a group of children crossing?
But it got worse, I was informed that he was actually a disqualified driver! I reported the matter to my superior, nothing came of my complaint!
Then another incident reinforced my opinion of his fitness to be on the road - He came through whilst giving his wife driving lessons!
I jest you not.
This time I ignored my boss but went direct to the police. Result? Sweet F A. .
Having informed the school I was told that it didn't surprise them in the least, he was a known lout. I quit. MM
Re: Proposal to end pleas of "exceptional hardship."
One question comes to my mind: how effective is a ban?
A sometime boss of mine at work (a guy I loathed, but that's another story) was clocked at 100-plus on the motorway, so he received a ban. I don't know whether it was a totting-up or not. Anyway, on learning about this, I thought to myself in a burst of schadenfreude, "That'll teach him!". Until I later discovered that his ban had been for only one week. I mean - what effect is that going to have? We're talking about a well-to-do chap (his wife ran a lucrative business). He can well afford the taxi for the five or so 'awkward' days. My faith in the policing of motoring offences was somewhat dented....
On the other hand, I agree that the 1-year minimum for D/D and the like is going to have an impact. I know a bit of what it's like: I was without a licence for several months last year, because the DVLA withheld my renewal at age 70 on the grounds that my eyesight might have been impaired by an injury I sustained the previous year (it wasn't - and they relented after an eye test). If it hadn't been for Covid, I might have found the non-driving spell a nuisance. As it happened, it affected me very little. There's always the bike....
A sometime boss of mine at work (a guy I loathed, but that's another story) was clocked at 100-plus on the motorway, so he received a ban. I don't know whether it was a totting-up or not. Anyway, on learning about this, I thought to myself in a burst of schadenfreude, "That'll teach him!". Until I later discovered that his ban had been for only one week. I mean - what effect is that going to have? We're talking about a well-to-do chap (his wife ran a lucrative business). He can well afford the taxi for the five or so 'awkward' days. My faith in the policing of motoring offences was somewhat dented....
On the other hand, I agree that the 1-year minimum for D/D and the like is going to have an impact. I know a bit of what it's like: I was without a licence for several months last year, because the DVLA withheld my renewal at age 70 on the grounds that my eyesight might have been impaired by an injury I sustained the previous year (it wasn't - and they relented after an eye test). If it hadn't been for Covid, I might have found the non-driving spell a nuisance. As it happened, it affected me very little. There's always the bike....
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).