Does the threat of disqualification deter speeding?

[thirdcrank]

Further up the thread, Pete Owens wrote about progress, quoting the Huhne/ Pryce case.

Although it's only a driving ban, I think the case in this link involving yet another footballer, shows movement in the right direction. After he didn't receive two notices sent by post, his reply to the one served personally on him by the police went missing in the post. It sounds as though post in Wales is terrible. A certificate of posting would surely have helped his case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-25782849

[thirdcrank]

Here's one with 29 points and not disqualified because it would cause exceptional hardship ie loss of job.

http://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/news/i/37386/

As far as I can see, once this reason for avoiding disqualification has been found to apply to him, it presumably applies in respect of any future endorseable driving convictions unless his personal circumstances change. Nothing to stop him accumulating hundreds of points, subject to the heddlu losing interest completely.

[661-Pete]

Here's one with 29 points and not disqualified because it would cause exceptional hardship ie loss of job.

http://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/news/i/37386/

As far as I can see, once this reason for avoiding disqualification has been found to apply to him, it presumably applies in respect of any future endorseable driving convictions unless his personal circumstances change. Nothing to stop him accumulating hundreds of points, subject to the heddlu losing interest completely.

He is described in the article as a 'takeaway driver'. Presumably that means he delivers meals to households. Now, such persons are given credit for rapid delivery, and penalised for late delivery, are they not? A clear incentive to speeding and other lawbreaking, and putting other road users at risk.

This individual is evidently in the wrong job. How he managed to weasel his way out of a lengthy ban, I cannot understand. I hope his employers sack him anyway.

[irc]

Here's one with 29 points and not disqualified because it would cause exceptional hardship ie loss of job.

http://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/news/i/37386/

As far as I can see, once this reason for avoiding disqualification has been found to apply to him, it presumably applies in respect of any future endorseable driving convictions unless his personal circumstances change. Nothing to stop him accumulating hundreds of points, subject to the heddlu losing interest completely.

Outrageous. The law needs to be changed to remove the exceptional hardship excuse. If driving is that important then obey the law.

[thirdcrank]

People - including me - tend to assume that an exceptional hardship plea is the province of fancy lawyers, but it seems that with the current interpretation that losing a driving job = exceptional hardship, then anybody should be able to go along to court and keep their licence; in fact, it would be grossly unfair if the unrepresented defendant were to be more severely treated than somebody with a lawyetr, fancy or otherwise. Going on from that, since it seems inconsistent for a court considering a subsequent totting-up case on the same personal circumstances to find there was no exceptional hardship, the first court might just as well issue a certificate of its findings - effectively a get-out-of-jail-free-card - to save everybody the trouble of going through it all again in a time of economic cutbacks. Taking this even further, a magistrates' court isn't really the best place for something like this to be considered because the court has no effective way of checking what the defendant says. It would surely be more effective to have all that checked separately, perhaps by the DVLA. But that means recruiting armies of bureaucrats when we are cutting back on their ranks. The obvious answer is some form of self-certification by the defendant, although even that involves paperwork, which is a bad thing when we should be reaping the benefits of IT.

I suggest that defendants lible to lose their licences under the totting-up provisions should be allowed to send a selfie, raising two fingers to the bench. It would streamline everything.

[661-Pete]

Another point: this guy was convicted of two counts of driving without insurance. Possibly he had a 'social/domestic' only policy, and was using his vehicle in pursuit of his trade, i.e. takeaway delivery. Now, even if the magistrates saw fit not to ban him, the insurance companies will follow a different line. I doubt whether he could afford the premiums, so there is a high probability that he will continue to drive uninsured. Where does that leave the rest of us?

The law is an ass.... as Mr Bumble so aptly put it.

[thirdcrank]

... Where does that leave the rest of us?....

In the hands of the Motor Insurers Bureau that picks up the tab. It should mean that casualties are no worse off than if he had been insured, but it does mean that every other car insurance policyholder is collectively subsidising uninsured drivers. This doesn't seemto bother drivers too much, which I find surprising. Some will berate cyclists for "not paying car tax" (NB I know there's no such thing) but the significant cost of the compo paid in respect of uninsured drivers is perhaps too subtle to understand
http://www.mib.org.uk/Home/en/default.htm

[jezer]

It's good that the MIB is there as a fallback, but I'm sure the freeloaders who drive without insurance, or appropriate cover for their activities, don't give a toss for other road users. You've only got to watch some of those police camera type programmes on TV to understand there is an underclass of drivers out there who chance their arm

[thirdcrank]

I presume that when compulsory third party motor insurance was introduced, giving insurance companies a huge captive market, picking up the compo tab in the last resort was part of the deal, at a time when it probably wasn't a major issue. It seems to have grown considerably. All sorts of measures are introduced with a lot of publicity, eg the crushing of uninsured vehicles but as far as I can see, this is little more than spin, with only sporadic enforcement eg for telly programmes featuring high-speed chases and all the rest of it.

[661-Pete]

I would imagine, driving with no insurance at all, would be a very chancy business: it would be impossible to get a new tax disc, making your infraction even more visible (which begs the question: why are paper tax discs being abolished?). Also, as soon as you pass an ANPR camera, wouldn't you set off some sort of alarm bell at the PNC?

However, driving with insufficient insurance, i.e. which doesn't cover your actual use of the vehicle, must be quite commonplace, and more difficult to police - until the offender has an accident or commits another offence.

[Vorpal]

It's easy to get a tax disc. Take out a new insurance policy, use the papers to get the tax disc, then cancel the policy.

But I don't know why someone who doesn't want insurance would worry about a tax disc.

[jezer]

Going back to some of the examples seen on TV programmes, it seems that many offenders get off with a very light penalty, if any at all. The police involved must surely be frustrated at the courts' lack of proper action. Are there any traffic cops on here who would be prepared to comment

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Going back to the OP I think that does show how we have been making progress over the past 5 years. Certainly, since Chris Hulne/Vicky Price I doubt there is much point swapping going on nowadays. Taking a few points on your licence might seem a price worth paying to avoid having to act as a taxi driver for your partner; risking a few months at her majesties pleasure for perverting the course of justice is another thing.

She was claiming coersion by her hubby (fancy lawer trick if caught), you cannot do that anymore I believe.

[squeaker]

It's easy to get a tax disc. Take out a new insurance policy, use the papers to get the tax disc, then cancel the policy.

But you don't need the insurance papers now "because DVLA regularly checks existing databases for insurance under Continuous Insurance Enforcement rules"

[Vorpal]

According to the Telegraph , from 2015, I think, people won't need to produce insurance papers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... d-out.html

The other major change announced by the Government will see drivers spared the obligation to have an insurance certificate.

This is because insurance details are now held on computer and checked by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

This means drivers will no longer have to present the certificate when buying a tax disc at the Post Office.

But I don't see how it changes the situation very much.