Cycling UK Forum

Thought you might enjoy this, from the local rag:

So whats the point of the points system? Why have that advert on TV saying you'll lose your job?

Who on earth supplies her insurance?

I don't know about this particular case, but I do know of a chap that went from a clean license to losing it inside 5 minutes by driving along Blackpool sea front at 38mph - can't remember exactly but there are(where?) something like 5 (or even 7) cameras along it.

In cases like these it does seem a bit unfair, a copper in a car or even an average speed camera system would only create one speeding offence. But I guess that's life...

kwackers wrote:In cases like these it does seem a bit unfair

not to me it doesn't, he's driven past half a dozen big yellow boxes and not noticed a single one. if his attention to driving is that poor, he needs to be not driving at any speed

hubgearfreak wrote:

kwackers wrote:In cases like these it does seem a bit unfair

not to me it doesn't, he's driven past half a dozen big yellow boxes and not noticed a single one. if his attention to driving is that poor, he needs to be not driving at any speed

I'm not sure they were big and yellow back then... For all I know they were your olde traditional hiding behind signs versions.

(Actually thinking about it, it must be several years ago when they were still relatively rare and before they were painted bright yellow.)

hubgearfreak wrote:

kwackers wrote:In cases like these it does seem a bit unfair

not to me it doesn't, he's driven past half a dozen big yellow boxes and not noticed a single one. if his attention to driving is that poor, he needs to be not driving at any speed

Reminds me of someone I used to work with - he got flashed by a speed camera on the motorway. He then assumed that because he'd been 'done' then continuing to drive at that speed would be the same offence - I think he got nine points in one journey (the initial camera and two further ones that he passed without slowing). It made I laff (although I think that he should have got an additional three bonus points thrown in for being a 'frequent shopper').

This sort of thing does not suprise me. A good few years ago my wife and I got hit in our car by another car jumping a red light, he was 3 times over the limit with no insurance and no driving license. He was taken to court and part of his penalty was a 2 year ban from driving (when he had no license anyway), I thought , how do you ban someone from doing something they should not be doing anyway , still makes me
(my wife and I were okay by the way)

I don't know the circumstances of this case, and I'm hesitant to rely on a newspaper report. However, as a general principle, it does seem rather odd that a court should feel the need to protect a licence that is essential for work, when its holder does not.

We had a Polish lass worked with us for a while.

Her father had driven her across,after her first visit back home to bring her beongings back.

She then asked me why we take pictures of cars in this country..... when I explained speed cameras, her reply was - Oh, my father got flashed a lot

In Newcastle (IIRC) there was a Nurse who pulled a stunt a few years ago - 15 points n her first two weeks and all from the same bright yellow box.

She kept her license because she was an important specially trained scrub nurse, only one of a few who could do the job, part of a theatre team and constantly on call. Depriving her of the licence would have put hundreds of patients at risk. So she kept her license.

Then someone informed the Nursing and Midwifery Council that she had lied in court and was in fact only a part time theatre nurse. THus bringing the profession into disrepute.

She was suspended, and a full investigation took place as to whether she was "of good character" and could continue with her State Registration. In the end she was I believe formally warned, but kept her registration.

MAny professions take speeding seriously and if you have your licence removed you have to state this when you reapply

drossall wrote: ... it does seem rather odd that a court should feel the need to protect a licence that is essential for work ...

The necessity of a licence for work is regularly accepted as a special reason for not disqualifying under the totting-up rules. Originally, special reasons only applied to the circumstances of the offence, rather than the circumstances of the offender but courts just ignored that (and generally with no real evidence that the defendant would lose their job.) The rules were eventually changed to allow for this.

Cunobelin wrote: ...MAny professions take speeding seriously and if you have your licence removed you have to state this when you reapply

I think driving offences more generally will be included in the Enhanced CRB Disclosure required when anybody applies to work in contact with vulnerable people. Under the old rules, which applied in my day, the guidelines pointed out that somebody with a driving conviction ought not to be trusted transporting children. I've no idea how much it affects employment prospects in practice.

If your job needs a car, then you should drive responsibly. I think there should be no allowances made whatsoever on this count.
In the case of the nurse, if the hospital were so bothered they should have got the *** taxis and stopped it out of her wages. Mind you- would you want anyone so indifferent to the safety of others working it an operating theatre when you were a patient? I wouldn't.

Flinders wrote:If your job needs a car, then you should drive responsibly. I think there should be no allowances made whatsoever on this count.

you're dead right i reckon. there's plenty of people who can & do drive carefully looking for work, so there's no cost to society overall if someone who can't drive gets replaced in the workplace by someone who can . . . and the roads are safer too

I must put up my hand to having been inaccurate above when Isaid that the law on special reasons had been changed to include the circumstances of the driver. This is not quite correct, in that the change was to allow 'exceptional hardship' as a reason for not disqualifying. Bearing in mind that courts regularly accepted hardship arguments when they were not allowed to do so, I cannot imagine that they are any tougher on this now that they are allowed to do it. I've done no prosecuting since 1984 so I've no recent first hand experience but I seem to see plenty of reports of footballers, jockeys and the like escaping disqualification because they need a licence as part of the job . Here's an explanation of the law from a firm of specialist solicitors:

http://www.driving-law.co.uk/offences/d ... sp#special