News1 min ago
More Than 10000 Driving With More Than 12 Points.....madness
50 Answers
http://
I thought it had to be truly exceptional to not get banned for accumulating 12 points. Time to stop, set the max or force the beaks in law. Clearly they cannot be trusted to not get conned by smart aris briefs. There is apparently 1 "driver" with 51 points, how many times has he conned the beak? OK give some room for judgement but let's say 18 points is a ban, no discretion. What say you?
I thought it had to be truly exceptional to not get banned for accumulating 12 points. Time to stop, set the max or force the beaks in law. Clearly they cannot be trusted to not get conned by smart aris briefs. There is apparently 1 "driver" with 51 points, how many times has he conned the beak? OK give some room for judgement but let's say 18 points is a ban, no discretion. What say you?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you are caught on the motorway doing 85mph by a speed camera, you'd receive a fixed penalty.
If you are not driving dangerously and the conditions are fine (and no, 85mph on a motorway does not necessarily mean you are driving dangerously) the police will not pull you over. I've lost count of the number of times I have gone past police cars on the motorway while doing over 80mph.
If you are not driving dangerously and the conditions are fine (and no, 85mph on a motorway does not necessarily mean you are driving dangerously) the police will not pull you over. I've lost count of the number of times I have gone past police cars on the motorway while doing over 80mph.
ludwig, Driving while disqualified already is usually 6 month jail sentence! These people have not been disqualified!
I have met many people when I was working in a prison who were there for driving while disqualified!
6 months means automatic release at the 1/2 way point, 3 months, with at least the last 5 weeks on 'tag' at home. So a driver sentenced to 6 months will actually spend about 4 weeks inside.
In the open prison I worked in a few 'drivers' had a car parked in the prison car park ready for them to drive home as soon as they got out!
I have met many people when I was working in a prison who were there for driving while disqualified!
6 months means automatic release at the 1/2 way point, 3 months, with at least the last 5 weeks on 'tag' at home. So a driver sentenced to 6 months will actually spend about 4 weeks inside.
In the open prison I worked in a few 'drivers' had a car parked in the prison car park ready for them to drive home as soon as they got out!
“OK give some room for judgement but let's say 18 points is a ban, no discretion. What say you?”
I say no. Twelve points is the limit. To accumulate that number you have to commit at least two and more usually four offences within three years. You have ample notice that you may exceed that number. I have never agreed with the “exceptional hardship” (EH) clause which allows drivers to circumvent the totting-up rules.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that EH pleas succeed in about 25% of cases. Many of the cases which succeed (and I have seen plenty) do so on the basis of the hardship to others that will ensue in the event of a ban. Those making such pleas are well versed in this (look at any motoring advice forum). So, they are all sole breadwinners, most have grannies who rely on them to take them to hospital appointments each week and they have children who attend a number of different schools spread far apart. They invariably live where public transport provides no viable alternative. These arguments are well briefed and well rehearsed. So much so that there is nothing “exceptional” about their circumstances; it seems they apply to just about everybody. The argument in favour
The argument in favour of such a clause is that the law is designed to punish the miscreant, not those dependent on them. But there are plenty of offences for which an immediate ban is mandatory and no EH argument can be made. Reaching twelve points should be treated in the same way and those depending on errant drivers should blame the drivers for their hardship, not the law.
“I ask this out of devilment as much as anything else, but how many points do you think you would get, if your were clocked going at 85mph on the Motorway (!)”
Enforcement normally begins at 79mph (Limit + 10% +2mph). You would be offered a speed awareness course, Mikey (up to 86mph) provided you had not done one in the last three years (costs around £100 and half a day of your time). If you were not eligible for that or the speed was greater, for speeds up to 96mph you would receive a Fixed Penalty offer (£100 and 3 points).
“Driving while disqualified already is usually 6 month jail sentence!”
Not quite correct, Eddie. Six months is the maximum sentence for the offence and that would only be imposed in the event of a conviction at trial following a not guilty plea. In fact custody for the offence is the exception rather than the rule. For immediate custody to be the “starting point” for sentencing the offence would have to fall into category 1 (of three) which needs greater harm and higher culpability to be present. Guidelines here:
https:/
“75% of the right wingers on here , would not be on here>.”
I must be in the 25% then, Gulliver (assuming I fall into your “right wing” definition). I have provided over 13,000 answers and as far as I can remember have never had a single one removed. Whilst my “right wing” views are usually forthright and may seem to you to be almost rabid, they are rarely, if ever offensive and certainly not so as to attract penalty points. :-)
I say no. Twelve points is the limit. To accumulate that number you have to commit at least two and more usually four offences within three years. You have ample notice that you may exceed that number. I have never agreed with the “exceptional hardship” (EH) clause which allows drivers to circumvent the totting-up rules.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that EH pleas succeed in about 25% of cases. Many of the cases which succeed (and I have seen plenty) do so on the basis of the hardship to others that will ensue in the event of a ban. Those making such pleas are well versed in this (look at any motoring advice forum). So, they are all sole breadwinners, most have grannies who rely on them to take them to hospital appointments each week and they have children who attend a number of different schools spread far apart. They invariably live where public transport provides no viable alternative. These arguments are well briefed and well rehearsed. So much so that there is nothing “exceptional” about their circumstances; it seems they apply to just about everybody. The argument in favour
The argument in favour of such a clause is that the law is designed to punish the miscreant, not those dependent on them. But there are plenty of offences for which an immediate ban is mandatory and no EH argument can be made. Reaching twelve points should be treated in the same way and those depending on errant drivers should blame the drivers for their hardship, not the law.
“I ask this out of devilment as much as anything else, but how many points do you think you would get, if your were clocked going at 85mph on the Motorway (!)”
Enforcement normally begins at 79mph (Limit + 10% +2mph). You would be offered a speed awareness course, Mikey (up to 86mph) provided you had not done one in the last three years (costs around £100 and half a day of your time). If you were not eligible for that or the speed was greater, for speeds up to 96mph you would receive a Fixed Penalty offer (£100 and 3 points).
“Driving while disqualified already is usually 6 month jail sentence!”
Not quite correct, Eddie. Six months is the maximum sentence for the offence and that would only be imposed in the event of a conviction at trial following a not guilty plea. In fact custody for the offence is the exception rather than the rule. For immediate custody to be the “starting point” for sentencing the offence would have to fall into category 1 (of three) which needs greater harm and higher culpability to be present. Guidelines here:
https:/
“75% of the right wingers on here , would not be on here>.”
I must be in the 25% then, Gulliver (assuming I fall into your “right wing” definition). I have provided over 13,000 answers and as far as I can remember have never had a single one removed. Whilst my “right wing” views are usually forthright and may seem to you to be almost rabid, they are rarely, if ever offensive and certainly not so as to attract penalty points. :-)
"I say no. Twelve points is the limit" - fair enough judge and as usual bang on. My suggestion of 18 points is merely to put an absolute limit on those who get away with conning the system. Personally I would be quite happy with, no discretion at all, 12 points = ban end of but I suggest there are those that would argue for the current discretion, abused by lawyers and allowed by soft touch briefs that it is. So the 18 points was my attempt at saying "that's yer lot".
"...not everybody who uses pub car parks, drinks alcohol, so only a few then, thats a relief."
And of course that issue has nothing to do with this question as imposing points is not an option for somebody facing a conviction for driving with excess alcohol. That is one of the offences I mentioned in my earlier reply which attracts an immediate mandatory disqualification (minimum 12 months). The loved ones of those convicted have to endure whatever hardship their ban throws up.
And of course that issue has nothing to do with this question as imposing points is not an option for somebody facing a conviction for driving with excess alcohol. That is one of the offences I mentioned in my earlier reply which attracts an immediate mandatory disqualification (minimum 12 months). The loved ones of those convicted have to endure whatever hardship their ban throws up.
Another intriguing part of the BBC's report is this:
"The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency said the figure included people who had served a ban and had successfully reapplied for their licence."
When a driver serves a "totting up" ban his points tally is reset to zero. So why are those who currently have zero points being included in these figures (if indeed they are)?
"The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency said the figure included people who had served a ban and had successfully reapplied for their licence."
When a driver serves a "totting up" ban his points tally is reset to zero. So why are those who currently have zero points being included in these figures (if indeed they are)?
TTT...my last accident was in August 2011, when a mad and drunk driver ploughed into my car from a side turning. My car rolled over twice and ended up on its roof. He destroyed my car and because I was wearing a seat belt, I was mostly unharmed. He was uninsured, and also only had a automatic license, ie not a licence to drive a manual car.....his car was relatively unharmed....a rather ancient Mondeo, with a manual gearbox.
My car ( a Nissan Qashqui) was a right-off and my insurance company allowed me to rent a small teeny-weeny Nissan, for 4 weeks, until they able to pay out for the Qashqui.
I was 100% innocent and didn't lose any of my NCB.
My last points for speeding was in 2002....since then I have had any more driving problems....well, apart from people who drive too fast, and too close behind, especially on Motorways that is.
My car ( a Nissan Qashqui) was a right-off and my insurance company allowed me to rent a small teeny-weeny Nissan, for 4 weeks, until they able to pay out for the Qashqui.
I was 100% innocent and didn't lose any of my NCB.
My last points for speeding was in 2002....since then I have had any more driving problems....well, apart from people who drive too fast, and too close behind, especially on Motorways that is.
With 10,000 driving with more than 12 points, just how many are driving with 3 points or more?
When I started driving back in the 70s it was rare to find someone who had points on their licence for speeding (back then 3 speeding offences would result in a ban). Now with stealth speed cameras, fixed gantry and many mobile police units out to catch speeding motorists etc – those with points on their licence may outnumber those having a clean licence.
This morning while driving to work, at times the traffic in the outside lane of the M1 was travelling at 85mph – with me keeping a close look out for mobile police cameras stationed on bridges over the motorway. If there was a speed camera at the optimum location, they would have been catching speeding motorists at a rate of over 3,000 an hour.
Ask yourself this, which is worse, exceeding the speed limit on four separate occasions or driving once while drunk? The law treats them equally in terms of the points awarded.
Of course targeting motorist for speeding is just a money making scam.
However if those convicted of 4 speeding offences loose their livelihood and become dependent on the State, the money making scam falls off the rails – and so NJ et al are needed to keep the money rolling in.
When I started driving back in the 70s it was rare to find someone who had points on their licence for speeding (back then 3 speeding offences would result in a ban). Now with stealth speed cameras, fixed gantry and many mobile police units out to catch speeding motorists etc – those with points on their licence may outnumber those having a clean licence.
This morning while driving to work, at times the traffic in the outside lane of the M1 was travelling at 85mph – with me keeping a close look out for mobile police cameras stationed on bridges over the motorway. If there was a speed camera at the optimum location, they would have been catching speeding motorists at a rate of over 3,000 an hour.
Ask yourself this, which is worse, exceeding the speed limit on four separate occasions or driving once while drunk? The law treats them equally in terms of the points awarded.
Of course targeting motorist for speeding is just a money making scam.
However if those convicted of 4 speeding offences loose their livelihood and become dependent on the State, the money making scam falls off the rails – and so NJ et al are needed to keep the money rolling in.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.