months
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
"public had to be protected from his behaviour and he was disqualified for 27"
(5 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
It's laughable how often you read of somebody driving illegally with no licence, a provisional or a suspended licence and then getting a (usually short) driving ban. Like that is some sort of barrier to then doing it all over again. Having no right to drive a vehicle before didn't stop them so why would it a subsequent time?
Also interesting that for someone who can afford a licence (and presumably a vehicle), as well as to go out drinking, appears to have received no fine, only community service. Why not both?
And since judgement has been passed, why is the article not open to comments? No angle for cycle hatred to be included, is that it?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Would he have got less is 1) he was insured or 2) had a full licence?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Driving a stolen vehicle too. No charges for theft?
Even his lawyer had no defence.
Sheriff's a bit of a newbie mind you, only appointed in May. Perhaps that explains the undue leniency?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Which idiot left the keys in the truck in the first place?
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
