CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

The Sacred Driving Licence

(48 posts)

No tags yet.


12

  1. Min
    Member

    Further proof, as if any were needed, just how hard it is to lose your driving licence here in the UK. Particularly if you drive as part of your job or live somewhere rural.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13334936

    "Twelve points usually means a temporary driving ban unless it can be proved it would cause exceptional hardship. "

    Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA, said he understood why magistrates had discretion over disqualifications, but added that repeat offending should not be tolerated just because somebody's livelihood relied on being able to drive.

    "You can't see why these people are repeatedly doing it - you should be able to see it coming," he said.

    "The idea is that people get warned for this along the way and see their points totting up. The idea is to clamp down on repeat offenders.

    "If you're a repeat offender and you drive for a living, that's not an excuse."

    He said the number of disqualifications had not increased in line with the "rocketing" number of endorsements since speed cameras were introduced.

    NUMBER OF DISQUALIFICATIONS IN WALES

    * 2007: 10,455
    * 2008: 11,451
    * 2009: 10,281
    * 2010: 7,926
    * Source: DVLA

    This is the case throughout the UK.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. Kim
    Member

    It is shocking that people are able to get away with putting the lives of others at risk just because just because it might inconvenience them. A driving licence is not a right, it grant a privilege under trust, if you break that trust you should loose the privilege! This sort of thing should not be tolerated!!

    It is no use saying that no one was harmed on this occasion, which is another defence. You can legally hold a shotgun under licence, but if you were to take it out into the street and fire it over people heads. No court would accept that it was OK because no one was hurt on this occasion!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    There was a case last year (I think) where a woman had 9 points on her licence from 3 different speeding offences. She was caught again, and the judge gave her two points because she needed her car for work, and for driving her son to his work.

    She had admitted that it was possible she could get a bus to work, but hadn't looked at the timetables and thought it would be difficult!

    The judge then said that the 11 points would be a warning and that if caught again she might lose her licence.

    So 9 points wasn't a warning? And if she breached a second warning there's still a possibility she wouldn't lose her licence? Sacred indeed!

    p.s. the BBC nicked my article idea!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. splitshift
    Member

    driving licence is a privelidge, not a right ! If I screw up my day and do something illegal then i risk loosing that licence, the illegal things dont happen by accident ! hell mend em !

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. Claggy Cog
    Member

    Other than joy riders, or speed freaks, petrol heads or just young and foolhardy, people who speed are those that are disorganised and are inevitably running late and are therefore distracted or flustered. If you drive for a living ergo you are on the road more and should know better and endanger others more often if speeding so you should lose your licence, or at least be banned for a while, and have to resit. That is how a deterrent is supposed to work?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. crowriver
    Member

    I think this is one of those aspects of the legal system where the 'in group' takes over. That is, all the magistrates and sheriffs, they have all broken the law by speeding, or doing something they should not have in a car. Therefore they sympathise with the offenders and let them off. Simple psychology.

    If all elected politicians, members of the judiciary, etc. were keen cyclists I'm sure the cycling facilities, and legal framework to protect cyclists, would be second to none!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. Min
    Member

    I wonder how many of the 12+ point licence holders are magistrates?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Kim
    Member

    Or politicians? Or people with political influence...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. DaveC
    Member

    I imagine the actual number is very low, if any. These sorts of things don't tend to stay out of the press for long, especially when its an elected member of a parliament.

    This kind of thing makes me think that some believe a driving licence is the UK's equivolent of the American's right to bare arms.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Damned Americans and their belief that everyone should be allowed to wear t-shirts....

    :P

    I reckon DC is right - the amount of politicos who are at or over 12 points is likely to be teeny, but there will be many of them, I would imagine, with a few points. THAT is the type of thing that can happen without any media notice if they're caught by a speed camera or whatever.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Footballers doing 100mph in 30mph zones seems to be a pretty regular occurence that is repeated in the media. However it's not covered with the sort of moral repugnance reserved for them if they are unfaithful in marriage. After all, it's only peoples lives we're talking about here, not the sort of exclusives that will shift more copies of their filthy rags.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. crowriver
    Member

    I suppose what I meant is that most legal eagles will have committed an offence such as speeding, red light jumping, etc. and not been caught. As have the vast majority of drivers. Therefore when somebody is caught and hauled up before them, they will be feeling sorry for the poor sap for having the misfortune to have been caught, rather than outraged that the driver in question dared to flout the laws of the land and posed a danger to other road users...

    It's the only explanation I can think of for the incredible leniency shown towards drivers who break the law and get caught.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. Kim
    Member

    Therein lies the problem, it is seen as OK to make a mistake. Well yes we all make mistakes at sometime, but driving is a dangerous activity, and a simple laps in concentration can kill. It is the most dangerous activity that people most do in their everyday lives. There is no right to drive, it is a privilege granted under trust. That is why we have a points system, so that people who make an error don't automatically get a ban. However, this system has become corrupted, there is now a reluctance to hand down a ban, even where drivers are repeat offenders.

    Increasingly, people are starting to think of driving as a right, not a privilege granted under trust. We need to find a way of rebalancing this, we need to make it clear that driving without due care and attention is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated. For the good of everyone.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. TwoWheels
    Member

    Here's one for you: I know a guy who now has six drunk driving convictions. The last time he was caught, he smacked a telephone pole head-on. He got a 4 month vacation at the Graybar Hotel and loss of his license for life.

    The kicker? He can appeal his "lifelong" revocation in 6 months. Most appeals are granted. Egad.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. Kim
    Member

    Why has the driving licence become sacred?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. Min
    Member

    A man with epilepsy and who has several fits a month kills 
    someone due to having a fit while driving. Unusually he gets a 
    jail sentence (3 and a half years). Not unusually he will be 
    free to kill again after 5 years when he gets his licence back.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-13894916

    This is what the polis had to say-

    "I'm sure they would join me in saying to anyone driving with an unmanaged medical condition that they should think before they drive in future before someone else is killed or seriously injured, and remember that people who cause this type of suffering face a jail sentence," he said."

    So THINK before you drive. You can still drive. So long as 
    you think about it first.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. Arellcat
    Moderator

    "Our investigation showed that Mr Furnival had suffered from epilepsy since he was a teenager but had never informed the DVLA."

    Knowingly, one might infer.

    I know someone who controls their epilepsy with medication, and their seizures are now extremely rare. But after the very first one, the DVLA revoked their driving licence for several years, pending evidence of decreasing frequency of seizures.

    If you're honest, you tell the DVLA and you're not allowed to drive. Or, you don't tell the DVLA, and you make a conscious decision not to drive -- but are you allowed to own and insure a vehicle which you are now, technically, not licensed to drive? And if you're dishonest, you don't tell the DVLA, you drive, and you might get busted by the Police, or you might just do it yourself.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. alibali
    Member

    The rules are pretty tough. In most cases the a full year without seizures is required by DVLA and any subsequent seizure results in surreder of the license for a year or until a year has passed since the last seizure.

    This policy ensures that accidents due to seizures are no more likely than through other causes of loss of conciousness (heart attack, stroke, tiredness etc).

    People with epilepsy are not allowed to drive HGVs or PSVs either.

    I can't help but wonder how someone who had several seizures a month wasn't identified by health professionals, the police or just acquaintances as a dangerous driver before they had the accident. I guess everyone who knew him well knew about the epilepsy and the driving. Sadly, it's probably the tip of a dodgy license iceberg.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. Kim
    Member

    The problem is in no small part due to government policy in subsidising motoring and running down public transport. Successive governments have reduced peoples transport choices for narrow political gain and though a total failure to think (or care) about the consequences.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. alibali
    Member

    There is no question holding a license is so important to people because the car unlocks the door to random access travel in a way public transport cannot as things stand.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. Kim
    Member

    "As things stand", but they are only that way because we have allowed them to become that way. It doesn't have to be that way!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. alibali
    Member

    Yes, that's true. There are always going to be corner cases public transport can't address though and if someone needs a car to cope with those, they will use the car for other journeys too. It makes economic sense to do so in many cases.

    A key element is to make it possible to have ready have access to a car occasionaly so that buying and owning one is less attractive. Not an easy thing to arrange. The nearest City Car from me is 20 minutes walk away which doesn't make it attractive at 0530 when buses are thin on the ground.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. Kirst
    Member

    "I can't help but wonder how someone who had several seizures a month wasn't identified by health professionals, the police or just acquaintances as a dangerous driver before they had the accident. I guess everyone who knew him well knew about the epilepsy and the driving. Sadly, it's probably the tip of a dodgy license iceberg."

    Health professionals often struggle to report people to DVLA because of confidentiality requirements. Nobody's ever sure whether they're allowed to report it or not. I once insisted that a GP report an elderly man who had had loads of accidents because of his poor eyesight, dementia and footdrop, but I really had to push for it, and the GP was really hacked off about it.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. alibali
    Member

    Good point; the responsibility does lie with the person with the health issue and I'd be reluctant to see GPs/nurses/admins inform the authorities in other than extreme cases. The same doesn't go for friends and relations though.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. Kim
    Member

    Sadly the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke QC, MP, seems to be incapable of understanding the concept of dangerous driving. Apparently “ordinary dangerous driving” isn’t a serious problem, but then this is a man who doesn’t think all rapes are crime. All rape is rape and all dangerous driving is dangerous, both destroy lives. I just wish Ken Clarke would stick to playing records on the radio and leave the serious stuff to people who understand the real world.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. Dave
    Member

    "I'd be reluctant to see GPs/nurses/admins inform the authorities in other than extreme cases."

    It depends on what you mean by extreme. I'd go the other way and make practices part liable for crashes that occur because they did not inform the DVLA of a potentially disabling condition...

    From my point of view it's pretty farsical that that the health service prefers more deaths and serious injuries to breaching percieved patient confidentiality. In other words, the rights of the wider public not to *become* patients (or corpses) trumps the right of a patient to keep their condition secret from the DVLA, to which health professionals should not be accomplices.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. Dave
    Member

    "I just wish Ken Clarke would stick to playing records on the radio and leave the serious stuff to people who understand the real world."

    To be fair, he is specifically talking about the impracticalities of jailing everyone who drives dangerously. It's true - we can't afford (and I don't want to pay for) jail places for about 95% of the population.

    Perhaps if he had said something like "for those cases, we should simply remove the driving licence" it might have been more palatable? (Of course, he could literally mean "ordinary" dangerous drivers should be let off, he is a politician after all).

    It costs about £40,000 to keep someone locked up for a year, which means even a 3 month jail term for someone who drives dangerously costs society £13,000. Imagine instead spending the same money on a full time case officer who monitors, say, half a dozen driving offenders for a couple of years - daily phone calls, sitting in the vehicle with them on rotation, etc. Which would be more effective?

    </pipedream>

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Thanks to everyone in this thread - gave me a page in the new citycycling! (and Kim there's a link to your blog :) )

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. Smudge
    Member

    Or at minimal cost, make the default sentence for death by dangerous driving or 2 x dangerous driving a lifetime ban from holding a driving licence of any type?

    (and I don't mean "life" as 15 years minus remmission etc etc, I mean permanent loss of licence).

    Then you only have to jail the people who continue to drive while disqualified...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. chdot
    Admin

    "
    carltonreid:

    Lorry driver blacks out, kills cyclist, drives away...and only gets 12 month ban. He should never drive again, surely?

    http://bit.ly/rg9qTs

    Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/88556591124709377

    "

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin