Bad driving, lane discipline, undertaking & the LAW

Really?

It's a good word.

[ChrisCurvyS]

Just going back to the topic guys and gals - the problem with enforcement is that the punishments are absurdly lenient - providing you're in a car and not on a bike of course.

The police can catch uninsured/unlicensed/banned drivers all they want but the courts rarely impose anything which deters them from doing it again - eg fines for no insurance which cost much less than the insurance would have, to be paid at a rate of 50p a week from your benefits (if at all), etc etc.

Speaking of which, anyone see this today?

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-new...ivers-revealed

If I was in the AA, I would cancel my membership purely based on that idiotic quote about it being a good thing that the courts impose Kafkaesque driving bans on children.

I think he's saying its better they are imposed at the time of the offence rather than delayed until they turn 17.

I mean turning 17 and knowing you've got a 2 year ban to serve would probably cause them to simply not bother with the system and just carry on driving illegally.

[Biker Biggles]

I think you misread the article.The AA bloke was horrified by the figures,but the government idiot was the one saying the bans were from the date of conviction rather than from some date when they would have any meaning.
Actually these repeat offenders should be locked up,as a danger to themselves and everyone else,whatever their age.

Originally Posted by ChrisCurvyS

Kafkaesque

Is this thread becoming a big words that ralph doesnt know competition?


Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[ChrisCurvyS]

Originally Posted by Spank86

I think he's saying its better they are imposed at the time of the offence rather than delayed until they turn 17.

I mean turning 17 and knowing you've got a 2 year ban to serve would probably cause them to simply not bother with the system and just carry on driving illegally.

I think the sorts of lads who nick cars and go joyriding at 12 aren't going to suddenly go legit a few years later and start tootling round in a dual control Nissan Micra. Plus, how much do you think insurance would cost for a 17-year-old with those previous convictions, if you could get it at all?

Should have explained myself better - I think the whole idea of banning a child from doing something they can't legally do anyway or giving them points on licence they don't have is just absurd and makes a mockery of the system. Stop doing it and do something that might actually change their behaviour instead.

Guy I know went legit at about 20.


Jobs that need driving licences will do that.

[ChrisCurvyS]

Lads like him are probably the exception though aren't they?

Just speaking from experience - spent a lot of time in court as a reporter and you'd see the same people up for driving while disqualified over and over again. Chaps like this -

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/5165-da...r-escapes-jail

I would have said that the ones who are banned as kids are the exception but that anyone who wants to hold down a proper job and life will eventually have to get a driving licence.

I mean yes there are the kids who go on to a life of crime and whatnot but some of them are just caught up in a gang of people at that age and will straighten themselves out.

They certainly don't need to pay for it maybe 5-10 years later. Not when it's just as easy to catch them then and punish them if they are still doing it.

[yorkie_chris]

There needs to be more judges with powers to say "well you've had chance to reform, you haven't done, so the best we can do is to keep your worthless hide away from the general public for a while, see you in 10 years"