Safe Speed Forums

Presumably by this you mean that the offences of driving without a licence and driving uninsured are far more serious than speeding?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

deffinately, yes

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

As you, I want appropriate punishment. I think something quite harsh is appropriate here. Harsh punishment and safer roads are not mutually exclusive alternatives.

Let's just explore this a bit. If someone is justifiably convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, do you think it would be better to mentor them to improve their driving and allow them to continue behind a wheel in case they drive with no insurance in future as they can't get cover having been convicted?


I don't quite see what the deterrent or punishment is in this.


"Associated arson..." !! So the message is: Mess about and be a dangerous nuisance. We will then provide professional assistance and instruction for you which good kids don't get.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Only the chap is not exempt under reg (16) 2-3 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Lincences(Amendement Regulations of 2001 ..

By the way .. the offence we would be doing this guy for would be under s 91 og the Road traffic OFFENDERS Act of 1988. If the person does not have even a provision - - s 87 supplies some of the criteria for prosecution

The penalty which will feature on licence will be

LC20 - which carries 3 points and as many as 6 points if the court decide the offence warrants this.

SP30 or SP 50 (if a motorway) - usually 3 points up to a certain point. Can be more if court think appropriate

IN10 for invalidating the insurance policy,.. wihich carries between 6 and 8 points per the statute books which the courts are supposed to refer to


All of these add up to hefty punishment and an IN10 usually whacks up the premium considerably... which does tempt some to commit the offence again because of its cost I argue that it should carry a loading to make a point to the idiot concerned - but not a completely prohibitive one as we want to encourage folk to be insured in all reality

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

First of all its highly unlikely that his insurance is invalidated. The normal wording on a policy is that cover is valid "provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified for or prohibited by law from holding or obtaining a licence". None of those applies to the OP (based on what he has posted) and the insurance should stand.


If charged with the speeding and the "otherwise than in accordance with a licence" offences the court will only impose points on the most serious of the two as the offences were committed on the same occasion. Depending on the individual circumstances they could impose a ban and no points if they feel the totality of the offending merits that.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Ah .. but he does not hold a licence which allows him to drive the car unsupervised. It will depend very much on the actual wording of his policy - but by and large insurers do expect a solo driver to be qualified.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I am sure they do. The question is - have they worded the policy to make that expectation an enforceable part of the contract. Judging by the large number of unaccompanied L drivers I see in court, most companies don't. Time and time again the no insurance charge is dropped as the policy doesn't specifically state that learners must be supervised.

The example wording i gave previously was lifted directly from my daughters policy. She has not yet passed a test. Should she drive without a supervisor I will do what all the defence lawyers do and quote the case of Edwards v Griffiths [1953] 1ELR 1199 which will result in the CPS accepting that she was covered and having to drop the case.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Ahh.. but you be careful lest another equal or higher court has ruled a new precedent or comment which may undermine this particular precedent

However, I do wish courts would punish accordingly for offences under s87 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act of 1988.,



Personally I would impose a ban on obtaining a licence for a year for such offenders as I think this a far greater offence than failing to comply with Child Suppor/Pensions and Social Security Act s 16.. I do not need to tell you or the world at large that the law can be an ass with its head up its proverbial at times All the same .. we still hope to enforce the laws with a big dollop of professional common sense.

Unlicenced.. uninsured .. those who knowingly and deliberately break the laws and then fail to stop when requested.. accelerating away with zero attention to COAST .. This type seriously undermine safety out there. I am rather hard line on this type.. whilst I have usually let off or even ignored the marginal blip -over the limit over the years. Hell .. I've even let off a couple of rather fast but still safe drivers - albeit with a rather acid lecture in my past as an active Black Rat in a very busy London and later Manchester .. . .

I do hope our OP has learned something though and whatever his or her outcome in all this .. I would hope the person continues to join in the chats.. learns a bit more about "driver responsibility/duty of care/safety margins" and will be inspired to continue learning all the time.

To the OP.. I hope I have not been too hard on you in my comments. I posted the potential penalties which could appear on your licence and to be aware of how it may affect your future budget as regards insurance. But the rubric is to shop around for the best deal for you and you MUST read all small print and hammer out anything you do not understand in the policy wording.

Good luck with your test when you take it.. and to keep costs down.. DO PLEASE think of PASS PLUS and check out the IAM when you have a few miles under your seatbelt

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Just a thought on tnis one about driving while uninsured as far as I am concerned it should be a case of "lock em up & throw away the key" for offenders who blatantly disregard the law on this issue.

But would it not be more prudent (to say the least) to instead of a fine + a ban etc. to make the punishment fit the crime.

Why don,t the courts fine the offender 3 or 4 times the cost of the insurance for the offence plus the fine + a ban if necessary as this would (I hope) at least discourage the idiots who say it is cheaper to drive without insurance and pay the fine plus any other penalties than to insure the said vehicle and if no payment then a prison sentence plus still paying the fine as well when they are released ?

As the majority of offenders take the view that it is cheaper to pay the fine than insure the vehicle that is why they drive without insurance in the first place.

Obviously there are bound to be problems with this idea so has anyone got any other solutions on this one as "in gear" is a serving officer it would be interesting to ask for his response as he and other officers would have to administer the law on this of it became law and also what are the downfalls associated with this idea?

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

I never cease to be amazed at the number of police officers who think we are free to do that. Courts are required to punish in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Because we are not allowed to. What would be the point of us doing as you ask in the certain knowledge that it would be appealed a considerable cost to the tax payer and overturned?

FYI - the latest sentencing guidelines which came into force on 4 august have REDUCED the penalties available for no insurance by removing the possibility of a community penalty - leaving us with fine and points or disqualification only. The new guideline is a fine equal to 150% of a weeks pay for the individual concerned. As most of our no insurance offenders are very low paid thats a lot less than insurance would cost. The Magistrates Association has complained about this over and over and again - to no avail.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

having looked more closely at the new rules it gets worse. No insurance used to carry either 6 or 8 points. It now carries 6, 7 or 8. The guidelines suggest imposing 7 points for the sort of thing where we used to use 8. They go on to suggest 8 for some of the things where we used to disqualify.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Selfish selfish driver, I hope you get stuck on for it all and get the ban you deserve.

59mph in a 50... not exactly the biggest motoring offence in the world!

Driving with no insurance when you are not good enough to drive (ie you HAVENT passed your test!)

You could have killed someone you fucking idiot, although if you wrapped yourself round a lampost and killed only yourself it would be a waste... of a lampost.

You want sympathy on here? Piss off

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice comes to mind

Bob, unless you report him I'll have to report you for being an accessory after the fact.