Twelve points?
Discussion
I shudder to think what the insurance would cost with 12+ points.
There`s also a part of me that thinks: If losing a licence will cause such hardship perhaps driving more slowly/carefully/sober/whatever would be better for the person in question in the first place.
Don`t much like the idea of sharing the roads with people who amass that many points and then plead hardship when it looks like being a ban.
Sorry, just my opinion.
There`s also a part of me that thinks: If losing a licence will cause such hardship perhaps driving more slowly/carefully/sober/whatever would be better for the person in question in the first place.
Don`t much like the idea of sharing the roads with people who amass that many points and then plead hardship when it looks like being a ban.
Sorry, just my opinion.
Tango13 said:
Who decided that 12 points was the limit for a driving licence anyway? I'm not trolling or trying to start an arguement, just curious about how it all came about.
Not sure, it used to be three "endorsements", when we went to points you suddenly had four bites, rather than three.So thumbs up to them, whoever they are/were.
And a driver got an endorsement regardless of whether (s)he was speeding, driving without insurance or whatever (obviously drink driving, for example, still led to disqualification).
In this regard, penalty points are arguably fairer than endorsements in terms of sanction vs seriousness of the offence...
In this regard, penalty points are arguably fairer than endorsements in terms of sanction vs seriousness of the offence...
aw51 121565 said:
(obviously drink driving, for example, still led to disqualification).
Panto season mode I'm afraid ...... Oh no it didn't !That is relatively quite a recent thing, a ban was always an option as far as I remember, but absolutely not a certainty, I've been on the road since 1977, and I remember people not being banned for drink drive, I even remember it being considered "unlucky old chap", if you were caught.
Tango13 said:
Who decided that 12 points was the limit for a driving licence anyway? I'm not trolling or trying to start an arguement, just curious about how it all came about.
Parliament did.As noted under the old system there were no points, just an endorsement or a ban, and 3 endorsements added up to a ban. The points system allows the courts to vary the penalty according to the seriousness of the offence, so previously 3 speeding offences meant a totting ban, but now it can take anything from 4 minor offences to 2 more serious ones.
Nigel Worc's said:
That is relatively quite a recent thing, a ban was always an option as far as I remember, but absolutely not a certainty, I've been on the road since 1977, and I remember people not being banned for drink drive, I even remember it being considered "unlucky old chap", if you were caught.
The law hasn't really changed as far as I can tell - the Road Traffic Act 1930 included a mandatory 12 month ban for driving while unfit through drink or drugs (no breathalysers in those days). The courts did have the option of not imposing the ban for special reasons if they saw fit, as they do now. Possibly special reasons were interpreted more liberally in the past than they are now.Aretnap said:
Nigel Worc's said:
That is relatively quite a recent thing, a ban was always an option as far as I remember, but absolutely not a certainty, I've been on the road since 1977, and I remember people not being banned for drink drive, I even remember it being considered "unlucky old chap", if you were caught.
The law hasn't really changed as far as I can tell - the Road Traffic Act 1930 included a mandatory 12 month ban for driving while unfit through drink or drugs (no breathalysers in those days). The courts did have the option of not imposing the ban for special reasons if they saw fit, as they do now. Possibly special reasons were interpreted more liberally in the past than they are now.As far as I know, a legal drink drive limit didn't come in until early to mid 1970's (it may even have been late 60's, someone will pop along and tell us).
Driving whilst unfit, is, I think, very different to being over the limit, as if there isn't a limit, you can't be over it.
And it certainly wasn't a definate ban, possibly could have been a ban, but it was common, rather like it is now for speeding offences, to not ban those who drove for a living.
I remember that discretion being removed from magistrates, and my uncle who was a magistrate complaining about it.
hora said:
Nigel Worc's said:
I have a mate who was still driving with 24 points, company car, so he didn't care about insurance.
Possibly ten years or so ago now.
So yes, very possible.
Bonkers isnt it? The bloke is obviously in the flagrant disregard for road rules-zone isnt he. Either that or hes a bit sPossibly ten years or so ago now.
So yes, very possible.
t at spotting hazards, warning signs etc.He's a nice chap, good driver etc, very high mileage like myself, he just took longer to get used to the scamerati being around on reduced speed limit roads than most, coupled with not really giving a s
t etc.I agree that sometimes its just bad luck or misfortune but, I'm sorry, you don't get to 24 points by being a slightly careless high mileage driver.
Plenty of people drive for a living all over the country and most don't run around with 20 plus points on their licence, usually because they'd be out of a job.
He must be good at what he does and have a very understanding boss to pay the premiums on that.
Not looking to argue with you Nigel, just stating my opinion, I'm sure he's a top bloke but if that's all speed related he needs to slow down and observe a bit more imo.
I do take the point that it very much depends on the offences that lead to the points in determine whether the person is "safe" to be on the road but I imagine the cost of insurance would price most very high point drivers off the road even if they didn't receive a ban.
I'd live to know the cost of insuring, say a mid 30s male with 24 points on a modest car.
Plenty of people drive for a living all over the country and most don't run around with 20 plus points on their licence, usually because they'd be out of a job.
He must be good at what he does and have a very understanding boss to pay the premiums on that.
Not looking to argue with you Nigel, just stating my opinion, I'm sure he's a top bloke but if that's all speed related he needs to slow down and observe a bit more imo.
I do take the point that it very much depends on the offences that lead to the points in determine whether the person is "safe" to be on the road but I imagine the cost of insurance would price most very high point drivers off the road even if they didn't receive a ban.
I'd live to know the cost of insuring, say a mid 30s male with 24 points on a modest car.
Nigel Worc's said:
I'm not sure that is actually the case.
As far as I know, a legal drink drive limit didn't come in until early to mid 1970's (it may even have been late 60's, someone will pop along and tell us).
Driving whilst unfit, is, I think, very different to being over the limit, as if there isn't a limit, you can't be over it.
And it certainly wasn't a definate ban, possibly could have been a ban, but it was common, rather like it is now for speeding offences, to not ban those who drove for a living.
I remember that discretion being removed from magistrates, and my uncle who was a magistrate complaining about it.
The breathyliser was introduced by the Road Safety Act 1967, which I can't find online, but certainly by the time of the Road Traffic Act 1972 driving while over the prescribed limit carried obligatory disqualification ( linky - scroll down to section 6(1)).As far as I know, a legal drink drive limit didn't come in until early to mid 1970's (it may even have been late 60's, someone will pop along and tell us).
Driving whilst unfit, is, I think, very different to being over the limit, as if there isn't a limit, you can't be over it.
And it certainly wasn't a definate ban, possibly could have been a ban, but it was common, rather like it is now for speeding offences, to not ban those who drove for a living.
I remember that discretion being removed from magistrates, and my uncle who was a magistrate complaining about it.
Courts have always had the discretion not to disqualify for special reasons, but there seems to be case law dating back to the 1940s and 50s to say that special reasons must relate to the offence itself and not to the offender (Whittall v Kirby 1946 and R v Wickens 1958 - see eg here and here). So if magistrates were declining to ban drunk drivers because they drove for a living, they were being a bit naughty. Are you sure you're not thinking of when the grounds for avoiding a totting ban were tightened up, from "as the court sees fit in all the circumstances" (1972) to "exceptional hardship only" (1988)?
Fubar1977 said:
I agree that sometimes its just bad luck or misfortune but, I'm sorry, you don't get to 24 points by being a slightly careless high mileage driver.
Plenty of people drive for a living all over the country and most don't run around with 20 plus points on their licence, usually because they'd be out of a job.
He must be good at what he does and have a very understanding boss to pay the premiums on that.
Not looking to argue with you Nigel, just stating my opinion, I'm sure he's a top bloke but if that's all speed related he needs to slow down and observe a bit more imo.
I do take the point that it very much depends on the offences that lead to the points in determine whether the person is "safe" to be on the road but I imagine the cost of insurance would price most very high point drivers off the road even if they didn't receive a ban.
I'd live to know the cost of insuring, say a mid 30s male with 24 points on a modest car.
On a fleet the size his company run, I doubt anything the driver does matters for insurance really, as long as they have a licence, all is ok.Plenty of people drive for a living all over the country and most don't run around with 20 plus points on their licence, usually because they'd be out of a job.
He must be good at what he does and have a very understanding boss to pay the premiums on that.
Not looking to argue with you Nigel, just stating my opinion, I'm sure he's a top bloke but if that's all speed related he needs to slow down and observe a bit more imo.
I do take the point that it very much depends on the offences that lead to the points in determine whether the person is "safe" to be on the road but I imagine the cost of insurance would price most very high point drivers off the road even if they didn't receive a ban.
I'd live to know the cost of insuring, say a mid 30s male with 24 points on a modest car.
And yes, he is very good at what he does, he's the senior engineer there, and I think the boss of the UK operation had 15 points, something like that.
Not everyone worries about these things, I know some companies can be a bit more anal now, he can still smoke in his company car, for example (well nobody checks if you know what I'm suggesting).
I'm not sure I'd be able to go back to being an employee these days, (not that I ever could, health and safety now prevents someone from employing me in the role I have, due to my diabetes), if you've any hang ups on employees smoking etc etc, I wouldn't be a good bet to have, as I'd tell you where to go.
Nigel Worc's said:
Fubar1977 said:
I agree that sometimes its just bad luck or misfortune but, I'm sorry, you don't get to 24 points by being a slightly careless high mileage driver.
Plenty of people drive for a living all over the country and most don't run around with 20 plus points on their licence, usually because they'd be out of a job.
He must be good at what he does and have a very understanding boss to pay the premiums on that.
Not looking to argue with you Nigel, just stating my opinion, I'm sure he's a top bloke but if that's all speed related he needs to slow down and observe a bit more imo.
I do take the point that it very much depends on the offences that lead to the points in determine whether the person is "safe" to be on the road but I imagine the cost of insurance would price most very high point drivers off the road even if they didn't receive a ban.
I'd live to know the cost of insuring, say a mid 30s male with 24 points on a modest car.
On a fleet the size his company run, I doubt anything the driver does matters for insurance really, as long as they have a licence, all is ok.Plenty of people drive for a living all over the country and most don't run around with 20 plus points on their licence, usually because they'd be out of a job.
He must be good at what he does and have a very understanding boss to pay the premiums on that.
Not looking to argue with you Nigel, just stating my opinion, I'm sure he's a top bloke but if that's all speed related he needs to slow down and observe a bit more imo.
I do take the point that it very much depends on the offences that lead to the points in determine whether the person is "safe" to be on the road but I imagine the cost of insurance would price most very high point drivers off the road even if they didn't receive a ban.
I'd live to know the cost of insuring, say a mid 30s male with 24 points on a modest car.
And yes, he is very good at what he does, he's the senior engineer there, and I think the boss of the UK operation had 15 points, something like that.
Not everyone worries about these things, I know some companies can be a bit more anal now, he can still smoke in his company car, for example (well nobody checks if you know what I'm suggesting).
I'm not sure I'd be able to go back to being an employee these days, (not that I ever could, health and safety now prevents someone from employing me in the role I have, due to my diabetes), if you've any hang ups on employees smoking etc etc, I wouldn't be a good bet to have, as I'd tell you where to go.
The last time I worked for someone else it was only a very small operation. (6 vehicles, small business) and on our policy the insurer wanted to know of all endorsements and there was definitely an issue if a driver got up to 9 points, especially if any of them were accrued in a works vehicle.
Effectively if you got over 9 you pretty much needed to start looking for a job.
I would imagine its a different ball-game in a large operation.
I don't think I could go back to working for someone else either.
24 seems a hell of a lot of points to explain, I mean what happens if you're already on, say 16 points and then have to explain why you should get another 6 for example, and not get banned?
I not saying everybody with that number of points should be banned, it depends why the points were given that should determine that, it's just what you'd actually give as mitigation given how far over you'd be under totting up rules.
Presumably exceptional hardship?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff