Banning for riding a cycle while under the influence ?
Discussion
toni896 said:
Is it possible to be banned from driving, if you are caught riding a cycle while under the influence of drink or drugs?
Just a question that was askef last night and was a 50/50 split in the yes vs no answer.
Can anyone confirm or not as the case may be ?
Just a question that was askef last night and was a 50/50 split in the yes vs no answer.
Can anyone confirm or not as the case may be ?
VH will tell you, there is the legal side on Traffic-Answers.co.uk or .com I think, but it is an offence to ride a push bike while over the limit, and also push a push bike while over the limit...
Mr F
toni896 said:
Is it possible to be banned from driving, if you are caught riding a cycle while under the influence of drink or drugs?
Just a question that was askef last night and was a 50/50 split in the yes vs no answer.
Can anyone confirm or not as the case may be ?
Just a question that was askef last night and was a 50/50 split in the yes vs no answer.
Can anyone confirm or not as the case may be ?
No it is not possible. You can be fined or even imprisoned, but you cannot receive points or be banned from driving for being drunk or high whist riding a pedal bike.
There is also no power to breathalyse someone on a bicycle, the level of drunkeness must be evidenced by a police officer and possibly corroborated by a doctor. It's the same standard of drunkeness applied to "Drunk and disordely", so the normal blood alcohol levels don't apply.
As an aside, consider these two scenarios:
Mr smith has no driving licence. He gets drunk, cycles home and on his was home cycles into Mrs miggins and breaks her hip. Plod are called, and the upshot is he finds himself in court and gets fined £100 for being drunk in charge of a pedal cycle.
Mr Smith has a drving licence. He gets drunk, cycles home and on his was home cycles into Mrs miggins and breaks her other hip. Plod are called, and the upshot is he finds himself in court and gets banned from driving for 12 months and ordered to retake his test. He also gets a £50 fine. However, He also loses his job as a truck driver and forfeits his mortgage as a result.
These two scenearios show why it would be drastically unfair, and also open to a legal challenge, if cyclists were able to be punished more harshly if they had a drivers licence than not.
toni896 said:
Is it possible to be banned from driving, if you are caught riding a cycle while under the influence of drink or drugs?
Just a question that was askef last night and was a 50/50 split in the yes vs no answer.
Can anyone confirm or not as the case may be ?
Just a question that was askef last night and was a 50/50 split in the yes vs no answer.
Can anyone confirm or not as the case may be ?
Apparantly, yes.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=290908
toni896 said:
Is it possible to be banned from driving, if you are caught riding a cycle while under the influence of drink or drugs?
Just a question that was askef last night and was a 50/50 split in the yes vs no answer.
Can anyone confirm or not as the case may be ?
Just a question that was askef last night and was a 50/50 split in the yes vs no answer.
Can anyone confirm or not as the case may be ?
I think the courts can ban you for any old offence now, much the same as a financial penalty. I don't know if there are restrictions on which offences this can be used for, but for example there was a high profile story about a pedestrian banned for holding up a speed trap warning sign, and I seem to remember some mention of the CSA pressing for people to be banned if they didn't pay child support, so it seems that you don't need to be driving in order to lose your licence.
WeirdNeville said:
These two scenearios show why it would be drastically unfair, and also open to a legal challenge, if cyclists were able to be punished more harshly if they had a drivers licence than not.
But didn't the Gov. suggest that people who didn't stand by any CSA agreement that had been made could have their driving licences confiscated?What about the guy who was accused of warning drivers about a speed trap up the road,I believe he had points put on his licence.I don't think fairness comes into our "Justice" system.
Edited to add.... I wish I could type faster
Edited by esselte on Monday 1st January 17:55
Drunk in charge of a pedal cycle/carriage or animal is an offence which carries a discretionary disqualification.
It also carries a maximum penalty of 1 months imprisonment.
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
It also carries a maximum penalty of 1 months imprisonment.
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 1st January 19:27
vonhosen said:
Drunk in charge of a pedal cycle/carriage or animal is an offence which carries a discretionary disqualification.
It also carries a maximum penalty of 1 months imprisonment.
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
It also carries a maximum penalty of 1 months imprisonment.
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
Unless it's a horse and cart, and you claim to be asleep?
vonhosen said:
Drunk in charge of a pedal cycle/carriage or animal is an offence which carries a discretionary disqualification.
It also carries a maximum penalty of 1 months imprisonment.
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
It also carries a maximum penalty of 1 months imprisonment.
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 1st January 19:27
You are taking the micky. So a person who needs his car for work loses his licence, and a person who doesnt even have a licence loses what? The potential to apply for one? And you think those two cases are equivalent? Pull the other one.
s2art said:
vonhosen said:
Drunk in charge of a pedal cycle/carriage or animal is an offence which carries a discretionary disqualification.
It also carries a maximum penalty of 1 months imprisonment.
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
It also carries a maximum penalty of 1 months imprisonment.
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 1st January 19:27
You are taking the micky. So a person who needs his car for work loses his licence, and a person who doesnt even have a licence loses what? The potential to apply for one? And you think those two cases are equivalent? Pull the other one.
Re going to the boozer using pony and trap and relying on the ned knowing the way home when you are bladdered....
Can't find the link nor the case reference now but definitely recall a case where an old boy did exactly this. (Huddersfield Magistrates Court/ offence near Penistone iirc)
In the end he was prosecuted for Causing bodily harm by furious or wanton driving - S35 Offences against the Person Act 1861.
Lesson 1543 part b, further ways to skin a cat.
No felines were killed, harmed or caused any distress during the composition of this post.
Can't find the link nor the case reference now but definitely recall a case where an old boy did exactly this. (Huddersfield Magistrates Court/ offence near Penistone iirc)
In the end he was prosecuted for Causing bodily harm by furious or wanton driving - S35 Offences against the Person Act 1861.
Lesson 1543 part b, further ways to skin a cat.
No felines were killed, harmed or caused any distress during the composition of this post.
rs1952 said:
Fort Jefferson said:
Unless it's a horse and cart, and you claim to be asleep?
One very worthwhile side effect of going to the pub on a horse is ...
... he knows the way home
My dad was a rag and bone man in his younger day (1930's/40's)and he would get blind drunk on a Friday night in Salford and the horse would take him home.He usually ended up sleeping in the stable with it too!
vonhosen said:
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
Doesn't hold water??? what a load of Bollocks, to disqualify someone from driving for a cycling offence just because they have a licence is pure spite and to suggest that non-licence holders "would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified" is absolutely ridiculous & about as stupid as the driving bans given to 5th time convicted 15yr old car thief/joyriders FFS...... 
catso said:
vonhosen said:
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
Doesn't hold water??? what a load of Bollocks, to disqualify someone from driving for a cycling offence just because they have a licence is pure spite and to suggest that non-licence holders "would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified" is absolutely ridiculous & about as stupid as the driving bans given to 5th time convicted 15yr old car thief/joyriders FFS...... At the risk of going off at a tengent an auxiliary question.
Sunday saw a cycling club holding up traffic whilst they made an illegal right turn en masse against a no right turn sign. No idea if they have driving licences or not as more important fish to fry but I would argue that they showed total contempt for the law, the reason for the no right turn being in place and other road users who all 'were forced' to cede priority.
I think each and every one of them deserved three points. Pure Spite? Not a chance, if that is what it takes to drive home a mech needed lesson then so be it.
Flat in Fifth said:
catso said:
vonhosen said:
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
Doesn't hold water??? what a load of Bollocks, to disqualify someone from driving for a cycling offence just because they have a licence is pure spite and to suggest that non-licence holders "would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified" is absolutely ridiculous & about as stupid as the driving bans given to 5th time convicted 15yr old car thief/joyriders FFS...... At the risk of going off at a tengent an auxiliary question.
Sunday saw a cycling club holding up traffic whilst they made an illegal right turn en masse against a no right turn sign. No idea if they have driving licences or not as more important fish to fry but I would argue that they showed total contempt for the law, the reason for the no right turn being in place and other road users who all 'were forced' to cede priority.
I think each and every one of them deserved three points. Pure Spite? Not a chance, if that is what it takes to drive home a mech needed lesson then so be it.
I do so agree .. und I would also include any one of theose yobs who go on those Crtitical Mass efforts. Ist deliberately inconveniencing every other road user.. from pedestrian to bus und tram passenger to fellow cyclists who are not lycra louts .. und all motorists .. not to mention those who miss beginning of play or film because of their selfish actions.
furious: Und cycling clubs can be "holier than thou" smug little lycra louts per the mag Cycling Weekly last year.
So not just you und me who think that of some -- but NOT all -- of these clubs. Methinks the leader of these outing need to refresh themselves on John Franklin as they can hardly call him as witness expert in defence if they fail to ride by his excellent advice
vonhosen said:
Drunk in charge of a pedal cycle/carriage or animal is an offence which carries a discretionary disqualification.
It also carries a maximum penalty of 1 months imprisonment.
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
It also carries a maximum penalty of 1 months imprisonment.
The argument about being unfair to licence holders doesn't hold water, because the disqualification affects non licence holders as well. They would be banned from obtaining a licence when disqualified.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 1st January 19:27
Goes to bury head in book.....
Okay, I accept that it is possible to get banned for any offence, and I'm aware that applications can be made to get burglars and the like banned to impede their criminality. However I still think that it's highly unlikely and I've never heard of it happening. There would have to be some link to motor vehicle crime or motoring offences to make this a valid path for magistrates IMO.
I stand by the unfairness of it, and also the fact that it could well be challenged on appeal as it makes a punishment disproportionate to the offence and would go against the precedent of small fines for this kind of offence.
Edited by WeirdNeville on Tuesday 2nd January 15:39
Note also:
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
2000 Chapter 6
Driving disqualifications
Driving disqualification for any offence " NOTE ANY"
Section 146. - (1) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence committed after 31st December 1997 may, instead of or in addition to dealing with him in any other way, order him to be disqualified, for such period as it thinks fit, for holding or obtaining a driving licence.
dvd
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
2000 Chapter 6
Driving disqualifications
Driving disqualification for any offence " NOTE ANY"
Section 146. - (1) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence committed after 31st December 1997 may, instead of or in addition to dealing with him in any other way, order him to be disqualified, for such period as it thinks fit, for holding or obtaining a driving licence.
dvd
If such a disqual for a non-motoring offence were to cause loss of job, income, career (or even career prospects) this could, IMHO, be strongly challenged as a material breach of human rights, besides the fact that the Magna Carta also prohibits removal of the tools for a man to carry out his work, and the need for a licence could well be construed as a 'tool' for carrying out your job.
There was talk of having licences removed for non-compliance with the CSA's orders for child maintenance, although how removing an absent parent's licence will enable/encourage him/her to 'pay up' is quite beyond me. If someone has a job but won't pay, how will removing his ability to get to that job make him/her pay up? If he/she can't pay because they don't have a job, how will licence removal make them able to get a job? By all means apply for a bankrupcy if they could pay, but won't, then snatch their goods and chattels and sell them, as happens with any other proven but undischarged debt, but licence removal thus preventing them getting to work is bizarre. More muddled thinking from a gov't incapable of applying any form of logic.
There was talk of having licences removed for non-compliance with the CSA's orders for child maintenance, although how removing an absent parent's licence will enable/encourage him/her to 'pay up' is quite beyond me. If someone has a job but won't pay, how will removing his ability to get to that job make him/her pay up? If he/she can't pay because they don't have a job, how will licence removal make them able to get a job? By all means apply for a bankrupcy if they could pay, but won't, then snatch their goods and chattels and sell them, as happens with any other proven but undischarged debt, but licence removal thus preventing them getting to work is bizarre. More muddled thinking from a gov't incapable of applying any form of logic.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff