Driving After A Driving Ban?
Discussion
moneymakestheworldgoaround said:
garyhun said:
moneymakestheworldgoaround said:
garyhun said:
OP - you can ignore the high horse riders as it’s not that bad at all!
Drink driving isnt bad? wow.
Wow
Easy, you need to up your game sunshine!
moneymakestheworldgoaround said:
Considering I'm 4 years into driving now and have paid £11k for insurance over the years, yeah 5k for insurance after getting caught drink driving isnt f
king high enough.
Statistically you were probably a higher risk due to your inexperience, than somebody who had been convicted of drink driving. Insurance companies are about pricing their perception of risk not administering punishment.king high enough. moneymakestheworldgoaround said:
Considering I'm 4 years into driving now and have paid £11k for insurance over the years, yeah 5k for insurance after getting caught drink driving isnt fking high enough.
Insurance isn't some kind of punitive mechanism, it's a cost to reflect the financial risk being taken by the insurance company (in a dysfunctional poorly-competitive cartel market, unfortunately).king high enough. Edited by Ed/L152 on Thursday 13th December 12:31
moneymakestheworldgoaround said:
garyhun said:
The cost of insurance. Seeing as that was what was being discussed in the bit I quoted, I thought that was obvious. Maybe if you calmed down you would be able to read posts more accurately.
Not quite sure why you quoted me in the first place then. 
Bumblebee7 said:
Must admit I agree. I don't want to change the topic of this thread but I don't think the punishment is severe enough. There is no excuse for it. A relative of mine was drunk driving home one night and clipped a cyclist on her way home. She died of her injuries and the relative got 11 years for it. Family lost their 24 year old daughter just because someone thought they were ok to drive, or wouldn't get caught.
So without meaning to sound patronising I do hope those reading this thread take something away from it as the consequences can be life changing.
So without meaning to sound patronising I do hope those reading this thread take something away from it as the consequences can be life changing.
Sorry to hear about that. I was lucky that I didnt hurt anyone or worse than that. I did hit a parked car and was shook up by it all. It was a crazy night for me and Ive learnt my lesson.
But I think with the 2 year ban and having to do community work and paying costs that I have been punished foe what I did. I also lost my job as I was still on my probation period as a Prison Officer and was pretty much forced to resign or get dismissed. Just think it is wrong to make insurance so expensive that you cant afford it. Bit have nearly another year of the ban to do,
Jay22 said:
Sorry to hear about that. I was lucky that I didnt hurt anyone or worse than that. I did hit a parked car and was shook up by it all. It was a crazy night for me and Ive learnt my lesson.
But I think with the 2 year ban and having to do community work and paying costs that I have been punished foe what I did. I also lost my job as I was still on my probation period as a Prison Officer and was pretty much forced to resign or get dismissed. Just think it is wrong to make insurance so expensive that you cant afford it. Bit have nearly another year of the ban to do,
I admire your honesty. Ignore the do Gooders who’ve never done wrong.But I think with the 2 year ban and having to do community work and paying costs that I have been punished foe what I did. I also lost my job as I was still on my probation period as a Prison Officer and was pretty much forced to resign or get dismissed. Just think it is wrong to make insurance so expensive that you cant afford it. Bit have nearly another year of the ban to do,
I was banned over a decade ago for 12 months. It was odd first getting in a car - my girlfriends 1.4 polo felt like a rocket after a bike everywhere!
In regards to insurance, again, like others, it didn't make any difference. I'm sure the course helps, although there is probably a low re-offending rate or else insurance would be higher
To anyone berating the OP. No-one condones his actions (least of all him), or the actions of anyone who may have done similar in the past. However st like this does happen, whether it being intentionally reckless, stupid or just plain naïve as to how much you've had to drink or how much is still in your system the next day. The chap is showing remorse.
In regards to insurance, again, like others, it didn't make any difference. I'm sure the course helps, although there is probably a low re-offending rate or else insurance would be higher
To anyone berating the OP. No-one condones his actions (least of all him), or the actions of anyone who may have done similar in the past. However s
t like this does happen, whether it being intentionally reckless, stupid or just plain naïve as to how much you've had to drink or how much is still in your system the next day. The chap is showing remorse.moneymakestheworldgoaround said:
GT03ROB said:
Statistically you were probably a higher risk due to your inexperience, than somebody who had been convicted of drink driving. Insurance companies are about pricing their perception of risk not administering punishment.
Fair point about the inexperience. A mate of mine's wife passed her test aged 49. He immediately gave her his Audi A4 3.0 Cabriolet, and he bought something else. Her insurance was only about £500, which he thought was outrageous at it had only been about £250 for him.
Leptons said:
Jay22 said:
Sorry to hear about that. I was lucky that I didnt hurt anyone or worse than that. I did hit a parked car and was shook up by it all. It was a crazy night for me and Ive learnt my lesson.
But I think with the 2 year ban and having to do community work and paying costs that I have been punished foe what I did. I also lost my job as I was still on my probation period as a Prison Officer and was pretty much forced to resign or get dismissed. Just think it is wrong to make insurance so expensive that you cant afford it. Bit have nearly another year of the ban to do,
I admire your honesty. Ignore the do Gooders who’ve never done wrong.But I think with the 2 year ban and having to do community work and paying costs that I have been punished foe what I did. I also lost my job as I was still on my probation period as a Prison Officer and was pretty much forced to resign or get dismissed. Just think it is wrong to make insurance so expensive that you cant afford it. Bit have nearly another year of the ban to do,
The blood alcohol limit is about as applicable as speed limit signs. Someone has put a finger in the air and said what is "safe", and what is not.
As with speed, the safest value is zero. And, as with speed. Achieving 40mph might be a bit of a challenge to some half blind coffin dodger whereas the same piece of road to an F1 driver, doing 100mph would still be safer than the old boy weaving about at 40.
Alcohol, I feel is the same. A well-seasoned rugby player could be over the "limit" for days and not even notice. Whilst others would be blind drunk and not able to stand up properly.
OP - I had been inclined to sympathise with you, however, getting into a car so drunk, that you crash it into a stationary object. Really is unacceptable. I think the punishment dished out, in this case, is suitable.
With both speed and drink limitations, the real defining factor appears to be "appropriate".
Ollerton57 said:
I was banned over a decade ago for 12 months. It was odd first getting in a car - my girlfriends 1.4 polo felt like a rocket after a bike everywhere!
In regards to insurance, again, like others, it didn't make any difference. I'm sure the course helps, although there is probably a low re-offending rate or else insurance would be higher
To anyone berating the OP. No-one condones his actions (least of all him), or the actions of anyone who may have done similar in the past. However st like this does happen, whether it being intentionally reckless, stupid or just plain naïve as to how much you've had to drink or how much is still in your system the next day. The chap is showing remorse.
Try telling the family of the lady cyclist who was killed in another posters example that 'sIn regards to insurance, again, like others, it didn't make any difference. I'm sure the course helps, although there is probably a low re-offending rate or else insurance would be higher
To anyone berating the OP. No-one condones his actions (least of all him), or the actions of anyone who may have done similar in the past. However s
t like this does happen, whether it being intentionally reckless, stupid or just plain naïve as to how much you've had to drink or how much is still in your system the next day. The chap is showing remorse.t happens'.Yes it does happen - its life, but its not an acceptable phrase when the incident could have been avoided. Accidents happen, the lady could have suffered the same fate being hit by a 'sober' driver - however the driver that did hit the poor woman was a drink driver and this could have been avoided.
DoubleD said:
croyde said:
Odd considering someone crashed into my car whilst it was safely parked and admitted fault yet my insurer still loaded my policy
That's how insurance works. If something has happened before, then it could happen again.
If you flip a coin once, twice, fifty, hundred times and you get heads, it doesn't increase the probability that you will get tails on the next flip. It's still 50/50.
Insurance companies are able to screw us because they can hide behind such poor understanding of this.
Evanivitch said:
That's not how statistical probability works.
If you flip a coin once, twice, fifty, hundred times and you get heads, it doesn't increase the probability that you will get tails on the next flip. It's still 50/50.
Insurance companies are able to screw us because they can hide behind such poor understanding of this.
And you are far more knowledgeable than results derived from £millions being spent on research, statistics, risk analysis and computer formulas ???If you flip a coin once, twice, fifty, hundred times and you get heads, it doesn't increase the probability that you will get tails on the next flip. It's still 50/50.
Insurance companies are able to screw us because they can hide behind such poor understanding of this.
If its that straight forward lets you and me strike up a deal. . . . . .
I havent had an accident in 15 yrs. My car is valued at £15k, why dont you cover the risk for me in that if I have an accident you will cover the cost of fixing my car and or the 3rd party, if its stolen you will pay me market value, provide a courtesy car etc. if I damage property that may cost £00's of thousands or £millions to fix, If I kill someone you will cover all the costs, legal bills, compensation etc . . . . How much would you like to charge me to cover that risk Evanivitch ???
Prizam said:
I too admire your honesty. But can help point out the difference in drink driving, and drink driving.
The blood alcohol limit is about as applicable as speed limit signs. Someone has put a finger in the air and said what is "safe", and what is not.
As with speed, the safest value is zero. And, as with speed. Achieving 40mph might be a bit of a challenge to some half blind coffin dodger whereas the same piece of road to an F1 driver, doing 100mph would still be safer than the old boy weaving about at 40.
Alcohol, I feel is the same. A well-seasoned rugby player could be over the "limit" for days and not even notice. Whilst others would be blind drunk and not able to stand up properly.
OP - I had been inclined to sympathise with you, however, getting into a car so drunk, that you crash it into a stationary object. Really is unacceptable. I think the punishment dished out, in this case, is suitable.
With both speed and drink limitations, the real defining factor appears to be "appropriate".
I believe studies have shown this to be incorrect. Driving impairment has been shown to be quite predictable with BAC, regardless of how drunk you "feel"The blood alcohol limit is about as applicable as speed limit signs. Someone has put a finger in the air and said what is "safe", and what is not.
As with speed, the safest value is zero. And, as with speed. Achieving 40mph might be a bit of a challenge to some half blind coffin dodger whereas the same piece of road to an F1 driver, doing 100mph would still be safer than the old boy weaving about at 40.
Alcohol, I feel is the same. A well-seasoned rugby player could be over the "limit" for days and not even notice. Whilst others would be blind drunk and not able to stand up properly.
OP - I had been inclined to sympathise with you, however, getting into a car so drunk, that you crash it into a stationary object. Really is unacceptable. I think the punishment dished out, in this case, is suitable.
With both speed and drink limitations, the real defining factor appears to be "appropriate".
TwigtheWonderkid said:
moneymakestheworldgoaround said:
GT03ROB said:
Statistically you were probably a higher risk due to your inexperience, than somebody who had been convicted of drink driving. Insurance companies are about pricing their perception of risk not administering punishment.
Fair point about the inexperience. A mate of mine's wife passed her test aged 49. He immediately gave her his Audi A4 3.0 Cabriolet, and he bought something else. Her insurance was only about £500, which he thought was outrageous at it had only been about £250 for him.
OP, I'm sure you're aware that it isn't just a case of waiting until the end of your disqualification and then starting to drive again immediately, but it's worth remembering that you've now got a number of hoops to jump through before you're able to drive again.
You'll need to reapply for a licence - a provisional if you've been ordered to take an extended driving test. DVSA should write to you before your disqualification ends & send you an application form.
You'll need to pass your theory/hazard perception test again, before taking the extended practical driving test. You can't do any of these until you've received your provisional driving licence.
My advice would be to have a few hours with a local approved driving instructor - the extended driving test isn't particularly difficult, but experienced drivers find it quite hard to go back to "DVSA" style driving, and a few hours with an instructor could save you the expense & hassle of failing/rebooking another practical test.
You'll need to reapply for a licence - a provisional if you've been ordered to take an extended driving test. DVSA should write to you before your disqualification ends & send you an application form.
You'll need to pass your theory/hazard perception test again, before taking the extended practical driving test. You can't do any of these until you've received your provisional driving licence.
My advice would be to have a few hours with a local approved driving instructor - the extended driving test isn't particularly difficult, but experienced drivers find it quite hard to go back to "DVSA" style driving, and a few hours with an instructor could save you the expense & hassle of failing/rebooking another practical test.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff