Drink or drug drivers, remove car

[The big yin]

Some one with no insurance = car taken away (rightly so)
Someone caught over limit for drink or/ and drugs should have their vehicle confiscated as well imo
Also anyone caught with no insurance should be made pay what the insurance would have been originally and then given a BIG fine as well and also banned for a minimum 2 years .
rant over

Discuss

[Glitzy Mitzy]

I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Drivers stopped for a no-insurance offence have the car seized if, from memory, it is unable to legally continue its journey there and then. If someone else is able to prove they are insured, there's nothing to stop the police 'releasing' the car at the roadside and letting the kosher party drive off in it.

The same goes for a drink driver. Yes, the intoxicated person won't be allowed to continue driving after arrest, but there's nothing to stop a sober party taking over if all other legal requirements are fulfilled.

More broadly, anyone is entitled to own a car regardless of their legal status as a driver. Any suggestion that a drink-driver should have his or her car confiscated on a permanent basis would require wide-ranging alterations to law of contract, sale of goods regulations and the like. The police or state haven't got the legal prerogative to 'steal' someone's car.

Just to add: cars seized for no-insurance offences aren't permanently removed -- they are taken into police custody and held until the owner or keeper or whoever secures release by proving valid insurance exists. Some do get crushed, but only really if the owner gives up claim to them.

Edited by Glitzy Mitzy on Sunday 1st November 18:50

[LosingGrip]

The big yin said:

Some one with no insurance = car taken away (rightly so)
Someone caught over limit for drink or/ and drugs should have their vehicle confiscated as well imo
Also anyone caught with no insurance should be made pay what the insurance would have been originally and then given a BIG fine as well and also banned for a minimum 2 years .
rant over

Discuss

https://www.college.police.uk/app/investigation/investigative-strategies/financial-investigation/asset-recovery/forfeiture-and-deprivation

Its possible for them to. Never known it happen mind you.

Similarly, courts can ban people from driving for non driving offences. Rarely happens though.

[Sebring440]

The big yin said:

Discuss

Discuss?

You discuss.

We're not a class of 12 year-olds.

"Discuss".

Jesus wept.

[Biker 1]

Surely getting a lengthy driving ban is even worse than having your car confiscated?

[megaphone]

Speed causes more death and injuries on our roads than DD, so should speeders have their cars confiscated?

[markymarkthree]

megaphone said:

Speed causes more death and injuries on our roads than DD, so should speeders have their cars confiscated?

I guess that's because everyone speeds and only a very small minority DD. So no.

[megaphone]

markymarkthree said:

megaphone said:

Speed causes more death and injuries on our roads than DD, so should speeders have their cars confiscated?

I guess that's because everyone speeds and only a very small minority DD. So no.

Weird logic. Just because 'everyone' speeds, doesn't make it right, once upon a time 'everyone' DD'd.

[markymarkthree]

megaphone said:

markymarkthree said:

megaphone said:

Speed causes more death and injuries on our roads than DD, so should speeders have their cars confiscated?

I guess that's because everyone speeds and only a very small minority DD. So no.

Weird logic. Just because 'everyone' speeds, doesn't make it right, once upon a time 'everyone' DD'd.

Weird logic reply to a dafty question.

[paul_c123]

There is a strong argument for the uninsured NOT having their car seized.

[vikingaero]

How would this play out if the husband drink/drives/drugs in his wifes car. What if your mate borrows your car?

Motability cars can be returned to Motability for abuse including under the influence offences. What about lease/pcp/pch/hp cars?

[mac96]

A car's keeper is expected to ensure that he does not allow anyone to drive it who is not insured; he cannot be expected to ensure that a legitimate driver does not drink too much after he has taken the car away.

Therefore it seems reasonable to punish keepers (by inconvenience at least)in respect of insurance offences but not drink drive or dangerous driving offences over which the keeper has no control.

[Pachydermus]

megaphone said:

markymarkthree said:

megaphone said:

Speed causes more death and injuries on our roads than DD, so should speeders have their cars confiscated?

I guess that's because everyone speeds and only a very small minority DD. So no.

Weird logic. Just because 'everyone' speeds, doesn't make it right, once upon a time 'everyone' DD'd.

once upon a time we had the 85th percentile rule.

[barian]

Someone caught without VED is generally required to pay the amount evaded (plus a penalty), which seems fair. Someone driving without insurance is effectively having their third party liability covered by properly insured motorists, through the levy that funds the Motor Insurance Bureau. It would seem fair that uninsured drivers should be made to pay at least the cost of the third party insurance they have avoided, especially if the money could be transferred to the MIB.

[Simpo Two]

Pachydermus said:

megaphone said:

markymarkthree said:

megaphone said:

Speed causes more death and injuries on our roads than DD, so should speeders have their cars confiscated?

I guess that's because everyone speeds and only a very small minority DD. So no.

Weird logic. Just because 'everyone' speeds, doesn't make it right, once upon a time 'everyone' DD'd.

once upon a time we had the 85th percentile rule.

It's very simple - you can only squash the spring so far. If the speed limit was 5mph everybody would break it.

[The big yin]

Wow thanks for all the replies.
Sebring 4 You having a bad day !!!!
I was interested in peoples views that is why I said discuss.
Having seen the after effects of drink and or drug driving ( and it is not nice !!)I thought another deterrent maybe would focus the mind of d or d drivers if they had to do without transport and if they can do it once what is to stop them doing it a lot more.

[eldar]

mac96 said:

A car's keeper is expected to ensure that he does not allow anyone to drive it who is not insured; he cannot be expected to ensure that a legitimate driver does not drink too much after he has taken the car away.

Therefore it seems reasonable to punish keepers (by inconvenience at least)in respect of insurance offences but not drink drive or dangerous driving offences over which the keeper has no control.

Tough if a drunk twocs your car.

[richhead]

paul_c123 said:

There is a strong argument for the uninsured NOT having their car seized.

There is????