You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I know that we've had a few Jeremy Vine threads over the years, but I couldn't find one that was still active.
Mr Vine has been posting videos of his London commutes and encounters with bad driving for years but has recently announced that he'll be stopping doing this due to all the hate & comeback online.
You really can't criticize motorists it seems.
It seems a shame to me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdz369v921o
Cars are sacred. Its impossible to travel without one.
Some how I seem to have managed this week. I had a hand op and can't cycle or drive but have got on with trams and buses. Get out of the car you know it's sensible you might even get some exercise walking to the bus stop.
Just wish the people on the tram would let you sit down as it's not easy standing using one hand.
Everybody seems to think they are special and that everybody else should give up driving so they don't get held up.
The ute i have in aus is the first car i have owned. Ive lived without owning one for 63 years.
I hire one now and then and use taxis now and then
Well said Bruce.
I hardly drive now. It's becoming an issue where there seems to be an incident on every journey. It's just not a pleasant thing to do.
Speaking to a mate yesterday, he got into a verbal shenanigans with a van for taking prime on a downhill 30 zone dual with parked cars blocking the inside lane - once van boy git ahead, him or his passenger got out, filmed him approaching and swung a kick so hard, it hit his leg, then went through and cracked the top tube of his carbon frame. There's some nasty little morons out there.
I'm not sure I really get the news story here. 'self-promoting man stops uploading videos of his bike rides' is... news? At the end of the day, while the videos may have covered cycling on roads, really they were about Jeremy Vine, and doing so in a way that seemed designed to raise his own profile without necessarily intending to cover road cycling in an even-handed way. Which is fine - nobody has an obligation to be a documentarian - but does diminish the news value of this somewhat.
Not sure it's entirely a bad thing.
I'm all for reporting bad driving to the police*, who mostly seem to be catching up with systems to deal with the volume of dashcam footage. But I'm not sure Vine wasn't just making cycling seem more dangerous than it is and therefore putting people off so the net result ends up being les cyclists, not improved road's and more cyclists which is probably the altruistic aim of having a camera in the first place.
*I'm not sure a 2 hour zoom meeting 'training course' is really going to help educate motorists but the nagging feeling that their card has been marked and there are consequences to their actions might. Personally I think points should be far more readily applied (but maybe expiring in ~2 years) and mandatory driving bans (3 week ban for 3 points, 6 weeks at 6 points, 12 weeks at 12 points). At the moment a £60 fine is nothing, and the hardship pleas are abused. The prospect of a short ban might be enough to actually make people drive properly.
I'm not sure I really get the news story here. 'self-promoting man stops uploading videos of his bike rides' is... news?
Considering he was already had a TV and radio show, it's almost certainly the other way around. Using his existing reach to draw attention to an otherwise fairly common type of you tube channel, I know at least three or four club riders who are more prolific uploaders to youtube and reporters of bad driving top police portals than Mr Vine.
Jeremy seemed to get into incidents regularly. I have been commuting by bike for 25+ years and only got into proper bother once.
Jeremy seemed to get into incidents regularly.
Yeah, I stopped engaging with his posts as I felt he often made something out of nothing, which does no good for the cycling community.
Not sure it's entirely a bad thing.
I'm all for reporting bad driving to the police*, who mostly seem to be catching up with systems to deal with the volume of dashcam footage. But I'm not sure Vine wasn't just making cycling seem more dangerous than it is and therefore putting people off so the net result ends up being les cyclists, not improved road's and more cyclists which is probably the altruistic aim of having a camera in the first place.
I seem to have managed through life without knowingly having ever watched or engaged with one of his videos. I do sometimes see videos from others seemingly doing the same sort of thing. The initial aim may be laudible, but as you say there may be unintended consequences. I doubt they have many viewers who positively change their driving behaviour because of it. On the otherhand it does seem to be quite effective at getting angry drivers even angrier which is good for nobody - indeed some of the hatred of cyclists must stem from these videos? The only irony is that a man who every lunchtime tries to get two opposing sides bickering over some often trivial or badly understood problem seems to have discovered that entrenching arguments is not a great way to resolve differences and has often nasty results.
At the moment a £60 fine is nothing,
Fixed penalties are typically £100+ now.
and the hardship pleas are abused.
There's a lot of noise in the media about hardship pleas and people with ridiculous numbers of points, but those who have gone to court to try and argue their case probably don't find it as trivial as you think; yes some are probably granted wrongly - but they crown do have the power to appeal those and rarely do. Its probably reasonable that there is some sort of special case where in truly exceptional cases someone doesn't get banned. There is a weird anomaly where new drivers get their license revoked at 6 points and have to retake both theory and practical test and have no "special case" to argue, keep their points when they re-pass but supposedly experienced drivers get allowed 12 points, a six month ban and are immediately allowed back on the road with a clean license. There would be a good argument that says if you get 12 points, even if you win a hardship argument, you need to retake both tests...
The prospect of a short ban might be enough to actually make people drive properly.
It would be interesting to see if further offending was lower after bans. Indeed it would be interesting to see if it is lower after driving courses.
The Guardian have picked up on it too. I'm not a newspaper reader but I thought that this commentary was interesting.
The prospect of a short ban might be enough to actually make people drive properly.
Yeah, but it's all about enforcement. As with all bad driving - mobile phone use, running red lights, speeding - if there's no, or limited, enforcement, the existing laws have limited impact!
There's a lot of noise in the media about hardship pleas and people with ridiculous numbers of points, but those who have gone to court to try and argue their case probably don't find it as trivial as you think
OK, so lets assume that a common 'hardship' is driving for for work (HGV's, Taxis, dispatch rider, care worker, paramedic, whatever) and treat it as analogous to any other industry.
If you did something criminally dangerous to a colleague or worse a member of the public in a job you'd be seriously reprimanded. If you did it 4 times in succession you'd be fired for gross misconduct / incompetence, if they had professional registrations they'd likely lose those too and the HSE would probably want to investigate why it had been allowed to happen four times.
If you can't drive safely then employers should simply not accept you driving on work time anyway. Why as a society do we treat driving professionally differently to anything else?
Any other reason could pretty much be solved by calling a taxi, and if it's going to cost a fortune then they've had years of accumulating points to consider that problem.
Yeah, but it's all about enforcement. As with all bad driving - mobile phone use, running red lights, speeding - if there's no, or limited, enforcement, the existing laws have limited impact!
That's why I think shorter bans at lower thresholds could be effective.
A 1% chance of a £100 fine for doing something dangerous and you have to get caught 4 times to get a (lengthy) ban is an inconsequentially small risk to almost everyone.
A 1% chance of a 3 week ban is harder to ignore. Long enough that your employer will need to put you on office admin duties, demote you to drivers mate, not let you drive the ambulance (and possibly having to re-roster you to a double paramedic crew rather than with a technician), or just force you to take 3 weeks holiday. And all the domestic disruption it would inevitably cause some people. But not so long that anyone could claim serious hardship.
That's why I think shorter bans at lower thresholds could be effective.
I've often wondered about that - a one month ban, no excuse, with your job protected the first time. Maybe you have to take a month's unpaid leave, or use up annual leave, if you can'tget to work. Kids can't get to activities. Auntie Sue needs a taxi to get her shopping. You need a taxi for your dialysis appointment.
These are the consequences if you don't have a license. See how much easier your life is if you manage to keep it.
OK, so lets assume that a common 'hardship' is driving for for work (HGV's, Taxis, dispatch rider, care worker, paramedic, whatever)
This has always struck me as really odd. Someone who drives for work is on the road much more often than most people, therefore if they're a bad driver they are much more dangerous than most people and this should be a bigger reason to remove them from the road, not a reason to keep them there!
If you can't drive safely then employers should simply not accept you driving on work time anyway. Why as a society do we treat driving professionally differently to anything else?
Exactly. It's complete nonsense.
All these "driving is essential for my work/life" let-offs have got it totally wrong, these are the drivers that should be the best on the UK roads and they totally deserve losing their license for driving badly, especially around far more vulnerable road users.
Drivng a basic car is a priveledge with big responsibility and that increases when you drive increasingly bigger vehicles from vans to lorries/buses.
I've often wondered about that - a one month ban, no excuse, with your job protected the first time. Maybe you have to take a month's unpaid leave, or use up annual leave, if you can'tget to work. Kids can't get to activities. Auntie Sue needs a taxi to get her shopping. You need a taxi for your dialysis appointment.
These are the consequences if you don't have a license. See how much easier your life is if you manage to keep it.
The other anomaly I'd like to see the end of is "any convictions except motoring offenses" as a question on any application.
Why do we treat breaking some laws as relevant but not others? It'd have the win-win effect of reinforcing the seriousness of motoring offenses, but also promoting the rehabilitation of other offenders if recruiters were more likely to look past other crimes that bore no relevance to the job if having a criminal record was more normalized.
There's a lot of noise in the media about hardship pleas and people with ridiculous numbers of points, but those who have gone to court to try and argue their case probably don't find it as trivial as you think
OK, so lets assume that a common 'hardship' is driving for for work (HGV's, Taxis, dispatch rider, care worker, paramedic, whatever) and treat it as analogous to any other industry.
The law requires EXCEPTIONAL hardship, not hardship. Simply being a professional driver would not normally cross that threshold. Often the cases that succeed are cases where it significantly impacts others.Employers insurance is often, but not always, self limiting in this regard anyway - so even if someone kept their license at 12 points the employer will not be able to use them to drive company vehicles. Taxi licensing regimes are usually pretty tough on points etc. (each LA sets its own rules). The transport commissioner considers fitness to drive when points are obtained in HGVs.If you can't drive safely then employers should simply not accept you driving on work time anyway. Why as a society do we treat driving professionally differently to anything else?Correct - it would be much harder to argue exceptional hardship if you live in a large city than a very rural location because there is often a viable alternative. Bear in mind also that the circumstances where someone gets to 12 points arent always over a period of years - people have managed that in a single weekend.Any other reason could pretty much be solved by calling a taxi, and if it's going to cost a fortune then they've had years of accumulating points to consider that problem.
I've often wondered about that - a one month ban, no excuse, with your job protected the first time.
As an employer why do I need to keep someone's job open for them if they are too stupid to follow the rules of the road. I need reliable people who turn up when I need them and can do the job I give them.
Yeah, but it's all about enforcement. As with all bad driving - mobile phone use, running red lights, speeding - if there's no, or limited, enforcement, the existing laws have limited impact!
That's why I think shorter bans at lower thresholds could be effective.
A 1% chance of a £100 fine for doing something dangerous and you have to get caught 4 times to get a (lengthy) ban is an inconsequentially small risk to almost everyone.
A 1% chance of a 3 week ban is harder to ignore. Long enough that your employer will need to put you on office admin duties, demote you to drivers mate, not let you drive the ambulance (and possibly having to re-roster you to a double paramedic crew rather than with a technician), or just force you to take 3 weeks holiday. And all the domestic disruption it would inevitably cause some people. But not so long that anyone could claim serious hardship.
But for your typical office worker (or WFH employee) very little impact - what % of people who tot are actually in driving jobs? For those that would find this bad, or at least require significant planning, more likely to take to court clogging up the system! I wonder what % of people who tot up actually have four 3 point offences?
For those that would find this bad, or at least require significant planning, more likely to take to court clogging up the system! I wonder what % of people who tot up actually have four 3 point offences?
All cases that would result in totting upto 12 points have to go to court IIRC, so there would be no more clogging up than normal at that point. And make the shorter bans start immediately to make appealing a futile waste of time as the ban will expire before it reaches court.
Simply being a professional driver would not normally cross that threshold. Often the cases that succeed are cases where it significantly impacts others.
It's still exceptionalism for motoring cases though.
We jail people for murder because it's it's (to put it lightly) really bloody inconvenient on you and everyone around you to be locked up for 25 years. Banning someone from driving is supposed to be inconvenient, that's pretty much the whole point. Considering that the impact of bad driving is frequently the death and injury of others, that we consider the withdrawal of a license to do it as too much of a punishment is just bonkers. It's not a right.
Correct - it would be much harder to argue exceptional hardship if you live in a large city than a very rural location because there is often a viable alternative.
In that hypothetical scenario the taxi cost would still be proportional to whatever use they had of their car, which is proportional to how dangerous they are on the road. If losing their license causes a hardship, then that's the point, it's a punishment. If you're the district nurse for the Outer Remoteshire then the time to consider that losing your license might be a hardship on your employer is before getting caught speeding / running red lights /close passing cyclists, not afterwards.
All cases that would result in totting upto 12 points have to go to court IIRC, so there would be no more clogging up than normal at that point.But you weren't arguing for 3 week bans at 12 points, you were suggesting they should apply from 3 points. If ever speeding offence had to go to court to issue a ban (generally expect you to be there in person so there is no doubt you must not drive immediately) then no other crimes will be prosecuted.
So punish people before they have been found guilty of the offence? No issues with that at all - incredible power into the hands of police officers with no judicial oversight, what could go wrong? Would you compensate those who took taxis for three weeks but turned out not to have been at fault?And make the shorter bans start immediately to make appealing a futile waste of time as the ban will expire before it reaches court.
It's still exceptionalism for motoring cases though.
Its not, there's some degree of judicial discretion across a wide range of offences - even in murder there have been VERY exceptional cases which result in unusual, sentences.
We jail people for murder because it's it's (to put it lightly) really bloody inconvenient on you and everyone around you to be locked up for 25 years. Banning someone from driving is supposed to be inconvenient, that's pretty much the whole point.
Which is why inconvenience is not an acceptable reason not to ban someone at 12 points. s35(4)b of the road traffic offenders act is clear. It may not be consistently applied (and I would suggest the onus is on the crown to appeal if they believe the magistrates misapply the test), but this thread is an example of how most of what you read is actually mis-representation of reality. There is a very high chance that if you get 12 points you will get a ban.
Considering that the impact of bad driving is frequently the death and injury of others, that we consider the withdrawal of a license to do it as too much of a punishment is just bonkers.
There are occassionally cases where on hearing all the details, even the most dispassionate road safety campaigner would say it makes no sense to disqualify this person because in these circumstances the consequences of disqualification far outweigh what is reasonable - that's why the law allows a degree of judicial discretion. The factors which can and cannot be taken into account are quite well defined both in statute and through case law. Simply losing your job is not usually considered exceptional enough. If the manner of the driving was so bad that disqualification was the right option then s35 of the RTA does not apply - its a straight discretionary disqualification.
Is the system perfect? No. I've known a couple of people get to 9 points and then start driving more sensibly. But one of the more common ways to end up with 12 points is to get 6 and then screw up their insurance paperwork - a serious offence and if done intentionally merits more than 6 points, but lots of people just cock up their admin and has no reflection on how they operate on the road.
It grinds you down, been in my job for 23years, cycled for years, got to a point pre covid where cycle commuting was just mentally breaking me. Not one single major incident just years of constant negative vibes.
Happier stuck in traffic listening to radio4.
I never inspired anyone, don't see any cyclists on my route. No joined up infrastructure.
The only Vine video I watched was one where you could clearly see a risk developing and instead of riding defensively (slowing down a bit in this case to allow the van driver to complete the turn) he went full gas into the problem and then started screaming and shouting. I can't be doing with people who make issues out of avoidable trouble. Never watched any more of his videos.
Threads like this make me realise why I'm beginning to really dislike this forum. People who think drivers should just get away with their behaviour without being shouted at or told they are ****s, just for an easy life. How else are they gonna know they are wrong to drive this way? How else are they going to find out they are ENDANGERING people? I've shouted, gestured, stood toe-to-toe, jumped up on lorry cabs and had a word with the driver, punched cars wings, sent emails to companies, reported to the cops etc etc, in 30+ years of commuting but never got into a fight or been scared off of riding to work. Thankfully incidents are few and far between, but when they DO happen, there's usually only one person in the equation who would get injured.
I've put videos on YT, usually only to share with friends (or post on here)... I don't know what the hell my point is now! But yeah, the entitled pricks on the road need to be told somehow.
Desparatebicycle - I don’t think anyone “think drivers should get away with their behaviour”. However some people are questioning if posting it on YouTube feeding a them/us culture war is actually helpful? I’d probably also ask whether, whilst understandable, shouting at anyone or standing toe to toe with anyone has ever actually changed their mind or future behaviour (for the better). My experience is aggression (whether on the bike or anywhere) results in a reflex response that simply results in more aggression in return. If you are frequently getting into situations where you find you need to rip cars mirrors off, jumping on lorry cabs etc then it MAY be time to reflect as Mr Vine has done and ask if whilst technically in the right perhaps your actions or attitude actually make the situation worse.
Watched a few of Vine's videos, some of them featured simply appalling driving, some of them featured bad driving coupled with poor riding skills (ie putting himself in potentially dangerous situations in traffic). Vine's reaction was the same each time, not a lot of self-reflection present.
It's like those car dashcam videos where half of the clips are the dashcammer contributing to the situation, or charging forward to make a mountain out of an easily resolveable molehill while leaning on the horn.
No excuse for getting abuse online, even he probably deserves a bit just for his R2 show. 🙂
frequently getting into situations
Maybe you should read my post better: "Thankfully incidents are few and far between" - there's a lot of years in those incidents. I can't change how I react to ****s anyway. It's just how I am.
By the way, for context, the lorry cab incident - the lorry actually touched me, ripped a hole in the arm of my jacket. It was THAT close. Then stopped 20 metres ahead at traffic lights. I should've gone "oh you silly" ? **** that.
But you weren't arguing for 3 week bans at 12 points, you were suggesting they should apply from 3 points. If ever speeding offence had to go to court to issue a ban (generally expect you to be there in person so there is no doubt you must not drive immediately) then no other crimes will be prosecuted.
You're looking at this from the perspective that you believe there is an indelible right to drive. There isn't, you do so under license. It can and should be taken away from people who can't stick to the rules governing that license.
So punish people before they have been found guilty of the offence? No issues with that at all - incredible power into the hands of police officers with no judicial oversight, what could go wrong? Would you compensate those who took taxis for three weeks but turned out not to have been at fault?
So exactly as it is now, only your NIP would say you can take a 3-week ban +3 points now, or a larger fine and the same ban if you fail to convince a magistrate you're innocent. It's completely irrelevant to say that you can't ban someone without them being in court under the current laws, I'm suggesting the law should be changed. Would more people contest it, maybe. Would any of them win, not likely, it would still be an offence to not say who was driving, perjury etc. It's generally an offence with photographic evidence so casting reasonable doubt is going to be hard work.
Its not, there's some degree of judicial discretion across a wide range of offences - even in murder there have been VERY exceptional cases which result in unusual, sentences.
I'm not arguing about the 0.001% of cases, I'm saying that getting the equivalent of a speeding ticket on a construction site would probably get you fired or banned form the site (lets say you were a crane operator and started maneuvering loads over peoples heads, reversing without banksmen, using un-tagged scaffold / towers, not wearing your PPE). EVERY motoring offence is treated exceptionally. The punishments for motoring offences should at the very least mirror those for Health and Safety offences.
There are occassionally cases where on hearing all the details, even the most dispassionate road safety campaigner would say it makes no sense to disqualify this person because in these circumstances the consequences of disqualification far outweigh what is reasonable - that's why the law allows a degree of judicial discretion.
No this is where we fundamentally disagree.
Driving on the road is done under license, the licensing authority should have far more teeth when it comes to revoking that.
Consider it for a moment the other way around, the consequences of poor driving are that the victims are potentially never going to drive again. No due process, no judicial oversight, just inattention / speeding / mobile phone use / drink / drugs / recklessness from someone for whom the consequences of their actions* are so minor that they don't even consider it.
Quoting s35(4)b of the road traffic offenders act like Boris parroting a bit of Latin is just ignoring my point that s35(4)b of the road traffic offenders act should be changed.
*they eventually crash and have consequences, those consequences may even be quite severe, but they have been inattentive / speeding / on their phone for years without consequence until someone else was unlucky enough to be in the same place at the same time.
You're looking at this from the perspective that you believe there is an indelible right to drive. There isn't, you do so under license. It can and should be taken away from people who can't stick to the rules governing that license.
Absolutely agree. Motornormativity has a lot to answer for.
You're looking at this from the perspective that you believe there is an indelible right to drive. There isn't, you do so under license. It can and should be taken away from people who can't stick to the rules governing that license.
I sometimes compare it to having a shotgun license. If someone were to misbehave or act idiotically or indeed intimidate or threaten someone with a shotgun you'd expect them, at the very least, to loose their license. It doesn't seem to happen with vehicles.
Some British people seem to have a very similar relationship with their cars that Americans have with their guns.
I own one of these, but I don’t drive.
Check out this VINDSTYRKA from IKEA.
Here’s a little more information:
https://applink.ikea.com/?link=https://pip/40498234&fbd=https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/p/vindstyrka-air-quality-sensor-smart-40498234/&utm_campaign=user_share&utm_content=linkit_share&utm_medium=share_PIP&utm_source=share&guid=eauD9f
does anyone have any experience, putting one in their vehicle? (it’s USB powered)
the accumulation of particulates is the real danger to motorists (besides themselves).
If you look at the Dutch road casualty figures, it’s clear to see that cutting down on unnecessary vehicle journeys makes the roads safer for EVERYONE, especially car drivers.
You're looking at this from the perspective that you believe there is an indelible right to drive. There isn't, you do so under license. It can and should be taken away from people who can't stick to the rules governing that license.
No I 100% am not, you couldn’t be more wrong. I have zero issues with people being disqualified from driving for either repeated offences or individual incidents of sufficient gravity. I’m sceptical that the impact of short disqualifications is fair on all - a three week ban would be nothing more that unfortunate to me, whilst for a rural single mum working as a carer it may have very long lasting consequences. Does that mean it’s more OK for me to break the rules than her?
but you don’t seem to understand that with a higher stakes penalty more WILL challenge it. Go and sit in a magistrates court on traffic day and you will see. People pleading not guilty fall into two groups - those who believe they were right and those who can’t afford to be wrong! Then apply that across the many thousands of people who get an offer of a fixed penalty, a significant proportion of who would feel 3 weeks ban (and consequent loss of income for many) would be worth rolling the dice. Whilst you think I’m some sort of motorist appologist I’m really not - a three week ban is too easy to “live with” for many but for the poorest in society would lose them their job, perhaps as a consequence even their home, marriage, etc that imbalance seems wrong to me for a one off mistake. For anything with “intent” it seems too light a sentence on people like me who are lucky enough to work around a short ban. The current system of points could do with a massive overhaul. Why is 3 pts the minimum applied? Why does driving without a license (ie someone who has never sat a test) only carry 3-6pts? Why does driving with a mobile phone have a fixed 6 points not a range (it used to be prosecuted as careless driving which could have up to 9 pts)? Why does driving an overloaded vehicle not have any points? Why does failing to ID the driver have only a fixed 6 pts.So exactly as it is now, only your NIP would say you can take a 3-week ban +3 points now, or a larger fine and the same ban if you fail to convince a magistrate you're innocent.
it’s not completely irrelevant; the law already theoretically permits disqualification in absence but it’s messy - when does it start? When I send the letter back? When the admin staff receive the letter? When they put it through the computer? When they post their confirmation to you? When you receive it? Driving whilst disqualified is an imprisonable offence - it’s very important that people know if they are disqualified at this moment in time hence why it’s almost always done in person.It's completely irrelevant to say that you can't ban someone without them being in court under the current laws, I'm suggesting the law should be changed.
your faith in the competence of the prosecution is impressive. Even with the current workload they screw up, not bringing the right evidence, failing to cite witnesses etc. In the current situation some people at risk of disqualification roll the dice on a trial because sometimes the crown get it wrong, and sometimes that works out for them. Is that right? No. Would adding more cases coming to court sort that? Definitely not.Would more people contest it, maybe. Would any of them win, not likely, it would still be an offence to not say who was driving, perjury etc. It's generally an offence with photographic evidence so casting reasonable doubt is going to be hard work.
I'm not arguing about the 0.001% of cases,
but you are - because you want to remove the discretion of the courts to consider if this really is exceptional. If you simply want exceptional to mean exceptional then you need no change to the law - first you need prosecutors to do a better job in the court of first instance at cross examining the party making the plea in mitigation and then if the magistrates seem to be getting it wrong they need the balls/resources to appeal the case. Appeals are expensive and time consuming so understandably over stretched prosecutors shrug off any such leniency rather than fight it. (Although I still don’t think it happens as often as you believe).
I'm saying that getting the equivalent of a speeding ticket on a construction site would probably get you fired or banned form the site (lets say you were a crane operator and started maneuvering loads over peoples heads, reversing without banksmen, using un-tagged scaffold / towers, not wearing your PPE). EVERY motoring offence is treated exceptionally. The punishments for motoring offences should at the very least mirror those for Health and Safety offences.
If it helps I’d like to see “anyone” prosecuted for driving offences on company time also risk the company being there for causing and permitting. It’s theoretically possible now, but virtually unheard of. I’m not sure your analogy is great though - nothing to stop a company firing someone for traffic offences on the job (and some do have strict rules on points) but if someone gets kicked off site for using untagged equipment etc does their safety card get revoked? Assuming they can find another employer who will take them, can they “learn their lesson and carry on”?
Driving on the road is done under license, the licensing authority should have far more teeth when it comes to revoking that.I’m not convinced the problem is really the licensing authority. We can argue all day at what point a ban should apply but that is irrelevant if 90% of people committing the same offence never even get caught by the police. I would absolutely welcome more road policing with the consequence that the “1% chance of getting caught” that someone made up earlier was increased with the consequence that far more people were either disqualified directly for the offence or were likely to tot up. I’d welcome the option for the courts to impose the requirement to retake your test on totters. Perhaps it would even be useful to force a theory test retake on people who try to argue they didn’t understand the rules as a defence/mitigation. I’m sceptical about the value of the current speeding etc courses as I’ve not seen any evidence they prevent reoffending and are offered to those at the lowest end of the scale. They appear to me to have turned 12 points into what would have been 15. I’d welcome the option for longer courses with an actual “pass” rather than “attendance” criteria to be used even after going to court (or perhaps as a method of mitigating the outcome - “my client has since completed this course, here’s the certificate so we would ask you to minimise the points”). Or perhaps if caught doing the same offence again within 12 months of the course the original points would be added - although that sounds administratively messy!
no the point is you are misquoting the current law by saying arguing inconvenience will get you off - it won’t and even hardship shouldn’t it needs to be exceptional hardship. There are many myths about how easy it is to keep your license at 12 pts. Perpetuating those myths is unhelpful to understanding where the problem lies, or where potential “fixes” might be. I agree with you on a lot of the points you are making - i don’t agree on some others, mostly because I don’t believe you actually understand the reality of the system rather than how it is presented in the media. People are disqualified for reaching 12 points every day. Many people who try to argue exceptional hardship fail. People are also disqualified without getting to 12 points because their driving was so bad. But most of the “bad drivers” you see on our roads have never been in a court room - they just don’t get caught. What would make me uncomfortable would be removing the ability of courts to listen to all the circumstances and decide this case really is exceptional. It’s essentially why we have courts rather than computers making decisions.Quoting s35(4)b of the road traffic offenders act like Boris parroting a bit of Latin is just ignoring my point that s35(4)b of the road traffic offenders act should be changed.
However I’d politely suggest that you’ve actually fallen into the trap Mr Vine and his protagonists fall into. The thread was about him stopping posting videos and you’ve jumped on the “motorists are bad” and taken us in a massive diversion away from the actual topic into “shouldn’t be allowed to keep their license for hardship” territory, and anyone who tries to correct your understanding of the actual law is making a smoke screen for motornormativity and appologising for exceptionalism in the judicial system. Is actually no different to Jeremy posting a video and the comments going off on a “should pay road tax”, “they jump red lights”, “you were in the wrong lane” rant. You aren’t interested in actually having a reasoned discussion where your position might be shifted and anyone who disagrees with you must be your tribal enemy. If you want to change the law - go persuade your MP, or even stand for election. If you want to get in endless reparative arguments with people buy a camera and post cycling videos on YouTube.
I was talking to someone from Asia the other day about traffic and then this, it reminded me that traffic and cars aren't the issue, it's our fked up society and the high percentage of self-centred people. There's plenty of far busier and more congested parts of the world where people deal with it all quite differently. It all starts with us, after all. The stress or not, the anger or not, externalising it or not. That goes for Mr Vine, the drivers, all of us who are traffic. Hs videos or the road.cc stuff, it's just clickbait fodder in the end and the only benefit is to youtube selling ads off the back of it. Best ignored, no-one changed their habits after watching stuff like that.
I suppose he's done something useful in highlighting how bad driving can be but making it a full-time ongoing thing must be draining, can't blame him for stopping.