You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16414691 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16414691[/url]
An extension of previous powers that allowed courts to seize cars from 2nd time drink drive offenders - drink drivers can now lose their cars if they are [i]either[/i] 3x or more over the limit [i]or[/i] it's their 2nd offence [i]or[/i] they refuse to be breathalysed.
Not sure if it applies to England as well?
What do people think of it?
Thoroughly approve.
I'd introduce a lifetime ban on the occasion of a second conviction too.
Fine with me. Crush it in front of them and ban them for a long time too.
company car or van, what happens?
Crush it, and hopefully it will be on credit so that he has to keep paying the instalments.
There is no reason to drink and drive .
big_n_daft - Member
company car or van, what happens?
Driver loses job, new employee drives it.
comapny car or van, he is now jobless as well.
company car or van, what happens?
Presumably the company will be very angry if it's crushed, and hold the driver responsible.
Zero tolerance rules.
Totally disproportionate. £23k fine for drink driving on top of a ban and another fine. Stupid law.
Just do what I do. Steal someone elses car if you are really drunk and need to get home quickly!
"There is no reason to drink and drive . "
Except the very simple and often occuring circumstances that you are drunk and you need to go somewhere.
You may not like it. In fact I am almost sure it makes you get your little panties all caught up in anger... but it is a reason as much as any other!
Did you mean: "There is no reason that I am happy with to drink and drive?"
They would also need to disprove his claim that his breath alcohol reading had increased due to drink he had taken after the crash, but before being breathalised.
Taxi, bus, walk, public transport,
all available if you get a ban
Except the very simple and often occuring circumstances that you are drunk and you need to go somewhere.
Taxi, bus, train. You are aware that there are other forms of transport available.
Edit: Beaten to it by project.
big_n_daft, I'm not sure, it's quite a new thing. There is a list of pieces of information the police have to provide in their crime report to do with ownership, finance, outstanding money and so on, so those things would be considered by the Sheriff making the decision.
how easy is it not to drink and drive but yet so many people think they can cheat the system... sod em i say! once is bad but your just plane stupid if you do it twice...well you are the first time but you get the picture..
Totally disproportionate. £23k fine for drink driving on top of a ban and another fine. Stupid law.
Not disproportionate at all, the risks you present to others are significantly greater and clearly on a second offence you are not learning your lessons from an initial warning. People need to take responsibility for their actions, if they won't they should be forced to.
Totally disproportionate. £23k fine for drink driving on top of a ban and another fine. Stupid law.
Nah its a great law, having to cut too many innocent people out of their mangled cars after someone has crashed their car into them whilst drunk, I would crush the car with them in it.
I am ok with this law
£23k car....He's an oil worker...loose change!
George, actually they don't. The burden of proof is on the defence when the so called hip flask defence is being used. It's something that they get scientists to work out.
Fair enough.
😆 Excellent.
Totally disproportionate. £23k fine for drink driving on top of a ban and another fine. Stupid law.
On the other hand, I think it's great. Seems that only when threatened with being hit in the bank account, do some people actually get the message.
Plus, it penalises people proportionate to their wealth; someone who's loaded won't even feel a relatively small fine, but if they had their Aston seized, they would do.
Such penalties are to act as a deterrent. I think for this reason, it's fantastic.
If yer banned, you don't need a car anyway. 😀 plus it reduces their ability to be able to drive whilst banned.
Taxi, bus, walk, public transport,all available if you get a ban
Innit though? Oh, and you forgot bikes!
Drink driving can affect us all, from a near miss to a death, if there is no deterent they will carry on.
Drink driving certainly brings out the self righteous.
Your car is seized if it doesnt have insurance, and is crushed, criminals have their cars seized as theyre purchased from the proceeds of crime.
There used to be a nice selection in liverpool outside the main Police HQ.
Remember al - it's more dangerous than shooting a loaded gun.cynic-al - Member
Drink driving certainly brings out the self righteous.
but is that [i]using[/i] the gun, druid ❓
What they need to do is make special Shame Cars. Ugly, crap, lightweight things with no safety features and a top speed of 50mph, but they still get you from A to B just fine. Get caught pissed or on the phone and your car gets impounded and swapped for a Shame Car and your licence is adjusted so that's all you can drive for a year. Get caught again and you're banned for a year and then go back to a Shame Car for two years. And so on.
Fine with me. Crush it in front of them
That's stupid. It would be far better to seize and auction the car (with revenue going to the state) if you're going down that route.
So if you are going to drink and drive stick the Audi in the wifes name and buy a pub car.
Drink driving certainly brings out the self righteous.
And rightly so, people should consider it a disgusting thing to do and be willing to point that out.
Like this?
[img] 
[/img]
Why did he not say he was sober and got drunk at home to calm himself! I don't think it is fair though and I think his lawyers will get it back. Fine him instead.
[i]Such penalties are to act as a deterrent. I think for this reason, it's fantastic.[/i]
Utter ballcocks, if that was the case murder wouldn't happen where capital punishment was a penalty.
And drunk drivers fall in to two categories - serial drink-drivers and those over the once (or more commonly the next day). It will deter neither.
And would probably only be legal where the driver fully 'owned' the vehicle - which is difficult to prove/decide, as only the 'keeper' is recorded.
That's stupid. It would be far better to seize and auction the car (with revenue going to the state) if you're going down that route.
Well I'd agree but someone taking your car and selling it doesn't have quite the same impact as crushing it. Plus it keeps the car trade going well and plenty of recycling work going on.
What they need to do is make special Shame Cars. Ugly, crap, lightweight things with no safety features and a top speed of 50mph, but they still get you from A to B just fine. Get caught pissed or on the phone and your car gets impounded and swapped for a Shame Car and your licence is adjusted so that's all you can drive for a year. Get caught again and you're banned for a year and then go back to a Shame Car for two years. And so on.
similar to what they do in france - cars which you can drive without a full license (i.e. what happens when you've lost it due to drink dirving). my areas full of them...
Utter ballcocks, if that was the case murder wouldn't happen where capital punishment was a penalty.
Poor argument - hard to know if it acts as a deterrent as you'd no idea whether the people would commit more (or fewer) murders if it wasn't present. There's always going to be a small percentage for whom there is no deterrent, that doesn't mean some deterrent doesn't stop a significant number.
Utter ballcocks, if that was the case murder wouldn't happen where capital punishment was a penalty.
No, totally different type of crime, with totally different motives and reasons. Stupid comparison.
Should be introduced for speeding and dangerous driving too.
No excuse for driving badly if your not even pi$$ed.
perfect pub car Al
For a second offence this seems perfectly fair.*
Crushing an RS4 would be a crime though. Raffle it for local charities or something.
😆 at the public transport suggestions. Go to Caithness, try to get around by train or bus - good luck to you.
*I may be slightly prejudiced though as I have had a few offshore working clients recently and they are often bitter about being born out of wedlock.
I think it would make fantastic TV. You get the perp strapped into a chair in front of his car and forced to blow into the breathalyser. Then hanging above it is a large wrecking ball swinging from side to side. The chain on the ball gets lower and lower as the breathalyser figures go up until.. 3x over WHAM!!
I'd certainly watch
life time ban. Imagine if someone with a shot gun license got drunk and started firing it in a public place, would the courts tell them they could have their license back in a year? **** em, if they are not responsible enough to drive a car properly, then stop them driving. (this goes for all dangerous driving convictions too.)
On the plus side, attended a drink driver today who'd crashed, got to say the magic words to the fire service... "take the roof off lads, his got a sore neck".
Drink drive on my shift... I make sure you lose your car!
meehaja - i think i luuuurrrvvvvee you....
😛
Loving your work meehaja 🙂
Meehaja- usually hate saying that myself but in that instance wholly understand your enjoyment!!
Guessing he'll manage to hang onto his car due to the time between the accident and him being breathalysed, far too much of this type of incident goes on, in the highlands and all over in general..
Not enough info for me. The BBC have named and shamed a man in public. However IF true 2 3/4hrs is a longtime. I could sink (leisurely) 3 or 4 double Rums in that time if I felt stressed over such an event.
The other driver (81yr old) could have said (GUESSING) at the scene 'I thought he smelt of drink'.
Who knows.
Its unfair to cast him as guilty though. Nice one BBC. Are you linked to the Daily Mail?
similar to what they do in france
Yeap and not a good idea at all. So you're drunk, get caught, you loose your license and you can still drive a car, get drunk again and smash it into children... Yeah what a brilliant idea...
I think drink driving is dealt with far to leniently. Hundreds of people a year killed by drunk drivers.
I am in favour of random breath testing - roadblock roads and test everyone in known trouble spots.
No problem with crushing his car, he should go to jail as well.
If the chances of getting caught were higher that is the best deterrent. So random breath tests, longer bans, bigger fines, jail used more often
The state is perfectly happy to seize cars from drug dealers where there's no way to demonstrate how said dealer legally obtained the funds to buy it. The Customs guys used to use them as undercover vehicles after changing the car's identity.
Why not do the same with cars taken from drink drivers rather than crushing them?
jail used more often
Oh the ironing...
Every motoring offence, regardless of how minor, should carry a mandatory minimum penalty of having your car taken off you and crushed to the size of a satsuma.
There'd be no pussy-footing around if I were in charge.
😈
Its a stupid idea, cars vary massively in value, and therefore so does the severity of the punishment, large fines based on the guilty persons ability to pay would be a better solution, with custodial sentences for for more serious offences.
TJ speaks sense here.
Although more severe sentencing brings satisfaction to victims, it is increasing the chance to get caught which increases deterrence.
Although more severe sentencing brings satisfaction to victims
Does it? (Not a facetious question).
Hora he's already plead guilty to the drink driving, it's the car seizure he's contesting.
large fines based on the guilty persons ability to pay would be a better solution,
Already exists. I got fined the equivalent of three months 'excess' income for a high-speed court appearance. Big fine, 6 points.
Hora he's already plead guilty to the drink driving, it's the car seizure he's contesting.
Twas early and I misread 😳
[i]The solicitor said: "Forfeiture of the car would be a disproportionate punishment given that the value of the car is some £23,000.[/i]
Haven't read other posts but why is it disproportionate?
Is it okay to penalise people by taking their car if they can only afford a £5k, or a £500 car for example.
Do the crime do the time and crush the ****ers car.
Bit of a tangent to go off at here, but for all you pious "lock 'em up and throw away the key" types...
If you get caught over the blood alcohol limit for driving (0.05, rather than 0.08 in the UK) whilst riding your bike down here in Australia, you lose your license, just as you would in the car. If you don't have a license, either from previous, or never having learned, the penalty gets applied when you eventually try to obtain one.
Oh, and the BA limit for people who've been driving less than 2 years is ZERO....
Bit of a tangent to go off at here, but for all you pious "lock 'em up and throw away the key" types...If you get caught over the blood alcohol limit for driving (0.05, rather than 0.08 in the UK) whilst riding your bike down here in Australia, you lose your license, just as you would in the car. If you don't have a license, either from previous, or never having learned, the penalty gets applied when you eventually try to obtain one.
Oh, and the BA limit for people who've been driving less than 2 years is ZERO....
Seems pretty logical to me.
Seems pretty logical to me.
Never had a beer after a ride, or ridden to the pub so you could drink?
In aus they take you car license away for riding your bike after a drink? I don't agree with that
In aus they take you car license away for riding your bike after a drink?
Seems so. A bike is classed as a vehicle and there is therefore no distinction - this applies to other 'minor misdemeanours' such as not riding on a designated trail, popping over the pavement to skip a tricky junction etc...
I don't agree with that
It does have some big repercussions as the cyclist. But... if you happened to drift in front of a big truck, and the truck swerved in front of a car to avoid you, your drink-riding would have pretty undesirable repercussions for some innocent bystanders.
TJ, Oz have some of the most strict traffic rules I've ever come across and literally the worst driving standards I've ever had to deal with anywhere. I read an article whilst I was there in a Aussie motorcycle mag about their woeful driving standards, which was pretty much my experience. I've seriously never seen such poor driving anywhere else in the world.
I've seriously never seen such poor driving anywhere else in the world.
They truly are diabolical*. Just no ability to read the road, react to what's happening around them, or show any courtesy, even when this would make their own journey easier.
*the one curious exception is attitude towards cyclists - by and large, as there are many more cyclists in cities here, they're given much more room and time
I have a hunch I know where this thread is going...
Anyway, for my input, much like the recent thread on guns, it's all well and good getting high and mighty about this, but nothing is ever black and white. Didn't we do something ages ago about circumstances where drink driving may be unavoidable or at least not something that the driver wanted or intended to do? My boy fell down the stairs on Xmas Eve and cracked his head open. It wasn't an ambulance job in my opinion but public transport wasn't an option, so we drove him to the hospital. As it happened we hadn't been on the pop, but if we all had - and one of us ended up driving over the limit - I'd like to think that the judicial system would see that as very different to someone who drives to the pub, sinks 10 pints and drives home. The outcome could be the same either way though.
Personally I think the law should ban drink driving altogether, but you can't treat all drink drivers the same way. Like I said above, I think I know where all this is leading. Deja vu.
My boy fell down the stairs on Xmas Eve and cracked his head open. It wasn't an ambulance job in my opinion but public transport wasn't an option, so we drove him to the hospital. As it happened we hadn't been on the pop, but if we all had
...you either pay for a taxi, or it is an ambulance job. Something wrong with the attitude that you have to drive in such circumstances IMHO.
What Bruneep said. He sees it first hand. More laws and punishments should be based on the opinions and findings of the [s]poor sods[/s] personnel who have to deal with the immediate impacts and consequences of the crimes.
100% with aracer there
I'd like to think that the judicial system would see that as very different to someone who drives to the pub, sinks 10 pints and drives home. The outcome could be the same either way though.
I would ruddy hope not - its not necessary.
there is defence of "necessity" to drink driving but that would hopefully fall far short.
...you either pay for a taxi, or it is an ambulance job. Something wrong with the attitude that you have to drive in such circumstances [b]IMHO[/b].
Thank you, my point exactly. It is your opinion and not a black or white, right or wrong. When someone is tried for drink driving the laws are there to help the jury form an opinion on what justice to serve.
As I said, I believe drink driving should be banned outright. In my example above, what if I had had a drink but thought I was under the limit, but then had an accident and was found to be over the limit? I don't think anyone can argue that I should be punished to the same extent of the law as my 10-pinter example. Well, I can think of one person 😉
{EDIT} - Thanks TJ, reliable as ever 🙂
In aus they take you car license away for riding your bike after a drink?
It should happen here.
Hands up I've previously ridden home after a few pints- its idiotic. You ride faster, erratic and don't have the same fear at night don't you?
What happens if you ride into a pedestrian causing them serious harm?
When someone is tried for drink driving the laws are their to help the jury form an opinion on what justice to serve
I think you'll find the jury are directed quite clearly in such cases to disregard any mitigation, as it is a black and white offence.
[i]drink driving may be unavoidable or at least not something that the driver wanted or intended to do? My boy fell down the stairs on Xmas Eve and cracked his head open. It wasn't an ambulance job in my opinion but public transport wasn't an option, so we drove him to the hospital. As it happened we hadn't been on the pop, but if we all had - and one of us ended up driving over the limit - I'd like to think that the judicial system would see that as very different to someone who drives to the pub, sinks 10 pints and drives home. The outcome could be the same either way though.[/i]
Or get a taxi, ask a neighbour, friend or call an ambulance. Seriously you would 'drink drive' to take your kid to hospital? Thats a wired logic there.
Clearly not just my opinion then!
One thing we're all forgetting about is people driving with a bad cold ... as bad as drink-driving (apparently) and very probably massively more common ...
Sorry in no way would I find it acceptable to drive to hospital over the limit under any circumstances.
For a start, if you are anxious and have been drinking you aint exactly going to offer the safest ride to your 'patient' are you?
Leave it to the professionals. Plus if the patient comes in via an ambulance they jump the queue (if you want to look at it in a brutal/selfish way).
"It does have some big repercussions as the cyclist. But... if you happened to drift in front of a big truck, and the truck swerved in front of a car to avoid you, your drink-riding would have pretty undesirable repercussions for some innocent bystanders. "
Can you quote one incident, ever, where this has happened? In fact quote any incident where a drunk cyclist has killed anyone other than himself.
Let's talk about events that actually happen.
As for seizing drink driver's cars, fair enough. As drink drivers are not responsible for the majority of road deaths are we going to start seizing the cars of people for the second speeding offence or the second using a mobile offence.
After all using a phone is more dangerous than driving at the legal alcohol limit.
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/driving-with-a-mobile-phone-is-worse-than-drink-driving