# Keeeping banned drivers off the road.



## ufkacbln (21 Nov 2010)

Well it is a Daily Mail link and I wanted to get your attention.

Whether a licence is a right or privilege there is a real question raised in the above link.

When a driver is shown to be inadequate or unsafe then their license is revoked....

How do you proceed from there?

In 34 years the driver in the above article has 20 convictions for driving whilst disqaualified (16 in HGVs) , he has drink issues and uses a mobile phone whilst driving.

I admit execution is a little severe, but how do you keep people like this from behind the wheel?


----------



## summerdays (21 Nov 2010)

Well I think that the industry has to take some of the blame for actually employing him. Not that I'm a fan of the CRB system of checks ... I could commit an offence the day after getting my check and still carry on working, but is there a system whereby when a company takes on a new driver they can check their licence (not just look at a piece of paper), and that if they knowingly employ someone with that kind of track record that they then get fined themselves? It should be impossible for him to work as a driver.

As to stopping him driving full stop - the only way is to lock him up permanently which I'm not sure is really a solution. He is obviously going to ignore the ban himself, so he has to become known to the local police so that they can pull him over any time they see him driving and send him to prison each time I guess. 

How many banned drivers are there at any time and what percentage of them are found to be ignoring the ban I wonder? (Knowing that there will be more who don't get caught.)


----------



## psmiffy (21 Nov 2010)

There has to be more policing - which costs money - and a lot of bad feeling for motorists -persecution, inconvienience - short of having to insert a valid licience in some sort of box in the vehicle and a biovalidation (fingerprint reader etc - and there will always be people who get round that) only draconian dispraportionate sentancing (automatic jail sentences and life time driving bans) of people caught driving while disqualified will even begin to chip away at the problem - but going back to the begining - first you have to catch them 

There has to be a case in this country for a dedicated traffic police - financed from the results of their activities - more people they catch the better resourced they would be - eventually supply and demand would equal out - but would a goverment that brought such a monster to life be re-elected


----------



## marinyork (21 Nov 2010)

Speaking generally, I think it's reaching the point where much more draconian things are needed. We all know perfectly well that people get out of court and get straight back in their cars. For those banned more than once for some offences I think we need to start looking at things that government already have like install breathalisers in the car (expensive), impounding cars (expensive), demobilising cars or extremely tough measures like the south dakota sobriety programme.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2010)

Supervison and curfew by means of a GPS enabled ankle cuff with enforcement by a Highway Patrol dedicated force like the BTP. Once the offender travels a certain distance above a certain average sepped without previously notifying the plod of his intent to get on a train, automatic 999 call, arrest and imprisonment/rehab. Automatically and non-negotiable confiscation and destruction, or seizure and sale at auction (to finance highway patrol) of any vehicle he is caught driving regardless of who owns it. etc., etc..

Three bans for me should mean revocation of license for life. Making this real means supervision.


----------



## 661-Pete (21 Nov 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Supervison and curfew by means of a GPS enabled ankle cuff with enforcement by a Highway Patrol dedicated force like the BTP. Once the offender travels a certain distance above a certain average sepped without previously notifying the plod of his intent to get on a train, automatic 999 call, arrest and imprisonment/rehab. Automatically and non-negotiable confiscation and destruction, or seizure and sale at auction (to finance highway patrol) of any vehicle he is caught driving regardless of who owns it. etc., etc..
> 
> Three bans for me should mean revocation of license for life. Making this real means supervision.


Good idea at first glance, Greg, but maybe impracticable! There are many ways other than train in which one can be travelling at speed - e.g. passenger in someone else's car. How can you police that? Moreover, the lorry in the Futz case was journeying across Central London - probably no faster than speeds that a capable cyclist can maintain, therefore.

I think supervision of the person concerned would have to be the answer. How many of these worst-case offenders are there?

I would have hoped, relatively few, but alas! I regret to say I have had personal acquaintance of such an individual. A heavy drinker, habitual drink-driver and a violent man, he persisted in driving in defiance of a driving ban, as confided by his ex-wife (a close friend of my mother - who felt inclined to believe her story). Anyway, the man in question is dead now. I hesitate to say, may he rest in peace. And before anyone asks, I don't know how he died.


----------



## newb (21 Nov 2010)

I think all banned drivers should be named and shamed locally in the papers and tv etc. That way if they are driving the information from witnesses could be passed to the police more regularly and the police can target the drivers.

Just a thought


----------



## byegad (21 Nov 2010)

At one time our local free paper reported a number of banned drivers being pulled over by the police every single week. The number of repeat offences (of driving while banned) was amazing, the record I can remember was 35 occasions of which almost all included drink driving. 

Either the paper got sick of reporting the offences or the offenders gave up as I have not seen one report this year. The magistrates started handing out prison sentences so maybe that has been enough???


----------



## Dan B (21 Nov 2010)

Require the driving licence with photo to be displayed at all times the vehicle is being driven, hefty penalties for both parties and the vehicle owner if anyone found using someone else's ID

Requiring insurance to be tied to named drivers would also help: then ANPR could be used to track banned drivers through their lack of insurance.


----------



## newb (21 Nov 2010)

thats a really good idea. If insurance companies could have instant access to dvla records (dont know if they do already??) then no disqualified driver could get insured that way anpr would flag it. The only problem is it would be easy to get around. Any insurance policy on a vehicle means anpr does not flag it and as such anyone could insure the vehicle and the disqualified driver could use it.
The only way is to give it to the police on a plate ie: such and such a person is using this car at these times and they are disqualified. that way there is a higher likelyhood that they would be stopped and subsequently arrested.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Nov 2010)

661-Pete said:


> Good idea at first glance, Greg, but maybe impracticable! There are many ways other than train in which one can be travelling at speed - e.g. passenger in someone else's car. How can you police that? Moreover, the lorry in the Futz case was journeying across Central London - probably no faster than speeds that a capable cyclist can maintain, therefore.
> 
> I think supervision of the person concerned would have to be the answer. How many of these worst-case offenders are there?
> 
> I would have hoped, relatively few, but alas! I regret to say I have had personal acquaintance of such an individual. A heavy drinker, habitual drink-driver and a violent man, he persisted in driving in defiance of a driving ban, as confided by his ex-wife (a close friend of my mother - who felt inclined to believe her story). Anyway, the man in question is dead now. I hesitate to say, may he rest in peace. And before anyone asks, I don't know how he died.



The OP did not state practicality as a requirement.  

Prior notification of all journeys to be undertaken as a passenger in motorised transport, spot checks and a network of camera's with face recognition to assist in enforcement.


----------



## 661-Pete (22 Nov 2010)

I have a horrible vision, in my mind, that if I were ever to be found banged up in the same cell as this - creature - I might be sorely tempted to do a 'Peter Sutcliffe' on him. Think: Gloucester in _King Lear_. That at least would keep him off the roads - for keeps. .

Sorry  Only idle musings...


----------



## steve52 (22 Nov 2010)

i would do it the first time ! but in the interest of fairness to morond let say the third time u drive while disqualified your are removed from society for our protection! either by a one way trip to the vets (my fav) or we bring back assylums, a cheaper option is to let you chose to live somewhere other than britain.


----------



## 661-Pete (22 Nov 2010)

steve52 said:


> ...a cheaper option is to let you chose to live somewhere other than britain.


We don't have a 'transportation to the colonies' option anymore, I'm afraid! Anyway, why inflict our problem on an innocent road user in another country?


----------



## MartinC (22 Nov 2010)

I can't undersrtand why the Judicial system takes such a lenient view of this. If you've been sanctioned by a court then ignoring the disqualification is just treating the whole system with contempt - and you think you'd get a custodial sentence which would make 20 repeat offences impossible in a normal lifetime. I'm just gobsmacked that a system that's normally so protective of it's dignity and status is content to let people drag it into disrepute.


----------



## steve52 (22 Nov 2010)

ok fair comment removal of life it is, untill sutch a time comes when there is a concerning shortage of people.


----------



## Silver Fox (22 Nov 2010)

The only way you can stop insects like this from causing carnage on our roads is to either deprive them of their liberty for a very long time or their ability to breath. 

Unfortunately the latter is not a (legal) option. Judging by the picture of this slime one can only hope it expires from an alcohol induced liver failure very soon.


----------



## marzjennings (22 Nov 2010)

Maybe make it an offence to enable a banned driver. If you knowingly lend, sell or rent a car to banned driver you will be committing an offence. Similar to selling alcohol to kids or red diesel to non-agricultural vehicles.


----------



## Ravenbait (22 Nov 2010)

I quite like the idea of cars that refuse to start unless evidence of a valid licence is produced. I'm sure we must have the technology to do this by now. If my work can issue magnetic cards that open doors and which can have their permissions changed at the central site without the staff member having to present the card to anyone, why can't we have a device in a vehicle capable of reading whether a licence is currently valid or not and a method of invalidating licences remotely? I'm sure people would find ways to hot wire the car or bypass the control, and there would be a lag issue with older vehicles not having the system fitted. It's not an immediate solution, but that doesn't stop it being a solution.

Sam


----------



## Dan B (22 Nov 2010)

Is there any offence which would lead to a driving ban that doesn't require the offender to turn up in court? If not, you don't even need remote invalidation: just take the licence off them when they're found guilty. If they "forgot" to bring it with them, send the bailiffs to collect it.

It would still be handy, though, for the case where someone reports their licence (and, presumably, car) stolen and wants it to be deactivated asap.


----------



## summerdays (22 Nov 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> I quite like the idea of cars that refuse to start unless evidence of a valid licence is produced. I'm sure we must have the technology to do this by now. If my work can issue magnetic cards that open doors and which can have their permissions changed at the central site without the staff member having to present the card to anyone, why can't we have a device in a vehicle capable of reading whether a licence is currently valid or not and a method of invalidating licences remotely? I'm sure people would find ways to hot wire the car or bypass the control, and there would be a lag issue with older vehicles not having the system fitted. It's not an immediate solution, but that doesn't stop it being a solution.
> 
> Sam



Whilst I like the idea ... the flaw is that I will tail gate my colleagues into the car park and building on their card .... cos I'm a lazy so and so and it saves me hunting for mine... 

So it would need some extra security to stop him "borrowing" someone else's.


----------



## Dan B (22 Nov 2010)

summerdays said:


> So it would need some extra security to stop him "borrowing" someone else's.


Make it an offence to lend it or to not take good care of it - much as is done with, say, firearms licences. If you lose your licence somewhere (in the physical sense of: you put it down and can't find it) you become liable for its misuse until and unless you report the loss to Police/DVLA/whoever


----------



## Davidc (22 Nov 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> I admit execution is a little severe, but how do you keep people like this from behind the wheel?



There are other disused (and now illegal) options. Among them:

Public flogging
The stocks
The pillory
25 years hard labour breaking granite rocks into cobbles on Dartmoor

Or we could import a few Saudi punishments. I heard on the news that removal of hands and feet is currently being taught in some part time schools in England.

We really ought to keep execution reserved for bike theft.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Nov 2010)

before we get all carried away with the stocks and the whip, perhaps we might want to ponder this.

The Congestion Charge has subjected cars and their drivers to an unprecedented degree of scrutiny. It's likely that facial recognition will appear on Britain's roads in the not too distant future. This will make life a good deal harder for people without driving licences, which is a good thing...

Car locks will go retinatastic before too long. Vehicles may be charged a kind of over-arching congestion charge based on logs from their cars monitored by satelite

Now I don't have much time for cars and rarely go in one. I am, however, a little perturbed by the information held on my Oyster Card, and that's fairly minimal.

So my question is, how far do we want to go with this?


----------



## 661-Pete (22 Nov 2010)

I'm beginning to wonder about aversion therapy .... no: really! Having sat and watched a bit of _Clockwork Orange_ the other night on TV (for the umpteenth time) - sets me thinking: can one do something to induce a fit of uncontrolled nausea whenever the banned person lays hand on a steering wheel, say?


----------



## Ravenbait (22 Nov 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> before we get all carried away with the stocks and the whip, perhaps we might want to ponder this.
> 
> The Congestion Charge has subjected cars and their drivers to an unprecedented degree of scrutiny. It's likely that facial recognition will appear on Britain's roads in the not too distant future. This will make life a good deal harder for people without driving licences, which is a good thing...
> 
> ...




I don't think I'd be overly worried about my driving licence knowing my name and whether it was, in fact, valid or not. My driving licence already has that information on it. I'm not suggesting that we add additional information.

Sam


----------



## newb (22 Nov 2010)

coruskate said:


> Is there any offence which would lead to a driving ban that doesn't require the offender to turn up in court? If not, you don't even need remote invalidation: just take the licence off them when they're found guilty. If they "forgot" to bring it with them, send the bailiffs to collect it.
> 
> It would still be handy, though, for the case where someone reports their licence (and, presumably, car) stolen and wants it to be deactivated asap.



most of the scum never had a licence before becoming disqualified I would have thought so there would be nothing to take off them lol


----------



## Vikeonabike (24 Nov 2010)

Like any other Policing Issue, making an impact on Drivers who are disqualified / without licences etc is both labour and financially intensive! In the current climate the Police / People / Government need to make a decision on what is needed from our Police Forces. It may also be applicable to look at giving other agencies extra powers in certain areas (in this case the VOSA motorway patrols, who are nearly all ex traffic officers). 
Being a little more choosy over what sort of jobs the Police go out too will also help. Police are being called out and using up a lot of hours on incidents that are really someone else's responsibility. Now before I get jumped on, serious crime should always bedealt with by the police, however fisticuffs between kids, whilst in school uniform is a SCHOOL issue, not a police one. Cyber bullying...there is a a button that can deal with it...it's called "IGNORE" or "OFF". Kids who are regularly missing from home because they are little Sh1ts with an attitude problem, should not be a police issue! (Unlike a genuine never been missing before). 
Lets get back to the idea of being a "Force", therefore enforcing the law, not a "service" and by impication being there to sort out all of lifes little problems that people can't or won't sort out themselves! Other organisations, like schools, social services etc need to take more responsiblity and not pass the buck over to the police when it's conveniant or easier!
The Police would then have the time too deal with things that matter! 

One thing that would help would be to allow police to request a information on Insurance details without a moving traffic offence being committed. At the moment because of Data Protection / Human rights it can't be done. Many vehclies come back as previous owner details only. Unless a traffic offence has been committed it is impossible too check the insurance details. If a vehicle is previous keeper only there is a good chance it isn't insured and the probability is high that the driver doesn't hold a licence.

Of course, once the Police have done thier job, they can't be held responsible for the CPS and the Courts......


----------



## 661-Pete (24 Nov 2010)

Thanks for the input, VoaB. All that 'data protection' stuff seems absurd, I for one would be happy to surrender all these 'rights' once I get behind the wheel of my car - after all it's the only time in my life that I take charge of a 1½-ton machine capable of _killing_ people... And the out-of-date car ownership stuff! Don't DVLA keep it up-to-date in these days of mega-computers?! I remember, the last time I traded-in my car to a dealer (this was many years ago), you were supposed to tear off a bit of the V5, fill it in yourself, and send it off to DVLA yourself. The dealers would never allow you to do this - they always insisted 'just sign it there sir, we fill it in and send it off for you'. I used to protest 'what if the car's involved in a driving offence _after_ it's off my hands?' 'Don't worry sir, it won't implicate you'. Try as I might the dealers were always immovable - you follow our procedures or no deal, chum. I've often wondered...

Does this *still* go on?


----------



## Dan B (24 Nov 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Now I don't have much time for cars and rarely go in one. I am, however, a little perturbed by the information held on my Oyster Card, and that's fairly minimal.
> 
> So my question is, how far do we want to go with this?


It's a fair question. What trade-off in civil liberties is acceptable or permissible for people in a public space operating a one-tonne (or heavier) machine that can kill people?

Of course, we could turn it the other way around: the reason we're expending all this effort on tracking the driver is that there's no particular incentive for the registered keeper (who we can find by looking up the numberplate) to tell us who was driving. If we merely make the registered keeper of a vehicle liable for all offences committed using that vehicle (unless he has previously reported it stolen) where the driver is unknown, I think most of this need for surveillance would go away. And I'm not even sure it's inequitable: to return to the firearms analogy, if you'd bought a shotgun and left it lying around so that anyone with a halfbrick could avail themselves of it, the police and courts would be down on you like two tonnes of halfbrick.


----------



## Jezston (24 Nov 2010)

Simple solution to the oyster card issue - just buy a blank oyster card out of a machine and use that. No personal details logged.


----------



## Dan B (24 Nov 2010)

Jezston said:


> Simple solution to the oyster card issue - just buy a blank oyster card out of a machine and use that.


Better yet, buy three and use a different one for each journey. And top them up with cash, not a credit/debit card.

This does significantly reduce the convenience of the system, though.


----------

