Keeeping banned drivers off the road.

[steve52]

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

 

[Silver Fox]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.