The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[grldtnr]

Did your bro stop the bus whenever he fancied a wee sleep?
I'm not sure his passengers would have been impressed!

Probably not, but the difference is busses generally serve a local area,, so hardly ever really exceed the 4 1/2 HR rule,and always somewhere for them to have piddle stops, not as onerous as HGV driving, , but Bruv still had 12hr duties ,what with, checks, cashing up and ancillary stuff.

 

[Brandane]

I'm didn't know bus drivers piss in empty coke bottle and abandon them in lay bys.

Commonly known as "Trucker's Tizer".

And on that note, NEVER investigate the contents of discarded Tesco carrier bags left by truckers in lay-byes.

 

[mjr]

Back on topic: this driver binned a Ferrari in the city centre, hitting a few things, including flattening a cycle park (no bikes parked in it at the time, afaict), dumping oil across the road. Admitted careless driving, 9 points on top 4 already had, kept licence by pleading hardship as job requires driving to sites!

Ferrari crash driver keeps licence after pleading exceptional hardship
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24948493.ferrari-crash-driver-keeps-licence-despite-13-points/?ref=rss

Surely if your job requires driving, don't chance your licence by wellying a sports car up the Castle Hill??? Or is it just me?

 

[Alex321]

Back on topic: this driver binned a Ferrari in the city centre, hitting a few things, including flattening a cycle park (no bikes parked in it at the time, afaict), dumping oil across the road. Admitted careless driving, 9 points on top 4 already had, kept licence by pleading hardship as job requires driving to sites!

Ferrari crash driver keeps licence after pleading exceptional hardship
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24948493.ferrari-crash-driver-keeps-licence-despite-13-points/?ref=rss

Surely if your job requires driving, don't chance your licence by wellying a sports car up the Castle Hill??? Or is it just me?

Unless there is more to the argument than that, then the magistrates simply got that wrong.

Losing your job in itself is NOT to be considered "exceptional hardship".

"Exceptional Hardship" is only supposed to apply when you being unable to drive will cause hardship to OTHERS, not to you.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...squalification/3-totting-up-disqualification/
When considering whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court should have regard to the following:

• It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn.
• Where it is asserted that hardship would be caused, the court must be satisfied that it is not merely inconvenience, or hardship, but exceptional hardship for which the court must have evidence;
• Almost every disqualification entails hardship for the person disqualified and their immediate family. This is part of the deterrent objective of the provisions combined with the preventative effect of the order not to drive.
• If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account.
• Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable;
• Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others. Useful information can be found in the Equal Treatment Bench Book (see in particular Chapter 11);

 

[Drago]

It's not just you.

If I were a beakmid be thinking that if his job requires him to drive then he shou,d be even more bloody careful, not given extra benefit than someone who just uses their car for domestic purposes who gets caught being a prat.

Anything dangerous or careless should be instant disqual, no arguments or excuses.

 

[icowden]

Losing your job in itself is NOT to be considered "exceptional hardship".
"Exceptional Hardship" is only supposed to apply when you being unable to drive will cause hardship to OTHERS, not to you.

This is the quote from one source:

Magistrates accepted the construction machinery driver needed to be able to drive for his job and family responsibilities.

The Mail has:

The court heard the construction machinery driver, from Cringleford, needed to be able to drive for his job. He also has to drive to Fakenham at weekends to pick up his son.

My guess is that his solicitor successfully argued that he is the sole earner for his family and thus losing his job which would occur if he lost his license would cause undue hardship to his partner and children through inability to carry out custody / visitation duties and pay child support.

 

[grldtnr]

Well, tough titty! What about the suffering of those the driver MIGHT have struck whilst driving like a loon !
If your working life is governed by your requirement to hold a driving licence , don't be a total arse and lose it.
Simple as that, it isn't rocket science .
There are racetracks one can drive on to be a total lunatic, but ahhhh ,that might be too restrictive with insurance and other associated fees'.
I speak as one affected, by someone's lunacy on the 'public ' road, and increasingly, suffer from the after affects of that incident.
They may have a tinge of remorse, about it , but nowhere as much as mine.
I bear no sympathy for those who drive and injure innocent road users,
In my case, he got 12 points on a otherwise clean licence,a small fine and a slap on the wrist.
I and 3 others riding with me suffered injuries, myself I was in hospital for a month and of work a further than 6 , with restrictive duties after.
Justice, pah !

 

[icowden]

Well, tough titty! What about the suffering of those the driver MIGHT have struck whilst driving like a loon !
If your working life is governed by your requirement to hold a driving licence , don't be a total arse and lose it.

TBH I agree with you. I think there is a tendency to be lenient. I'm quite sure this chap could have manage to pick up his son using public transport. It gets a little more difficult where financial support is involved, but given he appears to be separated, I'm as unconvinced as you about the leniency.

The issue is that there is usually a framework that the Magistrate follows when deciding, and it will be designed to ensure that people should not be unduly penalised if they are genuinely in a situation where undue hardship would occur - which in turn means that a good solicitor can game it to allow their client to keep their license.

 

[mjr]

I'm quite sure this chap could have manage to pick up his son using public transport.

It's conspicuous that they stressed it was at the weekend, when the Yellow Line to/from Fakenham stops at 6pm on Sunday, rather than continue to midnight like every other day. It would be interesting to know when his custody times were last updated: before or after crashing the Ferrari? 🤔