A motorist who clocked up 51 points on their driving licence is still allowed on the road, research has uncovered.
The provisional licence holder from Oxford has not been banned despite points accumulated for speeding, latest figures obtained by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) show.
Other cases include a driver from Basildon, Essex who escaped a ban despite clocking up 42 points and previously being caught doing 109mph.
The motorist was not disqualified from driving as magistrates accepted mitigating circumstances including "extreme hardship" through loss of income.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35251331
Figures show 13 people in England currently have 28 or more points on their driving licence:
â—¾51 points - Oxford
â—¾42 points - Liverpool
â—¾42 points - Basildon
â—¾39 points - Wigan
â—¾38 points - Burnley
â—¾33 points - Northampton
â—¾33 points - SW London
â—¾30 points - Sheffield
â—¾30 points - Southend-on-Sea
â—¾30 points - Slough
â—¾30 points - Cambridge
â—¾29 points - Peterborough
â—¾28 points - Stevenage
|
|
If you read Guy Martin's autobiography you will find he had >40 at one time, and still had his licence...!
|
|
This story comes up every now and again, I don't see the point of taking them to court. If they aren't going to ban them after say 50 points, can they ever be banned?
|
The guy on 42 points from Basildon is a very lucky man.
The camera in a 50 that he went through at 109 is about half a mile from me. The other 50 that he went through in the 80's is its partner on the other carriageway. He also did a couple or three 40's and, IIRC, a red and a 50 average zone. All these were on a single journey from Basildon down to Southend and back, apparently while he was depressed and drugged up while being egged on by a 'mate'.
Just very glad that I wasn't popping down to my mum's that night on that road. All the sections he was caught in have had fatalities in the last few years.....
Came out with a story about hardship because he wouldn't be able to get to the building sites where he worked without a car and that the loss of income would hinder his recovery from depression,
I despair....
|
>> Just very glad that I wasn't popping down to my mum's that night on that
>> road. All the sections he was caught in have had fatalities in the last few
>> years.....
Very good point, which raises the question...
what IF he - or anyone else with a huge tally of points - had caused a collision while driving like a buffoon?
Would the victims be able to take any action against the authorities for allowing the drivers to continue driving, even though the evidence points to the chaps having no respect for the law?
Maybe M'Learned friends on the board comment?
|
>>I despair....
You're not the only one ... couple of fit birds on 'orseback the other day when I was walking my, um, dogs, musta bin doing 15mph down the old straight track, at the very least - woss the world coming to I ask you!!
|
I'm sure we discussed the case Cockle refers when it was in the news. IIRC all the points arose from one drive in (colloquially) a moment of madness. Or perhaps it was several in a short and defined episode of illness.
As I said at the time I can just about see why on those facts a court, with conclusive medical reports and a contrite defendant in the dock, might make an exception to preserve a family's home and livelihood. Not clear cut, the bench would want to be very clear in it's reasoning and others will, quite reasonably, argue it should have gone the other way.
Can see no case whatever where, and I've read of such cases, the offender is repeat/serial over long period of time and with no mitigation other than livelihood.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 9 Jan 16 at 09:31
|
Brompt, as you say, a 'moment of madness' could be a reason.
However, from one of the linked stories:
In the Isleworth woman's case, the 42 points were all for failing to disclose the driver's identity.
The second-highest points total - 36 - for a person still driving went to a man from Warrington, Cheshire, who was caught driving without insurance six times in less than two weeks between February and March last year, the IAM said.
The institute also highlighted other drivers who had not been banned:
A man from Southend with 30 points, who was caught speeding 10 times between March 2011 and August 2012
A man from Blackburn with 29 points, who was caught speeding eight times between September and November 2011
A man from Pevensey, East Sussex, with 24 points who was caught speeding six times in two weeks between September 30 and October 13 last year
Repeat offenders, all of them.
Also, what would the insurance rates be if you had that many points? I'd assume a squillion pounds a year.
|
Ian,
Thanks for pointing out some of the other examples. While view might be changed by knowledge of full facts pretty well all of those are indefensible.
Failure to identify rightly carries a higher points tariff than the 'trigger' offence of speeding. A tally of 42 points suggests 7 convictions at 6 points each. Wonder what her mitigation was?
Is it possible for no insurance *6 to be all detected by camera so that #2-6 were committed before the NIP for #1 came to driver's attention? Suppose that if that were combined with genuine oversight or insurer action/inaction a bench might be convinced. Barrel scraping though I think.
|
On that insurance question, though, one wonders if the 51-pointer would get insured - and if so, at what price?
(Remember, insurance ain't compulsory here!).
|
|
Don't suppose a serial speeder/liar is going to confess to insurers that they have a multitude of points, are they?
|
|
Interesting thought. How can they possibly declare them and get insurance?
|
Explain this to me, please.
Surely you have to cough up to points when you take out insurance?
And surely if you don't tell the truth, that is an offence as well?
|
|
And just as surely you will be found out when you have a claim and they check your licence details with the DVLA
|
>> Explain this to me, please.
>> Surely you have to cough up to points when you take out insurance?
>> And surely if you don't tell the truth, that is an offence as well?
>>
I don't think it's actually an offence in its own right, though it could perhaps be deemed as obtaining stuff under false pretences; however the insurer is well within their legal; rights to declare the policy null and void if the driver is found out.
|
>>Wonder what her mitigation was? <<
Why?
For all of us on here and 99.9% of the population the deterrent is losing our licence.
We can all remember times we've been tempted but the thought we may be disqualified has been sufficient to stop us doing it.
These people don't have that deterrent do they, so why should they have any 'mitigation'.
It's wrong, so very, very wrong.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sat 9 Jan 16 at 15:54
|
>> >>Wonder what her mitigation was? <<
>>
>> Why?
Because I'm genuinely curious.
>> These people don't have that deterrent do they, so why should they have any 'mitigation'.
I'm not sure I follow that. Every convicted defendant has the right to tell the court about reasons, routine or exceptional, why it should 'ease off' on the sentence. Conversely, the prosecution can set out aggravating factors and invite the bench to throw the book.
There are only a handful of these cases across the whole country. In the overwhelming majority the law takes its course and the licence goes.
|
>> It's wrong, so very, very wrong.
For a start, the prospect of extreme hardship for loss of licence is not mitigation. Mitigation would be say trying to get somebody to hospital in an emergency, or a sudden and unexpected distraction, or trying to get out of the way of a fire engine on blue lights.
For someone for whom loss of licence would cause hardship the deterrent of a possible ban should be stronger, not weaker; and that is the usual basis of a plea for leniency. It seems ridiculous that such a plea can be used when the offender has been caught 10 times in three months, or whatever it was. And I can't believe that a person with so many offences can have been on a mercy mission every time.
It's baffling, but rare I think.
|
More than 12 points doesn't always get you a ban - RichardW
