Jump to content

Drug sentencing


hissingsid
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

what would the evidence look like ?   why  check for endorsements before someone takes a test ?  how does getting convicted of drink/drug driving make you forget how to control a vehicle when sober  ?  if i get my maths wrong when  i'm pissed i don't have to sit my maths O level again to get my maths qualification back.

When we had paper licence counterparts the Examiner had to check to see you were qualified to take the test and that the licence was valid. It was standard.

A licence wasn’t valid if not signed. The signature was under the box for endorsements. It’s not conspiracy that the examiner checked.

40 years of acting for people in courts, lots of motoring offences, what do you think is the first thing I did when I asked a client for their licence, both parts. Correct, I checked it was signed, so I didn’t hand in an unsigned one to the court.

Guess what, 40% weren’t signed!

Without the check the examiner couldn’t have started the test.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John Wright said:

When we had paper licence counterparts the Examiner had to check to see you were qualified to take the test and that the licence was valid. It was standard.

A licence wasn’t valid if not signed. The signature was under the box for endorsements. It’s not conspiracy that the examiner checked.

40 years of acting for people in courts, lots of motoring offences, what do you think is the first thing I did when I asked a client for their licence, both parts. Correct, I checked it was signed, so I didn’t hand in an unsigned one to the court.

Guess what 40% weren’t signed!

Without the check the examiner couldn’t have started the test.

and the memory loss of forgetting how to drive and needing to retake a test?      the drug and alcohol awareness course  should cover the issue of driving whilst unfit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

and the memory loss of forgetting how to drive and needing to retake a test?      the drug and alcohol awareness course  should cover the issue of driving whilst unfit 

I’ve covered it above, briefly. But here goes.

1. to be required to take your test again it’s because your offence was so serious that your driving fell below the required standard. That includes how you drove and controlled your car, which includes getting behind the wheel whilst over the limit. At that point you’ve proved memory loss or that you’ve forgotten how to drive safely.

2. you will have had an extended period of non driving, you’re out of practice.

3. being allowed to drive on public roads is a regulated activity. You’ve not complied with the regulations to the extent that the privilege has been removed.

4. you have to do the awareness course at the end of your disqualification to even get your provisional. You then have to do the theory. Then the extended practical. What’s wrong with any of that? It’s pretty common. Not just IOM.

5. it came in because of the number of repeat offenders, the number of people who just got back behind the wheel and demonstrated a lack skill, training and ability, after their ban had ended. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes,   1 is the result of the alcohol impairment and then  trying to drive  ,  2 after i passed my test i didn't drive a car for 4 years , kept using the bike as it was cheaper to run and i didn't seem to forget anything with my lack of practice when i eventually got a car. 3 having a licence removed is sort of the point and a good idea. 4 i agree with the awareness course aspect 5  that's just some people but does explain why a retest was bought in to make it harder to get back on the road ,  skill and abillity will be what they were before the conviction when you first passed your test but the benchmark for passing may have moved. ?  but if so people not convicted should be tested to see if they meet the latest standard.  the real issue is repeat offenders ,  no amount of extra training will stop them driving whilst unfit , it's just how they're wired, 

Edited by Pipsqueak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

yes,   1 is the result of the alcohol impairment and then  trying to drive  ,  2 after i passed my test i didn't drive a car for 4 years , kept using the bike as it was cheaper to run and i didn't seem to forget anything with my lack of practice when i eventually got a car. 3 having a licence removed is sort of the point and a good idea. 4 i agree with the awareness course aspect 5  that's just some people but does explain why a retest was bought in to make it harder to get back on the road ,  skill and abillity will be what they were before the conviction when you first passed your test but the benchmark for passing may have moved. ?  but if so people not convicted should be tested to see if they meet the latest standard.  the real issue is repeat offenders ,  no amount of extra training will stop them driving whilst unfit , it's just how they're wired, 

1. I don’t agree.

2. But you were using the road. So the essential skills of observation, avoidance and safety were ones you maintained.

3. Yes. But should you just be handed it back?

4. We are agreed.

5. It’s not to make it harder. It’s to ensure they have the skills, judgment and ability to be allowed to drive. Personally I’m in favour of re testing, for everyone, every 10 years in any event.

Repeat offenders, drink or not, are a problem. In the bad old days a subsequent disqualification was just added to the end of the one(s) they were already serving. So you got young repeat offenders who were disqualified for 10, 15, 20 years. Granted most had never passed a test. But it made the likelihood of driving whilst disqualified/no insurance by them very real. Now disqualification starts from the day of the sentence.

It’s always a compromise. Disqualification levels were increased, but you no longer got the guys with nothing to lose, because they could never obtain a licence. 

Sentences get changed. It used to be the advice that someone should refuse a sample, because you got a 12 month ban, whereas if you blew a higher level you might get longer. That’s been closed off. But we had over the years lots of people doing repeat 1 year bans. Clearly never learning. Now they get extended bans on the second offence. 

That wasn’t working. So now the re testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

Maybe doing the test again is simply part of the punishment. 

that's about it really,  i know someone who was convicted of DUI and ordered to retake their test and they had never ever taken a test to obtain a full driving licence ,  how do  you retake something you have never taken in the first place ??

Edited by Pipsqueak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

that's about it really,  i know someone who was convicted of DUI and ordered to retake their test and they had never ever taken a test to obtain a full driving licence ,  how do  you retake something you have never taken in the first place ??

There’s very few places where you could have obtained a full licence without a test and then swapped to a Manx licence and still be driving unless you’re 90+ (1). Unless you mean they had never held a licence.

The word re-take isn’t in the legislation. I’m using it as shorthand. The actual wording requires you not to drive on Island roads until you’ve passed a Manx test. 

And that causes two immediate issues. It’s Manx and administrative. How do you do your retraining on L plates and take your test without? And with the two jurisdictions we have reciprocity, GB and NI ( they have separate licence issuing regimes ), the Manx requirement doesn’t require a test in either. And with drivers from further afield they push the bike on to the boat, get off on the other side and drive. No one in their home jurisdiction ever knows. 

Several riders/drivers have then returned and been caught, driving whilst disqualified by reason of not having passed a Manx test.

(1) until the late 1960’s you could go to Ireland, get a provisional and after 12 months it became a full licence, no test required. I knew several people in the 1970’s who were unable to pass a test and who drove on Irish licences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

that's about it really,  i know someone who was convicted of DUI and ordered to retake their test and they had never ever taken a test to obtain a full driving licence ,  how do  you retake something you have never taken in the first place ??

You're making less sense than normal.

Seriously, there's no way you've had a covid vaccination.   Happy to wager on it too.

This is flat earth stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

There’s very few places where you could have obtained a full licence without a test and then swapped to a Manx licence and still be driving unless you’re 90+ (1). Unless you mean they had never held a licence.

The word re-take isn’t in the legislation. I’m using it as shorthand. The actual wording requires you not to drive on Island roads until you’ve passed a Manx test. 

And that causes two immediate issues. It’s Manx and administrative. How do you do your retraining on L plates and take your test without? And with the two jurisdictions we have reciprocity, GB and NI ( they have separate licence issuing regimes ), the Manx requirement doesn’t require a test in either. And with drivers from further afield they push the bike on to the boat, get off on the other side and drive. No one in their home jurisdiction ever knows. 

Several riders/drivers have then returned and been caught, driving whilst disqualified by reason of not having passed a Manx test.

(1) until the late 1960’s you could go to Ireland, get a provisional and after 12 months it became a full licence, no test required. I knew several people in the 1970’s who were unable to pass a test and who drove on Irish licences.

the situation was DUI on L pates on a motorbike riding on a manx provisional licence so yes, they never held a full driving licence as i stated,   judge seemed to think a retake of a test was required though ???  there is no test to obtain a provisional licence so even  your second paragraph wouldn't apply as you can use manx roads on 2 wheels on a 125cc or less motorcycle on  L plates without passing anything other than a CBT 

 

another licence related anomaly is a full car drivers licence obtained before some date back in history also counted as a full moped licence  , up to 50cc no gears ,  would that mean you can ride a moped today without taking a CBT as you already hold a full licence ?  a bit like the weights and trailer towing lark that is also historical for full licence holders issued before a certain date.

Edited by Pipsqueak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

the situation was DUI on L pates on a motorbike riding on a manx provisional licence so yes, they never held a full driving licence as i stated,   judge seemed to think a retake of a test was required though ???  there is no test to obtain a provisional licence so even  your second paragraph wouldn't apply as you can use manx roads on 2 wheels on a 125cc or less motorcycle on  L plates without passing anything other than a CBT 

 

another licence related anomaly is a full car drivers licence obtained before some date back in history also counted as a full moped licence  , up to 50cc no gears ,  would that mean you can ride a moped today without taking a CBT as you already hold a full licence ?  a bit like the weights and trailer towing lark that is also historical for full licence holders issued before a certain date.

There are lots of anomalies. My licence authorises me to drive up to 7.5 tonnes. It’s grandfather rights from when the EU standardised vehicle categories.

You missed the point. It isn’t a retake. Go back and read again. The incongruence I highlighted applies to both car and bike disqualifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, John Wright said:

There are lots of anomalies. My licence authorises me to drive up to 7.5 tonnes. It’s grandfather rights from when the EU standardised vehicle categories.

You missed the point. It isn’t a retake. Go back and read again. The incongruence I highlighted applies to both car and bike disqualifications.

so how do you ride on  L plates on a 125cc bike legally once you've been disqualified DUI ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

so how do you ride on  L plates on a 125cc bike legally once you've been disqualified DUI ?

They aren’t keen on issuing repeat provisional licences either, I know someone that’s driven/ridden on a provisional for all of their life and has been told more times than I care to remember that the next one issued would be their last (and it never is). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...