ADUK Archive

GJD wrote:Are previous convictions able to be taken into account for a new offence?

Errr yes they are, aren't they? If I have a history of burglaries (which I haven't!) and I am again found guilty of yet another, wouldn't the magistrate normally deal out a harsher penalty? I thought 'first offence' and all that, worked the other way as well.

Surely the best analogy is that of the suspended sentence. 3 points suspended for 3 years, Clean licence but if you accept an FPN in the future or are convicted the points go on independently of any other points for the new offence. I can't see how that is difficult legally.

I don't really see the benefit though, unless 3 points is a barrier to employment as suggested.

They would have to re write the statutory instrument to give out suspended points and althought that would be easier than changing the bill of rights and common law it would still have to get past the secretary of state and various civil servants (and possibly a vote in parliament depending on if it's possible or not under anything already inacted).

how would it be fair for someone caught at say 35 mph in a 30 twice to get 6 points and an effective fine of £150 with half a days community sentence when some one caught at 43 mph and 35 mph in 30's will get 6 points and £120 fine.

There has to be an incentive and a real educational benefit of taking a course.

martine wrote:

GJD wrote:Are previous convictions able to be taken into account for a new offence?

Errr yes they are, aren't they?

I don't know. That's why I asked . You may well be right. I don't have a history of burglaries either so I've no experience of the question.

jont wrote:Sends the wrong message (ie that speeding isn't that bad really)

One could argue that the proliferation of surprisingly low speed limits has sent that message out pretty strongly already, before we even start debating how to enforce them. But that's a different issue...

jont wrote:and continues the obsession of judging safe driving by a number on a stick.

I'm not a fan of judging safety by a number on a stick either (cue somebody pointing out that the speed limit is the maximum speed you're allowed to drive, not the maximum speed that it's safe to drive) but I have a lot of time for the idea of preferring education to penalties. There will always be some people who are a lost cause - not interested in considering and learning from anyone else's viewpoint. So you're on a hiding to nothing unless you focus on those who are interested - who might, if encouraged appropriately, be open-minded enough to take advice on board and change for the better. And for them, education has got to be a more constructive approach than punishment.

jont wrote:I'd rather see limits actually set appropriately (and not by local politicians)

Absolutely. The greater you set the difference between excessive and inappropriate speed, the more people you move from the second group into the first.

Am I reading this wrong? I think all they've done is increased this threshold by 3mph. Surely that's not worth making a fuss about.

gfoot wrote:Am I reading this wrong? I think all they've done is increased this threshold by 3mph. Surely that's not worth making a fuss about.

I understand it used to be 10%+2, so in a 30, if you were caught at upto 35 you'd get the course.
Now it could be 10%+9, raising the acceptance level for the course upto 42.
Quite an increase.

As noted above, the 10%+2 limit is for the police generally bothering to stop you at all. The first line of the "Educational experience" section in the news article states that the limit above which the course could not be offered used to be 10%+6:

Previously, only those travelling at up to 10% above the limit plus 6mph could be offered one of the courses.

So it looks like this threshold is only going up from 39 to 42 in a 30 zone (both "about 40"), or 83 to 86 in a 70 zone (both "about 85").

I am delighted to have more people attend any form of driver re-education - this will mean that more people attend speed awareness courses, and I consider that to be a good thing.

You will most of you be shocked to hear that I have attended such a course! (I considered it to be worthwhile.) The provision about not being able to attend more than one such course in a three year period is therefore very significant to me. Can anyone tell me how this provision is monitored, if the DVLA are not involved?

All the names of the delegates who attend are sent to the police, along with those who did not!