Facing court and potential driving ban - any advice?

pendulum

If you're of typical Uni age then a drink driving conviction is going to be an absolute killer on what is already very expensive insurance. You might find that you're best off hoping for a longer ban and less of a fine, because you may decide after doing the sums that it's best not to have a car at least for the years you're at Uni.

It can be a "life changing" conviction. If you were going to be a home student you may be considering on-campus accomodation now, if public transport isn't up to scratch.

Harry_Flashman

I have to say that, although it was back in the mid 90s, when I came off my ban, it prompted me to search around for the best price (before comparison websites) and I actually SAVED on my insurance

HappyMJ

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

I have to say that, although it was back in the mid 90s, when I came off my ban, it prompted me to search around for the best price (before comparison websites) and I actually SAVED on my insurance

It doesn't work like that these days. Insurance penalizes drink drivers to the point that it's not worth driving for 5 or more years even though the initial disqualification was only 12 months.

pendulum

How old were you when your ban ended Harry? The older you are the less of an effect it'll have.

Just messed around with confused.com, and for a 19 year old student with two years NCB on a 1.3 KA, the cheapest without a conviction is £1167.06 TPF&F. With the drink conviction added the cheapest is £2384.70. That isn't as bad as I thought it would be to be honest, but it's still double the money. Also, don't forget, it's not just extra for the first year, but every year for many years!

The older you get, the less the extra premium for a drink drive ban inflicts. I put in my dad's birth year (1945) and with a drink drive conviction, they only want £448 from him! I pay more than that for my insurance and I don't have anything as serious as a drink drive or any claims!

newfoundglory

bamme wrote: »

I blew 45 in car, and then 44 at station, - he asked about blood but said it was optional and if i rejected it it would not be a bad thing. I am phobic of needles and said I would refuse it purely because i did not want to dispute the breathaliser reading, and believed if it said 44, it would be accurate - i assumed the blood option was for people who wanted to dispute the breathaliser test or challenge what the score showed..

I hate needles - but if the impossible had happened and I was found in your position - I would have taken the blood option. Why?

Blood must be taken by a police surgeon - if you blew a 44, by the time they had found someone to take your blood you would probably have been below the limit and then been able to defend any later charge with this evidence (if the charges were not dropped).

Ultimately, I think you made the wrong choice here.

pendulum

newfoundglory wrote: »

... by the time they had found someone to take your blood you would probably have been below the limit

Indeed - and the coppers would have known it - probably why the OP said one stated "[blood] was optional and if i rejected it it would not be a bad thing" - always be wary when the people who wish to prosecute you all of a sudden come over all helpful and start giving you advice about what's in your best interests!

vax2002

Unfortunately, there was no blood, so move on and deal with what is in front of you.
The evidence proves the charge, so look at ways of mitigating the sentence to the minimum ban and fine and i have told you what the magistrates will expect.
Make no mistake they wont do any "cok and bull" about thinking you were ok to drive when clearly you knew you had consumed a quantity of alcohol and I can speak on some knowledge on this.
There is a set of guidelines and all 3 will have to agree where the remorse shown sits the sentencing.
Someone who knowingly drove and fails to accept they were foolish will get the big stick.

Sgt_Pepper_2

vax2002 wrote: »

Unfortunately, there was no blood, so move on and deal with what is in front of you.
The evidence proves the charge, so look at ways of mitigating the sentence to the minimum ban and fine and i have told you what the magistrates will expect.
Make no mistake they wont do any "cok and bull" about thinking you were ok to drive when clearly you knew you had consumed a quantity of alcohol and I can speak on some knowledge on this.
There is a set of guidelines and all 3 will have to agree where the remorse shown sits the sentencing.
Someone who knowingly drove and fails to accept they were foolish will get the big stick.

More crap.

Sgt_Pepper_2

newfoundglory wrote: »

I hate needles - but if the impossible had happened and I was found in your position - I would have taken the blood option. Why?

Blood must be taken by a police surgeon - if you blew a 44, by the time they had found someone to take your blood you would probably have been below the limit and then been able to defend any later charge with this evidence (if the charges were not dropped).

Ultimately, I think you made the wrong choice here.

If he was under on blood what charge would there be to defend or drop?

Mr_Thrifty

Alcohol is such an adult topic. Strictly adults only.