Speeding offence

kwmlondon

interstellaflyer wrote: »

I'm not defending his actions I'm just saying "people in glass houses" so many people on here willing to judge forgetting they were late teen/twenty something once.

When I think back to some of the stupid s**t I did I think that it probably would have been a good thing if someone HAD given me some points and put me in my place. It's sheer luck and certainly not judgement that stopped me killing myself and others on a couple of occasions as a stupid youth. Fortunately, I grew up before I did any serious injury and have never had a single point on my license, but I'm humble enough to admit that it's pure good luck rather than any great skill or care on my part - in the past, m'lud!

Joe_Horner

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You are still twisting figures. More drivers with less than two years experience are involved in RTCs than those with lets say 15 to 17 years experience. And you can't argue with that.

I don't need to argue with that.

I'm not sure you really understand the significance of statistics the way you're trying to argue this. All the (correct) figures you can point me to are saying is that a driver in one of those (statistically) high risk groups is more likely to be a poor driver than one in a different group.

But that doesn't stop the bad drivers in low risk groups being bad drivers - its perfectly possible to be a bad driver with 20 or 30 years experience! It's also possible to be a good driver with little experience - by no means every driver crashes in there first year or two!

Because there are vastly more "experienced" drivers on the road than inexperienced ones, sheer weight of numbers means that - even though a greater percentage of young drivers may be poor - there can be (and probably is) still a greater number of experienced drivers who are poor.

If (say) 25% of young drivers are bad and there are 1 million of them, that's 250 000 bad young drivers. Only (say) 5% of older drivers are bad but there are 15 million of them. So that's 250000 bad young drivers and 750000 bad older drivers out there.

Drop them randomly on the roads across the country and you, as an innocent other road user, are 3X more likely to encounter and be killed by a bad older driver than you are by a young one.

The fact that the young driver is more likely to be involved in an accident himself is an entirely different matter and is more or less irrelevant to your chances of being hit by one!

That's not politics, it's not twisting anything, it's simple maths!

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I don't need to argue with that.

I'm not sure you really understand the significance of statistics the way you're trying to argue this. All the (correct) figures you can point me to are saying is that a driver in one of those (statistically) high risk groups is more likely to be a poor driver than one in a different group.

But that doesn't stop the bad drivers in low risk groups being bad drivers - its perfectly possible to be a bad driver with 20 or 30 years experience! It's also possible to be a good driver with little experience - by no means every driver crashes in there first year or two!

I think we have had our lines crossed here.

I have never said that all inexperienced drivers are bad drivers. And I certainly haven't said that all experienced drivers are good drivers.

When I first passed my test I was inexperienced at driving a car on the road. However I was used to riding a motorbike on the road, which may have helped in some ways, but possibly made me over confident in other ways. I was also experienced in motor racing, which although it probably made me more skilled than many. It too could have made me over confident, and made me a bad driver of a car on the road.

I also see some extremely poor examples of driving by many experienced drivers, especially the middle aged sales rep stereotype.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Because there are vastly more "experienced" drivers on the road than inexperienced ones, sheer weight of numbers means that - even though a greater percentage of young drivers may be poor - there can be (and probably is) still a greater number of experienced drivers who are poor.

If (say) 25% of young drivers are bad and there are 1 million of them, that's 250 000 bad young drivers. Only (say) 5% of older drivers are bad but there are 15 million of them. So that's 250000 bad young drivers and 750000 bad older drivers out there.

Drop them randomly on the roads across the country and you, as an innocent other road user, are 3X more likely to encounter and be killed by a bad older driver than you are by a young one.

And I don't disagree with that either

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The fact that the young driver is more likely to be involved in an accident himself is an entirely different matter and is more or less irrelevant to your chances of being hit by one!

That's not politics, it's not twisting anything, it's simple maths!

I don't see how this is relevant to this thread?

smashingyour...

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I think we have had our lines crossed here.

I have never said that all inexperienced drivers are bad drivers. And I certainly haven't said that all experienced drivers are good drivers.

When I first passed my test I was inexperienced at driving a car on the road. However I was used to riding a motorbike on the road, which may have helped in some ways, but possibly made me over confident in other ways. I was also experienced in motor racing, which although it probably made me more skilled than many. It too could have made me over confident, and made me a bad driver of a car on the road.

I also see some extremely poor examples of driving by many experienced drivers, especially the middle aged sales rep stereotype.



And I don't disagree with that either



I don't see how this is relevant to this thread?

You took this thread off topic.

GAZ237

smashingyour... wrote: »

You took this thread off topic.

Carter takes every thread off topic.

Apparently we are all wrong and he is right in every topic.

Typical Copper.

kwmlondon

GAZ237 wrote: »

Carter takes every thread off topic.

Apparently we are all wrong and he is right in every topic.

Typical Copper.

It's okay - we've been let off with a warning. Move along. Nothing to see.

Enfieldian

hamishcat wrote: »

If he gets a summons does that mean he has to go to court or can he just accept it by post.

A summons is exactly that, summoning someone to court.

A Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) can be dealt with by postal return.

Enfieldian

Aretnap wrote: »

"Losing your licence" is a hopelessly vague term, which only contributes to confusion between bans and revocations, and it would be better if people didn't use it. I've lost my licence many times. Usually it's turned up eventually, but once I couldn't find it anywhere and I had to send off to the DVLA for a replacement. He's not going to lose his licence like I did, but he is likely to have it revoked under the New Drivers Act. This is also very different in many ways from being banned from driving.

46 in a 30 would normally get him a fixed penalty, and there's no reason why he can't get one. In fact the New Drivers Act makes specific provision for what happens when a new driver on 3 or more points gets a fixed penalty. The situation is not analogous to that of a normal driver on 9 points who can't get a fixed penalty because of a totting ban. If he is offered a fixed penalty, accepting it would be the quickest, and probably most painless option.

If he's not offered a fixed penalty, or if he doesn't accept it, the matter will go to court. He can plead guilty by post if he wants to, and need not attend. Often this process ends up taking 6 months or more from the date of the offence, and if he wants to delay revocation of his licence for as long as possible then rejecting the fixed penalty would be the way to go. In court he could expect more than 3 points and a bigger fine than £60 though - money which might be better spent on more driving lessons and/or the inevitably higher insurance premiums when he starts driving again.

Either way, when the DVLA eventually notice that he has 6 or more points they'll write to him to inform him that his licence is being revoked. This does NOT happen immediately on having the points added to his licence - the DVLA will inform him of the date it takes effect, which must be after they send him the letter telling him about it. He can drive up until that date, apply for a new provisional immediately, and drive as normal as soon as he can arrange and pass his theory and practical tests.

Unlike a totting ban, revocation is an administrative process and once he reached 6 points neither the courts or the DVLA have any discretion not to impose the revocation, no matter how strong the mitigating circumstances or how much he needs his licence for work. The only way to avoid the revocation, other than being found not guilty of speeding, would be to go to court and ask the magistrates to impose a short ban instead of points - which would mean he could not drive for the duration of the ban, but could drive immediately it expired without having to retake his test. Courts have guidance NOT to do this in order to subvert the New Drivers Act, but there seem to be a few which either don't know this or are prepared to overlook it if they hear a strong enough case, so it does happen occasionally.

Some good information but unfortunately incorrect in this case.

When stopped at the roadside a PNC check on the driver's licence has revealed that he already has 3 points within 2 years of passing his test and therefore the FPN(E) route is not appropriate as this would take them to 6.

The officer would have informed the driver that they will be reported for processing as they WILL be losing their full licence.

If they then receive a summons they will be expected to attend court and surrender their full licence at the hearing. They will then be returned to provisional status and have to retake the tests.

The FPN(E) route is not available in this case and never was.

smashingyour...

Enfieldian wrote: »

Some good information but unfortunately incorrect in this case.

When stopped at the roadside a PNC check on the driver's licence has revealed that he already has 3 points within 2 years of passing his test and therefore the FPN(E) route is not appropriate as this would take them to 6.

The officer would have informed the driver that they will be reported for processing as they WILL be losing their full licence.

If they then receive a summons they will be expected to attend court and surrender their full licence at the hearing. They will then be returned to provisional status and have to retake the tests.

The FPN(E) route is not available in this case and never was.

The new driver scheme allows him to drive with six points until the dvla revoke his licence,so he can drive home from court unaccompanied. There is nothing stopping him from having a ticket as he is not inline for disqualification.

smashingyour...

Enfieldian wrote: »

A summons is exactly that, summoning someone to court.

A Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) can be dealt with by postal return.

Are you saying there is no option to plea guilty by post?

He would only have to appear in person if they are considering disqualification.

He could of course send a representative instead of going himself.;)