Lucky Lady

esmerobbo

I think if she was a cat she would have used her nine lives, lucky with the sentence too.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/shocking-dashcam-footage-shows-trail-13522105

Warwick_Hunt

I can't see where she was lucky with the sentence. Appears to be well within sentencing guidelines.

[Deleted User]

The only lucky people around that day would have been any pedestrians or road users in the area.
Driving is a privilege not a right and if you do this it should be taken away permanently.

AdrianC

treboeth wrote: »

The only lucky people around that day would have been any pedestrians or road users in the area.
Driving is a privilege not a right and if you do this it should be taken away permanently.

She has been convicted of dangerous driving, as well as drink-driving. Both of those carry a minimum 12mo ban, but she's been banned for three years. Dangerous also requires an extended re-test before the licence can be returned - does she stand a hope of passing that? Add to that the cost of insurance with that pair on her licence... and she's not going to be behind the wheel again. Ever.

That's before you take the 8mo prison sentence, suspended for 2yrs, into account.

macman

Makes you wonder why she switched the dash cam on though? It didn't exactly help her defence (if any).

Robisere

My various jobs over the years all required that I had a license, so I learned early that drinking and driving was not possible for me, even during the days of my youth, when it was not regarded as seriously as it is now. Having a very dear friend killed by a drunken driver many years ago, impressed this upon me even more. I regard people who drink and drive as utterly reckless and uncaring.

When they take a drink, in the full knowledge that they are going to drive, they are committing a crime and they know it. This lady had to suffer a self-imposed serious lesson before realising it, but she survived and caused no injuries to anyone else. It could have been so much worse: imagine if she had been driving like that in Liverpool city centre.

The ones who should be severely punished, are the repeat offenders, who are heavily fined, disqualified and yet still drive with alcohol in their blood. Anyone whose property they damage, has no recourse to insurance. Those people are the ones who should receive a custodial sentence and at least a 10 year ban, with a law passed entitling any money they possess to be used to compensate people they affect.

Warwick_Hunt

Robisere wrote: »

My various jobs over the years all required that I had a license, so I learned early that drinking and driving was not possible for me, even during the days of my youth, when it was not regarded as seriously as it is now. Having a very dear friend killed by a drunken driver many years ago, impressed this upon me even more. I regard people who drink and drive as utterly reckless and uncaring.

When they take a drink, in the full knowledge that they are going to drive, they are committing a crime and they know it. This lady had to suffer a self-imposed serious lesson before realising it, but she survived and caused no injuries to anyone else. It could have been so much worse: imagine if she had been driving like that in Liverpool city centre.

The ones who should be severely punished, are the repeat offenders, who are heavily fined, disqualified and yet still drive with alcohol in their blood. Anyone whose property they damage, has no recourse to insurance. Those people are the ones who should receive a custodial sentence and at least a 10 year ban, with a law passed entitling any money they possess to be used to compensate people they affect.

Third party liability doesn't end because the driver is over the limit.

AdrianC

Robisere wrote: »

The ones who should be severely punished, are the repeat offenders, who are heavily fined, disqualified and yet still drive with alcohol in their blood. Anyone whose property they damage, has no recourse to insurance.

Yes, they do.

Those people are the ones who should receive a custodial sentence and at least a 10 year ban

First offence - minimum 1yr ban.
Second offence within a decade - minimum 3yr ban.
Driving whilst banned - prison.

...with a law passed entitling any money they possess to be used to compensate people they affect.

Umm, they're already compensated through either the driver's insurance or - if the driver is uninsured - MIB.

AdrianC

macman wrote: »

Makes you wonder why she switched the dash cam on though? It didn't exactly help her defence (if any).

The camera would have been automatic with the ignition.

Marvel1

The owners of the vehicles she hit have increased premiums on insurance!

Geoff1963

Add to that the cost of insurance with that pair on her licence

Hello, we-insure-anybody-at-all-dot-com. How can I help you ?
I'd like some car insurance please.
Certainly. Any claims, convictions, or driving bans ?
Yes, I was convicted of dangerous drunk-driving, and banned for three years.
[ long pause ]
Hello ? Hello ?
beeeeeeeeep