12 Pts = Ban? Nah!

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23967547
ok so "exceptional hardship" may occasionally wash with the beak but how does someone get up to 30+ points and still be on the road?

[jake-the-peg]

Some of these happened very close together

This is one of my problems with totting up

It's meant to give people a warning and a chance to modify their behaviour yet you can undertake a journey and trigger several cameras and end up with a ban before you receive a NIP.

In such cases I think it's good to see magistrates excersing their discretion

[ToraToraTora]

It's also a bit of a grey area as to when one speeding offence ends and another begins. I mean if I do 90mph constantly past 3 speed cameras is that 3 offences or 1? if the former then are we saying that the proximity of detection is the arbiter of the start of the offence?

[EDDIE51]

The answer is in the link if you read it, exceptional hardship.
This is supposed to be for situations such as where someone has to care for a severely disabled person and there is no other way to get to them other than driving or a ban would mean losing a job and having to claim benefits for several people. Another example could be a person who works in a remote area but whose earnings support a large family who would all have to go on benefit.

[ToraToraTora]

Yes eddie, I mentioned exceptional hardship in the OP. The point is that, ok, I'm on 12 points so I've already been let off once, I get another 3 so now I have 15 maybe I get let off again but it takes a giant leap to be let off again and again.

[EDDIE51]

One of the examples given was a person who had 6 cases of driving with no insurance . I know a person who was convicted of 5 cases of no insurance but all were tried at the same hearing so it was counted as one offence and 6 points.
Seems such things are a bit arbitrary.

[rockyracoon]

A few weeks ago OH was very worried, he came home from work with a letter saying his van was caught doing 58 in a 50, the very next day he came home with another one for 58 in a 50, now he travels along this road everyday and thought Sugar, I'll be banned by the end of the week. As it happens he didn't get anymore and hopefully he'll get offered a speed awareness course which will get rid of 3 points. Just goes to show how easy it is though. Incase anyone is interested it's along the A13 between City and Rainham, they're average speed cameras which are obviously switched on and off at irregular times.

Someone on the news was saying they knew a woman that had 42 points (7x6 points) for failing to inform the authorities who the driver was, now surely it would have been better to have come clean and get 7x3 points.

[rockyracoon]

Unless she was dong 100 in a 30 in which case she was probably better off not telling, although I'm sure a ban will be the order of the day whatever.

[Booldawg]

you'd have thought that people who were under the risk of enduring 'exceptional hardship' by losing their driving license would be more adherent of speed limits etc.

[jake-the-peg]

Personally I'd like to see a change whereby you can be fined multiple times for one offence but until you've been sent a NIP the clock would be stopped on accumulating points.

So if you were flashed twice on the same journey you could be fined twice but only get 3 points.

However I don't think all the cases listed fall into this classification and I've often heard of where claims of 'I need my car for my work or I'll be out of a job' have been heeded by magistrates despite the fact that there is specific guidance that this claim is not admissable

[douglas9401]

"Drivers must expect that 12 points means a ban or the whole system falls into disrepute."

There it is in a nutshell.
How far should the well defined drink-drive limit be stretched in the interests if 'fairness'?

[jake-the-peg]

That's not the same Douglas

Drink drive is not an offense which allows for warnings as low level speeding offenses do.

In that sense it's an absolute offense

You don't get points for being over the alcohol limit!

[New Judge]

There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about the “exceptional hardship” business.

The provision is not there to mitigate the offence (or more properly, the series of offences). The matter of how or why the offences were committed, how close together they were, and some of the other issues mentioned here are not of concern to the Magistrates. The “exceptional hardship” argument relates solely to the offender and the effect a ban would have on him or others should he be disqualified.

A further issue which has not been mentioned either in this question or in the BBC’s report is that the detailed reason put forward as exceptional hardship is recorded on the court files and that same reason cannot be used a second time for a period of three years. In most of the examples cited it seems the offences were committed in a fairly short space of time and it seems likely that they may have all been dealt with at one hearing and only one exceptional hardship argument put forward.

Magistrates have no firm guidance on making these decisions and it is entirely a matter for them to decide if the hardship suggested is “exceptional”. Most benches have general policies on the matter. Many, for example, will not consider that loss of employment alone amounts to exceptional hardship as it would effect all drivers who are employed. But at the end of the day it is a judicial decision entirely down to the Magistrates.