Evergreen Farms Cbd Gummies Update:...
Food & Drink10 mins ago
And Again Another Death
Daily Mirror this morning, HGV Driver causes the death of a motorist by looking at a text message, when is this government going to get it in it's thick head that Texting whilst driver is as bad as Drinking & Driving, if caught there should be an instant ban of a 12 month & a hefty fine, how many more deaths have to happen before serious action is taken against these Inconsiderate fools.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TWR. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm old school so think that using a mobile whilst driving should result deportation to Antarctica. I recently test drove a Tesla electric car and most of the controls you need are on a large touchscreen that I had to operate with my left hand, ventilation, radio, sat nav etc, it was the most dangerous thing I have ever done. I kept forgetting to look at the road.
Could this be the answer, a driver that is caught using a mobile phone whilst driving has their Vehicle impounded & a hefty release fee with an immediate /no court case ban for 1 year, Mirror this morning, a woman has 28 points on her licence (WHY) caught driving down the wrong was was given Suspended (WHY) 6 Month Prison term ( WHY) 240 hrs community work 3 year driving ban ( WHY) that should have been taken off her for life & her car crushed. Is this too harsh? or should we just smack her Botty Botty & say poor lass.
Not always (and in fact not usually) the beak, 3Ts. With one exception (see below) all of these punishments are handed down in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. If a sentence is handed down outside the guidelines a successful appeal against sentence will almost certainly follow.
The one exception I do agree is unjust and the fault of the Beak is where people are allowed to continue driving when they have reached 12 points. They make an "Exceptional Hardship" argument and around 25% of them are granted. There should be no such facility. 12 points and you're out and that's that. But if it is to remain the hurdle should be much higher.
The one exception I do agree is unjust and the fault of the Beak is where people are allowed to continue driving when they have reached 12 points. They make an "Exceptional Hardship" argument and around 25% of them are granted. There should be no such facility. 12 points and you're out and that's that. But if it is to remain the hurdle should be much higher.
Fair enough judge, they really should start banning all when they reach 12 points regardless, see here, the guy had 25points: http://
He must have had several "exceptional hardships".
He must have had several "exceptional hardships".
Just read an article in the D.Mirror of a Young Lass in American losing her Dad due to a Driver going through a Red light "Distracted by his phone" If I can bore you. in one of my previous jobs which I had been doing for 30+ years, the loads I carried ranged from rolls of paper / Steel Girders / Coil Steel For the making of cars, the likes of these HGVs can wipe on a Motorway not only one car but depending on speed about, I would estimate 8>>10 that was queued up on a motorway due to many reasons, the HGV Driver can do this in a split second just for the sake of a dam text, if the same driver was carrying Steel Girders, these could go either straight through the cab, over the side of the trailer / over the top of the Cab roof, all for the sake of a text, to a point a car can catch Fire due to a "TailEnder" on any given road, again due to a Text, Is there a way to Stop It, or should I say curb it? there is, & there is only one way, If Proven, as I stated in a previous post, an Instant Ban Year, Vehicle empounded, an instant fine of a £1000, Phew you may say, try saying that to a family that has suffered loss to texting, try saying that the a family member that has seen a family member suffered brain Injuries, try saying that to a family that's lost their Baby/'s, all for the sake of an unnecessary Text, Have i done it? never have, never will, not for the sake of a text, I valued mine & others lives more important than a text.
“'Special Circumstances' for not disqualifying should revert to what it meant originally - that the 'SC' related to the offence and not the offender. Then someone decided to turn it round.”
You don’t quite have it correctly, Dave. There is no argument entitled "Special Circumstances". Instead there are two distinct applications a defendant can make to the court:
“Special Reasons” not to endorse or disqualify are applicable to offences which attract a mandatory endorsement and points (e.g. speeding or mobile phone use) or a mandatory disqualification (e.g. excess alcohol). These reasons have to apply to the offence itself and not the offender’s circumstances. An example for speeding might be “I was being chased and feared for my safety”. An example for excess alcohol may be “Spiked” drinks. There is no facility to claim “Special Reasons” in relation to the offender’s circumstances (e.g. need to drive for work or to take granny to the hospital).
“Exceptional Hardship” applies only to totting up bans. This is the argument that applies to the offender’s circumstances (examples above) and not to the offence(s). Though of course, the driver may have claimed “Special Reasons” for any of the individual offences which led to the totting up, may have been successful and may have committed another offence but for which he was awarded no points.
You don’t quite have it correctly, Dave. There is no argument entitled "Special Circumstances". Instead there are two distinct applications a defendant can make to the court:
“Special Reasons” not to endorse or disqualify are applicable to offences which attract a mandatory endorsement and points (e.g. speeding or mobile phone use) or a mandatory disqualification (e.g. excess alcohol). These reasons have to apply to the offence itself and not the offender’s circumstances. An example for speeding might be “I was being chased and feared for my safety”. An example for excess alcohol may be “Spiked” drinks. There is no facility to claim “Special Reasons” in relation to the offender’s circumstances (e.g. need to drive for work or to take granny to the hospital).
“Exceptional Hardship” applies only to totting up bans. This is the argument that applies to the offender’s circumstances (examples above) and not to the offence(s). Though of course, the driver may have claimed “Special Reasons” for any of the individual offences which led to the totting up, may have been successful and may have committed another offence but for which he was awarded no points.
Apologies if you thought I was picking holes over the wording, dave. I don't do that on AB and it was not my intention. I was trying to illustrate the difference between the two applications that a defendant can make to a court and thought it best to use the correct terms to avoid even more confusion :-)
Latest Posts
Food & Drink12 mins ago
Body & Soul19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
