Nearly half of motorists with 12 or more penalty points on licence allowed to keep driving by the courts

Doesn't totting up only cover the last 3 years, while endorsements can last longer? eg CD70 - causing death by careless driving, then failing to provide a specimen for analysis – gets a maximum of 11 points on your license for the next 11 years. But if you did that every 4 years, you'd never hit the 12 points in 3 years limit.

So it seems to me you can legally hit 33 points on your license without *automatic* disqualification. Thats as opposed to the magistrate deciding you're a danger, or invoking the hardship defence.

Wacky.

This article and the New Forest item came to my attention after posting an item to my blog skippi-cyclist.blogspot and i have borrowed a few of the comments here to reinforce the story !

The reason I ask the question -see above- (anyone got an answer?)

If the answer is Yes, then this thread is irrelevant; there is no bias in favour of motorists (but perhaps a case to suggest there should be, if so; it has not been made in this article).

If the answer is No; then this should be challenged. This is discrimination favouring the offenders involved in motor related crime and an injustice to the general public, specificaly those that do not drive a motor vehicle.

I like the idea about having to display the number of points on the car - perhaps as a warning triangle on the car, so that other road users can take precautions?

This is truly scandalous and kind of puts paid to stories about motorists getting a hard time.

The example of that cab driver infuriates me even more.

Dude, if you were negligent enough to get 12 points as a driver, find another occupation! You are a risk to yourself, other road users and those passengers who're paying you

Also, would be a good idea for the cabbies, truckers, etc to be made to display their insurance and points gathered on license in the cab. Give the customers a right to refuse to pay if either of them are out of order (expired insurance or points > 12).

So, people who get points for breaking laws placed for safety of other road users can get back on the road pleading 'exceptional hardship'.

Way I read it, courts are saying that not causing hardship to a proven offender is more important than the safety of other road users.

No wonder the cyclist hunters get off lightly in these courts...

This is not a rhetorical question, nor I am simply being sarcastic; but can anyone tell me if "exceptional hardship" either to the individual convicted or his/her dependents apply in non-motor related crimes? For example, if an individual stabs an innocent person or robs a bank they tend to go to jail. Does the judge ever consider the hardship that the dependents may have by this action? Or even in less serious offences where a fine is the outcome; can someone plead that paying a fine will cause hardship to his familly and get a reduced fine?

According to something I've read, you can only use the 'hardship' excuse *ONCE*. If you get more points after that, you go to Magie's again and you have to come up with a different reason or you get a ban. Clearly this rule is not being enforced...

It really is time to end the culture of The Sacred Driving Licence as I pointed out back in May...

What

The

...

And why in the name of fdsfuhebvr doesn't a taxi driver who's got 12 points and is caught without insurance automatically lose his taxi license, let alone his driving license?

I was told by a director of a company I was consulting to in the mid 90's in Sweden, that (at that time) their police had the power to ban on the spot and they felt no compunction in enforcing it. In the UK it would mean that your "human rights" had been violated so it's a no go. Plus I'm not sure anyone has yet created a speed camera that could do this.

And how do we think that the magistrates in these cases get to court. The car is the new god and it's worshippers can do no wrong.

I like the comment about how much does your insurance cost if you have 30 points. I'd assume; A) the same as someone with no points as they aren't declared or B) Nothing at all, if you can get to 30 points I suspect things like insurance and road vehicle excise duty are things that "all you other suckas" bother with.

And no I wasn't using l=that as any form of racial slur, it was supplied in the street lingo of the scum bag, so probably you can accuse me of scumbagism and I will happily accept the critisism.

ah yes jarderich but if they had those powers over here imagine the traffic chaos caused by all the abandoned vehicles everywhere… would the tow truck be able to get through?

Someone I know was stopped whilst speeding in his hire car in Australia. Apparently the rozzers over there have the power to issue instant bans, as he was kicked out of his motor and made to get a taxi to pick him up, then arrange a recovery vehicle to return the car to the hire company.

Maybe if the Police had those sort of powers in the UK, and drivers were aware of it, then people might be less inclined to tempt fate in the first place.

So, have I got this right. You can be a sloppy driver causing harm to all other road users and all you have to plea is hardship and his honour will just add to the points that you already have. All the so called 'professional' drivers are probably rubbing their hands in glee at this one. Again the system leans heavily to the automobile

So if your job involves driving, then you're less likely to be banned from driving if you accrue 12 points, since you plea "exceptional hardship". Maybe if you were guaranteed a ban, then taxi drivers might be more careful than other drivers?

It's symptomatic of our relationship with cars. The hardship associated with not being able to drive trumps the consequences of people being careless or aggressive with the ton of metal they're in charge of. Depressing news.

This is rather alarming news. It begs the question as to whether the legal system is fully considering the risks of bad driving. To amass 12 points you do have to be pretty careless. Plenty of people get points here or there for this or that and for good drivers at least, this brings them down to earth and encourages them to ensure they don't get more. Surely the greater common good would see most of these people banned for 12 months or more.

Wow once you get over 30 points on your licence, what is insurance going to cost?

I often think the points system is a little inflexible, why do the always come in 3s. No one ever gets 1 point for doing 33 or cutting someone out or 4 points for driving that little bit quicker than the other speeders who got 3 points.

You are meant to get 3 points for each bald tyre, I had a scary moment a couple of years ago when I went in for 4 new tyres and discovered that the inner half of my existing tyres were worse than I thought, had I been stopped on the way to the garage i could have gone from 0 to 12 points in an instant - should this single offence be the same as as someone who breaks the speed limit on 4 seperate occasions.

Needless to say I am a damn sight more careful with my tyres since then.

Zero tolerance would be an awfully good teacher when 'exceptional hardship' is endured.

Absolutely unbelievable that the courts let so many people off like this.

I have to agree with bassjunkieuk that you have to a poor driver to get 12 points. So a ban is a good deterrent, but only if it is enforced.
A punichment is meant to involve hardship.

while police acknowledge that there is an issue with repeat offenders, reduced budgets for road traffic policing mean that it would be “ineffective” to ban repeat offenders since it would be impossible to enforce

So do the Police also give up on other laws that are difficult to enforce?

Having read about this situation before I think the whole system is farcical and just goes to show that despite all the media attention on the "war on the motorist" the whole criminal justice system is setup to treat motorists so carefully that they can literally get away with murder with just a slap on the wrist.

Anyone who mounts up 12 points clearly is a poor driver, if being without your car would cause "exceptional hardship" then maybe you should start using it as the law permits.

As for the people with 30 points why on earth are they still driving? Couldn't the system be changed so that at 12 points *if* being without the car would cause "exceptional hardship" then the courts could POSTPONE the ban however any additional points beyond that result in gradually longer bans and possibly a need for retraining and testing (at a hugely inflated price in the middle of the working week....)

Drivers need to realize that they are in charge of rather heavy machines which are capable of seriously hurting and killing other people and treat them as the potentially lethal weapons they are.