DVLA - Licences returned to Drunk drivers without proper checks - some went on to kill.
DVLA being held to explain shortcomings.
www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8941284/Drink-drivers-killed-after-wrongly-getting-licences-back-after-bans.html
Looks like sloppy admin with big consequences for innocent 3rd parties (you & I!!)
|
Here comes Zero to explain why everyone should get their licence back after the ban is over.
In fact why ban them at all?
;-)
|
A ban is a time penalty fixed by the court. So yes of course they should get their license back *after* the ban.
As per the "why ban them at all" comment, you know well that is something I never advocated, and you have seriously misrepresented me. Frankly I would have expected better.
|
So if it's ok to ban them, why not ok for parliament to decide on extended bans, or conditions attached to return of licence depending upon specific levels of offence?
Tariffs for crime vary - drink driving is a crime.
|
|
The tarifs for drink driving do vary depending on specific levels of offence. Size of fine, length of ban, conditions on return of license are all available to the magistrate. Thats all part of the legislation, about which I have not commented one way or the other.
|
With respect, I refer the honourable gentleman back to the answer he gave some moments ago:
23/11/11 20:54
After a period of disqualification has finished->
Me: Follow up none of them and treat them as innocent-until-proven-guilty of a further offence?
Zero: Yes
Looks like a comment to me, albeit a 3-letter one.
|
|
And my reply stands up, really dont know what your problem is. The law backs that up too.
|
The law backs up the DVLA's assertion that "high risk" drink drivers can be reassessed after a ban prior to the return of their licence.
Not sure what part you don't understand, or choose to ignore.
|
|
Indeed it does, but in your world you were advocating that all and any of those caught for DD were "high risk" i seem to recall. Thats where we were at odds.
|
Sorry if that's the impression I gave, I was simply supporting the status quo - there are a few factors where offenders may be at particularly high risk of reoffending.
Those at low risk I have little interest in.
As we are both aware this distinction is far from perfect as many reoffenders will be from the 'low risk category' and many non-reoffenders will be from the 'high risk'.
In your own case the regulations would have put you as a 'high risk' as you were 3x the limit - as you assert you are and do not plan to reoffend. As the original OP of another post stated, however, when she was lumped in with the 'high risk' chaps she was amazed at the complacency of the others on her course.
|
>> As per the "why ban them at all" comment, you know well that is something I never advocated, and you have seriously misrepresented me. Frankly I would have expected better.
Oh come on Z, you know that comment was in jest!
|
DVLA - Licences returned to Drunk drivers - Lygonos
