a year today

Convicted Driver Insurance
Status
Not open for further replies.

ally

Well Known Member
so it's been 12 months today since that fateful night, not a day goes by I don't think about it. I've six months to go. Best advice non for the road no matter what. It's not worth it. it's not just your licence you lose its almost your sanity! it's not worth it x
 
Although I'm back driving now, it feels like it will never go away. DBS renewal to look forward to next :/
 
I know Ally, I know what you mean. I am losing my sanity too. My ban expires on 06.01,I am still waiting for them to issue a licence, its a nightmare. Using 3 to 4 hours on a journey each day is a nightmare. I just have this vision all the time : I am standing on the bus stop, with same people, standing, standing and standing. I just cannot take it any more. I know I screwed up, but it was just a stupid mistake, trying to move my car outside my house, I didn't even go somewhere, got drunk and drove, was just moving it, it was bad though , I know. Now , even when i got licecne, i still need to get a car, got a loan now, but they still dragging their feet, fighting to get it back. Its like saying, you are due to be released from the prison, but we can't release you , cause we lost some paperworks. They have destroyed me completely.
 
Re: a year

destroyed me to love, things will never be the same again, I am so bitter x
 
things will be the same Ally, just hang in there. if you want to talk i am here. Trust me very son you will never believe it has ever happened to you.
 
things will be the same Ally, just hang in there. if you want to talk i am here. Trust me very son you will never believe it has ever happened to you.

my ban is up 16/7 if I pass medical, when that will be I don't know, no drinking for twelve weeks before 16/7 or before?
 
my ban is up 16/7 if I pass medical, when that will be I don't know, no drinking for twelve weeks before 16/7 or before?

Hi ally. I gave up for that period as I had drunk extremely heavy previously and had a history on my medical record. I think my blood is ok as they have not yet refused my license but written to my doctor which I expected. I rang dvla to find out what date they had on their system for sending out the renewal form so I could get the form myself and send in. I have rung dvla a lot sofar as very impatient but it is all moving quite nicely.
 
Re: a year

destroyed me to love, things will never be the same again, I am so bitter x

It would be interesting to hear why you are bitter ally. You were convicted of a criminal offence and were given appropriate punishment as defined under the law.
You didn't kill or injure anyone, but you could have and the punishment is meant just as much a deterrent to others as anything else. No drink driver goes on the road with the intention of causing death or injury but the loss of concentration and consequent slowing down of reactions means that a child running out in front of you 'could' have been hit. A traffic light changing to red 'could' have been missed and some innocent motorist or cyclist hit. They and their family would face years of bitterness, possibly forever and the drink driver has it on their conscience forever.

Drink drivers caught before they cause mayhem just suffer the inconvenience of loss of licence and a record on their licence for a few years when they get it back
and are happily on the road again. Bitterness? I'd say a feeling of extreme good fortune would be more appropriate.
 
Re: a year

It would be interesting to hear why you are bitter ally. You were convicted of a criminal offence and were given appropriate punishment as defined under the law.
You didn't kill or injure anyone, but you could have and the punishment is meant just as much a deterrent to others as anything else. No drink driver goes on the road with the intention of causing death or injury but the loss of concentration and consequent slowing down of reactions means that a child running out in front of you 'could' have been hit. A traffic light changing to red 'could' have been missed and some innocent motorist or cyclist hit. They and their family would face years of bitterness, possibly forever and the drink driver has it on their conscience forever.

Drink drivers caught before they cause mayhem just suffer the inconvenience of loss of licence and a record on their licence for a few years when they get it back
and are happily on the road again. Bitterness? I'd say a feeling of extreme good fortune would be more appropriate.

--
Why should she share personal information with you?

You don't know the circumstances of how she was caught in the first place, or why she drove that day/night. I know people who have been reported for drink driving by partners and members of their family. The fall out afterwards can be ever lasting for some people, and far far worse than the punishment that comes in the form of the actual driving ban.

Often the punishment doesn't fit the crime when it comes to drink driving. Not when you consider that people who kill behind the wheel when drunk, often receive prison sentences of less than 36 months. They walk out of prison smiling. In contrast, someone slightly over the limit can be banned for 14/16 months, lose their job as a result, fail to meet their mortgage payments as a consequence, lose their property, split up with their partner. Damage done. Life in bits. It goes on and on. So you shouldn't be so quick to judge.

There is no consistency in the punishments handed out by magistrates. I find it odd that a person convicted of drink driving who has been involved in collision, is not considered to be a high risk offender; when somebody who fails to supply is. If you crash a vehicle whilst drunk, then you should be high risk. I suspect the system would not be able to cope with all the medicals if that logic was applied, and so for financial reasons it isn't. Fair? No. But hey, you just have to suck it up sometimes.

People convicted of drink driving are hammered, when repeat offenders of drunken violent crimes aren't. If you are convicted of a drunken assault and actual bodily harm; why are you not banned from drinking alcohol for 3/6 months and made to undergo a similar CDT test? Double standards.

The motorists always get hammered, always have, always will.

Hang in there Ally, it will only get better. You got through this, so you can get through anything. It didn't break you. That's the positive that you must take from all this.

Regards
M
 
Re: a year

No drink driver goes on the road with the intention of causing death or injury

That's interesting indeed.

About 12 years ago A Police Officer told me that the severity of punishment is directly proportional to
the degree of intent.

Also interesting to note that driving carelessly does not attract an automatic disqualification or a criminal record even if
it results in a collision.

Surely driving in a careless manor must be intentional.
 
The whole idea of a careless driving charge is that the act was NOT intentional. Careless driving is defined as circumstances where a persons driving fell below what a competent driver should do. It is often used in "look but didn't see" accidents, where a person pulls up at a junction, does look, but not thoroughly enough and pulls out in front of a car. This can invoke a fixed penalty with 3 points or a court appearance with 3-9 points.
if a person goes to a junction and intentionally doesn't even stop and hits another car then that may well amount to dangerous driving, which carries a greater punishment and normally disqualification. This carries a 1 year or more ban, but if special reasons apply to not ban then it carries 3-11 points.
In respect of drink driving, whist it may well be true that drink drivers do not INTEND to injure or kill anyone, there are other parallels in law, with offences like criminal damage and assault, where the wording of the charge is "intending to damage property / injure a person or BEING RECKLESS as to wether such damage / injury would be caused. I would say that a person who drinks, then drives, whilst not perhaps having intent, is certainly being reckless as to the likelihood of causing injury..........
 
Last edited:
Re: a year

Surely driving in a careless manor must be intentional.

If you understood the definition of the word 'careless' (you clearly do not), then it would be obvious that being careless is NOT intentional
 
Re: a year

--
Why should she share personal information with you?

You don't know the circumstances of how she was caught in the first place, or why she drove that day/night. I know people who have been reported for drink driving by partners and members of their family. The fall out afterwards can be ever lasting for some people, and far far worse than the punishment that comes in the form of the actual driving ban.

Often the punishment doesn't fit the crime when it comes to drink driving. Not when you consider that people who kill behind the wheel when drunk, often receive prison sentences of less than 36 months. They walk out of prison smiling. In contrast, someone slightly over the limit can be banned for 14/16 months, lose their job as a result, fail to meet their mortgage payments as a consequence, lose their property, split up with their partner. Damage done. Life in bits. It goes on and on. So you shouldn't be so quick to judge.

There is no consistency in the punishments handed out by magistrates. I find it odd that a person convicted of drink driving who has been involved in collision, is not considered to be a high risk offender; when somebody who fails to supply is. If you crash a vehicle whilst drunk, then you should be high risk. I suspect the system would not be able to cope with all the medicals if that logic was applied, and so for financial reasons it isn't. Fair? No. But hey, you just have to suck it up sometimes.

People convicted of drink driving are hammered, when repeat offenders of drunken violent crimes aren't. If you are convicted of a drunken assault and actual bodily harm; why are you not banned from drinking alcohol for 3/6 months and made to undergo a similar CDT test? Double standards.

The motorists always get hammered, always have, always will.

Hang in there Ally, it will only get better. You got through this, so you can get through anything. It didn't break you. That's the positive that you must take from all this.

Regards
M

Actually, I am fully aware of ally's circumstances as she has posted regularly since January of last year. Like many she was caught many hours after a heavy drinking session.
Maybe she is bitter because like you she believes that the system has penalised her unfairly. On a forum such as this it is a perfectly reasonable question. If she chooses not to share her reasons that is her decision.

On the subject of the punishment fitting the crime, there are specific bands set that determine the length of the ban and these are rarely deviated from by the courts so you are wrong to state 'There is no consistency in the punishments handed out by magistrates'. Someone just over the limit will only receive a 12 month ban and this could be reduced to 9 months if they are offered the course. I'd say that was a pretty good deal when you consider that if they hadn't been caught they could have put someone in a wheel chair for the rest of their days or killed them.

I have every right to judge since my daughter was run over on a pedestrian crossing 5 years ago by a 'morning after' drink driver who was breath tested at 44. 'just over' by your reckoning (the traffic light had been red for 3 seconds when the car went over the crossing under heavy braking but was still doing 22 mph at the time of impact). A broken leg and arm and her friend left with concussion and severe facial bruising.

Not once in your post do you mention the victim. It is all about the poor drink driver and how unfair the system is to them. I draw my own conclusions from that.

The sentencing for drink driving is as much a deterrent to others as it is a punishment of the offender. Reducing sentences as you appear to suggest would send the message actually, it's OK to drink and drive as it's a minor offence.

It isn't.
 
Re: a year

Actually, I am fully aware of ally's circumstances as she has posted regularly since January of last year. Like many she was caught many hours after a heavy drinking session.
Maybe she is bitter because like you she believes that the system has penalised her unfairly. On a forum such as this it is a perfectly reasonable question. If she chooses not to share her reasons that is her decision.

On the subject of the punishment fitting the crime, there are specific bands set that determine the length of the ban and these are rarely deviated from by the courts so you are wrong to state 'There is no consistency in the punishments handed out by magistrates'. Someone just over the limit will only receive a 12 month ban and this could be reduced to 9 months if they are offered the course. I'd say that was a pretty good deal when you consider that if they hadn't been caught they could have put someone in a wheel chair for the rest of their days or killed them.

I have every right to judge since my daughter was run over on a pedestrian crossing 5 years ago by a 'morning after' drink driver who was breath tested at 44. 'just over' by your reckoning (the traffic light had been red for 3 seconds when the car went over the crossing under heavy braking but was still doing 22 mph at the time of impact). A broken leg and arm and her friend left with concussion and severe facial bruising.

Not once in your post do you mention the victim. It is all about the poor drink driver and how unfair the system is to them. I draw my own conclusions from that.

The sentencing for drink driving is as much a deterrent to others as it is a punishment of the offender. Reducing sentences as you appear to suggest would send the message actually, it's OK to drink and drive as it's a minor offence.

It isn't.
I am fully aware of ally's circumstances as she has posted regularly since January of last year

Then why ask? If you already have the information that she is prepared to tell the world, then anything missing is none of your business, is it.

On the subject of the punishment fitting the crime, there are specific bands set that determine the length of the ban and these are rarely deviated from by the courts so you are wrong to state 'There is no consistency in the punishments handed out by magistrates'

I'm not wrong. Two people with a breath reading of say 42, with the same circumstances surrounding the incident and with no previous convictions, can walk into court and come out with two different punishments. One could receive a 12 month ban with a deduction, and one could receive a 14 month ban with no reduction. The magistrates have sentencing guidelines, but those guidelines are not tight, and they have a large amount of autonomy when sentencing. In fact, they can sentence outside of those very guidelines if required. You will always have inconsistency where such a decision making process is applied. I believe all magistrates should be professionally trained and employed in permanent roles, with annual salaries. If they are going to be part time volunteers, then the sentencing guidelines need to be tighter.

I have every right to judge since my daughter was run over on a pedestrian crossing 5 years ago by a 'morning after' drink driver who was breath tested at 44. 'just over' by your reckoning (the traffic light had been red for 3 seconds when the car went over the crossing under heavy braking but was still doing 22 mph at the time of impact). A broken leg and arm and her friend left with concussion and severe facial
bruising.

I amsorry to hear that. But it does not give you the right to judge people, without first understanding all the facts and circumstances. Nor does it give you the right to deliberately miss quote me in direct relation to the incident. At no point have I stated that a reading of 44 would be "just over" and at no point have I engaged in any "reckoning" as you describe, of the facts surrounding the incident mentioned above.

Not once in your post do you mention the victim. It is all about the poor drink driver and how unfair the system is to them. I draw my own conclusions from that.

Well that figures. You like to judge without facts, so why change on Sunday. I didn't mention the victims because I don't personally know any, and my post was not about the victims. It's easy to beat the drum of the victims, but few people know any. You do, and that is unfortunate. I did say that that people who kill behind the wheel get off lightly when people who don't, seem to get disproportionately hammered in comparison. I also said that people who have a collision when drunk should be classed as high risk offenders, when currently they are not. So I am hardly waving the flag for the drunk drivers. I did mentioned people who fail to supply; and that is a victimless crime, where no accident or collision is concerned. Those people aren't convicted of drink driving, but they are classed as high risk; when people who smash into stationary objects whilst drunk, aren't.

The sentencing for drink driving is as much a deterrent to others as it is a punishment of the offender. Reducing sentences as you appear to suggest would send the message actually, it's OK to drink and drive as it's a minor offence.

The deterrent to others is good in theory, but in practice a large percentage of convicted drink drivers hide their offence. They keep quite about their conviction due to the social stigma and embarrassment; and due to potential employer issues. So in practice people often have no clue of the excessive disqualifications that friends, colleagues, and co workers are subjected to.

I have never once suggested that sentences should be reduced. I stated that sentencing was inconsistent. People who kill should go to prison for longer, was a clear message from me. I then pointed out that the fall out surrounding a conviction is far reaching. That's hardly me sugar coating it. I think anyone reading this can see that for themselves. Judging people without the facts and then putting words into their mouth is poor form. You have done both on several occasions here. But, that's your right and privilege.

In my opinion you are on this forum for the wrong reasons. You have a chip, and you are looking for a rise. These people aren't saints, but neither are you. So don't judge them.

Regards
M
 
Re: a year

If you understood the definition of the word 'careless' (you clearly do not), then it would be obvious that being careless is NOT intentional

Careless is defined as: "done with or acting with insufficient attention; negligent"

Negligence defined as: "failure to take proper care in doing something"

You are implying that negligence is always accidental and not intentional.

Surely driving when you have been drinking is negligent behaviour rather than intention to kill.
 
Re: a year

Careless is defined as: "done with or acting with insufficient attention; negligent"

Negligence defined as: "failure to take proper care in doing something"

You are implying that negligence is always accidental and not intentional.

Surely driving when you have been drinking is negligent behaviour rather than intention to kill.

No. I told you to act in a careless way in regards to driving and our driving laws in deemed unintentional. If your driving was deemed intentional, I would assume it would be classed as dangerous driving? Anyway, I answered your specific comment which was:

Surely driving in a careless manor must be intentional

As to your last comment, how on earth would you think drink driving is classed as failure to take proper care in doing something i.e negligent? You shouldn't be in the car in the first place for your 'proper care' to even be assessed!! You do understand the law regarding drink driving dont you? Who said there is an intention to kill??

Drink driving is neither excusable as just negligent nor is there an intention to kill so I am rather baffled by your comment giving the choice of those two. There is no choice.

This is the very reason why we have many laws governing many different offences. Drink driving falls into neither of the two you mentioned.

If there was an intention to kill it would be attempted murder or murder wouldnt it??? The mind boggles!

Ive read some of your other comments and posts. If you dont think drink driving is a serious offence then thats entirely your right but the law says otherwise. You'll also be in a tiny minority.
 
Re: a year

I'm not sure what your agenda is for being on this site buddy. Most of your posts seem to court controversy and this little gem is no exception.
I don't necessarily agree with all the points that Sanctuary has made. There are plenty of other sites out there that cater for the attention seeking fraternity. I suggest you seek them out and leave this particular site to those that have a genuine need for support whichever side of the drink drive fence they may find themselves.

Cheers A
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: a year

If you read my original response, and then read the comments made after, I think you will find that my response was justified.

All of my posts to date have been constructive, and certainly not controversial. Maybe you shock easily.

Be that as it may, this clown Sanctuary can think again if he thinks he can bully female members on this site, as he originally intended to do. That's not going to happen.

I have spent time and effort on many occasions posting in reply to people's requests here. For certain I can say that you haven't.


M
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top