C J 1980
Established Member
Evening everyone
I've created this thread to clarify something that is currently playing on my mind.
Just to summarise my own situation - I was banned from driving on the 27th February last year (2019) for 28 months. This has now been reduced to 21 months after I completed my rehabilitation course in May. If all goes according to plan, I should get my licence back just before Christmas this year (2020). The two readings I gave were 115 & 113 hence why my ban was quite lengthy. As I have said previous I am appalled by my actions and I will never put myself in this situation again.
Last week I ended up chatting with a bloke who I came across on my travels. This bloke is something of a jack-the-lad character and he was banned himself a few years ago for drink driving. He only disclosed his own ban after I told him about how public transport can be so unreliable at times. He told he got a 2 year (24 month) ban a few years ago, which he has now served and he is back on the road. He told me he refused to provide at the time of his arrest and because he hates the police he had no intention of co-operating with them and making their job easier. He said he knew he was well over the limit after foolishly getting behind the wheel after going out on a evening session with his brother (who was on leave from the army). The bloke stated he had every intention of throwing his hand in at court as he had no intentions of dragging it out - therefore going guilty on his first appearance and getting his punishment.
Clearly, failing to provide would make him a HRO which he acknowledged and stated he did all the medical stuff with the DVLA before getting his licence back. What he said to me was this - ''I knew I was wasted when I got nicked and if my reading was over 100 they could have banned me for 2.5 - 3 years! By failing to provide they cannot prove how over the limit I was and therefore I took my chances and got 24 months!''
My whole point to all this and my reason for creating this thread in the first place was - if I had done the same thing as this bloke - could I have got a 24 month ban instead of the 28 month one I am presently serving?
I've put this bloke's name through the Internet search engine and I can't find anything with his name attached (historic newspaper reports) that confirms whether what he's said to me is truthful. I do feel a little aggrieved that someone who didn't co-operate with the police and was probably just as high over the limit as I was, got a slightly shorter ban because he refused to blow.
Can someone please offer some guidance about this as I'm sure this information cannot be right. I thought magistrates threw the book at you if you failed to provide but if you are at least three times the limit (like I was!) is it just a case of the lesser of two evils?
Regards
CJ
I've created this thread to clarify something that is currently playing on my mind.
Just to summarise my own situation - I was banned from driving on the 27th February last year (2019) for 28 months. This has now been reduced to 21 months after I completed my rehabilitation course in May. If all goes according to plan, I should get my licence back just before Christmas this year (2020). The two readings I gave were 115 & 113 hence why my ban was quite lengthy. As I have said previous I am appalled by my actions and I will never put myself in this situation again.
Last week I ended up chatting with a bloke who I came across on my travels. This bloke is something of a jack-the-lad character and he was banned himself a few years ago for drink driving. He only disclosed his own ban after I told him about how public transport can be so unreliable at times. He told he got a 2 year (24 month) ban a few years ago, which he has now served and he is back on the road. He told me he refused to provide at the time of his arrest and because he hates the police he had no intention of co-operating with them and making their job easier. He said he knew he was well over the limit after foolishly getting behind the wheel after going out on a evening session with his brother (who was on leave from the army). The bloke stated he had every intention of throwing his hand in at court as he had no intentions of dragging it out - therefore going guilty on his first appearance and getting his punishment.
Clearly, failing to provide would make him a HRO which he acknowledged and stated he did all the medical stuff with the DVLA before getting his licence back. What he said to me was this - ''I knew I was wasted when I got nicked and if my reading was over 100 they could have banned me for 2.5 - 3 years! By failing to provide they cannot prove how over the limit I was and therefore I took my chances and got 24 months!''
My whole point to all this and my reason for creating this thread in the first place was - if I had done the same thing as this bloke - could I have got a 24 month ban instead of the 28 month one I am presently serving?
I've put this bloke's name through the Internet search engine and I can't find anything with his name attached (historic newspaper reports) that confirms whether what he's said to me is truthful. I do feel a little aggrieved that someone who didn't co-operate with the police and was probably just as high over the limit as I was, got a slightly shorter ban because he refused to blow.
Can someone please offer some guidance about this as I'm sure this information cannot be right. I thought magistrates threw the book at you if you failed to provide but if you are at least three times the limit (like I was!) is it just a case of the lesser of two evils?
Regards
CJ