Penalties should be reviewed.

Convicted Driver Insurance
Only 13 years out of date then. For a more recent viewpoint (under Benefits of Attending):

http://www.thealbertcentre.co.uk/drinkdrive.html




You said:

Given that if you are twice the legal limit then you are 20 times more likely to have an accident and there is a say 25% chance you will reoffend then you might expect to pay x5 the normal premium ~ possibly a bit more to cover the fact that accidents following drink driving tend to be more serious (expensive) than the average accident......

This is nonsense.
 
Quartz

I am somewhat lost as to what your point is.

I asserted that it is reasonable for insurance companies to increase the premiums for people convicted of drink driving on the basis that they are more likely to drink and drive than someone who has not been convicted previously.

I have provided independent references which show that there is a 20% to 30% reconviction rate. You have spent a great deal of time trying to prove that it is lower than this and the best you have come up with is some stats that form part of a sales pitch from a company that offers rehab courses. However even if we accepted your lower figures, which incidently I don't, it doesn't change my point because your reconviction figures still show that a convicted drink driver is more likely to drink and drive than a member of the general population (rehab course or no rehab course).

With regard to calling my postings 'nonsense' and 'dribble' I think I should point out that at no time have I been rude to you. I think it says more about you than it does about me when this is the best response you can come up with. I'm not going to waste too much time responding to this as people can read the thread themselves and see that I was simply explaining to Trigger why it is justified for his premiums to increase - I was not attempting to provide Trigger with any sort of an estimate because he clearly already had a quote from his insurance company.
 
My points have not changed from my initial post – your reoffending rates are too high and your estimate of how much someone’s insurance premium will go up by is silly.

“I asserted that it is reasonable for insurance companies to increase the premiums for people convicted of drink driving on the basis that they are more likely to drink and drive than someone who has not been convicted previously.”

I agree.

“ I have provided independent references which show that there is a 20% to 30% reconviction rate. You have spent a great deal of time trying to prove that it is lower than this and the best you have come up with is some stats that form part of a sales pitch from a company that offers rehab courses. However even if we accepted your lower figures, which incidently I don't, it doesn't change my point because your reconviction figures still show that a convicted drink driver is more likely to drink and drive than a member of the general population (rehab course or no rehab course).”

Your independent research quotes surveys that were carried out in 1994 and 1998 - do you not accept this is 13 years out of date? I must admit to a chuckle when you referred to a “sales pitch” – as if drink drive course providers are going around trying to drum up business like a double glazing company!! This “sales pitch” clearly references a (more up-to-date) survey and the idea that they have just plucked these stats out of thin air in order to try and sign drink drive offenders up to their course is frankly absurd.

“ With regard to calling my postings 'nonsense' and 'dribble' I think I should point out that at no time have I been rude to you. I think it says more about you than it does about me when this is the best response you can come up with. I'm not going to waste too much time responding to this as people can read the thread themselves and see that I was simply explaining to Trigger why it is justified for his premiums to increase - I was not attempting to provide Trigger with any sort of an estimate because he clearly already had a quote from his insurance company.”

I actually said “drivel”, but regardless, you stated that “you might expect to pay x5 the normal premium”, kindly providing us with the calculation that an insurance company would use. I’m not saying you provided Trigger with a legally binding insurance quotation, just that your calculation was bizarre and, in any case, based on incorrect figures.
 
quartz said:
Your independent research quotes surveys that were carried out in 1994 and 1998 - do you not accept this is 13 years out of date?
Click to expand...

And you've quoted a survey carried out in 2003 which is 8 years old so your point is??

What I have quoted is based on the number of people reconvicted of drink driving based on ALL convictions. You on the other hand have quoted a survey sent to 10,000 convicted drink drivers who were offered a drink drive course (ie a subset of drink drivers). A grand total of 684 responded. Even the authors of the survey acknowledge that those responding to the survey could have desirable attitudes.

So like I've said several times now the reconviction rate is around 20% to 30%.
 
I've Got an idea, why don't we start a quartz and jaket forum :D and face it we were all aware of the law and the consequences. I was aware of that and did my punishment and am now back on the road having learnt a hard lesson. My earlier post still applies (can't do the time, don't do the crime)
 
http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/drink_driving.pdf

Around 12 per cent of convicted drink drivers are convicted of a second offence within ten years.

Reference: The Criminal Histories of Series Traffic Offenders. Home Office Briefing Note 5/00.
October 2000.

So there you have it. Home Office statistics. No reference to rehab courses. No surveys with desirable respondents. Just the simple facts.

You can say it as many times as you want, it won't make it true.
 
You're making it up as you go along now - one minute my 13 year old reference is too old to be credible - the next you're throwing up an 11 year old reference as gospel.

A cursory check of your references reference on the internet again shows a small sample size (you need to check how the research you refer to was conducted before just throwing it up as 'fact')

Anyway I'm bored with you now - I've provided references for what I've posted.

At least you don't still think that 12% of people drink and drive!
 
"A cursory check of your references reference on the internet again shows a small sample size (you need to check how the research you refer to was conducted before just throwing it up as 'fact')"

And you need to check yours as well - how can your statistics include all drink driving convictions? Answer - they don't.

"Anyway I'm bored with you now - I've provided references for what I've posted."

As have I. Yours are no more valid than mine.

"At least you don't still think that 12% of people drink and drive."

You're right. It's 28%, albeit not every time they get in a car.
 
I'd only been driving a year when I was banned,

1st year, renault laguna, 2001 1.6 no frills
£1300ish,
Next year (prior to the monumetal **** up on my part!) £750.

after ban.
Renault laguna 1.9 turbo diesal, (120 bhp) 2004.

Cheapest tesco, £1100.

Not too bad i thought, in fairness there was quotes for £3500+!!!!! But it pays to shop around..... Big time!!!!!!
 
I don't care about statistics, I know I'm not going to get caught again & as I'm not driving after 8pm now (or if I do in an emergency, I will be 100% sober) so I am less likely than before to be involved in an accident yet my insurance has doubled since my driving ban ended.

Often in assault or robbery cases where alcohol is blamed, the defendant will get let off for pretending to show remorse or promising not to do it again, drink drivers with low readings get no chance of any such leniency.

Everybodys case on here is different as is the way alcohol affects their ability to drive, I never caused any harm, loss or injury to anyone that night & could have driven home safely & parked the car in the garage, I don't & won't ever see myself as having committed any crime that night.
 
No -one who's had a ban will make the same mistake again, we all know that.
I maintain the automatic 12 month ban should be removed and length of ban made appropriate to the individual case in question, like other sentences.
It will change.
 
I can see where Ladydriver is coming from, but would still say a ban should be given. Remember there's a chance to reduce your ban by 25%. I went through a stage of blaming everyone else, but end of the day the buck stops with us drivers.

The DIDS course I went on was more useful than the Aqarius course I did. I'd even suggest bringing parts of it into the driving (theory) test.
 
Interesting debate, and I have always held my hands up and accepted my punishment. As many people have said, we all know the punishment before we get into our cars.

HOWEVER, I do agree that it does not take into account personal circumstances. The actual ban will affect different people in different ways from someone that hardly ever drives to someone who will lose their sole means of income etc. I am in some middle ground. I needed a car for my job, but can get around it thanks to living and working near good transport connections. A 12, (9 reduced), month ban for me is a major inconvienience, but for others it can be life shattering.

This is all too common in the justice system. A 4 week prison sentence for someone with a good job, loving family etc can be devastating, but for someone else it can be water off a duck's back.

I personally think, especially in this economic mess, that people should not be deprived the ability to work. Bring in heavier fines, longer community service hours, but do look at restricted driving as opposed to a blanket ban.

As I said, I have accepted my ban, but the criminal justice system needs to match the times.
 
Stephen68 - it is true a 12 month ban, even when reduced to 9 months, is going to affect some more than others. You are fortunate to have public transport available, I do not because of where I live.
Depriving someone of the means to earn a living seems counter productive when applying a sentence. In the USA they have a drive to work system because the Constitution doesn't allow the law the right to deny someone the ability to make a living. That seems sensible to me.
I've been driving for over 30 years with a clean licence all that time, never caused an accident or been in one and previously always obeyed the drink/drive law. I've never broken the law in any other way. It seems a disproportionate sentence in view of those things.
To me the ban has meant the loss of my business and living. I may yet go bankrupt.
If I'd been given, say a month long ban, I could have kept my business going. A suspended sentence for two years would have added gravitas to a shorter ban and meant, were I someone likely to re - offend, I'd likely do so in that time frame and be imprisoned. Conversely, I could have proved during the time of the suspended sentence that my offence was a one off infringement.
I feel the Law should be more flexible regarding length of a ban in drink/drive cases but the imposition of a criminal record that stays on one's record for ten years, as it does, should remain. And I think it stays on one's licence for 11 years. That is a harsh penalty in itself that can affect one's life in various ways, not only through higher insurance premiums.
I get my licence back on the 23rd of this month so not long to go now. I shall however continue with what I've started to do to try to get the automatic 12 month ban repealed.
I hope you don't have too much longer yourself Stephen before your ban ends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top