Pregnant cyclist lost baby after hit and run by drunk driver who had previously been spared a ban

Probably because his victim was only a cyclist

Or Child Destruction - assuming the pregnancy had passed the threshold for that charge.

hawkinspeter wrote:

That 'exceptional hardship' is a bullshit excuse. There's a saying - "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" and drivers need to consider that.

To my mind revokation of licenced is not a punishment. It is a necessary sanction to reduce the risk to others presented by an incompetent individual.

Everyone makes mistakes and yep, judges need to account for that. But this guy had 12 points on his licence already. His behaviour showed a pattern of offending and an inability to understand risk. That he was going to commit more offences should've come as no surprise. He shouldn't have been allowed to carry on driving, despite the exceptional hardship claim, which I feel is too easily asked for.

My sypmathies are with the victim and her loss. 

Everyone does make mistakes - that's why we have a points system which takes account of that - so that magistrates don't have to. If someone believes their driving licence is of the utmost importance to their livlihood then all the more reason for them to do the maths as the points tot up. I think magistrates overstep the authority we invest them with when they make concessions for individuals who believe their livlihood trumps others' lives.

If we must have this stupid "undue hardship" crap to get some idiots back on the road (and I dont see why we have it), perhaps it should come as a seriously final warning in the form of - any  further driving offences automatically come with twice the punishment that is normally laid down, so double the jail sentences and ban etc or any subsequent ban is automatically served as jail time

You know contaminating recyclables makes them worthless. We don't crush cars here, we shred them then separate the metals from the dross 😈

iandusud wrote:

(Marston) "had hit 12 penalty points ... not to ban him on the bais it would have caused 'exceptional hardship'..."

I do not understand why this is taken into consideration by magistrates. Surely it is the driver who should take this into consideration and drive accordingly.

1000% agree. That is why it is 12 points before you get a ban, it gives you a chance to make a minor mistake, learn from it & move on. It isn't & shouldn't be treated as a 'get out of jail free' card.

I would suffer financial hardship if I lost my licence, I've not had a single point let alone 12 in 30 years driving.

Would have probably been a magistrate court mate, so probably 3 of them, drivers themselves I guess.

I'm hoping they might be feeling a little bit of guilt about now, and maybe slightly less inclined to believe the bullshit of "exceptional hardship" next time, though I doubt it...

And also, CPS, why only 2 charges?

My thought are with the unnamed woman and her family.

ktache wrote:

Would have probably been a magistrate court mate, so probably 3 of them, drivers themselves I guess.

I'm a driver. I don't feel tribal kinship with twats who accumulate points.

Apparently 98% of drivers believe themselves to be above average ability. Why on earth does anyone feel sympathy with c*nts like this and be willing to give them "second chance". They had that when they got 3 points ffs

It’s not easy being a magistrate and there is a growing shortage. But it’s time that we introduced some kind of liability, so that when a ban is waived due to hardship the magistrates have some skin the game. 

Why can't hardship include a temporary ban of a month? That should be enough to drive the message home.

Hawkinspeter's last para says it all. Why not have cameras everywhere or dedicated officers. Make it a 1000 quid for every mph over the limit and you would soon pay for this. 1 error to allow for the stupty of making a mistake and then banned. Minimum a year. Anyone still driving should have a prison sentence.

You'd fill the jails, partly with those who didn't pay the fines. I don't think 3 strikes and out worked in the US (certainly not for the guy who got life for allegedly stealing a pizza when hungry and penniless), and US jails are even nastier than the UK. So harshness, understandable though it is as a reaction, will not really work.

Your idea of raising the probability of getting caught makes much greater sense. There are plenty of people who think 40 in a 30 is ok, but this would change if they knew that they'd get 3 points almost every time.

In my work I have to take various training courses that remind me of penalties for crimes, with a quiz at the end. I always think it's pointless my knowing that I could get 5 years for something. 5 minutes is enough of a deterrent. So to reset the attitude of _most_ drivers (not the nutjobs like this one) and remind them of the utmost care they need to take, we need much greater fear of being caught.

There are many studies supporting what you say, that it is the fear of getting caught that is the deterrent, not the sentence.  The trouble is, at the moment, drivers know that their chances of being caught are only just above zero, so there is no deterrent.  Maybe more plain clothes police on bikes, with a squad car just around the corner might work?

Just like close pass operations. It would work, but it needs investment and prioritising vs all the other stuff the police do.