Friday, August 31, 2012


According to Ministry of Justice statistics an average of 8,000 drivers each year are apprehended 'driving while disqualified' or 'driving with their license having been revoked or suspended'.
In such instances the police have an option of issuing a Roadside Impoundment Notice which has the vehicle taken off the road and impounded for 28 days with the driver having to pay the costs associated with that before he/she gets the vehicle back.
Clearly with 8,000 plus drivers prepared to take the risk of being caught the threat of impoundment does not seem to be much of a deterrent.
Anyone want to give me a cogent reason why drivers who make a conscious effort to flaunt the law in this regard should not have the vehicle they were caught driving forfeit to the Crown ... end of story.
Please don't come back with the hoary old chestnut that it might be some-one else's vehicle.    A person lending a vehicle has a responsibility to ensure the person he/she entrusts with the vehicle has a valid license.    Obviously this would not apply to vehicles reported stolen and I guess there would need to be an 'exceptional circumstances' clause to apply in circumstances like driving a sick person to hospital when no alternative transport was available.
Interested in the reaction.   


Anonymous said...

The concept that the Crown, often fronted by those you'd never allow to run anything if you had a choice, just takes your stuff when it decides you cross a boundary they imposed is a dangerous one to embrace.

The habitual offenders causing real distress need to be dealt with for sure but the Crown doesn't seem inclined to do so when there are so many soft targets to take money off first.

I'd rather live in a frisky world with some risk of a bit of potential mayhem than in a safe and regimented concerntration camp full of clones pretending they are in a democracy. Real freedom has a cost but history shows its worth it.


pdm said...

Vet - I am with you and have long advocated a prison term and forfeit of vehicles for recidivist drink drivers. By recidivist I mean a second offence within say 3 years.

3.16 - such a law would not impinge on law abiding people so your argument does not apply in this particular instance.

Anonymous said...

I still think you are dancing with the devil and have learn't nowt from history. "Law abiding" is often defined by people you wouldn't give the time of day to.

The past shows that if you give an inch they take a mile. Prison I can live with for those real idiots that are dangerous - going inside follows a legal process and leaves private property intact until there's a victim rather than a transgression of rules.

By the time you need someone to stick up for you don't call me as I'll already have been stripped and locked up because I argued the toss with the plod that alleged a speed that was simply made up to meet quota.


The Veteran said...

Anon ... the subset of all this is that a goodly proportion of those caught driving while disqualified et al are recidivist drink driving offenders likely to cause maheem.

For others it may just be a case of 'up your nose' ... my right to drive is paramount and it's worth the risk of being caught.

Clearly 8,000+ sez a lot.

But like any child misbehaving, take away their toy and they soon learn.

Bet my bottom dollar that two months into such a regime and a few hundred cars forfeited with all the resultant publicity and their would be a culture change.

Anonymous said...

If it was black and white .. How would all of those parasitic lawyers make a living ???


Johnboy said...

"How would all of those parasitic lawyers make a living ???"

Cause they write the law Anonymous.
Turkey's and early Xmas spring to mind here!

Anonymous said...

Before you start seizing and selling people's cars Veteran, perhaps you could show we peasants the evidence that the Police are actually using their existing power to confiscate the offender's car for a month?

If that power is not currently being widely used, then an MP needs to ask the Police Minister why not!

You only need to give the cops more powers if the current ones are proven inadequate - so far, we have seen no evidence that police are using the fullest extent of their powers and it is having no impact.

Mad Marxist.

Tinman said...

I'm with the Veteran.

Removal of the vehicles, at the miscreant's expense seems a damned sight better way of dealing with this than luxury accommodation at my expense.

Anonymous said...

The only vehicle "Crusher" Collins got anywhere near the machine was not the one used in the offence.

Noel said...

So you want to use the Proceeds of Crimes Act 1991?

Of those 80000 vehicles I am betting most will be unsaleable by the Crown.

Well thought out buddy.

Noel said...

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Driving while disqualified 10948 10746 11605 10451 7862 7399 6861 7036 7736 8015

Anonymous said...

Those figures illustrate that the population of offenders been resonably static for the last couple of decades. During oversight by both Labour and National Governments.
Why is Veteran raising it now given his National Party Government has had ample time to do something?