Posts Tagged ‘motoring’

If you reach the highest number of penalty points allowed on a driving licence or have committed an offence that was considered by the courts to have put the lives of others at risk you will most likely lose your driving licence.

A disqualification from driving can range from one year to ten years depending on the severity of the offence. There are also cases where a judge will rule that the offender should serve a lifetime disqualification to avoid putting the lives of others at risk.

When the offence is less severe you may be required to serve a Short Period Disqualification (SPD) which is less than 56 days. You will need to give your licence to the court for the period of time and a permanent record will be made but it will not be surrendered, you will not be required to retake a test and you can start driving once the SPD has expired.

In the cases of full licence disqualifications you can reapply for your licence after the period has expired. This must be done by filling in the correct forms available online or at a post office. You will be first provided with a provisional driving licence with which you can apply to re-take the theory, hazard perception and practical test.

The disqualification endorsements will remain on a licence unless otherwise inculcated by a magistrate, for which you will need to appear and present your case to have them removed.

If someone has been disqualified they may apply for their licence earlier than the expiry of the disqualification. However, this depends on the individual circumstances of the driver and the length of the ban.

If a driver has undertaken driving improvement courses or other steps to ensure safer driving once qualified, they may be allowed by a court to only serve half their disqualification. The effect of the ban on an individual’s family life or career may also affect the court’s decision.

For bans longer than 2 years you can apply after half the proposed disqualification period, for example for a ban of 6 years you can apply after 3. If you made other offences, driving or otherwise, since your disqualification the court will immediately dismiss your application. If you are caught driving whilst banned you will face a custodial sentence and a hefty fine.

If you need advice on drink driving then talk to Mr Loophole for advice on how to avoid driving disqualifications.

An elderly disabled pensioner has been arrested and convicted of dink driving whilst speeding at 4mph on his mobility scooter. He was arrested after 8 policemen in three cars made the road side stop.

The pensioner, travelling at around 4mph on a pavement close to his Chesterfield home was surrounded by the policemen when he failed to stop. One policeman thought it necessary to mount the pavement with his vehicle to prevent the pensioner from continuing his journey whilst another took his keys.

Eamonn Donohoe uses the mobility scooter as he suffers from blocked arteries in his lower legs. He was pulled over after spending the evening playing dominoes with friends at his local pub. He had consumed six or seven pints.

The pensioner was understandably shaken and somewhat peeved after the incident, he commented “I can’t believe how they treated me – anybody would think that I was a bank robber or a member of Al-Qaeda,” Donohoe told the Daily Mail. The pensioner was kept in police cells for 12 hours, fingerprinted and had his DNA taken.

Mr Donohoe went on to say “I was travelling at three and a half miles per hour. They must have known, like I did, that the rules of the road don’t apply when you’re riding a mobility scooter down the pavement. It didn’t seem to matter one jot. I wasn’t doing anything wrong so I didn’t stop at first because I wanted to get home.”

Mr Donohoe was found to be three times over the legal UK drink driving limit after he failed a roadside breath test. He has been banned from driving; however he has not been banned from driving his mobility scooter as it is not actually classed as car.

Recently there have been several cases of unusual drink driving offenses, the most publicised being Welsh rugby star Andy Powell after he was convicted after driving a golf buggy the wrong way down a motorway, in another case a milkman was convicted for being drunk in charge of a milk float.

If you have been convicted of Speeding, then visit Freeman Keep On Driving expert Speeding Solicitors.

25 passengers were on board a double decker bus, ran by Blustar when it was pulled over on suspicion that the driver was thought to have been drunk driving.

25 passengers were on board the double decker bus, ran by Blustar at the time of the incident. The passengers onboard included children and elderly people when the police pulled over the vehicle before breathalysing and then arresting the driver for drunk driving.

One shocked passenger who does not want to be named commented: “We couldn’t hear the police officers after they had stormed in and were talking to the driver. We all panicked but did not know what to think. We just didn’t have a clue what was happening when we saw the blue flashing lights.”

Police pounced after a member of the public raised concerns. The bus was stopped as it travelled between Southampton and Wincester just as it reached the roundabout at Chilworth. The driver is now out on police bail however he has been suspended by the company.

Public relations manager at Blustar Chris Harris said because of the serious nature of the incident the employee was suspended immediately. The driver was immediately detained by the arresting officers and Bluestar dispatched a substitute driver who arrived to take command of the bus within minutes.

He continued:” The consumption of alcohol while on duty or reporting for duty while under the influence of alcohol is expressly forbidden. It is a strict rule that all Bluestar employees are required to be completely sober at all times when on duty. ”

The safety of passengers aboard Blustar vehicles is paramount to their operations, so it is important to reassure passengers through swift response to issues such as this one that they are willing to do what is necessary to ensure safety. It is important that companies such as Bluestar act quickly in response to drink driving allegations in order to reassure customers and take potentially dangerous drivers off the road.

The driver has been bailed until later in the year.

If you have been convicted of drink driving and been given a Driving Ban, then visit Freeman Keep On Driving expert Road Traffic Solicitors.

categories: drink driving,driving law,lawyers,solicitors,legal advice,motoring,vehicle,motoring news,speding law,speeding solicitor

There is rising pressure facing the UK government to reduce the legal limit of alcohol consumption when driving. The current limit stands at 80mg per 100ml of blood which relates to approximately a pint and a half of medium strength lager for an average sized man. The proposed limit would bring it down to 50mg per 100ml of blood which is little more than half a pint or a large glass of wine which is in line with the European Union limit.

Current UK law states that anyone found driving over the legal limit faces an automatic 12 month driving ban but Sir Peter North QC is currently investigating the possibilities of introducing a second, lower penalty for anyone above the lower limit such as 6 points on a driving licence. Changes could also see prosecutions for drivers found with illegal drugs in their bloodstream, regardless of whether it impaired their performance.

According to Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, 430 people were killed as a result of drink driving last year however this figure only refers to people who were over the current legal limit. He also suggests drug-driving is a key concern for the public.

”Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs still leads to a large number of deaths and serious injuries. The challenge is to see whether changes in the law and its processes can reduce casualties” Claimed Sir Peter.

Edmund King, president of the AA remarked that “the legal issue is more complex than the limit as a sliding scale of penalties could reduce the deterrent effect. There is a serious problem with drink drive repeat offenders with recent figures suggesting that almost a quarter of drink drivers have served a previous ban.”

But the proposals were condemned by Tony Payne, chief executive of the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations. “We will fight this very very strongly,” he said. “This will penalise responsible people because of the behaviour of some idiots.

Thousands of motorists are prosecuted every year for a drink driving offence but the punishments for speeding are far less despite it causing a significantly higher number of deaths each year.

UK drivers have heavily criticised the government and authorities over the legality of many of their speed cameras. Although the devices are intended as a ‘deterrent’ from speeding to improve road safety, many dispute that they are simply intended as a revenue system for the government. speed cameras have generated over 100m in the UK In the past year alone.

Many consider traffic police and councils to be taking advantage of vague boundaries and there are many arguments against both fixed speed cameras and mobile units. Activists have also pointed out that new digital systems are open to tampering and citizens would have no leg to stand on when falsely accused.

Fixed cameras have been heavily criticized because of their placement and visibility to motorists; many cameras are intentionally located behind large street signs, trees or walls to remain invisible to motorists until it is too late. The law states that speed cameras MUST be in place as a visual deterrent and not an entrapment device which cannot be possible if they are obscured from view, this has caused significant complaints. If the speed limit is 40mph or less, they must be visible from 60m, 100m over 40mph.

The use of mobile speed cameras has been popular due to the flexibility and range of use they offer. Despite a strict set of rules and regulations, there is much proof that officers have been operating illegally to increase revenue. If a driver is caught speeding and believes the camera which spotted them was placed illegally they have no right to appeal unless they can provide evidence, although this is not at all a guarantee. Groups of individuals have taken to rebellion by collecting images of camera vans parked on pavements with double yellow lines, hidden around bends, in the way of pedestrians and blocking entrances to properties and posting them online in a fight against an unlawful use of entrapment.

Another technicality has been brought to light that since 1992, none of the 6000 speed cameras set up have had acquired the necessary parliamentary approval after a change in legislation. This could mean that virtually every single speeding ticket issue in the UK since 1992 could be illegal and all evidence collected on the roads could be dismissed.

If you feel you have been wrongly accused of speeding or simply disagree with the use of speed cameras and you want a speeding solicitor then visit Freemankeepondriving.com for the best speeding solicitors.

When it comes to road traffic accidents, the common thought is that men are the better drivers, although it’s worth noting that it’s predominantly men that state this fact; however a recent study has drawn some interesting conclusions. Some of the findings of this study suggest women drivers are more likely to have scrapes and bumps while men are more prone to head-on collisions, a survey has found.

Female motorists are more likely to put in claims for collisions on roundabouts and hitting cars from behind, a study of more than two million accidents by insurance company Diamond found.

As well as having head-on collisions, men are more likely to hit crash barriers and trees or drive up and down embankments.

The research found that women were more likely to collide with other vehicles from behind, and on roundabouts. Meanwhile, men are more likely to collide with trees and crash barriers, drive through floods, and into embankments.

Women suffer more than men from having their car broken into and having something taken from inside, while men are more likely to have their car stolen outright.

Diamond’s managing director Sian Lewis said: “Women tend to be in more accidents at slower speeds where cars are close together, while men have more high-speed accidents where it is easy to lose control.

“Our research suggests the way men and women drive is different. Possibly men drive faster and more aggressively than women, while women are more easily distracted than men behind the wheel of a car.”

She went on: “It’s very strange that men’s cars are more likely to catch fire than women’s. “I can’t explain why that would happen. But one reason why women are more likely to have their car broken into is perhaps because they’re more likely to leave expensive items, like their handbag or sunglasses, on show than men.

For expert motoring advice and Motoring solicitors, then visit Freeman Keep On Driving avoid a Drink Driving Conviction.

The ‘who’s to blame’ debate continues as the thirteenth anniversary of Princess Diana’s death approaches in August this year. The debate is still fresh in the mind, more so after the author of an fiery new book, John Morgan calls for another examination into the deaths of both Princess Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Fayed.

John Morgan, an investigative journalist and author claims that Henri Paul, the man branded as the drunk driver immediately after the crash and who is to this day held responsible for the accident was in reality, actually sober at the time. Mr. Morgan moved on to condemn the investigation into how the Princess died following the crash in the Alma tunnel in Paris on the 31st August 1997.

Mr. Morgan has reiterated his belief that last year’s hearing was tainted by errors and omissions following a widespread cover-up by the French authorities. He has also claimed to have unearthed some vital evidence that the inquest Jury back in 2009 was not given. The evidence is alleged to have been omitted from the earlier hearing, includes information from the two French doctors that where tasked with performing the post-mortem on Diana’s chauffeur, Henri Paul.

Henry Paul has been branded as the drunk driver behind the tragic deaths of both Princess Diana and Mohamed Al Fayed’s son, Dodi.

There are several noticeable inaccuracies of evidence including inconsistencies in conflicting blood samples, identification errors and evidence from key witnesses that are still to be documented, thirteen years after the incident. There is also the small matter of data that stems from documentary evidence of a second body.

The first book in the series, a 700 page document states that some of the evidence that points to Henri Paul being sober before the accident included CCTV footage and witness accounts from before they set off in the car moments before the crash that claim Henri Paul was most definitely not drunk.

To further compound the evidence DNA samples taken from Henri Paul after the accident had taken place have amazingly not been tested for surplus levels of alcohol. He also claims he has uncovered medical records to prove his theory that blood samples that were used to prove Henri Paul was up to three times above the drink drive limit actually came from the second body recovered at the scene.

The debate continues.

For expert motoring advice and driving offence solicitors, then visit Freeman Keep On Driving avoid a driving conviction and find road traffic solicitors.