http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16414691

An extension of previous powers that allowed courts to seize cars from 2nd time drink drive offenders – drink drivers can now lose their cars if they are either 3x or more over the limit or it’s their 2nd offence or they refuse to be breathalysed.

Not sure if it applies to England as well?

What do people think of it?

Thoroughly approve.

I’d introduce a lifetime ban on the occasion of a second conviction too.

Fine with me. Crush it in front of them and ban them for a long time too.

company car or van, what happens?

Crush it, and hopefully it will be on credit so that he has to keep paying the instalments.

There is no reason to drink and drive .

big_n_daft – Member
company car or van, what happens?

Driver loses job, new employee drives it.

comapny car or van, he is now jobless as well.

company car or van, what happens?

Presumably the company will be very angry if it’s crushed, and hold the driver responsible.

Zero tolerance rules.

Totally disproportionate. £23k fine for drink driving on top of a ban and another fine. Stupid law.

Just do what I do. Steal someone elses car if you are really drunk and need to get home quickly!

“There is no reason to drink and drive . “

Except the very simple and often occuring circumstances that you are drunk and you need to go somewhere.

You may not like it. In fact I am almost sure it makes you get your little panties all caught up in anger… but it is a reason as much as any other!

Did you mean: “There is no reason that I am happy with to drink and drive?”

They would also need to disprove his claim that his breath alcohol reading had increased due to drink he had taken after the crash, but before being breathalised.

Taxi, bus, walk, public transport,

all available if you get a ban

Except the very simple and often occuring circumstances that you are drunk and you need to go somewhere.

Taxi, bus, train. You are aware that there are other forms of transport available.

Edit: Beaten to it by project.

big_n_daft, I’m not sure, it’s quite a new thing. There is a list of pieces of information the police have to provide in their crime report to do with ownership, finance, outstanding money and so on, so those things would be considered by the Sheriff making the decision.

how easy is it not to drink and drive but yet so many people think they can cheat the system… sod em i say! once is bad but your just plane stupid if you do it twice…well you are the first time but you get the picture..

Totally disproportionate. £23k fine for drink driving on top of a ban and another fine. Stupid law.

Not disproportionate at all, the risks you present to others are significantly greater and clearly on a second offence you are not learning your lessons from an initial warning. People need to take responsibility for their actions, if they won’t they should be forced to.

Totally disproportionate. £23k fine for drink driving on top of a ban and another fine. Stupid law.

Nah its a great law, having to cut too many innocent people out of their mangled cars after someone has crashed their car into them whilst drunk, I would crush the car with them in it.

I am ok with this law

£23k car….He’s an oil worker…loose change!

George, actually they don’t. The burden of proof is on the defence when the so called hip flask defence is being used. It’s something that they get scientists to work out.

Fair enough.

😆 Excellent.

Totally disproportionate. £23k fine for drink driving on top of a ban and another fine. Stupid law.

On the other hand, I think it’s great. Seems that only when threatened with being hit in the bank account, do some people actually get the message.

Plus, it penalises people proportionate to their wealth; someone who’s loaded won’t even feel a relatively small fine, but if they had their Aston seized, they would do.

Such penalties are to act as a deterrent. I think for this reason, it’s fantastic.

If yer banned, you don’t need a car anyway. 😀 plus it reduces their ability to be able to drive whilst banned.

Taxi, bus, walk, public transport,

all available if you get a ban

Innit though? Oh, and you forgot bikes!

Drink driving can affect us all, from a near miss to a death, if there is no deterent they will carry on.

Drink driving certainly brings out the self righteous.

Your car is seized if it doesnt have insurance, and is crushed, criminals have their cars seized as theyre purchased from the proceeds of crime.

There used to be a nice selection in liverpool outside the main Police HQ.

cynic-al – Member
Drink driving certainly brings out the self righteous.

Remember al – it’s more dangerous than shooting a loaded gun.

but is that using the gun, druid ❓

What they need to do is make special Shame Cars. Ugly, crap, lightweight things with no safety features and a top speed of 50mph, but they still get you from A to B just fine. Get caught pissed or on the phone and your car gets impounded and swapped for a Shame Car and your licence is adjusted so that’s all you can drive for a year. Get caught again and you’re banned for a year and then go back to a Shame Car for two years. And so on.

Fine with me. Crush it in front of them

That’s stupid. It would be far better to seize and auction the car (with revenue going to the state) if you’re going down that route.

So if you are going to drink and drive stick the Audi in the wifes name and buy a pub car.

Drink driving certainly brings out the self righteous.

And rightly so, people should consider it a disgusting thing to do and be willing to point that out.

Like this?

Why did he not say he was sober and got drunk at home to calm himself! I don’t think it is fair though and I think his lawyers will get it back. Fine him instead.

Such penalties are to act as a deterrent. I think for this reason, it’s fantastic.

Utter ballcocks, if that was the case murder wouldn’t happen where capital punishment was a penalty.

And drunk drivers fall in to two categories – serial drink-drivers and those over the once (or more commonly the next day). It will deter neither.

And would probably only be legal where the driver fully ‘owned’ the vehicle – which is difficult to prove/decide, as only the ‘keeper’ is recorded.

That’s stupid. It would be far better to seize and auction the car (with revenue going to the state) if you’re going down that route.

Well I’d agree but someone taking your car and selling it doesn’t have quite the same impact as crushing it. Plus it keeps the car trade going well and plenty of recycling work going on.

What they need to do is make special Shame Cars. Ugly, crap, lightweight things with no safety features and a top speed of 50mph, but they still get you from A to B just fine. Get caught pissed or on the phone and your car gets impounded and swapped for a Shame Car and your licence is adjusted so that’s all you can drive for a year. Get caught again and you’re banned for a year and then go back to a Shame Car for two years. And so on.

similar to what they do in france – cars which you can drive without a full license (i.e. what happens when you’ve lost it due to drink dirving). my areas full of them…

Utter ballcocks, if that was the case murder wouldn’t happen where capital punishment was a penalty.

Poor argument – hard to know if it acts as a deterrent as you’d no idea whether the people would commit more (or fewer) murders if it wasn’t present. There’s always going to be a small percentage for whom there is no deterrent, that doesn’t mean some deterrent doesn’t stop a significant number.

Utter ballcocks, if that was the case murder wouldn’t happen where capital punishment was a penalty.

No, totally different type of crime, with totally different motives and reasons. Stupid comparison.