Drivers with 12 or more points still on the road

ALL ROAD USERS BEWARE!

There are more than 2,800 drivers with 12 or more points on their
licence still permitted to drive in London, according to figures from
the DVLA. The figures also show there is one person with a shocking 30
points, with current entitlement to drive.

Research has identified a link between road traffic offences and
criminal behaviour. One study highlighted a clear proportional
increase in collision fault among those with offence history.

Jenny Jones AM said: “The scale of this problem is quite frightening.
These 2,800 drivers are getting away with reckless driving. They’ve
been offending and therefore building up points on their licence, but
still being able to drive. Of course there are instances where
magistrates need to use their discretion, but the police need to know
its actually worthwhile catching these criminals. Research has also
shown drivers with points on their licence are more likely to have
previous convictions and be involved in a collision. These drivers are
breaking the rules and getting away with it. ”
End notes

1. Figures on points obtained from an FOI request to the DVLA

Current Points Number of drivers
12 1596
15 225
20 23
25 1
30 1

2. According to a government website, if a driver builds up 12 or
more points within a period of 3 years, they are liable to lose their
licence and be disqualified under the ‘totting up’ system.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...ons/DG_4022550
3. A study by Loughborough University showed a link between
offences and criminality.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/media/wwwlbor...es-summary.pdf

On 03/03/2012 08:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:
ALL ROAD USERS BEWARE!

There are more than 2,800 drivers with 12 or more points on their
licence still permitted to drive in London,

Or 0.0085 % of UK motorists.

OMG. Shock ****ing horror.




--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 03/03/2012 08:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Research has identified a link between road traffic offences and
criminal behaviour.

Imprison all cyclists immediately as a pre-emptive measure, then.

They are the most prolific perpetrators of road traffic offences, after all.

On Mar 3, 10:21*am, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2012 08:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Research has identified a link between road traffic offences and
criminal behaviour.

Imprison all cyclists immediately as a pre-emptive measure, then.

They are the most prolific perpetrators of road traffic offences, after all.

Why are you trying to divert attention away from the worst killers?

Motorist can kill cyclists but cyclists can't kill motorists during a
collision. So which do you think is the most dangerous and most that
need to be restricted by law? Unfortunately the punishments for
dangerous motorists are still derisory, as this thread indicates.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

On 08/03/2012 06:57, Doug wrote:

On Mar 3, 10:21 am, wrote:
On 03/03/2012 08:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Research has identified a link between road traffic offences and
criminal behaviour.

Imprison all cyclists immediately as a pre-emptive measure, then.

They are the most prolific perpetrators of road traffic offences, after all.

Why are you trying to divert attention away from the worst killers?

Who was talking about killers, best, worst, or otherwise?

The proposition was that there is "a link between road traffic offences and
criminal behaviour", and cyclists are the most pre-eminent perpetrators of
road traffic offences, with large parts of their journeys in towns and cities
being one long traffic offence and the ored traffic light offence being
committed whenever a red light is encountered. Only a small proportion of
them seem even to know the difference between lawful and illegal behaviour on
the road.

So, if there *is* "a link between road traffic offences and criminal
behaviour", the worst criminals on the road must be cyclists. The upshot of
the results of the research is that one should trust a cyclist only
sparingly, on principle.

Of course, the alternative is that the research and the results were a load
of nonsense. I'll let you decide on that.

On Mar 8, 8:08*am, JNugent wrote:
On 08/03/2012 06:57, Doug wrote:

On Mar 3, 10:21 am, *wrote:
On 03/03/2012 08:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Research has identified a link between road traffic offences and
criminal behaviour.

Imprison all cyclists immediately as a pre-emptive measure, then.

They are the most prolific perpetrators of road traffic offences, after all.

Why are you trying to divert attention away from the worst killers?

Who was talking about killers, best, worst, or otherwise?

The proposition was that there is "a link between road traffic offences and
criminal behaviour", and cyclists are the most pre-eminent perpetrators of
road traffic offences, with large parts of their journeys in towns and cities
being one long traffic offence and the ored traffic light offence being
committed whenever a red light is encountered. Only a small proportion of
them seem even to know the difference between lawful and illegal behaviour on
the road.

So, if there *is* "a link between road traffic offences and criminal
behaviour", the worst criminals on the road must be cyclists. The upshot of
the results of the research is that one should trust a cyclist only
sparingly, on principle.

Of course, the alternative is that the research and the results were a load
of nonsense. I'll let you decide on that.

Where you are going wrong here, as usual, is that the seriousness of a
crime and criminality is usually judged by its effect. Motorists can
KSI many more people during collisions than cyclists can so clearly
motorists are the worst potential criminals. Note also that cyclists
can't kill motorists during a collision but can be killed by motorists
during a collision.

Add to that...

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

On 09/03/2012 07:37, Doug wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:08 am, wrote:
On 08/03/2012 06:57, Doug wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:21 am, wrote:
On 03/03/2012 08:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Research has identified a link between road traffic offences and
criminal behaviour.

Imprison all cyclists immediately as a pre-emptive measure, then.

They are the most prolific perpetrators of road traffic offences, after all.

Why are you trying to divert attention away from the worst killers?

Who was talking about killers, best, worst, or otherwise?

The proposition was that there is "a link between road traffic offences and
criminal behaviour", and cyclists are the most pre-eminent perpetrators of
road traffic offences, with large parts of their journeys in towns and cities
being one long traffic offence and the ored traffic light offence being
committed whenever a red light is encountered. Only a small proportion of
them seem even to know the difference between lawful and illegal behaviour on
the road.

So, if there *is* "a link between road traffic offences and criminal
behaviour", the worst criminals on the road must be cyclists. The upshot of
the results of the research is that one should trust a cyclist only
sparingly, on principle.

Of course, the alternative is that the research and the results were a load
of nonsense. I'll let you decide on that.

Where you are going wrong here, as usual, is that the seriousness of a
crime and criminality is usually judged by its effect. Motorists can
KSI many more people during collisions than cyclists can so clearly
motorists are the worst potential criminals. Note also that cyclists
can't kill motorists during a collision but can be killed by motorists
during a collision.

Where *you* are going wrong is by completely missing the point implicit
within the proposition that "Research has identified a link between road
traffic offences and criminal behaviour".

*If* that is so, cyclists, undoubtedly being the most prolific offenders
against road traffic law, *must* be the worst criminals.

That is *all* that is it can mean. There is no other credible construction of it.

That's if it's correct, of course.

On Mar 9, 7:37*am, Doug wrote:

Where you are going wrong here, as usual, is that the seriousness of a
crime and criminality is usually judged by its effect. Motorists can
KSI many more people during collisions than cyclists can so clearly
motorists are the worst potential criminals. Note also that cyclists
can't kill motorists during a collision but can be killed by motorists
during a collision.

Sigh - killfile him, Doug.
Numpty Nugent is just a tedious troll.
Thanks god I don't read his crap anymore.

--
Simon Mason

On Mar 8, 6:57*am, Doug wrote:

Motorist can kill cyclists but cyclists can't kill motorists during a
collision. So which do you think is the most dangerous and most that
need to be restricted by law? Unfortunately the punishments for
dangerous motorists are still derisory, as this thread indicates.

We will have to wait and see what sentence this attacker who used
their car as a weapon will get first, before we can judge if it is
derisory or not.

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Ro...ail/story.html
--
Simon Mason

On 03/03/2012 08:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:

ALL ROAD USERS BEWARE!

There are more than 2,800 drivers with 12 or more points on their
licence still permitted to drive in London, according to figures from
the DVLA. The figures also show there is one person with a shocking 30
points, with current entitlement to drive.
Research has identified a link between road traffic offences and
criminal behaviour. One study highlighted a clear proportional
increase in collision fault among those with offence history.
Jenny Jones AM [the well-known nutter, who is apparently very
easily "frightened"] said: “The scale of this problem is quite
frightening.

Really?

I should be frightened because there's a bloke half a mile away who got three
points for each bald tyre, all of which have now been replaced with new ones?

Why? What's "frightening" about ink on paper?

These 2,800 drivers are getting away with reckless driving. They’ve
been offending and therefore building up points on their licence, but
still being able to drive. Of course there are instances where
magistrates need to use their discretion, but the police need to know
its actually worthwhile catching these criminals.

Many ordinary people are "caught" everyday by cameras. The police aren't
involved except tangentially and bureaucratically.

No-one sensible takes Mad Jenny seriously.