Lesson not learned for banned driver (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Lesson not learned for banned driver
9:00pm Sunday 16th December 2012 in News
Lesson not learned for banned driver
A MAN who admitted driving a car without insurance for a second time has been banned from the roads by a judge after he appeared at Worcester Magistrates Court.
Steven Martin, aged 20, of Tintern Avenue, off Astwood Road, Worcester was stopped by police after driving a Peugeot 406 Worcester on May 20.
Kerry Lovegrove, prosecuting, said the car showed up on the police computer as not being covered by insurance.
Martin had already had his driving licence revoked for a previous case of driving with no insurance which attracts six points.
Because he was not out of his two year probationary period his licence had already been taken off him.
He said: “I’m sorry for doing it. It’s not going to happen again.”
With six more penalty points placed on his licence by district judge Nigel Cadbury, Martin was banned from driving for six months as a totter (12 points of more on his licence).
Mr Cadbury said he gave Martin credit for his early guilty plea and ordered him to pay a fine of £110, £60 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.
Comments(17)
jb
says...
1:11am Mon 17 Dec 12
Mr Cadbury gave him credit for his guilty plea, which makes Mr Cadbury as a magistrate as useful as a chocolate teapot! Yet again a punishment weaker than a slap on the wrist.
Kyoujin
says...
7:56am Mon 17 Dec 12
Respectable
says...
9:08am Mon 17 Dec 12
mayall8808
says...
10:27am Mon 17 Dec 12
Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through.
These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,
More Tea Vicar
says...
11:14am Mon 17 Dec 12
mayall8808 wrote:Well said.
British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence...
Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through.
These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,
He'll be on the road again in no time, else, and will not be caught until or unless he's in another accident or incident.
melissajane
says...
11:52am Mon 17 Dec 12
RobertR
says...
5:20pm Mon 17 Dec 12
Why not adopt the european method of having your insurance displayed on the windscreen as per the tax disc?.
TDH123
says...
6:30pm Mon 17 Dec 12
jb wrote:Presumably a Cadbury's chocolate tea-pot?!
He said: “I’m sorry for doing it. It’s not going to happen again.”
Mr Cadbury gave him credit for his guilty plea, which makes Mr Cadbury as a magistrate as useful as a chocolate teapot! Yet again a punishment weaker than a slap on the wrist.
Surely the fine should be greater than the cheapest insurance cover which this individual could obtain otherwise where is the incentive for him to comply with the law??
pronstar
says...
8:53am Tue 18 Dec 12
mayall8808 wrote:I'm surprised you don't recommend chopping his hands off.
British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence...
Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through.
These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,
Glad you're not in charge of justice. Do insured drivers never cause fatal accidents?
Respectable
says...
11:42am Tue 18 Dec 12
If you haven't paid for insurance you have no right to be on the road.. End Of.Whether there are fatalities or not you should not be on the road.
Don't forget for every uninsured driver that is involved in an accident, the costs get recouped from the people that do pay.
To defend it suggests that your happy to fund it !
mayall8808
says...
11:56am Tue 18 Dec 12
Sometimes i think some people on here have a screw loose,?
pronstar and ushmush, have you ever been smashed by a drunk driver? no tax no insurance? then you have no idea what you are on about.
pronstar
says...
4:36pm Tue 18 Dec 12
mayall8808 wrote:He was diving with no insurance, not drunk and he didn't cause an accident.
Well said,Respectable!
Sometimes i think some people on here have a screw loose,?
pronstar and ushmush, have you ever been smashed by a drunk driver? no tax no insurance? then you have no idea what you are on about.
You suggest that up to 11 years in prison is a suitable punishment for this particular offence and then have the audacity to say I have a screw loose.
ushmush83
says...
3:30pm Wed 19 Dec 12
As it happens, I do not think that 7 years in prison is a suitable punishment for the crime. If he killed someone whilst driving dangerously, intoxicated or otherwise, I see no reason why being uninsured makes it any worse to be honest. Murder is murder.
It is a different case to the other one however, as he is a repeat offender, and has quite clearly flouted the law. I feel the fine should be a lot more, in the thousands. The girl in the other story received a bigger fine for a first offence.
Brummagem Bertie
says...
10:24pm Thu 20 Dec 12
For someone who is 20, a £5,000 fine could well be the equivalent of their annual take home pay. For a merchant *anker it might just be the cost of a bottle of wine at the celebratory lunch for their bonus.
Guy66
says...
11:34pm Thu 20 Dec 12
Brummagem Bertie wrote:Nice point but the overall impression of the punishment is that it offers no disincentive to the offender. Maybe he should be fined the cost the normal insurance which could well be £5K in some instances especially considering his previous offences.
Fines usually are related, in part, to ability to pay, so that there is some degree of similar punishment for similar offences.
For someone who is 20, a £5,000 fine could well be the equivalent of their annual take home pay. For a merchant *anker it might just be the cost of a bottle of wine at the celebratory lunch for their bonus.
If you're prepared to take the risk you should be prepared to face the penalties. Making the punishment fit the offenders ability to pay is wrong in my opinion.
Guy66
says...
11:37pm Thu 20 Dec 12
pronstar wrote:The point is insured drivers are INSURED so third party can be appropriately compensated for any incident. The law is very clear regarding driving a motor vehicle on our roads - insurance is mandatory. If you chose to flout the law you should be able to face the penalties whatever they are!
mayall8808 wrote:I'm surprised you don't recommend chopping his hands off.
British justice for you, this yob should have got as Guy66 says, Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence...
Plus scrap the car, and any further motoring offence another 3 years no court, hammer all of them who do this and then the message will get through.
These idiots could kill or maime someone for life and its not only the taxpayer who ends up paying but all involved families etc,,
Glad you're not in charge of justice. Do insured drivers never cause fatal accidents?
Guy66 says...
10:07pm Sun 16 Dec 12
And if he had caused a major accident with no insurance who would have paid the bill for this irresponsible idiot - the tax payer!
The fine is pathetic and no incentive to stop doing the same thing again - which I think he will probably do, 70% sure.
Time to make an example of people who think they are above the law.
Next time a prison sentence of 7 years and a £5000 fine to be paid within 2 years or another 4 years are added to the original sentence....