Banned for drink-driving

[Deep Sea Isopod]

A toy barbie car.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... e-car.html

Paul Hutton, 40, was pulled over by police as he drove an electric Barbie car, which moves slower than a mobility scooter, near his home in Essex.

Mr Hutton, who has four children Simon, 17, Calum, 14, Laina, 12, and John, 11, admitted being a 'complete twit'.

Speaking after the hearing at Colchester magistrates court, he said: "You have to be a contortionist to get in, and then you can't get out.

"I was very surprised to get done for drink-driving but I was a twit to say the least.

"It is designed for three-to-five-year-olds.

"Originally it was a pink Barbie car but I put bigger wheels on it but it's not fast.

[Tigger]

I fail to see how he can be given a driving ban for operating something that you don't need a driving licence for. It's like banning a cyclist for the same reason. Maybe he should have something done, but that is fucking stupid. And I abhor drink driving!

[maiforpeace]

I fail to see how he can be given a driving ban for operating something that you don't need a driving licence for. It's like banning a cyclist for the same reason. Maybe he should have something done, but that is fucking stupid. And I abhor drink driving!

Maybe because he was driving it on the road?

How about driving drunk on a lawnmower? He was only going to the Oyster Shack...

The video is hilarious, though I really shouldn't be laughing

Drunk Goober on a Lawnmower gets Tased After Resisting Arrest.

[Meekychuppet]

I fail to see how he can be given a driving ban for operating something that you don't need a driving licence for. It's like banning a cyclist for the same reason. Maybe he should have something done, but that is fucking stupid. And I abhor drink driving!

I am a cyclist - I can get the same convictions as a car user.

[Tigger]

I fail to see how he can be given a driving ban for operating something that you don't need a driving licence for. It's like banning a cyclist for the same reason. Maybe he should have something done, but that is fucking stupid. And I abhor drink driving!

I am a cyclist - I can get the same convictions as a car user.

But why?

Obviously, if you have no driving licence you can ride a bike, so what penalties are there for people like that who commit motoring offences? They should be the same for anyone who commits an offence.

[Meekychuppet]

I fail to see how he can be given a driving ban for operating something that you don't need a driving licence for. It's like banning a cyclist for the same reason. Maybe he should have something done, but that is fucking stupid. And I abhor drink driving!

I am a cyclist - I can get the same convictions as a car user.

But why?

Obviously, if you have no driving licence you can ride a bike, so what penalties are there for people like that who commit motoring offences? They should be the same for anyone who commits an offence.

The conviction is the same, and if I ever got a licence it would be recorded on it. I would get fined etc.

[Tigger]

I fail to see how he can be given a driving ban for operating something that you don't need a driving licence for. It's like banning a cyclist for the same reason. Maybe he should have something done, but that is fucking stupid. And I abhor drink driving!

I am a cyclist - I can get the same convictions as a car user.

But why?

Obviously, if you have no driving licence you can ride a bike, so what penalties are there for people like that who commit motoring offences? They should be the same for anyone who commits an offence.

The conviction is the same, and if I ever got a licence it would be recorded on it. I would get fined etc.

Yes, but WHY? That's like fining a disabled person for parking in a disabled bay just in case he gets better one day. Ok, it's not, but you see what I mean I imagine.

[Pappa]

I fail to see how he can be given a driving ban for operating something that you don't need a driving licence for. It's like banning a cyclist for the same reason. Maybe he should have something done, but that is fucking stupid. And I abhor drink driving!

I am a cyclist - I can get the same convictions as a car user.

But why?

Obviously, if you have no driving licence you can ride a bike, so what penalties are there for people like that who commit motoring offences? They should be the same for anyone who commits an offence.

The conviction is the same, and if I ever got a licence it would be recorded on it. I would get fined etc.

I suppose it's similar to getting points on your license when you haven't even got one yet.

[redunderthebed]

You can even get busted for drink-driving when riding a horse.

[Meekychuppet]

I fail to see how he can be given a driving ban for operating something that you don't need a driving licence for. It's like banning a cyclist for the same reason. Maybe he should have something done, but that is fucking stupid. And I abhor drink driving!

I am a cyclist - I can get the same convictions as a car user.

But why?

Obviously, if you have no driving licence you can ride a bike, so what penalties are there for people like that who commit motoring offences? They should be the same for anyone who commits an offence.

The conviction is the same, and if I ever got a licence it would be recorded on it. I would get fined etc.

Yes, but WHY? That's like fining a disabled person for parking in a disabled bay just in case he gets better one day. Ok, it's not, but you see what I mean I imagine.

No it isn't. The purpose of motoring conviction is to punish crime, not to endorse your licence. If you're drunk on a bike it's a crime and is punished accordingly. The reason your licence will be endorsed is that it is a material fact pertaining to driving competence and thus insurers and the police will be made aware.

[Tigger]

I fail to see how he can be given a driving ban for operating something that you don't need a driving licence for. It's like banning a cyclist for the same reason. Maybe he should have something done, but that is fucking stupid. And I abhor drink driving!

I am a cyclist - I can get the same convictions as a car user.

But why?

Obviously, if you have no driving licence you can ride a bike, so what penalties are there for people like that who commit motoring offences? They should be the same for anyone who commits an offence.

The conviction is the same, and if I ever got a licence it would be recorded on it. I would get fined etc.

Yes, but WHY? That's like fining a disabled person for parking in a disabled bay just in case he gets better one day. Ok, it's not, but you see what I mean I imagine.

No it isn't. The purpose of motoring conviction is to punish crime, not to endorse your licence. If you're drunk on a bike it's a crime and is punished accordingly. The reason your licence will be endorsed is that it is a material fact pertaining to driving competence and thus insurers and the police will be made aware.

But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk.

[FBM]

I fail to see how he can be given a driving ban for operating something that you don't need a driving licence for. It's like banning a cyclist for the same reason. Maybe he should have something done, but that is fucking stupid. And I abhor drink driving!

Maybe because he was driving it on the road?

How about driving drunk on a lawnmower? He was only going to the Oyster Shack...

The video is hilarious, though I really shouldn't be laughing

Drunk Goober on a Lawnmower gets Tased After Resisting Arrest.

"Ah thank ah crapped mah pants!"

[Meekychuppet]

But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk.

I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.

[Tigger]

But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk.

I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.

I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.

[Meekychuppet]

But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk.

I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.

I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.

How is it unfair on the motorist?