B1096 – Drink Driving Penalties Bill 2017 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
B1096 – Drink Driving Penalties Bill 2017, TSR Conservative Party
A

BILL

TO

increase the penalty for being caught in charge of a vehicle whilst over the legal limit, or driving or attempting to drive a vehicle whilst over the legal limit.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Definitions
(1) Being in charge of a vehicle: this is when the person is not necessarily driving the vehicle, but are in the vehicle on the public highway/public place.
(2) Legal limit: 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.

2 Punishment for being in charge of a vehicle whilst over the legal limit, or unfit through drink
(1) In addition to the current penalties, the person will be subject to:
a. Minimum 50 hours community service.

3 Punishment for driving or attempting to drive a vehicle whilst over the legal limit, or unfit through drink
(1) In addition to the current penalties, the person will be subject to:
a. Minimum 100 hours community service.
b. A minimum £5,000 fine.
(2) If the person has over 105 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (3x the legal limit):
a. A minimum 3 month prison sentence.

4 Commencement, short title and extent
(1) This Act shall come into force on 1st March 2017.
(2) This Act shall be named the Drink Driving Penalty Act 2017.
(3) This Act extends to all of the United Kingdom.

Notes
Spoiler:
Show

Whilst the number of drink drivers that cause fatal crashes is decreasing, it's still a number of unnecessary deaths that can be avoided, by deterring drivers from doing it, one way, through larger incentives not to.

This Bill keeps the current penalties which are in place, but adds additional minimum penalties in the form of community service and financial penalty as a further incentive, as at the moment, if someone is caught drink driving and hasn't caused a crash, there is only the ban, and a relatively small financial penalty, which clearly isn't working as well as it could.

These are the current punishments:
Being in charge of vehicle while above the legal limit or unfit through drink You may get:
- 3 months' imprisonment
- up to £2,500 fine
- a possible driving ban

and

Driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit or unfit through drink You may get:
- 6 months' imprisonment
- an unlimited fine
- a driving ban for at least 1 year (3 years if convicted twice within 10 years)

0
Paracosm
  • Section Leader
  • Peer Support Volunteers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Aye. Solid bill addressing a very serious issue.
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
A wholehearted Aye from me.
0
CoffeeGeek
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
Aye.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
I am voting nay solely based on the £5,000 fine. I believe it should be a fine which should be very considerable to all persons, but that needs to be means-tested. A drink-driving fine doesn't gain anything by bankrupting a poor person.

edit: however, I should note I am very sympathetic to increasing the penalties for drink-driving, which ultimately I feel to be a really scummy thing to do and something which is underrated in our current penal system, largely punishable merely by disqualification from driving.
0
Nirvana1989-1994
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Aye.
0
DanE1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Can you clarify

1 (1)

The vagueness of the clause means you could be penalised for telling a taxi driver where to go? It should expressly state driving, attempting to drive or supervising a learner driver.

Unless I'm missing something?
0
JooW
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
I vote nay. As said above, hefty fines only increase the amount of criminals on the streets as many will turn to crime with such a debt. Focus should be made on rehab and punishment not unrealistic financial sanctions
0
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I am voting nay solely based on the £5,000 fine. I believe it should be a fine which should be very considerable to all persons, but that needs to be means-tested. A drink-driving fine doesn't gain anything by bankrupting a poor person.
The bill is solid barring the fine which has been outlined in the above post.

Remove that item and replace it so that it's a lower amount or have it means tested - this way the bill yields much more merit.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
I'm voting aye, and have no concerns with the fine; people seem to be forgetting that this isn't a tax that people are forced to pay, it's a punishment for idiocy that puts other people on the road's lives at risk.

Excellent bill.
0
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
So 50 hours' community service for being a passenger in a vehicle whilst drunk? This literally criminalises going home from a drunken night out by any other means than walking.....

Also, tell me mobbsy91, would you use the phrase 'The person are in the vehicle.'?
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I am voting nay solely based on the £5,000 fine. I believe it should be a fine which should be very considerable to all persons, but that needs to be means-tested. A drink-driving fine doesn't gain anything by bankrupting a poor person.

edit: however, I should note I am very sympathetic to increasing the penalties for drink-driving, which ultimately I feel to be a really scummy thing to do and something which is underrated in our current penal system, largely punishable merely by disqualification from driving.
But if it's means tested, then any incentive through the monetary penalty goes out the window...
(Original post by DanE1998)
Can you clarify

1 (1)

The vagueness of the clause means you could be penalised for telling a taxi driver where to go? It should expressly state driving, attempting to drive or supervising a learner driver.

Unless I'm missing something?
No, it's the same as it currently is. It's so that someone who is in the driving seat with the keys in the ignition/engine on sitting there can be prosecuted (note the lesser punishment). This Bill doesn't introduce a punishment for being in control, as it does already exist. It may also be worth saying that the law does take into account if there is a legitimate reason for someone to be in the drivers seat whilst under the influence... with you saying that though, may make it a bit clearer in second reading or division!
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by JooW)
I vote nay. As said above, hefty fines only increase the amount of criminals on the streets as many will turn to crime with such a debt. Focus should be made on rehab and punishment not unrealistic financial sanctions
I'd be more than happy to instigate mandatory drinking lesson/session which aims to educate the idiots out there that drink drive...!
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by Connor27)
I'm voting aye, and have no concerns with the fine; people seem to be forgetting that this isn't a tax that people are forced to pay, it's a punishment for idiocy that puts other people on the road's lives at risk.

Excellent bill.
Punishment needs to be considered in part by its deterrent effect on the guilty. In part, this is too big as a deterrent effect - simply ruining someone's life with debt doesn't really provide much more of a deterrent than a proportionate one; likewise rich people ought to have a (substantially) greater fine.
1
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
So 50 hours' community service for being a passenger in a vehicle whilst drunk? This literally criminalises going home from a drunken night out by any other means than walking.....

Also, tell me mobbsy91, would you use the phrase 'The person are in the vehicle.'?
See above about the definition, will be made clearer in next reading/division!

Where??
0
DanE1998
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by mobbsy91)
But if it's means tested, then any incentive through the monetary penalty goes out the window...

No, it's the same as it currently is. It's so that someone who is in the driving seat with the keys in the ignition/engine on sitting there can be prosecuted (note the lesser punishment). This Bill doesn't introduce a punishment for being in control, as it does already exist. It may also be worth saying that the law does take into account if there is a legitimate reason for someone to be in the drivers seat whilst under the influence... with you saying that though, may make it a bit clearer in second reading or division!
It certainly would be a good opportunity to make it much clearer. I understand the reasoning but I just think it gives too much scope in RL too now I'm away of the RL circumstance
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
No, I support increasing fines but if penalties are going to be toughened, the limit for should be lowered to match Scotland, or be lower.

(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I am voting nay solely based on the £5,000 fine. I believe it should be a fine which should be very considerable to all persons, but that needs to be means-tested. A drink-driving fine doesn't gain anything by bankrupting a poor person.

edit: however, I should note I am very sympathetic to increasing the penalties for drink-driving, which ultimately I feel to be a really scummy thing to do and something which is underrated in our current penal system, largely punishable merely by disqualification from driving.
If a poor individual does not want to be bankrupted by needing to pay a fine, the poor individual should not have broken the law: it is simple.
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
Perhaps I should point out, that being a passenger in a vehicle is quite obviously not being in charge of it...
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by Conceited)
The bill is solid barring the fine which has been outlined in the above post.

Remove that item and replace it so that it's a lower amount or have it means tested - this way the bill yields much more merit.
I do not see the fairness in giving a lesser punishment to a poor individual who breaks the law when a wealthy individual who breaks the same law is treated more harshly.
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by DanE1998)
It certainly would be a good opportunity to make it much clearer. I understand the reasoning but I just think it gives too much scope in RL too now I'm away of the RL circumstance
If you look in the notes, you'll see that currently someone in charge of the vehicle still has hefty penalties so even if I removed that section, the current penalties would still apply, as they should...
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (127)
17.84%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (72)
10.11%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (123)
17.28%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (103)
14.47%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (70)
9.83%
How can I be the best version of myself? (217)
30.48%

Watched Threads

View All