Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm just going to say, until "vehicle" is clarified I won't support this (not that it will likely matter) and vote against. What counts as a vehicle is very important and those who know some of the nuances of the current legislation will understand why.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Seems like a good bill and I'm leaning towards an aye. But the definition and the bill is not very clear and as such, I will wait until the 2nd reading before making a decision.


    Posted from OtherWorld
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    mobbsy91 didn't want me, I assume the same applies now, I also find myself in agreement with 99% of what my liberal colleagues say.
    How come he didn't want you? :holmes:

    Posted from OtherWorld
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    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...
    What I'm saying is could you not use this opportunity to amend the definition? Nort remove it - the penalties should remain!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    People's safety on the roads is of tantamount importance and sometimes the state needs to be a bit harsh to keep people safe. Quamquam123
    I agree. They should ban hands-free phones too.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain - I think the £5,000 fine is a bit too much but leaning towards Aye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Perhaps I should point out, that being a passenger in a vehicle is quite obviously not being in charge of it...
    I am in favour of this bill but I do think a clarification of this, possibly by altering definition 1, is in order.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanE1998)
    What I'm saying is could you not use this opportunity to amend the definition? Nort remove it - the penalties should remain!
    The point is though, it's quite hard to strictly define what being in control of a vehicle actually is, and in any case, this is already set, and it's not something that I want to change...

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    I am in favour of this bill but I do think a clarification of this, possibly by altering definition 1, is in order.
    I'm probably going to remove definition one, because I think it's causing confusion. In the notes it'll be clear that this only adjusts the penalties, not whether someone is prosecuted for being in charge of a vehicle, or driving a vehicle whilst drunk.

    (Original post by mr T 999)
    How come he didn't want you? :holmes:

    Posted from OtherWorld
    When it was found out the Greens had no manifesto, he said that if the Conservatives got into Government, he would do everything he could to bring down the Government, so that the Greens would have another shot at submitting a manifesto for election. When it was found out that actually the Greens were a sinking ship, he then decided that he actually wanted to join the Conservatives. Our Party has no space for people who're willing to sacrifice their principles just to get into Government, especially openly saying they will go against the Party and changing their mind within 48 hours, and so he was not accepted into the Party.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    I'm probably going to remove definition one, because I think it's causing confusion. In the notes it'll be clear that this only adjusts the penalties, not whether someone is prosecuted for being in charge of a vehicle, or driving a vehicle whilst drunk.
    That's good. :yy: With that change made, I think this is a very good piece of legislation.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    abstain.

    i wholeheartedly support more punishment, but the fines should be means-tested.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    abstain.

    i wholeheartedly support more punishment, but the fines should be means-tested.
    This is entirely unfair. The action is the same, regardless if you are rich or not so why should rich people be treated differently in the eyes of the law?
    As you are to remove definition 1, it's an aye from me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    The point is though, it's quite hard to strictly define what being in control of a vehicle actually is, and in any case, this is already set, and it's not something that I want to change...
    Is it also difficult to define a vehicle?

    And if all you're doing is changing penalties then "being in control" is already a thing, which means it's already defined, which means you're just being lazy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Jammy Duel mobbsy91, pretty sure there's decent definitions of 'vehicle' in either the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Road Traffic Offenders Act (also 1988 iirc), or at least of types of vehicle. Might be worth looking there.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    This is entirely unfair. The action is the same, regardless if you are rich or not so why should rich people be treated differently in the eyes of the law?
    As you are to remove definition 1, it's an aye from me.
    so tell me how poor people can afford fines in excess of £5000.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    so tell me how poor people can afford fines in excess of £5000.
    That's the whole point it's to scare them not to commit the crime. Otherwise they would pay a hefty fine which they can't afford. If they end up committing the crime knowing they would have to pay £5k, it's their own fault tbf.
    Don't do the crime and you won't do the time lol



    Posted from OtherWorld
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    This is entirely unfair. The action is the same, regardless if you are rich or not so why should rich people be treated differently in the eyes of the law?
    As you are to remove definition 1, it's an aye from me.
    To treat people the same, you have to make fines larger for wealthier people, as the same size fine has a much bigger impact on a poorer person. Diminishing marginal utility of wealth innit.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    A enthusiastic aye from me. Whilst reading through the comments, I have repeatedly read that the fine is too much. I believe I must agree with Nigel Farage MEP on this one. If one doesn't wish to be made bankrupt by a fine, then they shouldn't have committed the unlawful act in question. This fine acts as a strong detterant to those who feel that they can just take a chance whilst under the influence of alcohol. All measures must be taken in order to assure the safety of other drivers and pedestrians.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Fine should be £10,000
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ban immigration)
    Fine should be £10,000
    I like your thinking.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2017
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.