A mate got done last night for being 3x the limit. He's just left the army after 6 years & started a new job, which he will lose if he's banned. My guess is he's shafted - what say you? -- Krusty. http://www.muddystuff.co.uk http://www.muddystuff.us Off-road classifieds '02 MV Senna '96 Tiger '79 Fantic 250
Krusty emerged from their own little world to say 3x the limit will get a long ban regardless of any mitigation IMV
He's a dickhead[1]. And he's shafted. [1] For getting caught[2]. [2] And, arguably but likely if he's 3x the limit, for driving drunk. -- _______ ..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom) \`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 `\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2 `\|/` `
FFS, what do you mean "if he's banned"? At 3x the limit, he could be looking out from a cell for a few months when he is sentenced, and I'd reckon an 18 month ban minimum,and possibly 3 years with a £1000+ fine if no custodial sentence, as well as having to retake the test when the ban has expired, along wth trebling of any insurance premiums for many years. Alan.
And what might happen if the court doesn't exercise such leniency? -- jeremy '01 Triumph Sprint ST in green _______________________________________ jeremy0505 at gmail.com
I concur. 3 times the limit is a fair old whack, isn't it? I scraped through a blood test just under the limit 15 years ago after drinking 3 pints of lager so, unless the limit's been lowered since then, 3x constitutes "rat arsed" in my book.
My mate's flatmate has just been done for DD whilst banned for DD. 4 months inside he got. Original ban was only 2 months. But yes, I'd go with your assessment. Another mate is just about to finish a year ban for being around that much over.
I was done in 1988 for 2.5x the limit and I got an 18 month ban plus a ukp150 fine. I suspect they're a lot less lenient in this day and age.
In uk.rec.motorcycles, Jeremy amazed us all with this pearl of wisdom: Big Bubba will take him roughly from behind.
ban is definite, no question. I'd suggest 18 months minimum, could well be longer. imprisonment isn't off the cards either. the week before his case is heard, watch the news, if a couple of cute photogenic kids are killed by a drunk driver and it starts a press hullaballoo expect 50% more than otherwise. your mate has two real options in the interim. 1/ recidivism, prepare for an eventual imprisonment on a regular basis until he learns his less, unemployability as a result, no cash, blah blah. 2/ by the time he gets to court he is able to PROVE via regular blood tests as part of an ongoing alcohol abuse treatment programme that not a single drop has passed his lips, he is 100% teetotal, they like to see things like that... fact is it's all too easy, but he isn't down the mess with the lads now, he's on civvy street, on his tod, and the rules are all different.... sadly his story isn't exactly rare, which won't help his case, he needs to make his story rare by taking option #2 above. I'm not going to call him names for doing it, that would be hypocricy in the extreme, so forget the arguments about being able to handle it or not having had an accident or hurt anyone, he's got to realise it's like turning up on parade in an el che tee shirt, it's against the regs and that's that. FWIW, if he's worrying about the fine etc his eye isn't on the ball, a £15,000 fine is cheaper than a ban, the only people who don't realise that are people who haven't been to court. HTH etc
The limit has been lowered since then, but even now, 3x the current limit is daft. It's well beyond the marginal territory and into you know you should be getting a taxi.
Whoever suggested going back in the army was right on the money. What hope has someone with no transport and a DD conviction got in the civilian job market?
He wasn't at Leas Cliff by any chance? Did a tall dark stranger slip him a rohypnol? If so, there is a defence of automatism. If not, then he should buy a pushbike.
