Disqualified to 2070, still driving!

Gosh you lot are harsh. He was just giving himself an early 121st birthday present.

screaming banshee said :

Angelina said :

Jesus christ you’re an idiot, krats. It’s Actually Exhausting.

krats now moves to stage 2 trolling, first it was annoying capitalisation now he’s going to start spouting erroneous statements as facts.

Do Your Homework People.Jail= Australian.Gaol = American,And NO I Am Not…As You Say :'”Trolling” Should I Be Proven Wrong!.I Will Admit It.Of That You Can Be Sure.

Angelina said :

Jesus christ you’re an idiot, krats. It’s Actually Exhausting.

krats now moves to stage 2 trolling, first it was annoying capitalisation now he’s going to start spouting erroneous statements as facts.

Henry82 said :

krats said :

I Am Sure You Meant JAIL,

Historically, it has been spelt Gaol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_prisons

So it looks like we’re wrong.

(said in an american drawl) My momma always told me that JAIL was the verb and GAOL was the noun. You jail someone in the Gaol.

Then again English is an evolving language that doesn’t simply borrow words from other languages but follows them down dark alleys, beats them with a metal pipe and steals their gerunds from their wallets..

Oh an krats – you’re an idiot … Entrapment… sheesh.

Jesus christ you’re an idiot, krats. It’s Actually Exhausting.

krats said :

I Am Sure You Meant JAIL,

Historically, it has been spelt Gaol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_prisons

So it looks like we’re wrong.

dixyland said :

Is there any hope this loser gets gaol time?

I Am Sure You Meant JAIL,After All We Or At Least I Live In Australia Not America.

Is there any hope this loser gets gaol time?

caf said :

Insurance is related to registration of the vehicle, not the licensing of the driver. However, even then it’s only third-party personal insurance that’s a compulsory part of rego – it’s perfectly legal to be licensed, registered and drive around without third-party property insurance. This means that even if a licensed driver runs into you in a registered car, you might not be able to get any money out of them to fix your car – but at least you will have your hospital bills paid.

Not quite, all insurance types have a clause which precludes them from any sort of payment if the person driving the car is unlicensed. The only exception to that is if the car was being driven by a person without the owners authorisation (ie stolen).

krats said :

Henry82 said :

harvyk1 said :

And a stern talking to… I’d also like to place $10 into the pool that says he will try and drive home from the court house.

I was watching one of those aussie police shows where an unmarked cop car would park outside the courthouse. Then another cop inside would radio out the disqualification, then they would watch the person leave the courthouse, and jump straight into the car. Let them drive 30m then arrest them for driving while disqualified.

That Is Entrapment,Not Legal In ACT.!!!

No it’s not… Entrapment is when a copper encourages a person to commit a crime which the person would not have otherwise done.

If a person drives a car from a courthouse after having their license suspended, provided it was not a copper who suggested they should ignore a court order, then that person is fair game.

krats said :

That Is Entrapment,Not Legal In ACT.!!!

It appear that your knowledge of the law is on par with your knowledge of punctuation and appropriate capitalisation in sentences.

krats said :

That Is Entrapment,Not Legal In ACT.!!!

thaT iS noT entrapmenT.

caf said :

This means that even if a licensed driver runs into you in a registered car, you might not be able to get any money out of them to fix your car – but at least you will have your hospital bills paid.

Either way, hes still a liability. To lose your license 30 years ago (and for that period of time), you’d have to do something pretty significant. At the very least he hasn’t completed an eye sight test.

Henry82 said :

Classified said :

I know an older bloke who lost his license over 30 years ago, and has kept driving anyway. He drives during the day, and stays away from busy areas. He has never been pulled over or caught.

You should tell the police. Remember if he hits you (or anyone else), he will be uninsured and you’ll get zero money to repair your car. Even if you have comprehensive, you’ll still lose your excess, and you’ll probably lose your No Claim Bonus. Hes a HUGE liability on the road.

Insurance just doesn’t work that way. Whether your insurance company will honor your claim depends on whether you – the policy holder – is licensed and insured, not the driver of the other vehicle.

If you have an accident that’s the other unlicensed drivers fault, as long as you are able to identify them to your insurance company, then it’s their job to recover payment from the other party, not yours. Whether your claim is paid out doesn’t depend on the insurance company recovering payment from the other party.

The same goes for your excess and no-claim bonus. The main factors are whether you are at fault or not, and identifying the other party.

krats said :

Henry82 said :

harvyk1 said :

And a stern talking to… I’d also like to place $10 into the pool that says he will try and drive home from the court house.

I was watching one of those aussie police shows where an unmarked cop car would park outside the courthouse. Then another cop inside would radio out the disqualification, then they would watch the person leave the courthouse, and jump straight into the car. Let them drive 30m then arrest them for driving while disqualified.

That Is Entrapment,Not Legal In ACT.!!!

Rubbish. Entrapment is when a law enforcement officer induces someone to commit an offense that they wouldn’t otherwise have committed. If a police officer met someone who’d just lost their license outside of the court, handed them their keys and helped them back to their car, then maybe that might be entrapment…but in this case, it’s no less entrapment than the police pulling over cars that are driving away from a pub and breath testing the driver.

carnardly said :

If i was judge i would be opposing bail for people like him.

Lucky you’re not a judge then cos it’s actually the DPP who oppose, or don’t oppose.

Henry82 said :

Classified said :

I know an older bloke who lost his license over 30 years ago, and has kept driving anyway. He drives during the day, and stays away from busy areas. He has never been pulled over or caught.

You should tell the police. Remember if he hits you (or anyone else), he will be uninsured and you’ll get zero money to repair your car. Even if you have comprehensive, you’ll still lose your excess, and you’ll probably lose your No Claim Bonus. Hes a HUGE liability on the road.

Insurance is related to registration of the vehicle, not the licensing of the driver. However, even then it’s only third-party personal insurance that’s a compulsory part of rego – it’s perfectly legal to be licensed, registered and drive around without third-party property insurance. This means that even if a licensed driver runs into you in a registered car, you might not be able to get any money out of them to fix your car – but at least you will have your hospital bills paid.

krats said :

creative_canberran said :

This will make a great case study in legal theory. Broadly speaking there’s a couple of trains of thought, we follow the law because of fear of the consequences, or we follow the law because we wish to comply with it for our own good.

In this case, to commit enough offences to be suspended till 2070 would indicate neither applies to him. The length of suspension actually weakens the ability to control this individual. For some, there’s really few options.

From What I Understand,The Disqualification Only Applies In Canberra.??

That wouldn’t make any sense.

For the avoidance of doubt, disqualification not only precludes you from driving in any state because you no longer have a recognised licence, but it also bars you from obtaining a licence in a different state until the disqualification period ends.

Henry82 said :

harvyk1 said :

And a stern talking to… I’d also like to place $10 into the pool that says he will try and drive home from the court house.

I was watching one of those aussie police shows where an unmarked cop car would park outside the courthouse. Then another cop inside would radio out the disqualification, then they would watch the person leave the courthouse, and jump straight into the car. Let them drive 30m then arrest them for driving while disqualified.

That Is Entrapment,Not Legal In ACT.!!!

creative_canberran said :

This will make a great case study in legal theory. Broadly speaking there’s a couple of trains of thought, we follow the law because of fear of the consequences, or we follow the law because we wish to comply with it for our own good.

In this case, to commit enough offences to be suspended till 2070 would indicate neither applies to him. The length of suspension actually weakens the ability to control this individual. For some, there’s really few options.

From What I Understand,The Disqualification Only Applies In Canberra.??

This will make a great case study in legal theory. Broadly speaking there’s a couple of trains of thought, we follow the law because of fear of the consequences, or we follow the law because we wish to comply with it for our own good.

In this case, to commit enough offences to be suspended till 2070 would indicate neither applies to him. The length of suspension actually weakens the ability to control this individual. For some, there’s really few options.

Classified said :

I know an older bloke who lost his license over 30 years ago, and has kept driving anyway. He drives during the day, and stays away from busy areas. He has never been pulled over or caught.

You should tell the police. Remember if he hits you (or anyone else), he will be uninsured and you’ll get zero money to repair your car. Even if you have comprehensive, you’ll still lose your excess, and you’ll probably lose your No Claim Bonus. Hes a HUGE liability on the road.

harvyk1 said :

Tooks said :

Henry82 said :

harvyk1 said :

And a stern talking to… I’d also like to place $10 into the pool that says he will try and drive home from the court house.

I was watching one of those aussie police shows where an unmarked cop car would park outside the courthouse. Then another cop inside would radio out the disqualification, then they would watch the person leave the courthouse, and jump straight into the car. Let them drive 30m then arrest them for driving while disqualified.

There was a case (I think last year) where a magistrate (Dingwall I think) disqualified a bloke’s licence, then looked out the window a short time later and saw him drive away.

Yeah, I think it’s a pretty safe bet… Now the challenge will be to find someone to put money into the “he will be honest” side…

If there’s enough money in the pot I reckon we could find a few takers who could ensure that he would be honest …. for the rest of his life……

Classified said :

carnardly said :

guess that proves cancelling licences has no effect on getting morons off the road.

Clearly.

I know an older bloke who lost his license over 30 years ago, and has kept driving anyway. He drives during the day, and stays away from busy areas. He has never been pulled over or caught.

Dob his arse in, slacker.

harvyk1 said :

Deref said :

I foresee a finger-wagging!

And a stern talking to… I’d also like to place $10 into the pool that says he will try and drive home from the court house.

Not Fair… I Was Going To Say That 🙁

Tooks said :

Henry82 said :

harvyk1 said :

And a stern talking to… I’d also like to place $10 into the pool that says he will try and drive home from the court house.

I was watching one of those aussie police shows where an unmarked cop car would park outside the courthouse. Then another cop inside would radio out the disqualification, then they would watch the person leave the courthouse, and jump straight into the car. Let them drive 30m then arrest them for driving while disqualified.

There was a case (I think last year) where a magistrate (Dingwall I think) disqualified a bloke’s licence, then looked out the window a short time later and saw him drive away.

Yeah, I think it’s a pretty safe bet… Now the challenge will be to find someone to put money into the “he will be honest” side…

Henry82 said :

harvyk1 said :

And a stern talking to… I’d also like to place $10 into the pool that says he will try and drive home from the court house.

I was watching one of those aussie police shows where an unmarked cop car would park outside the courthouse. Then another cop inside would radio out the disqualification, then they would watch the person leave the courthouse, and jump straight into the car. Let them drive 30m then arrest them for driving while disqualified.

There was a case (I think last year) where a magistrate (Dingwall I think) disqualified a bloke’s licence, then looked out the window a short time later and saw him drive away.

harvyk1 said :

And a stern talking to… I’d also like to place $10 into the pool that says he will try and drive home from the court house.

I was watching one of those aussie police shows where an unmarked cop car would park outside the courthouse. Then another cop inside would radio out the disqualification, then they would watch the person leave the courthouse, and jump straight into the car. Let them drive 30m then arrest them for driving while disqualified.

Whoops! Hook, line, sinker, double hook up, lol my bad!

At what point do they stop adding arbitrary numbers to the years of his licence suspension, and actually take some real action? To be disqualified for such a long time, he’s clearly a danger on our roads. Simply taking his licence off him and saying ‘No more driving, OK? There’s a good boy” is entirely pointless. One person has already mentioned they know someone who has been driving while suspended without being caught for years. I do too. I bet a lot of us do.

The compartively harsh action suggested to be taken (or actually taken, I’m not sure) against “hoons” (crushing their cars to stop them speeding and/or racing) might be something to think about…

obamabinladen said :

@ Switch

More speed cameras are you serious? Let me guess your a speed camera operator or somehow you directly benefit from increasing the amount of speed cameras.

Speed cameras are nothing but a complete revenue raising operation, and anyone who tries to argue any different is a complete moron or has a direct benefit from the cameras, ie government, camera operator, speed camera calibrater etc

Beautiful

ahappychappy said :

DUB said :

obamabinladen said :

@ Switch

More speed cameras are you serious? Let me guess your a speed camera operator or somehow you directly benefit from increasing the amount of speed cameras.

Speed cameras are nothing but a complete revenue raising operation, and anyone who tries to argue any different is a complete moron or has a direct benefit from the cameras, ie government, camera operator, speed camera calibrater etc

You didn’t see a healthy humour in Switch’s message? 🙂

Got him hook, line and sinker!

Looks like a fish hook hanging out of someone’s mouth…

@obamabinladen, you’ve miss the point of Switches post. He has suggested in jest that more speed camera’s would have prevented this, knowing full well that despite the calls from above about how speed camera’s are the be all and end all in road safety, they would not have prevented this particular individual from being on the road unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured.

DUB said :

obamabinladen said :

@ Switch

More speed cameras are you serious? Let me guess your a speed camera operator or somehow you directly benefit from increasing the amount of speed cameras.

Speed cameras are nothing but a complete revenue raising operation, and anyone who tries to argue any different is a complete moron or has a direct benefit from the cameras, ie government, camera operator, speed camera calibrater etc

You didn’t see a healthy humour in Switch’s message? 🙂

Got him hook, line and sinker!

obamabinladen said :

@ Switch

More speed cameras are you serious? Let me guess your a speed camera operator or somehow you directly benefit from increasing the amount of speed cameras.

Speed cameras are nothing but a complete revenue raising operation, and anyone who tries to argue any different is a complete moron or has a direct benefit from the cameras, ie government, camera operator, speed camera calibrater etc

You didn’t see a healthy humour in Switch’s message? 🙂

@ Switch

More speed cameras are you serious? Let me guess your a speed camera operator or somehow you directly benefit from increasing the amount of speed cameras.

Speed cameras are nothing but a complete revenue raising operation, and anyone who tries to argue any different is a complete moron or has a direct benefit from the cameras, ie government, camera operator, speed camera calibrater etc

Doesn’t this just prove we need more speed cameras?

carnardly said :

guess that proves cancelling licences has no effect on getting morons off the road.

Clearly.

I know an older bloke who lost his license over 30 years ago, and has kept driving anyway. He drives during the day, and stays away from busy areas. He has never been pulled over or caught.

Deref said :

I foresee a finger-wagging!

And a stern talking to… I’d also like to place $10 into the pool that says he will try and drive home from the court house.

I foresee a finger-wagging!

guess that proves cancelling licences has no effect on getting morons off the road.

If i was judge i would be opposing bail for people like him.

I’m sure he’ll be falling over himself to obey those “strict bail conditions”, unlike all the other conditions he totally ignored (not driving while disqualified, registering your car, having legitimate number plates etc).

He must be seriously looking forwards to his 121st birthday…

November Cool 8)

2070? He’ll live till that, and continue to drive. 🙂