Eh??

[Qwight]

What * is* this guy saying?

"The accident was as a result of a momentary lapse of judgment on Mr
Watkins�s part. He had an unblemished driving record and his GP can
see no reason why he should not continue to drive," said Mr Peckham.
After he was fined �375 with �620 costs and a �15 surcharge, Watkins
told the court he would appeal the sentence.
"I am prepared to accept a fine, because the driver coming out of a
side road is always the guilty party."
But he said by ordering him to re-take his test, magistrates were
taking away his and his wife�s lifeline in a village with few
amenities he could reach with limited mobility and making it
impossible to visit friends in other parts of the Island.

Why should a re-test take away his lifeline?
If he passes the test he can keep on driving and good luck to him.
If he fails then he should not be driving because he is a danger to
himself and others.

[Mike]

"Qwight" <qwi...@not-qwight.invalid> wrote in message
news:j358f5pord0kv879e...@4ax.com...

What is there to stop his friends visiting him?
What is there to stop his friends and/or family taking him out?

I have just spent a week in St Mary's Hospital again. You find out who your
friends are with regards to lifts for visitors and the number of visitors
:-))))

Yes to lose my licence would be a blow, BUT, we have considered moving quite
a few times and it is the closeness of all the amenities and transport
facilities which has made us decide to stay where we are. Perhaps he should
reconsider his location

--
Mike

The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rneba.org.uk
Luxury Self Catering on the Isle of Wight?
www.shanklinmanormews.co.uk

[kj]

absolutely ridiculous. If his GP says there is no reason why he
shouldn't be driving, then taking a re-test should be no problem..and if
he fails thats another dangerous driver off our streets.

I don't give a damn about where he lives...thats a personal choice

[Qwight]

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:19:57 +0000, kj
<vforven...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>absolutely ridiculous. If his GP says there is no reason why he
>shouldn't be driving, then taking a re-test should be no problem..and if
>he fails thats another dangerous driver off our streets.
>
>I don't give a damn about where he lives...thats a personal choice

The only possible inference from what he says is that he knows he
cannot pass the test.
IMO there are not nearly enough re-tests. I would make it a statutory
requirement for anyone convicted of careless driving (or worse) to
revert immediately to provisional licence status until they re-pass
the test.

[kj]

and an annual event for anybody over 70

[Goldenwight]

You know, there ARE these things called buses that run around the
Island...

[Roger]

>>>
>>> I don't give a damn about where he lives...thats a personal choice
>>
>> The only possible inference from what he says is that he knows he
>> cannot pass the test.
>> IMO there are not nearly enough re-tests. I would make it a statutory
>> requirement for anyone convicted of careless driving (or worse) to
>> revert immediately to provisional licence status until they re-pass
>> the test.
> and an annual event for anybody over 70

Agree completely, but would also raise the age you can get a driving licence
(and alcohol but that's another matter) to 21 - exception being those in the
military and essential services who would still be able to take their test
at 17.

Roger

[kj]

would also stage the test..so at 21 you can qualify for a car of less
than 1000cc..after further test, up to 2 litre and a further test for
performance cars

[Richard]

I didnt think you needed a license for the little electric disabled
buggy you drive now?

[Qwight]

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:31:44 -0800 (PST), "mark ." <pro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Condemning those that *might* have the capability - including physical
>capability - and capacity to not being able to drive for some obscure
>legal argument (for example..) just runs completely contrary to
>current social thinking.
>
Who has suggested such an approach? If the guy passes the driving test
- the same one as any other potential driver - then he should and will
be allowed to drive. No argument - obscure or legal or anything else.

>No doubt any attempt to take away a driving licence from anyone who
>was capable of meeting driving test requirements would be challenged
>in the ECJ, probably rightly so and probably would be successful.
>
See above.

[Richard]

On Nov 8, 9:06 am, "mark ." <prom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> On Nov 7, 4:56 pm, Qwight <qwi...@not-qwight.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:31:44 -0800 (PST), "mark ." <prom...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:>Condemning those that *might* have the capability - including physical
> > >capability - and capacity to not being able to drive for some obscure
> > >legal argument (for example..) just runs completely contrary to
> > >current social thinking.
> > Who has suggested such an approach? If the guy passes the driving test
> > - the same one as any other potential driver - then he should and will
> > be allowed to drive. No argument - obscure or legal or anything else.
>

> do try and read what I said......   we are saying exactly the same
> thing..

>
> > >No doubt any attempt to take away a driving licence from anyone who
> > >was capable of meeting driving test requirements would be challenged
> > >in the ECJ, probably rightly so and probably would be successful.
> > See above.
>

> yes.  as above.
> I'm saying EXACTLY the same thing as you..
>
> mark

Hmmmmmm..................understanding of the law on this particular
group seems to be lacking somewhat! Anyone remember the European court
judgment relating to the UK govs speed camera
scamming?................possibly not!