To think drunk drivers should lose their vehicles?

“If a drink driver’s car is destroyed in an accident, or if it does not belong to them, they will pay a fine equivalent to its value”

@SassyPearlEagle In the article you shared it said the above . I don’t know if co-owning would count as belonging to them or not.

I actually don’t mind too much if it’s owned by someone else. If you use your car so recklessly that it’s akin to being a weapon that weapon should be removed from you.

It’s not the same but it’s slightly similar thinking behind how a gun that is used by a couple is removed from a house, even if it just one person is considered unfit to use one. Maybe people’s partners would be more compelled to try and stop their drunk spouse driving off if they had to face consequences too. On one level It might be a shame for them to lose the car, but the person they need to blame would be the partner they chose.

My scepticism to it is more around the fact I’m sure if this is a good deterrent, would have had to see stats of how it’s worked in other nations.

Regarding proportionality of fines; well yes, there are caps but at the other end there are processes in place for people with lower incomes to return to Court for adjustment.

To be honest, I have never thought fines were a particularly effective punishment unless fixed penalty at time of offence. Deprivation of liberty, time or movement, or property, and unpaid work always feels more appropriate.

My friend drove without insurance a few years ago and the car was impounded and he had to pay a few hundred to get it out.

I assumed this was standard but maybe not.

I believe in punishment that fits the crime.
Drunk drivers should work in hospitals or clean up roadside accidents (don’t know how either of these would work) but I think they need to see the potential consequences of their actions.

I'm sure Ant out of Ant and Dec got a huge fine but it would have barely touched the sides

I thought they were meant to be proportional but were capped at least sometimes?

E.g. for one of the drink driving offences the fine is capped at £2500 (the other is unlimited I think) and there are various articles noting that poorer people are often more substantially impacted by fines than wealthier people.

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/resources/common-offences/drink-driving/

A prison sentence would probably be better but that won't happen because there is no room

I think this idea has merits in theory. I don’t know how other countries manage it but as other posters have said there needs to be provision for co-owners or where other usual drivers would be disadvantaged. Forced change of ownership might be difficult but the onus is always on the insured to ensure a banned driver/uninsured person doesn’t drive the car. I don’t know if you can insure a vehicle if you don’t own it. Give other essential drivers the option to take over the lease if the car is leased.

I think the licence ban should continue though, whatever else is implemented.

In an age where we can ‘tag’ and use GPS to location monitor criminals and black boxes to monitor driving we should be able to make inroads (sorry for the pun) into ensuring banned drivers don’t get behind the wheel of a car for the period of their ban.

A few other points…. Court fines are proportional to income, as long as people are honest (!?) about their income.

Lifetime bans would be seen to set people up to fail, a bit like life sentences.

Drink driving limit should be dropped to trace levels, and drink drivers should get a life time ban.

Presumably if you did it: if it was a jointly held car you'd make an application to get it back, if it was a lease your lease would be terminated and it would be returned to the lease company as it wouldn't be yours for the police the confiscate. They don't seem insurmountable problems to me, especially given it is a law it's pretty easy to avoid breaking.

I'd probably personally go for fines proportional to income/assets personally because I think people might take the piss with the monthly held car but, but I certainly agree that fixed fines aren't much use.

Drunk drivers often do lose their vehicles and have to go looking for them in the morning.

Not in the OP it's not

That happens anyway. Drunks get banned for a while.

Ok, the first time it could be returned to the other driver in the family and the drunk banned from driving (in general and that car specifically as well).

How do they manage it when the car is jointly owned?

This is not instead of driving ban, it's in addition to.

Hey kids, sorry you're homeless but your mum was over the limit.

So all the well off drivers would just buy another car or use another one they had and the family of the poorer drivers wouldn't have a car, that sounds well thought out OP

Stop pussyfooting around with fines and driving bans

by confiscating the car and skipping fines and bans people can just go out and buy a new car.

I was that terrified kid in the back seat as Dad drove dangerously on dark, narrow country roads whilst mum tried to get him to slow down BUT..

If Dad had lost the car, mum would have been stuck in a very rural area, no buses, no way to get us to and from school or go shopping for food. Mum didn't own any cars, had no income of her own and was in an abusive relationship - how would having no access to a car have helped her situation or us kids?

Plus, Dad often owned several cars at the same time in various levels of delapidation and being 'done up'. Would he have lost just the car he was driving when caught drunk driving or all of them?

These sorts of punitive ideas always seem good until the detail has to be worked out, when it all gets too complicated.

They don't though. Drunks don't think. So why should the other owners of the car be punished?
Like I said, my dad is a cock and drink drives sometimes. My mum uses their car for her job.
If he was caught and the car destroyed, my mum would be stuffed.

It would affect poorer people much more to had a car confiscated.

Surely people will think about that before drink driving