The Press WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1976. Disqualified drivers

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34133, 21 April 1976, Page 14

The Press WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1976. Disqualified drivers

The road toll, although reduced, is still so high that the country’s courts must continue to impose stiff penalties to deter people from driving carelessly or recklessly. In a country 7 where most people rely heavily on their cars, losing their driving licence is probably seen by most as the severest penalty that could be imposed on them, short of imprisonment. The Auckland Automobile Association — a body as concerned as any about the road toll — has complained that too many drivers are being disqualified for minor offences, for which a lesser penalty would have been appropriate, and so many disqualified that the penalty is being increasingly Ignored. The association’s complaints are not valid. A blanket judgment about a large number of individual decisions made by a large number of magistrates is difficult to justify’, but in most courts it appears that drivers are being disqualified only for more serious offences which have placed the safety or lives of others in jeopardy. If the aim of disqualification were simply to keep persistently careless or irresponsible drivers off the roads it would be proper for it to be used sparingly and imposed for long periods. But disqualification is also a threat which provides an incentive for all drivers to be careful at all times on the roads. It is. therefore, an appropriate penalty for even a single grossly careless action by a usually careful driver. If the law was changed so that magistrates could disqualify drivers only for specified, serious offences they would be denied the ability to impose a penalty which really does deter. Disqualification would serve neither purpose — keeping irresponsible drivers off the road and encouraging all drivers to drive carefully — if disqualified drivers were able to ignore the penalty with impunity. But the number of people disqualified, and the nature of the offences for which magistrates decide disqualification is an appropriate sentence, have no bearing either on the decision of any individual disqualified driver to risk driving or on his chances of detection. Traffic officers will not find it any easier to catch those who do drive while they are disqualified if fewer people are disqualified. The high number of convictions of people caught driving while disqualified, to which a spokesman for the association referred, suggests that it is not easy to escape detection. The courts need only come down very heavily on those caught driving while disqualified for the penalty to be effective. The threat of being disqualified should serve as a salutary reminder to all motorists that being allowed to drive a car is not a right which can be revoked only for serious offences but a privilege granted on certain conditions which must be observed at all times if the privilege is not to be withdrawn