Is a ban better than points

[White16valver]

I was just thinking about this really - if you were caught doing a speed that almost certainly would mean you were banned for a short period of time, what would be better:

a) Taking the short Ban but not getting any points

b) Going to court and (somehow) getting points and a chunky fine but no ban



Am I right in thinking that if you get banned then you dont get points?

And if you tot-up points to twelve then you get banned for a minimum of a year??



Although youd get screwed for insurance for the next however many years, surely taking the short ban and having less points on your licence would be a better deal than having lots of points and only one or two chances left if you got caught again? (assuming that you got banned for a year after totting up)

 

[derv]

i would ask my mate monkey as he is just about to get his 4th ban, he couldnt tell u about insurance though cus he rarely has any.

 

[Chili Red]

Quote: Originally posted by derv on 11 July 2005

i would ask my mate monkey as he is just about to get his 4th ban, he couldnt tell u about insurance though cus he rarely has any.

Sounds like a responsible guy...

 

[derv]

there are reasons why we call him monkey! lol hes an idiot, we tell him to sort himself out but its like talking to a brick wall.

 

[derv]

back on the topic i *think* its probably better with points, as they are so easy to get nowadays so half the time insurance companies dont charge much extra, where as bans (specially drink driving) can bump up your premiums a hell of a lot!!

 

[TheBigG69]

Points are definately alot better than a ban, going to cost me about £100 more this year on isurance as a cosequence of being banned for 2 weeks instead of getting something like 6 points.

You normally have to go to court if they are planning on banning you anyway.

 

[Deeg]

Depends completely on your circumstances etc.

As for Insurance, who knows what they think like? We all know that points dont neccesarily make you a higher risk, and neither does a ban.

A short ban is certainly a lot more "convenient" IMO.

Points, particularly those that would be given instead of a ban, would be quite high, around 9 - 11, so you are in last chance salloon anyway, might as well get the ban over with in a month and get a clean licence back, only has to be declared the same time as points, unless it is Drink / Drug / Dangerous Driving.

 

[fizzy_drink]

Ive had a one-off 3-week ban, and Ive NEVER had any points on my licence since I got it in 1996!

Some insurance companies specify that they wont insure anyone whose been disqualified in the past 5 yrs... so you cant use them (after that, you need-not declare it).

I live in an excellent postcode, 2yrs no claims, aged over 25, my ban was 3yrs ago... and I pay £950 for a fully comp 182 @ 25000 miles a year.

My motorcycle insurance was never affected by the ban.

My company car insurance had a £500 excess instead of a £100 excess, after my ban.

So there are some pros (you still have nine lives), and some cons (insurance excesses, and slightly inflated premiums.

 

[Matbrown]

I would say go for points if possible.



Mat.

 

[White16valver]

Thanks all.

I can see both sides of the story, but I think Id take the ban, on the basis that a lot of points = only really one more chance left before totting up to 12 points and a BIG ban. (Isnt it 6 months / a year minimum?)

A short ban would mean having more lives to play with afterwards IMO, as per what Deeg said.

 

[Rip3z]

Must admit Id prefer to be banned rather than crawling at 30 everywhere because Im scared of getting pulled over for speeding.