Roger Hayter wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:13:15 AM UTC+1, nightjar wrote:
On 01/09/2019 20:08, newshound wrote:
On 01/09/2019 19:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, that depends on whether they can prove it was you. If you caused an
accident then I'd not want to lay any bets.
Brian

Wrong NG. Covered a little while ago in legal.moderated following a
fatal accident, IIRC there is still something from the 19th century like
"Furious and wanton cycling". But a driving license is specifically for
*motorin*.

Rather more up to date are The Road Traffic Act 1988 offences of
dangerous cycling (S28) and careless cycling (S29). However, the
penalties for those are limited to fines of up to £1000 or £2500
respectively.

The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act is used if those penalties are
deemed inadequate, as in the case of a cyclist killing a pedestrian.
That can result in a custodial sentence of up to two years and an
unlimited fine.

As you say, none of these offences would affect a driving licence.

--
Colin Bignell

As its not compulsory to have a driving license it might be difficult to
have one suspended.

I believe magistates can disqualify people from driiving as a punishment
for almost any offence, not necessarily a road related one, if they
feel it is an appropriate punishment. Furthermore, many of those they
disqualify, even for driving offences, do not have licences. The
disqualification makes it impossible for them to get a licence, and also
makes the penalties more severe if they drive again. So it is not
actually far-fetched disqualifying a non licence holder. Although a
bit pointless if they don't actually want to drive a car.


In Australia they have taken car
license for dog offenses indirectly, people who have not paid fines