Some dangerous drivers avoid immediate license revocation

Weymouth police say they did everything they could to get Edward King off the road.
After he was found “confused and off balance,” stopped for no reason in the middle of traffic with a half-empty bottle of pills on him, according to the police report, King was arrested on a charge of driving while on drugs. His car was impounded, and police asked the Registry of Motor Vehicles to revoke his driver’s license as an “immediate threat” to the public early Saturday morning.
But because the Registry’s office was closed for the weekend, the request wasn’t processed, and King could still legally drive 12 hours later when he picked up his car at a tow lot. Police say King was high on drugs again Sunday morning when he was involved in a crash that left a bicyclist with injuries that eventually proved fatal.
The death of the bicyclist, 53-year-old William Donovan of Braintree, has highlighted a little-known delay in the state’s “immediate threat” license revocation process, which is meant to keep dangerous drivers off the road as soon police decide they are so reckless that they pose a threat to the public. Under procedures in place at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, an immediate-threat request sent in by police at night, over the weekend or during a holiday can sit on a fax machine for days before it is processed.
“The RMV is an administrative agency with standard industry business hours Monday through Friday,” Michael Verseckes, a spokesman for the Registry, said in an email in response to questions about the immediate-threat request against King. Verseckes said the request was processed Monday.
The delay in processing immediate-threat requests seems to be known by few outside of law enforcement. State Sen. Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican who helped craft an overhaul of the state’s drunken-driving laws in 2005, said he was disturbed to learn that King had been allowed to legally drive again only 12 hours after Weymouth police decided he posed an immediate threat to the public. He is now considering legislation that would change how immediate-threat requests are handled.
“If this gap exists in the protocols, it has to change,” he said.
The Registry’s delay in responding to immediate-threat requests is a departure from many other administrative actions that are frequently performed outside business hours in Massachusetts. Police and court officials routinely impound vehicles, issue restraining orders, set bail and suspend licenses at any hour of night.
Hedlund said lawmakers should consider transferring processing of immediate-threat requests to an agency that is open 24 hours a day – such as the State Police – instead of one that closes its doors at 5 p.m. on Friday.

Our View: Late turn for drunk-driving ignition key

At some point, don’t lawmakers just look at a proposed bill and say, “Yea, that makes too much sense!”

That’s where we sit with proposed legislation passed by the state Senate Thursday that would expand the use of ignition interlock devices for more drunk driving offenders.

The Senate voted 50-0 Thursday to send the bill to the state House of Representatives with three remaining scheduled session days for the House to approve the legislation and push the bill to the governor’s desk.

Interlock devices require drivers to blow into the device before the ignition will work. If there is too much alcohol on their breath, the vehicle won’t start.

Why did it take so long to act on legislation that was introduced last year by state Sen. John Rafferty, R-Montgomery, who is chairman of the important Senate Transportation Committee?

Under this bill, ignition interlocks would be required for one year for first-time convicted drunk drivers with an illegal blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 or greater. This is a law 31 states have in place for at least some first-time offenders.

A 2003 Pennsylvania law already requires the devices for repeat drunk-driving offenders for one year. Cost isn’t a factor, because the motorist involved pays the fees.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says studies have shown that repeat drunk-driving decreases by about two-thirds when the devices are used. In 2013 interlocks in place for repeat drunk-driving offenders in the state blocked 50,000 attempts to drive by motorists who had been drinking, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

Logic — and statistics — support the implementation of interlock devices. Rafferty said that states requiring all convicted drunk drivers to use an ignition interlock have reduced their DUI deaths by more than 33 percent. For the record, Mothers Against Drunk Driving reported that 408 people died in 2012 because of drunk drivers in Pennsylvania.

Saving any of those drivers, is proof enough that this is a law that makes sense.

Our question is, what took so long?

Opinion: Law is not applied equally to everyone

This week’s exclusive Telegraph report revealing there are motorists on the county roads with up to 23 penalty points on their driving licences will come as a surprise to many of us.

There is a natural assumption that when you get to 12 points you lose your licence.

Motorists with up to 23 points on licences are still on our roads

That is what most of us would expect to happen if we admit or are found guilty of motoring offences such as speeding, driving without insurance or not having the appropriate licence in the first place.

So, why are the courts allowing people who have totted up as many as 23 points to continue driving?

Remember, to get to such a level a driver must have first topped 12penalty points, been allowed to keep their licence by a court and then gone on to commit further offences.
So although they may have proved “exceptional hardship” to the satsifaction of the courts they have still knowingly commited more offences.

Where and when will the courts draw the line?

Can people who claim that a driving ban unduly impacts on others just go on committing ofences with impunity?

The law should be applied equally to everyone, which is clearly not being done at present.

Innocent people should not suffer from the actions of others, but many of those who continue to offend clearly have no respect for the law.

Driver Training and Driving Schools in the Dagenham

Learning how to drive is an exciting stage in the life of every person. To pass the driving test, you require complete knowledge of driving rules which must be followed while driving on the road. You can undertake the driving lessons Dagenham within an hour duration. As with the theory/hazard perception test there are no test centers in Dagenham itself. The driving lessons will help you in learning driving and understanding the traffic rules perfectly. This is of course an average and it does give you some idea of what to expect.

There are several good places in and around Dagenham that make particularly good nursery driving routes where it is easy to begin your driving career without being under undue pressure and having to deal with too much other traffic. There are of course extremes in both directions where someone has achieved a standard of driving that is high enough to pass a practical test with very few lessons and there are also those who will go on to need considerably more hours. Driving lesson Dagenham are not only important for novice drivers or young people working to improve their skills. When you learn how to drive you must have a good instructor by your side. Choosing a driving school Dagenham must be done based on the reputation of that school and on the qualities of their driving instructors.

Saudi women launch fresh push for right to drive

A group of Saudi women launched a new campaign to be allowed to drive their cars, Al-Hayat daily reported.
The new campaign, called "I Drive by Myself", reiterates the women's calls for freedom of movement and transportation without having to resort to private drivers.
Dr. Hala Al-Dawsari, member of the campaign, told Al-Hayat daily the constant campaigns launched by women will eventually lead to two things: either authorities lift the ban imposed on women who want to drive or they should provide a good explanation why women are not allowed to get behind the wheel.
"All active women want one thing: free movement without any cost or social restrictions," Al-Dawsari said.
There is no written law that explicitly and clearly states that women cannot drive.
Saudi law requires citizens to have valid driver's licenses when operating a vehicle inside the country. However, women cannot obtain driving licenses, making it difficult for them to drive on the road because they will be breaking the law.
Al-Dawsari presented a working paper about women driving at the Council of Human Rights in Geneva this month. She launched a campaign encouraging people to participate in the issue and document their demands in a bulletin that will be issued on Oct. 26.
The campaign, launched a week ago, has so far attracted 30,000 supporters, Al-Dawsari said, adding that only Saudi women can end the ban imposed on them.
"Women driving is a legitimate right all over the world and there are no logical reasons why they should not be allowed to drive," she said. The issue is still heavily debated in Saudi society.
Women have been working hard to lift the ban on driving while religious scholars still oppose the idea vehemently.
The voices calling for allowing women to drive increased when June 17, 2011 was set as the date when women would drive their cars on the street.
However, they had to push the date to June 29 following the death of then Crown Prince Naif Bin Abdulaziz. In commemoration of the June campaign, a group of women and men have called on authorities to reconsider this issue, stressing that they will not violate laws or cause any trouble to authorities.
They agreed that all they need is to allow a woman who lives alone and does not have a man to help her to drive to the market and buy her stuff herself.

Do the new distracted driving laws go far enough?

Laws coming in this month will see drivers getting three penalty points for getting caught talking on a cell phone while driving.

Constable Ian MacDonald with the Abbotsford police says he’s in favour of the move to points, although he says it’s clear the message is not getting out there yet, judging by what they see in roadside checks.

“We run out of tickets before we run out of volunteers to receive tickets and so obviously not everybody out there is taking it seriously enough despite the fact that it is causing carnage and injury on our roadway,” he explains.

MacDonald worries that enough isn’t being done to make people put down their phones. “Collectively we recognize that we need to do more and when I say we I don’t just mean law enforcement. We as citizens in this province need to do more because obviously the message isn’t getting out there effectively enough.”

He says so far this year his officers have handed out more than 1400 distracted driving tickets and says they’ll probably hit 2000 by the end of the year.

The points come into effect on October 20th, meaning anyone with more than three will have to pay at least $175 extra on their insurance.

Corporate Driving- Keep Your Driving Secured

Driving teachers not only educate you to drive and exercise with you, but also help you to increase up your assurance and have the beneficial mind-set towards this art instead of getting scared. Getting a corporate driving lesson with just driving will make sure that you effectively, efficiently successfully pass your assess and become a protected car driver. Corporate driver training offer you top high quality and essential driving session, which will make you confident while driving on street in the very brief period of time interval. Corporate driving training performs an important part in ensuring a protected car owner the preliminary abilities obtained will form driving exercises for the rest of life.

The corporate driving course will help to keep your driving secured. The advantages of getting together with an approved driving trainer is that he will help one to comprehend the automobile and its elements and the right way to look after and sustain a car apart from the appropriate way to drive with the guidelines in place. Corporate driving is in excellent need nowadays, offering coaching having many years of encounter. Corporate drivers are in outstanding need for the conveyance of the employees. Corporate driving training play a crucial part in driving a secure driver the preliminary abilities obtained will form driving routines for the relax of lifestyle.

High Court Guides Sentencing in Careless Driving Cases

The New Jersey Supreme Court has approved the upending of a jail sentence imposed on a motorist who fatally struck a pedestrian—and in the process offered some sentencing guidance to municipal judges handling careless driving cases.
The court on Sept. 30 ordered a remand for more thorough consideration of the sentence using the same factors governing sentencing in reckless driving cases.
"All careless driving situations are not the same, even if each offense meets the same statutory elements," the court said. "On a 'scale of opprobriousness,' some offenses will weigh in at the highest end of the scale, while others do not."
According to the opinion, the accident occurred in February 2010, when defendant Diana Palma was turning her Ford Expedition from Bergen Place onto Broad Street in Red Bank, N.J. Alla Tsiring, who was crossing Broad Street, was struck and dragged for a time before Palma was stopped by another motorist.
Tsiring, 44, died from her injuries two months later, the opinion stated.
Palma, who was licensed and not intoxicated at the time of the accident, avoided criminal charges, but was cited for careless driving and failure to yield to a pedestrian, according to the opinion.
Palma pleaded guilty to careless driving and was sentenced by Red Bank Municipal Court Judge William Himelman to 15 days in Monmouth County Jail, to be served on weekends, as well as a 90-day license suspension and $241 in fines and costs. Custodial sentencing is provided for in the careless driving statute.
Palma, taking issue with the jail term, sought review by the Law Division, but Superior Court Judge Ronald Reisner imposed the same sentence.
In June 2012, however, Appellate Division Judges Marie Lihotz, Alexander Waugh Jr. and Jerome St. John vacated the sentence and remanded the case, ruling that the judges below should have considered the factors previously laid out in the 2010 Supreme Court case State v. Moran.
There, the Supreme Court said judges imposing a license suspension for reckless driving—a more serious charge than careless driving—should consider seven factors: the nature and circumstances of the defendant's actions, the defendant's driving record, the time passed since any previous infractions, the defendant's character and attitude, whether the conduct is unlikely to recur, any excessive hardship the sentence would cause, and the need for personal deterrence.
On appeal to the Supreme Court in Palma's case, prosecutors argued that the appeals court misinterpreted Moran and wrongly ruled that Tsiring's death in itself was not reason enough for the custodial sentence. Palma, meanwhile, contended that something beyond carelessness is required for a jail term to be issued, according to the opinion.
On Sept. 30, the Supreme Court, led by temporarily assigned Appellate Division Judge Ariel Rodriguez, acknowledged the factual differences between Moran and Palma's case. But the unanimous court affirmed, calling jail time a "consequence of magnitude" and holding that, "in order to promote the goals of predictability and elimination of disparity, we conclude that the Moran factors should be used to guide sentencing decisions in careless driving convictions."
Reisner erred in consulting the state Criminal Code for sentencing factors, Rodriguez said, noting that careless driving "is not a crime but rather a petty offense."
"It is clear from the existing case law that the Legislature and this court have expressed an intent to keep motor vehicle violations separate and apart from criminal convictions," Rodriguez added. "This court has so stated this intent in the context of DUI convictions."
Rodriguez said judges, in evaluating the sentencing factors, should consider all relevant information—including that excluded from evidence, such as hearsay—but must take care to exclude "extraneous" information.
Appellate Division Judge Mary Catherine Cuff, temporarily assigned to the court, didn't participate in the ruling.
Palma's counsel, Red Bank-based solo Paul Zager, said he's never heard of another case where a careless driving conviction was met with a custodial sentence.
He added that Palma is grateful that the sentence was vacated, "but now she has to start all over."
"It's been five years, and everyone wants to move on," Zager said. "It's just a very sad case."
Assistant Monmouth County Prosecutor Paul Heinzel, who represented the state, didn't return a call. Office spokesman Charles Webster didn't respond to an email seeking comment.

Vermont Law Bans Using All Electronic Devices While Driving

The only way to use an electronic device in your car now is if it's hands free. The new Vermont law bans using cell phones and other devices like MP3 players, laptops and GPS while driving.

But, there is still a way to make phone calls while driving. Using Bluetooth, other voice activated commands in the car, and speakerphone are all allowed. To use speakerphone while driving it’s only permitted to touch the phone for activating or deactivating speakerphone. During the phone conversation the phone must not be in hand.

Sergeant Mark Perkins of Vermont State Police says if you must make a phone call and don't have speakerphone or Bluetooth you cannot pull over on the highway. The best option is to stop at a rest stop or park at a safe place off of the highway. However, if it's an emergency it's legal to call authorities.

“If there is an emergency you’re allowed to use your phone to contact authorities. Not if there is an emergency in your world, like ‘I’ve got an emergency I’ve got to call home’ that’s not acceptable. It is acceptable to call authorities if you need help,” said Sgt. Perkins.

Violating the new law will have its consequences. The first offense is a $162 fine with no points on your license and the second offense in a two year period is $392, an expensive phone call to make. Police will be monitoring this and can pull anyone over if they see cell phones or other electronic devices in hand.

Driving While High: What Does ‘Impairment’ Really Mean?

Driving under the influence of any motor skill-inhibiting substance, whether it comes from a flask, a bong or a prescription bottle, is both illegal and dangerous.

While the scientific and law enforcement communities generally agree about what constitutes “impairment” under the influence of alcohol, a similar consensus on what determines a driver’s sobriety under the influence of marijuana remains elusive.

As the national tide shifts ever closer to legalizing recreational marijuana use, law enforcement officials are grappling with how to apply existing driving under the influence laws to drivers who are high. However, the imprecise approach some states use in implementing these “drugged driving” laws has created an environment which is potentially subject to abuse by law enforcement and with questionable benefit to public safety.

The lack of consensus on how to identify marijuana-impaired drivers will be an ongoing concern as the nation’s marijuana laws and consumption practices evolve.

In a 2013 report in the Humboldt Journal of Science Relations, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano warned that enforcement of so-called “per se” drugged driving laws, under which drivers can be convicted of a traffic safety offense for operating a motor vehicle with even trace amounts of THC or metabolites found in their bodily fluids, “may inadvertently become a criminal mechanism for law enforcement and prosecutors to punish those who have engaged in legally protected behavior and who have not posed any actionable traffic safety threat.”

Eighteen states have such per se laws, which means if a driver is pulled over and ultimately arrested on suspicion of DUI, they could be subject to additional criminal charges if their bodily fluid tests positive for a pre-determined amount of THC or its metabolites.

This effectively eliminates the state’s requirement to prove a driver is actually impaired, as failing a field sobriety test would, relying instead on the presence of a substance in an individual’s blood or urine, a questionable yardstick for measuring a driver’s ability to safely operate their motor vehicle.

“It is far from established that the identification of either THC or the carboxy THC metabolite may be consistently correlated with behavioral impairment,” Armentano testified before the Nevada Subcommittee on the Medical Use of Marijuana in August.

While most drugs completely leave your system within a few days, marijuana lingers in the fat cells before slowly being passed through the bloodstream and eliminated from the body. The speed of that process varies depending on frequency of use, especially if use is chronic, as in the case of a medical marijuana patient, who may even be immune to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.

“Experienced cannabis consumers … become tolerant to the substance’s behavioral effects. These subjects also retain trace concentrations of THC and/or carboxy THC for extended periods of time well beyond the duration of impairment,” Armentano testified.

Some states impose a specific “THC limit,” which measures the amount of THC and its metabolites in someone’s blood, similar to a blood-alcohol test. Washington and Colorado, where recreational cannabis use is legal for adults over age 21, use 5 ng/ml (five billionths of a gram per milliliter of blood) as the legal limit, with zero tolerance for drivers under 21 in accordance with the states’ recreational cannabis laws. Other states have different thresholds. Armentano said these numbers are arbitrary, as trace amounts of THC and its metabolites in the blood have not been unimpeachably linked to motor function impairment.

“These levels were not chosen because of any scientific evidence indicating that psychomotor impairment or greater likelihood of accident is likely to occur at or above these levels,” Armentano wrote in an email.

And yet, twelve states have “zero tolerance” per se laws, where any trace of THC can result in criminal charges, regardless of when consumption of the substance took place.

Jonathan Adkins is the executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Administration, which deals with a number of traffic safety issues at the state level, including impaired driving. Adkins said the organization is not opposed to consumption of alcohol or legal marijuana, but it supports per se laws and their expansion to other states. He stopped short, however, of saying unequivocally that the laws prevent traffic fatalities.

“We don’t have the research to show [per se laws]prevent deaths or accidents, but they’re one of the many tools law enforcement can use and we support them.”

When asked whether drivers with trace amounts of THC in their system could be considered legally impaired, Adkins conceded, “Different people react very differently to marijuana. And that’s part of the controversy. Right now it’s more about what we don’t know than what we do. We’re having trouble keeping up with all changes to the legislation.”

Legal precedent has been set which calls into question the logic of charging and convicting a driver for trace amounts of THC and metabolites in the blood or urine, whether the driver in question is a legal cannabis consumer or not.

In 1997, The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed a lower court’s conviction of a non-medical cannabis user who was pulled over for speeding and arrested for having drugs in his system while driving. The high court ruled that his conviction violated the Constitution’s equal protection laws by “arbitrarily” drawing a distinction between legal and illegal cannabis users.

Last month, the Arizona Supreme Court held that drivers in the state could not be convicted “based merely on the presence of a non-impairing metabolite that may reflect the prior usage of marijuana.”

In spite of more nuanced rulings at the state level, the Federal Government has not yet budged from a stricter view of the dangers of any marijuana consumption by drivers. President Obama’s 2012 National Drug Control Strategy report encourages even more states to adopt zero tolerance per se drugged driving laws.

The NDCS report does mention that it’s working on creating a unified standard for drug testing, including researching the development of a “reliable, widely-available roadside test.” It also says it’s working to learn more about what constitutes intoxication when it comes to marijuana.

A policy of “Let’s find out more and enforce accordingly” is a slight but meaningful step up from previous decades’ apparent policy of “Let’s not find out more and enforce haphazardly.” However, until a peer-reviewed scientific determination can show the correlation between the amount of THC in bodily fluids and the inability to drive, arresting and charging sober motorists with DUI for trace particles of THC in their blood is nothing short of draconian. 

10 states in which you (for now) absolutely do not want to drive with cannabis in your system.

ARIZONA (Zero Tolerance for THC/Metabolites, but with legal precedent against it)
DELAWARE (Zero Tolerance for THC/Metabolites)
ILLINOIS (Zero Tolerance for THC/Metabolites)
INDIANA (Zero Tolerance for THC/Metabolites with no exception for MMJ patients)
IOWA (Zero Tolerance for THC/Metabolites with no exception for MMJ patients)
GEORGIA (Zero Tolerance for THC/Metabolites, but with legal precedent against using bodily fluid testing to determine intoxication)
MICHIGAN (Zero Tolerance for THC)
OKLAHOMA (Zero Tolerance for THC/Metabolites)
RHODE ISLAND (Zero Tolerance for THC/Metabolites)
UTAH (Zero Tolerance for THC/Metabolites)
WISCONSIN (Zero Tolerance for THC with no exception for MMJ patients)

Opposition from judges, attorneys delays Annie's Law

COLUMBUS – Opposition from Ohio's judges and attorneys delayed a committee vote on a bill that aims to require ignition interlock devices for first-time drunken driving offenders.

House Bill 469, better known as Annie's Law, was expected to be voted out of judiciary committee and sent to the full House on Tuesday. The vote was delayed at least a week after the committee received a letter Monday from the Ohio Judicial Conference and another Tuesday from the Ohio State Bar Association requesting changes to the wording.

If passed, the bill would require all first-time drunken driving offenders to use an ignition interlock device on their vehicles for six months. An ignition interlock device requires a person to exhale into it to test the breath for alcohol content. If the content is above the device's programmed limit, it prevents the vehicle from being started.

The bill as presented also would permit judges to require the device for people who plead to a lesser charge such as physical control.

Currently, judges have the discretion to sentence offenders to use the devices; they are only mandated for those who have a second offense within six years.

The Judicial Conference letter, written by director Mark Schweikert, raised concerns about restricting judicial discretion in sentencing and theorized the changes would increase the number of defendants wanting a trial, burdening court schedules.

"Judicial discretion is fundamental to our democratic system of government. Mandatory sentences can have unintended practical consequences that are avoided when judicial discretion is preserved," he wrote.

The State Bar Association letter, written by director of policy and government Todd Book, noted its agreement with the Judicial Conference's concerns even though it "agrees with the bill's objective of reducing incidents of impaired driving."

Schweikert contends in the letter that the "vast majority" of first-time drunken driving offenders never reoffend. He pointed to a 2007 Bureau of Motor Vehicles report that 77 percent of offenders were offending for the first time; 18 percent were second-time offenders.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported people using interlock devices were 67 percent less likely to be rearrested for drunken driving than those who only had a license suspension.

Schweikert said the concerns raised in the letter were determined after the conference's Traffic Law and Procedure Committee, which consists of 20 judges and two magistrates, reviewed the bill.

"What our job is to address the General Assembly about what the impact is," Schweikert said.

The conference previously had sent a letter to bill co-sponsors representatives Gary Scherer, R-Circleville, and Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, to raise similar concerns. It opted to send one Monday to the House judiciary committee after meeting with Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Butler, R-Oakwood, last week.

The bill is named for Chillicothe attorney Annie Rooney, whose 2013 death led to her family's fight to strengthen Ohio's drunken driving laws. Shira Seymour, of Bainbridge, was sentenced to the maximum eight years in prison for Rooney's death. Seymour had a prior impaired driving charge that had been pleaded down to physical control.

Dr. Rick Rooney, Annie Rooney's father, said he was dismayed by the delay, but still has high hopes the bill will come out of committee next week.

"We didn't see it coming, and we had reached out to them (the judiciary conference) for months," he said. "They're going to try to negotiate and go back next week."

The letters were the first submitted to the committee in opposition of portions of the bill. The committee this week also received a letter of support from the Ohio State Medical Association.

In the spring, the Ohio Association for Justice, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Ohio Conference of AAA Clubs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety also had submitted letters of support to the committee. The National Traffic chairman Chris Hart also appeared in Columbus to express support.

UVM Students Push Public, Police On Distracted Driving Law

Vermont’s new ban on the use of handheld electronics while driving went into effect Oct. 1, and a group of UVM students is already spotting violators and advocating for citizens and police to be aware of the law.

“If you use your phone while you drive, you’re up to three times more likely  to get into an accident, according to research,” said Vivian Nicastro, a UVM senior with Students Against Distracted Driving (SADD).

And according to the UVM group’s own research, plenty of Vermonters are doing just that.

Senior Mashall Distel said the group conducted a survey on Sept. 10.

“We were located at seven different spots here in Burlington and we observed over 2,000 cars,” Distel said. “Of those 2,000 cars, we found that 243 people were actively texting or talking on the phone while driving, which is shocking.”

The group repeated the survey Wednesday, the first day the ban is in effect, to see if the number of people using their phones behind the wheel has changed at all. In the first 30 minutes of the new survey, students checking passing cars on Main Street in Burlington saw 10 drivers with their phones out.

Sydney Durand, another senior with the student group, said the new law is a good step, but it now needs buy-in from Vermonters outside the statehouse.

“It’s only going to be really effective if other Vermonters and law enforcement take it seriously as well,” she said.

Driving Lesson Newcastle And Feel Confident Driving

Driving lesson Newcastle trainer are extremely knowledgeable and have the right information that is needed for educating a person with full concentrate and commitment. In This driving classes you will learn expert techniques that you haven't learned in your from other driving classes. This helps in getting quality driving lessons from expert instructors. The pass rate of pupils who have taken the intensive driving lessons is much higher as the time duration of tuition decreases greatly. Companies who provide driving lessons Newcastle or driving lessons in Newcastle have taken the Driving Standards Agency. To face exams and to make them qualified to be able to teach people to drive.

The driving lessons will help you in learning driving and understanding the traffic rules perfectly. Knowledge of the traffic rules will help you in becoming a safe driver. The course can be completed in some days and include some hours depending on the amount of time you require to master the art of driving. You will be provided private courses, which means one on one teaching will be provided to you by the instructor. Many companies who offer driving lessons Newcastle now have some great deals if students block book a number of lessons at the same time.