Inflexibility.

When someone gets a three year driving ban for being pissed while driving a toy that only goes at a brisk walking pace it's a little tricky to see what the law is serving beyond itself and its processes. Possibly a fine would have been appropriate depending on when and where he drove it (presumably it wasn't insured, registered or road legal) but a ban? Seriously?

He was given a mandatory three-year ban because he had received another drink-drive ban within the past ten years.

So in this case the law says that if X applies when caught doing Y then Z must follow no matter what, even if if Y consists of being a twat with a kid's toy rather than being off your dial while actually driving a real car. Maybe where he was caught was a bit of road with a lot of high speed traffic where an idiot in a 4mph kiddy car is at least anti-social and more likely bloody dangerous and so a heavy driving ban might be appropriate, but that's not why he's suspended for three years, is it? It's just because he's got a previous drink driving conviction. Seems to me that either the law is treating him too harshly because of that or it would probably be lenient if he had not been done before, but either way it's left looking silly because there's no room for common sense to be applied in unique situations that couldn't have been foreseen when the law was written.