Drink/driving

P

prince regent

Conditional
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
588
with christmas and the new year coming no doubt we will see a crackdown (hopefully) on the lunatics who insisit they can take up to 10 pints and still think they are capable of driving

i cant understand why we dont have a year long crackdown on people like this


im always arguing with friends over this as most people that drink drive could actually (at least in cities) catch a cab for about a fiver or tenner and between say 2-4 people its nothing but it could well save lives or injuries

doyou think our drink driving laws are about right or to lenient or perhaps to severe

in my view you either drive or you drink you dont do both the maximum should be either 0ne glass of wine or half of beer no spirits

and the penalties should be increased

causing death by driving over the limit should be classed as murder

endangering other people or causing accidents (which arent accidents if you are out your mind on drink) whilst under the influence should involve at least a term behind bars

and what should punishment if caught be

personally if i was a judge and a driver appeared in front of me found guilty of killing someone due to drink driving that could have spent a tenner to get a cab home id like to give him life without remission
 
While not many will disagree with your sentiments, PR, I believe each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

There must be a huge difference between someone who arrogantly disregards the law by drinking beyond the limit - in some cases well beyond it - with every intention of driving afterwards because they believe they can handle it and someone who has a good night out, takes a taxi home and gets up to drive into work next morning not realising the alcohol is still in the bloodstream.

Or the case of someone who believes they have kept within the limits but subsequently eats something containing just enough alcohol to put them over the limit or someone whose drink has been spiked without their knowledge.

I think the current limits are about right even though I'm sure I'd be safe at twice the limit - exactly the kind of mentality that gets people caught.
 
If a friend came up to you and said he had a few drinks last night and then realised he needed the car first thing the next morning and had to drive home, most people would say he was stupid, others that he was lucky, others both.

If a friend came up to you and said they had been shoplifting for the afternoon, most people would immediately re-evaluate their conditions of friendship and classify that person as criminal scum.

The penalties should be related to the level of negligence shown, not the damage done. The crime is stepping into a car without having full control of it. Whether or not you manage to navigate your way home without harming anyone should be irrelevant, you shouldn't get a lesser penalty because you get lucky, likewise (see point above), the judgement should consider the fact that it is not considered, socially, to be a criminal offence.

If you prove yourself not to have sufficient responsibility to be in charge of a car. The car should be confiscated and the licence withdrawn. Damage caused should be dealt with in a seperate civil case.
 
I'm very biased on this subject. I have a cousin and close friend no longer with us directly due to other peoples drink driving. I think the limit should be zero and that way there will be no ambiguity.
 
my own opinion is,and it has nothing to do with my occupation neither do I know anyone close to me that has suffered from a drink related "accident"

the only way drink driving will be stopped is by having a zero limit after all the more people drink the more braver some become and the more they think drink dosnt affect their judgement.

i would have

aa a zero limit



bb minimum punishment 5 year ban from driving, seizure of the vechile
and a large fine/prison sentence if they cant cough up and thats before they caused any accidents or injuries or death

cc causing injuries by driving under the influence should result in a prison sentence
and not a minimal one either with the accused also paying compensation to the injured parties (as in drug related cases i would allow seizure of their assets if need be to pay the compensation)

dd causing death by driving under the influence should be treated in the same way as murder

then perhaps these arseholes who insist on driving whilst being under the influence

may think to themselves the price of a human life is worth more than one extra pint or a cab fare home

i have never heard a valid excuse put forward by a drunken driver itspure selfishness and disregard for other members of the community
 
Wouldn't they be done under causing an accident, somehow? I think if they topple off the kerb in front of your car, and you squish them, you won't be prosecuted for dangerous driving. You'll be mentally scarred for life, and it'll take ages to get all the little globby bits off the wheels, but I don't think you could be considered as the causer of the accident, especially if you breathalyze okay.
 
Prince am I right in thinking your view of zero limit is a glass of wine or a half a pint of beer.
 
Originally posted by archie@Nov 28 2005, 07:48 PM
How would you punish the 50% of pedestrians involved in road accidents who are drunk?
Click to expand...
Hang um!!!???????? :o :lol: Archie... topical on here.. if nothing else?................. :rolleyes: :lol:


Jon but if you are over the top!! and happen to be the driver its you who gets done for the injury/death....

I am far from condoning D/D........ as well I would like to see a zero tolerence myself if you drink at all and get caught your done.... full stop... :rolleyes:

I’ll add an addendum/codicil to it in the morning to tired now....
 
Yes, I realize that, Merls. What I was saying that if you are sober drive, and a drunken pedestrian topples into your vehicle, you won't be done for causing injury or death. On the other hand, if the pedestrian causes you to swerve to try to avoid them, and you crash, killing someone else - is the drunken pedestrian prosecuted for causing a fatal accident while drunk? Would they be guilty of manslaughter?
 
no tetley

my idea of a zero limit is a cup of tea or glass of pepsi for the driver

if u have say a half of lager a s a limit you could say drink half of fosters which is as weak as p... water or a half of stella which is nearly twice the strenght and then you get anomalies so i would make it a very simple law if u drive you dont drink full stop

regarding pedastrians firstly they are more a danger to themselves than others , as they are not in charge of a machine that can kill others, and imnot sure how many cases there have been of cars swerving to avoid drunken pedestrians and hitting others and secondly alas you cannot legislate against everything least of all to prevent people from harming themselves
 
Firstly, on a point of information, Fosters is a standard lager. I think it's 4.2% but it's certainly between 4% and 4.5%. Stella is 5.2%. A premium lager and stronger than Fosters but not twice as strong by that measure.

The problem with alcohol is that everyone has a different tolerance based on build, metabolic rate etc. I don't think anyone is arguing that the permitted level should be increased, just when the level in blood becomes significant in relation to driving. Zealots will say any is significant but I really can't accept that. Unfortunately, despite all the simulations, the what-ifs of any accident can only remain that because it cannot be re-run. A man may be driving perfectly well after a single pint but is tired after a sleepless night and runs off the road. He may have taken a headache capsule or been startled by something on the radio. There are any number of reasons why concentration is lost.
Taken to its logical conclusion, drunks should not be allowed inside a car even as a passenger because, short of putting them in a straightjacket, what is to stop them disturbing or interfering with the driver?
A zero tolerance is neither acceptable nor feasible. Many foods have traces of alcohol even if the majority is lost during cooking. Are you suggesting that a portion of sherry trifle or Christmas pudding renders one incapable of driving?

I repeat that, based on my view of the stats (that's the beauty of stats - everyone can interpret them as they see fit), the breathalyser law is more or less ok. It is the application of the law and punishment that needs monitoring.
 
Sensible contribution Arch.

Let's obscure the right and wrong in this based on a sherry trifle and the amount of wine in a coq au vin.
 
My wifes grandmother was killed by a drunk driver.Personally I wouldn't drive after any amount of alcohol no matter how small.I have been known to accept lifts from people who are way over the limit though its not something I am comfortable with-its just convenient at the time.
 
Cheers An. Even from someone who isn't the forum's leading trivialiser that would still be breathtakingly patronising.
I've tried to address the issues as stated by pr in the opening post. Sorry if the debate doesn't meet your exacting standards.

Using the perfectly reasonable proposition that anyone with 10 pints inside them shouldn't be driving is fine. The argument is over what the legal level should be. I've offered the view that a zero level is not practical and that the current level is acceptable. It's the right of any individual to not have any drink if they're driving but, currently, it's also that individual's right to have a drink up to the specified limit.
 
Tnx Archie - your personal attack helps. The balance of your merited argument is undermined by obtuse diversions. This was the only point I was making.

If you feel my input on this issue was trivial, then let me be clearer. Both my cousin and one of my then best friends were killed by drunken drivers in seperate events. I don't give a flying fuck whether they got that way drinking 10 pints or eating a ton of sherry trifle. I just don't want to happen again.

That is my only exacting standard.
 
It was not your earlier comments on this thread that I found trivial. You have on many other threads thrown in a flippancy which has upset the people trying to have a serious discussion. Your earlier comment came across as patronising whether or not that was intended.

On this thread, I repeat that I was making a contribution to the discussion invited by pr. Anyone who has lost relatives or friends to drink driving will feel strongly about this but the discussion was about what constitutes drunk for driving purposes. Given your experience it is understandable that you opt to abstain entirely when driving but that doesn't make those who drive after, say, one pint in the wrong. A zero alcohol law would just not work in this country.
 
The business about food containing high levels of alcohol, contributing to one's 'one small glass of Chardonnay' is interesting, in my tiny opinion. If you eat at a friend's house, where the cook's gone to a lot of trouble to do the meal, you may not think twice about accepting foods well laced with sherry, wine, beer, champagne, or various liqueurs. I was fairly fuzzed one day after one G&T, a meal with a well-wined sauce, followed by a fantastic vodka-lime sorbet, although it didn't matter as I was taxiing home anyway. I won't drive and drive, but I hadn't thought of eating alcohol before!

I'm sure that the drink/drive issue is very raw and real for many here - I'm surprised at how many forumites on this brief topic have been tragically affected by it. However, with so many people on a variety of strong prescription drugs (all of which will warn 'do not drive or operate machinery'), I wonder how many accidents occur equally due to them playing a part in affecting drivers' reaction times and good judgment? Anyone on a heavy-duty pain killer may well be a bit dulled, and if they are made drowsier and less reactive with just one small drink, then it's perhaps time to look at the overall 'fitness to drive' scene.

And I certainly agree about re-taking driving tests at key points in our lives, when things like eyesight degeneration sets in, hearing is poorer, and mobility may be restricted due to age. I inwardly groan, in an unkind, ageist way, when I see some old dodderer twitting along at 29.5 mph (and not ALWAYS in a Volvo, either) because their knowledge of the now vast amount of road furniture and signage is out of date. They're confused (and who blames them?) by all the bloody chevrons, multiple signs, arrows, dots, dashes and lines all over the roads these days. I don't think they should carry on driving without having their Highway Code knowledge (probably last tested in 1958) and eyesight tested, plus reaction times. The amount of old ladies who've fatally dunked their cars in the sea down here, due to useless reversing skills, is pretty grim. I agree entirely with regular re-testing for basic skills every ten years, and certainly every five from 60 on.
 
Bit of a raw subject this one, as i found out yesterday that an old friend died in an accident outside Willie muirs last week, the guy driving the car was under the influence. :cry:

I'm also of the opinion people shouldn't drink, even if they have had "just the one". My car was stolen by 2 idiots who took the keys out of my bag when i was in the pub (worse for wear but not planning to drive!) who then went on a jolly all over West Berkshire and Wiltshire, causing damage wherever they went. Thankfully noone was hurt but they ran numerous people off the road, and hit parked cars before hitting a wall and rolling it over. They had to be airlifted to hospital but no major damage (shame) apart from to my lovely beautiful car which was written off :(
 
In my family we nominate a driver each time (depending on the car being driven) we go out to a function.
That driver knows they are not allowed to drink at all.

I am also a believer in a 0% alcohol intake whilst driving, I have had a couple of friends lost to others through drink driving accidents.
 
Originally posted by Grand Armee@Dec 2 2005, 07:53 PM
In my family we nominate a driver each time (depending on the car being driven) we go out to a function.
That driver knows they are not allowed to drink at all.

I am also a believer in a 0% alcohol intake whilst driving, I have had a couple of friends lost to others through drink driving accidents.
Click to expand...
A lot of bars have that here, show them the car keys and you get free soft drinks. We don't normally have that problem with family functions as my mum doesn't drink and my sister hardly ever drinks (as far as I know).
 
Back
Top