Drink Driving

[Thracian]

I went to school with a two blokes they decided to drive home after a night drinking they crashed and killed the solo occupant of the on comeing car, and the passenger died, The driver who latter got sentenced to 2 1/2 years jail i worked with him about 6 months before he was due to go to jail and 18 months after the incident and one morning he rocked up to work still under the influence of drugs and drinking and after he openly addmitted that he always drinks and drives i almost killed him there was just a lack of remorse and it just showed some people just never learn there lessons. I latter left that job knowing that dick heads like that we respected at that work place.

That's tragic without doubt and you won't get me defending it.

But how many sober policemen have killed innocent pedestrians while exceeding the speed limit to answer a crime call?

I also knew a woman once who reversed over a child who had chased a ball into the road behind her vehicle. She was leniently treated but had she have been drinking, all of a sudden, no matter how little or how much she'd consumed, it would have been her fault, and not that of the child.

I just don't see it at all. The circumstances should be considered on their merits.

By far the worst road crashes I've ever attended had nothing to do with drink whatsoever but that didn't mean they were any less traumatic and any easier for the victims' families to cope with.

It isn't just drink that causes people to make mistakes in cars. In it women yapping on their way shopping, people answering mobile phones, kids crying and demanding attention, people being less than in control because of cigarettes or because they are changing a CD or drinking a bottle of squash, people looking for road signs in unfamiliar places and a stack of other factors.

Sometimes drink may be a factor but assuming that is so isn't justice at all.

[WetFlannel]

That's tragic without doubt and you won't get me defending it.

But how many sober policemen have killed innocent pedestrians while exceeding the speed limit to answer a crime call?

I also knew a woman once who reversed over a child who had chased a ball into the road behind her vehicle. She was leniently treated but had she have been drinking, all of a sudden, no matter how little or how much she'd consumed, it would have been her fault, and not that of the child.

I just don't see it at all. The circumstances should be considered on their merits.

By far the worst road crashes I've ever attended had nothing to do with drink whatsoever but that didn't mean they were any less traumatic and any easier for the victims' families to cope with.

It isn't just drink that causes people to make mistakes in cars. In it women yapping on their way shopping, people answering mobile phones, kids crying and demanding attention, people being less than in control because of cigarettes or because they are changing a CD or drinking a bottle of squash, people looking for road signs in unfamiliar places and a stack of other factors.

Sometimes drink may be a factor but assuming that is so isn't justice at all.

Thrac, seriously how can you defend drink driving in anyway, no matter hwo much it is? Its ludicrous... I feel at times you just disagree with things just to create a debate, but this is just silly. How can you compare drink driving to normal accidents as they are blatantly going to occur anyway, but its quite obvious drink driving is illegal and it shouldnt be done, as it clearly does affect your driving and there is no need for it. Why would you drink if you werent aware fo the risks? 'Drink may be a factor' - Why take the chance then? It's illegal for a reason... and they probably have more knowledge surrounding this than us

[Webbo]

Thrac, seriously how can you defend drink driving in anyway, no matter hwo much it is? Its ludicrous... I feel at times you just disagree with things just to create a debate, but this is just silly. How can you compare drink driving to normal accidents as they are blatantly going to occur anyway, but its quite obvious drink driving is illegal and it shouldnt be done, as it clearly does affect your driving and there is no need for it. Why would you drink if you werent aware fo the risks? 'Drink may be a factor' - Why take the chance then? It's illegal for a reason... and they probably have more knowledge surrounding this than us

Spot on.

[Thracian]

I cannot believe what I have just read. It beggars belief.

If I wanted knowledge of the law there's no-one on here more worth listening to than your good self.

But if I was looking for someone dedicated to seeing that real as opposed to simply legal justice prevailed in a courtroom the last person I'd turn to is a lawyer.

[hebangsthedrums]

OP sorry to hear that, glad your ok. I have (touch wood) never been involved in an accident but I have friends who have and they were very shaklen up even though it was nothing on that scale. I would try not to think about what could have happened and just be thankful yourself and your mate are ok.

Sorry I couldn't ignore this:

That's tragic without doubt and you won't get me defending it.

But how many sober policemen have killed innocent pedestrians while exceeding the speed limit to answer a crime call?

I don't know but thats a bit irrelevant - they are breaking the speed limit to try and help someone not because they can't be bothered to get a taxi/are that arrogant they think their driving skills are unaffected by alcohol

I also knew a woman once who reversed over a child who had chased a ball into the road behind her vehicle. She was leniently treated but had she have been drinking, all of a sudden, no matter how little or how much she'd consumed, it would have been her fault, and not that of the child.

If she was over the limit then yes, it would have been her fault. Why? Because being behind the wheel when over the DD limit is illegal so she should have not set foot in the car and if she hadn't she wouldn't have hit the kid

I just don't see it at all. The circumstances should be considered on their merits.

By far the worst road crashes I've ever attended had nothing to do with drink whatsoever but that didn't mean they were any less traumatic and any easier for the victims' families to cope with.

?

It isn't just drink that causes people to make mistakes in cars. In it women yapping on their way shopping, people answering mobile phones, kids crying and demanding attention, people being less than in control because of cigarettes or because they are changing a CD or drinking a bottle of squash, people looking for road signs in unfamiliar places and a stack of other factors.

Sometimes drink may be a factor but assuming that is so isn't justice at all.

[Thracian]

Thrac, seriously how can you defend drink driving in anyway, no matter hwo much it is? Its ludicrous... I feel at times you just disagree with things just to create a debate, but this is just silly. How can you compare drink driving to normal accidents as they are blatantly going to occur anyway, but its quite obvious drink driving is illegal and it shouldnt be done, as it clearly does affect your driving and there is no need for it. Why would you drink if you werent aware fo the risks? 'Drink may be a factor' - Why take the chance then? It's illegal for a reason... and they probably have more knowledge surrounding this than us

Pumping innocent people full of bullets in a London tube is illegal too isn't it?

So is killing pedestrians with police cars while hurtling along speed restricted streets.

Or civilians driving at 80mph down a motorway which happens unhindered every minute of every day?

Drink wouldn't necessarily be a factor with any of the above.

Yet the focus stays on someone who commits no offence other than to have a little more drink than the legal limit.

It's sheer hypocrisy in my eyes.

However you are right in that I do sometimes play Devil's Advocate.

[WetFlannel]

Pumping innocent people full of bullets in a London tube is illegal too isn't it?

So is killing pedestrians with police cars while hurtling along speed restricted streets.

Or civilians driving at 80mph down a motorway which happens unhindered every minute of every day?

Drink wouldn't necessarily be a factor with any of the above.

Yet the focus stays on someone who commits no offence other than to have a little more drink than the legal limit.

It's sheer hypocrisy in my eyes.

They are different issues though, this is drink driving... so do two wrongs make a right then? Obviously speeding is a concern but that is a separate issue from drink driving, and why bring the london tube into it? There are always going to be some people who feel they are abover the law in different cases, but why does that defend drink driving?

[Thracian]

They are different issues though, this is drink driving... so do two wrongs make a right then? Obviously speeding is a concern but that is a separate issue from drink driving, and why bring the london tube into it? There are always going to be some people who feel they are abover the law in different cases, but why does that defend drink driving?

Of course not. But why should ANYONE be above the law? And why should anyone be a victim of those who administer the law refuse if those same people refuse to treat all people equally and fairly?

And then there is the question of priorities. IF the aim of society is to cut road casualties why would you statistically tread water with heavy handed drink-driving campaigns when you could do far more good straight away by sriously reducing speed on the roads?

[breadandcheese]

Pumping innocent people full of bullets in a London tube is illegal too isn't it?

So is killing pedestrians with police cars while hurtling along speed restricted streets.

Or civilians driving at 80mph down a motorway which happens unhindered every minute of every day?

Drink wouldn't necessarily be a factor with any of the above.

Yet the focus stays on someone who commits no offence other than to have a little more drink than the legal limit.

It's sheer hypocrisy in my eyes.

However you are right in that I do sometimes play Devil's Advocate.

It is not hypocrisy.

In your son's case, two offences were committed. Your son, I am assuming was charged with driving without due care and attention. She was charged with driving whilst over the limit. Alcohol impairs response times, so it is rightly outlawed when getting behind a wheel.

[WetFlannel]

Of course not. But why should ANYONE be above the law? And why should anyone be a victim of those who administer the law refuse to treat all people equally and fairly?

And then there is the question of priorities. IF the aim of society is to cut road casualties why would you statistically tread water with heavy handed drink-driving campaigns when you could do far more good straight away by sriously reducing speed on the roads?

Because the example blue blood provided show its still apparent... Maybe driving limits could be reduced, but there are always going to be some people who feel its necessary to break them, including drink driving... I'm not giving evidence for how these problems can be addressed, but surely drink driving can't benefit anyone, other than those who have no regard for theirs and other peoples safety... And anyone shouldnt be above the law, but if there are ways to break it, then it will exist... There are always some individuals that feel it is within their own hands, and that applies to drink driving

[hebangsthedrums]

^Good post.

I think what has also been missed is the motivations for peoples actions. The police collisions and tube examples are people breaking the law but acting with good intentions. That is by no means an excuse but if a police car not my wing mirror off whilst speeding past I would be a bit more understanding than someone else as I would trust they were driving fast for a reason. What excuse do drink drivers have? Not ignorance as you can't really miss the adverts and that isn't a defence anyway. Laziness or arrogance I would assume unless anyone cant think of anything different

[Hullfox]

I cannot believe what I have just read. It beggars belief.

Don't read beyond what you've already read, it gets worse.

Come to think of it, if you read this you already have so ignore my first comment.

[Thracian]

^Good post.

I think what has also been missed is the motivations for peoples actions. The police collisions and tube examples are people breaking the law but acting with good intentions. That is by no means an excuse but if a police car not my wing mirror off whilst speeding past I would be a bit more understanding than someone else as I would trust they were driving fast for a reason. What excuse do drink drivers have? Not ignorance as you can't really miss the adverts and that isn't a defence anyway. Laziness or arrogance I would assume unless anyone cant think of anything different

But going right back to the original post, the motivations for people's actions make no difference to the outcomes.

It doesn't help the family of the tube train victim illegally pumped full of bullets or the pedestrians squashed to death by illegally speeding policemen that the actions involved "good intentions".

And the fact that alcohol wasn't involved doesn't make the actions less criminal or the suffering of the families any less.

And what if driver who was slightly over the limit or had been on an errand of mercy?

I'm sorry but right through the thread people have made excuses for certain actions and no excuse for others.

By definition those people are not seeking to apply the law fairly but are making totally unjustified exceptions for certain circumstances and making victims of someone who is in a different, and less powerful or less protected situation.

As if those powerful people actually need any more protection than they already get.

Such a view isn't right and just.

But it is hypocritcal.

[Hullfox]

I'm sorry but right through the thread people have made excuses for certain actions and no excuse for others.

That'll be yourself you're referring to then.

[Rincewind]

just because one section of society may have been treated leniently is no reason for the law not to be applied for others. What happens in the courts afterwards has no relevance. Those othercases mentioned did not involve drink driving as far as I know.

[Thracian]

That'll be yourself you're referring to then.

When weighing up the comparisons I can think of reason to excuse a person who has had a couple of drinks but harmed no-one but no excuse for sober people pumping an innocent man people full of bullets or an equally sober officer mounting a pavement in a speeding police car and killing an innocent pedestrian.

As for sober people wilfully doing 80/90 mph during the daytime on a congested road in a lethal weapon well, I'm quite sure I know whether that's more dangerous than a woman doing 40mph having had a couple of drinks. And I'm quite sure which Icould more easily excuse.

[AoWW]

When weighing up the comparisons I can think of reason to excuse a person who has had a couple of drinks but harmed no-one but no excuse for sober people pumping an innocent man people full of bullets or an equally sober officer mounting a pavement in a speeding police car and killing an innocent pedestrian.

As for sober people wilfully doing 80/90 mph during the daytime on a congested road in a lethal weapon well, I'm quite sure I know whether that's more dangerous than a woman doing 40mph having had a couple of drinks. And I'm quite sure which I could more easily excuse.

I'm speechless... way too angry to even being to construct a reasoned argument without just letting rip. I think i'd better return to this at some other time.

[Rincewind]

Sorry Tracian, I cannot see where you are coming from now. Those two situations you highlighted were not drink-related. It is a matter of policy I'm sure you are aware that everybody involve in a RTA to be breatherlised. The woman from whayt I have read was not done for causing the accident but for getting into a veichel when she was over the legal limit. If the other driver had denied responsibility her fine/punishment may have been more severe.

The woman may have been unlucky to be found out at that time but she could also have been stopped as a routine check by traffic police and received the same penalty. If she had arrive to where she was going without being stopped the next time she may have been more complacant thinking 'being stopped' would not happen to

her.

How do you do 80/90 mph on a CONGESTED road? I know it was done with a bus in the film Speed but that was only by wrecking every veichle that got in the buses path.

Of course the perfect solution would be a zero limit level. There would be no argument then.

[Zingari]

But going right back to the original post, the motivations for people's actions make no difference to the outcomes.It doesn't help the family of the tube train victim illegally pumped full of bullets or the pedestrians squashed to death by illegally speeding policemen that the actions involved "good intentions".

And the fact that alcohol wasn't involved doesn't make the actions less criminal or the suffering of the families any less.

And what if driver who was slightly over the limit or had been on an errand of mercy?

I'm sorry but right through the thread people have made excuses for certain actions and no excuse for others.

By definition those people are not seeking to apply the law fairly but are making totally unjustified exceptions for certain circumstances and making victims of someone who is in a different, and less powerful or less protected situation.

As if those powerful people actually need any more protection than they already get.

Such a view isn't right and just.

But it is hypocritcal.

i understand a lot of what you are saying and there is some sense to what you say but the intent and motivation on the relevance to the eventual outcome surely affects the way that someone is dealt with ( i accept that to to victim the sense of loss may be the same at the time ) but eventually even the victim ( and families etc.)could learn to forgive a mistake easier than a tradgedy caused by gross stupidity, selfishness or malevolence

[cisono]

Sorry Tracian, I cannot see where you are coming from now. Those two situations you highlighted were not drink-related. It is a matter of policy I'm sure you are aware that everybody involve in a RTA to be breatherlised. The woman from whayt I have read was not done for causing the accident but for getting into a veichel when she was over the legal limit.

?

How do you do 80/90 mph on a CONGESTED road?

Not sure about 80/90mph, but 60/70mph are quite common...

at least, I see them most days

[Bellend Sebastian]

It may have been said already but around 1 in 6 fatal accidents in the UK involve a driver who is over the legal alcohol limit, so it's not surprising that the laws on drink driving are as strict as they are, and the case for making them even stronger has some weight behind it.

Here are some lovely facts:

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaign...rinkdrive01.htm

The most sobering (no pun intended) is that on average 3000 people are killed or seriously injured in booze related crashes alone

[davieG]

Surely one drink too many could be, for some people be likened to a loaded gun, just because it hasn't gone off doesn't mean it wont. Would you let someone off if they were found to have a loaded gun but pleaded that they had no intention of firing it?

The other thing is that one drink over the limit bearing no consequences can lead to over confidence so that the next time it might well be 2 drinks over the limit.

I think everyone can agree that 'excessive' drinking and driving is unacceptable, the problem is we are all different and one drink for one person is like 5 to another. Laws require definition and rightly or wrongly the drink driving laws are defined too low for some and too high for others. There are many examples in law where this is the case you can't pick and choose which one to follow.

Of course common sense should be used but even then it can be seen as discriminatory in how it is applied.

PS I once had a mate who would drink 10/11 pints over the course of an evening and then give me lift home and I never once felt like he wasn't capable, this was obviously well before the drink drive laws came in.

[Thracian]

It may have been said already but around 1 in 6 fatal accidents in the UK involve a driver who is over the legal alcohol limit, so it's not surprising that the laws on drink driving are as strict as they are, and the case for making them even stronger has some weight behind it.

Here are some lovely facts:

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaign...rinkdrive01.htm

The most sobering (no pun intended) is that on average 3000 people are killed or seriously injured in booze related crashes alone

That, of course, means five fatal accideents in six have nothing to do with drinking and I would immediately refer to my point about speed and how, if you really want to cut road casualties that is what should be targetted.

You also don't mention whether the one in six drink related deaths are caused by high speed also or by women tootling along quiet roads near Sheffield minding their own business.

Nor do you say whether the five in six non-drink related fatalities were any easier for the victims' families to cope with than the one in six that was caused by drink.

[Rincewind]

One question Thracian, if the woman involved in that accident had been a senior police officer, a magistrate or a royalty related person and escaped the ban and fine would you have thought it right?

As I said she could have been stopped anywhere. Leaving the pub, work or home or just after crossing traffic lights or road junction.. It does not matter There is a fixed penalty for driving while being over the limit and for the police not to apply it in the majority of cases would be seen as favouritism.

[Bellend Sebastian]

That, of course, means five fatal accideents in six have nothing to do with drinking and I would immediately refer to my point about speed and how, if you really want to cut road casualties that is what should be targetted.

You also don't mention whether the one in six drink related deaths are caused by high speed also or by women tootling along quiet roads near Sheffield minding their own business.

Nor do you say whether the five in six non-drink related fatalities were any easier for the victims' families to cope with than the one in six that was caused by drink.

I don't know how many drivers are over the limit at any one time, but I would have thought it would be rather less than 1 in 6 and assuming it is, the fact that 1 in 6 fatal accidents involve drink-drivers surely makes it statistically significant, does it not?

I would wholeheartedly agree with you that speed should be targetted, and it isn't a case of choosing one or the other - all behaviour that can be proven to increase risk and be detrimental to road safety should be detected and punished wherever possible. The fact is that the consumption of alcohol impairs judgement and makes a driver more likely to make errors which can lead to accidents, and this increased level of risk is the reason why they are taken off the road by the authorities whenever the opportunity presents itself, regardless of whether they've caused an accident or not.

It came to light recently that a loose acquaintance of mine had been drink driving fairly regularly for years, a situation that had never caused anyone a problem, well up until the point she crashed into the back of a parked car, writing that off and her own car and smashing up her face a bit. Just because someone drinks and drives and gets away with it doesn't mean it's safe - it just means that you've survived the shorter odds of something bad happening. It's like saying smoking is safe, because you haven't got lung cancer