Drink Driving

[hebangsthedrums]

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

Excellently put.

[Guest]

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.

How do you know that real justice doesn't take place? Do you know how many thousands of court cases go through the system without any cause for appeal? And if you want injustice, how about the number of people who ought to be convicted, and yet aren't simply because of the system?

Swings and roundabouts.

That, of course, means five fatal accideents in six have nothing to do with drinking

No it doesn't. It means that 1 in 6 fatal accidents involve drivers over the limit. It doesn't mention how many of the 5 remaining involve drivers with alcohol in their systems who are not over the limit.

I don't know why you keep defending this woman in Sheffield. At the end of the day, she was breaking the law and was caught out. Does it matter how? If she'd been stopped by the police because one of her headlights was out, would that make any difference? Her getting done for being over the limit has bugger all to do with your son's mistake, or bad luck or the injustice of the English legal system. I think you'll find the situation was self-inflicted the minute she decided to have a couple knowing she was going to use her car afterwards.

[Thracian]

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

But we all know that all behaviour that increases risk of accidents isn't really targetted. I lose count of the times people go past me at 85mph on the motorway. And of people hogging the centre lane or using their mobile phones while driving as a matter of course.

But I'd doubt many of these have been drinking. I've still to have anyone explain to me why offences - but most particularly offences that result in collisions - are deemed worse because someone has been drinking.

If a speeding police officer killed a member of my family it would make no difference to me whether he was sober, had consumed one drink or was roaring drunk. There outcome would be the same. Indeed, in some ways, being 100% aware of what you're doing and still choosing to be reckless would make it worse.

[Zingari]

Drink driver killed after work leaving do

http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/Dri...work.3083015.jp

not really sure about posting this , so please delete if deemed unsuitable , or unacceptable but;

lets hope a lesson can be learned here on foxestalk

[Guest]

Drink driver killed after work leaving do

http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/Dri...work.3083015.jp

not really sure about posting this , so please delete if deemed unsuitable , or unacceptable but;

lets hope a lesson can be learned here on foxestalk

I said the day after we heard the news that I'd kill him if he'd been drinking.

A senseless waste of a bloody good mate.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Crime is not all about punishment, there is the factor of the deterrent as well. You are looking at this solely from a punishment point of view Thracian. When people pass their driving tests they are assumed to be fit and able to drive a vehicle. Obviously that is not always the case but the driving test is pretty stringent these days and new drivers know what is expected of them. A large proportion of accidents involve young people and it is important that there is a deterrent in place.

If there was no greater punishment meted out for being over the limit when detected then more young people would drink-drive. Drinking impairs your awareness and reaction times when driving and no matter how safe or unsafe any particular driver is, they become less safe after drinking.

When young people talk about not being able to drink because they're driving, they don't refer to accidents as the reason - they refer to "being caught". As a deterrent it does work.

I agree that speeding should be punished more severely. In fact, personally, I would bring in more speed cameras and make anyone caught doing 20mph or more over the speed limit take their driving test again. I only passed five months ago and do a lot of driving on the country roads between Northampton and Leicester - some of the speeds people do on these roads are ridiculous.

[breadandcheese]

But we all know that all behaviour that increases risk of accidents isn't really targetted. I lose count of the times people go past me at 85mph on the motorway. And of people hogging the centre lane or using their mobile phones while driving as a matter of course.

But I'd doubt many of these have been drinking. I've still to have anyone explain to me why offences - but most particularly offences that result in collisions - are deemed worse because someone has been drinking.

If a speeding police officer killed a member of my family it would make no difference to me whether he was sober, had consumed one drink or was roaring drunk. There outcome would be the same. Indeed, in some ways, being 100% aware of what you're doing and still choosing to be reckless would make it worse.

Your arguments are non-entities.

Forgetting the fact that there is a large body of evidence to support raising the speed limit on motorways to 85 mph, if somebody causes an accident whilst speeding excessively, there is grounds for them to be charged, particularly if it is in a residential area where they will be charged with dangerous driving.

Likewise if somebody causes an accident whilst using a mobile phone, they will equally be charged with dangerous driving, which would potentially result in a prison sentence.

Offences are deemed worse when drinking because you as a driver have taken an unnecessary risk whilst in control of a vehicle putting others at risk. The law takes account of this, as it does with mobile phone use and excessive speeding. As you know, the law can only act retrospectively, and unfortunately in the majority of times, this is done whilst at the scene of an accident as it is not feasible to catch every drunk driver, speeding driver or mobile phone user.

[Number 6]

When you get into a car you are responsible not only for yourself, but for your passengers, pedestrians and other road users. I would personally love to see a zero alcohol limit. It affects people differently at different times of the day, and why should anyone have the right to chance other road users lives? Someone doing slightly over the speed limit yet fully aware and sober is probably safer than someone who has been drinking because the drinker has a much higher chance of losing control in my eyes. No-one knows how much a pint will affect their reaction time and the little difference could be massive. Yes there are a lot of idiots on the roads and they should be punished too for reckless or unsafe driving, but there is NEVER an excuse for drink driving. If there is a possibility you will need to drive, then don't drink, simple as.

[Rincewind]

The simple fact is

Deink driving

Speeding

Driving without due care and attention

Usising mobile phones whilst driving

Dangerous driving

No tax

No insurance

and probably other things

you can be stopped by the traffic police at any time and can be charged with any one or combination of the above which are all against the law. This also applies to RTA. You and your car will be checked out so all the facts can be gathered. Once that woman had been breathalised or given a blood sample the process of the law had commenced and regardless of subsequent findings that she was not at fault she was guilty of of one of the above offences.

[Bellend Sebastian]

But I'd doubt many of these have been drinking. I've still to have anyone explain to me why offences - but most particularly offences that result in collisions - are deemed worse because someone has been drinking.

Well there's probably an assumption, rightly or wrongly, that the collision may well not have happened if the driver wasn't under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol consumption impairs your ability to drive - simple as that. The increase in the possibility of being blamed because you were drinking for an accident that wasn't your fault is surely another incentive not to do it, if any more were needed.

The reason why people aren't getting stopped on the motorway for driving at 85 mph is, as any motorway policeman will tell you, is that they could spend their whole day pulling over people doing 100mph plus, so they concentrate on those. Of course it's not right, but resources are limited and have to be targetted at the worst offenders. I'd be all for speed cameras on motorways, but although I think they're inevitable I believe they're a way off as politically this would be unpopular. Until recently, the Tories were advocating raising the speed limit on the motorway to 80mph - they might still be doing so - I don't think they'd be up for cameras on the motorway

[Rincewind]

Thracian, if your son had been killed in the crash would you have the same sympathy for the woman? He would not be here to admit responsability so if the SOC investigation deemed the woman blameless even though she was over the limit would you be satisfied with the verdict if she received just the ban and fine?

[cisono]

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

I thought the latest stats showed that most of the accidents were due to people on drugs?

This article from 2003 says 1 in 4 fatal road accidents is caused by illicit drugs. Bet it's worse now:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3098457.stm

Moreover, some types of antidepressants/anti-anxiolitics and other GP-prescribed drugs are known to impair driving and even drive some people to sleep-walking and sleep-driving (cases reported in the US).

Drink-driving is bad but... not the only problem!

[Bellend Sebastian]

I thought the latest stats showed that most of the accidents were due to people on drugs?

This article from 2003 says 1 in 4 fatal road accidents is caused by illicit drugs. Bet it's worse now:

Quite possibly, and I agree that drink driving is just one of the issues that need to be tackled if the roads are to be made any safer.

The frustrating thing is that as far as deaths per miles travelled, the roads are a lot safer now than they were 40 years ago, despite massive increases in traffic, but the death rate has stayed pretty stubbornly around the 3000 a year mark for quite a few years now. That's a lot of people killed (compare that to the murder rate, which is usually around 750-800 a year), but despite the efforts of road safety campaigners I get the feeling that road safety isn't taken that seriously by the media, so the public don't really think about it that much and neither do politicians

[Raj]

All,

Today i woke up in the morning. I had a nice family breakfast and helped the family tidy the house up. Then i had a jam on my guitar and played pro evo for a while. We always play football at goals on sundays so off we went. I had a top game today and even scored some corkers.

On the way back home i gave my friend a lift. I was about 2 mins away from home when i saw this light flash infront of my eyes. I instinctivly slammed on the breaks as my mate shouted in a really scary voice. The next thing i remember was a big bang and the airbage being deployed. I saw my bonet flip up and remember thinking I dont wanna go today ive got things i need to do. It was Scary.

When i realised i had a crash i again instinctly checked if i still had my arms and legs - i did, and so did my mate.

What happened was a car on the other side of the road was going too fast and lost it. They ended up coming head on into us. Im sure u can imagine the mess.

To make matters worse his passanger was wearing no seatbelt and went throgh the windscreen - it was messy. The driver got out of the a few mins later. As soon as he saw the blue lights he made off on foot, I gave chase for a min or 2 but then gave up.

The police came and searched the area, they got the dogs out and found the guy in a near by park.

I dont think i would be here to tell you this story if he was going 5 MPH faster.

I dont think his passanger has made it and when i was in hospital the police came in with the other driver, for some wierd reason he was sat next to me with a police officer.

Then all became clear i could smell the alcohol bigtime. I was ready to rip this mans face off, if the police was not there i would have done so.

He has ruined his life his pssangers life which hurts but what right does he have to dsstroy mt life too?

I swear if i ever cross paths with a drink driver i will be held responsible for my actions 100%

Just think about it. If u dont u got it coming to you.

Glad you are okay pal.

ANY ONE who drinks and drives is a CVNT of the highest order.

They deserve whatever happens to them.

But unfortunately its normally the innocent who suffer.

[Hullfox]

I don't know why you keep defending this woman in Sheffield.

Maybe it was Sheehan's mum, that would explain the lot.

[Thracian]

Thracian, if your son had been killed in the crash would you have the same sympathy for the woman? He would not be here to admit responsability so if the SOC investigation deemed the woman blameless even though she was over the limit would you be satisfied with the verdict if she received just the ban and fine?

I wouldn't trust any Scenes of Crime Investigation.

I don't trust policemen, lawyers nor officials of any sort without good cause because I know first hand how corrupt they can be when it suits them.

Look at the Princess of Wales inquest and how long that has taken (over 10 years) because of people sidestepping, covering their backs or tracks, not wanting to take responsibility or being less than frank.

As for your question it's obviously difficult to answer for certain but if my son had supplied the same information as he did to the court, before he died, then yes I would feel sympathy.

In fact I would hope I'd be pleased to absolve the woman of any feelings of guilt which she might quite possibly have had and I wouldn't want her punished in any way.

If not I would make my own enquiries and draw my own conclusions which would be a lot safer than relying on the sense of fairness I've seen demonstrated in this thread. Because if her drink or two didn't play a part in what happened I wouldn't want to pretend that it did.

However if my son had been pumped full of bullets by sober police officers on a tube train or a relative had been killed by a sober policeman driving a speeding police car which mounted the pavement there would be no ending my pain and I would have no doubts whatsoever how I'd feel about it - nor how I'd react.

[WetFlannel]

I wouldn't trust any Scenes of Crime Investigation.

I don't trust policemen, lawyers nor officials of any sort because I know first hand how corrupt they can be when it suits them.

Look at the Princess of Wales inquest and how long that has taken (over 10 years) because of people sidestepping, covering their backs or tracks, not wanting to take responsibility or being less than frank.

As for your question it's obviously difficult to answer for certain but if my son had supplied the same information as he did to the court, before he died, then yes I would feel sympathy.

In fact I would hope I'd be pleased to absolve the woman of any feelings of guilt which she might quite possibly have had and I wouldn't want her punished in any way.

If not I would make my own enquiries and draw my own conclusions which would be a lot safer than relying on the sense of fairness I've seen demonstrated in this thread. Because if her drink or two didn't play a part in what happened I wouldn't want to pretend that it did.

However if my son had been pumped full of bullets by sober police officers on a tube train or a relative had been killed by a sober policeman driving a speeding police car which mounted the pavement there would be no ending my pain and I would have no doubts whatsoever how I'd feel about it - nor how I'd react.

But why should you drink and drive in the first place, if you know the risks? Surely that shows some disrepect...

[Thracian]

I thought the latest stats showed that most of the accidents were due to people on drugs?

This article from 2003 says 1 in 4 fatal road accidents is caused by illicit drugs. Bet it's worse now:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3098457.stm

Moreover, some types of antidepressants/anti-anxiolitics and other GP-prescribed drugs are known to impair driving and even drive some people to sleep-walking and sleep-driving (cases reported in the US).

Drink-driving is bad but... not the only problem!

Excellent points - you hardly ever hear of people being arrested for careless driving while sleepy and yet the times I've seen artics on the motorway swerving all over the place would probably reach three figures now. How potentially lethal were they?

But it's like with Kaebi and Matty Fryatt, they won't listen. Their minds are made up.

Drink driving - however marginally = guilty, whatever part the drink played.

Everything else = potentially excusable. Hard to prove. Hard to legislate for. Too many grey areas. Speeding could actually "be safer". Might have been "with good intent," can you believe?

[hebangsthedrums]

Excellent points - you hardly ever hear of people being arrested for careless driving while sleepy and yet the times I've seen artics on the motorway swerving all over the place would probably reach three figures now. How potentially lethal were they?

I'm sure if the police had seen what you saw they would have had something to say. Unfortunately they do not have eyes everywhere. I'm sure they've missed plenty of people who are over the limit as well.

But it's like with Kaebi and Matty Fryatt, they won't listen. Their minds are made up.

I'm sure people are willing to listen when you present a convincing argument and not just a wide reaching moan against the legal system. If you don't like the law fine but I don't think you are going to sway many people with your irrelevant comparisons

Drink driving - however marginally = guilty, whatever part the drink played.

Yes because to be behind the wheel whilst over the limit is illegal so you shouldn't be in the driving seat full stop. If you can't do the time don't do the crime

Everything else = potentially excusable. Hard to prove. Hard to legislate for. Too many grey areas. Speeding could actually "be safer". Might have been "with good intent," can you believe?

Are you saying because we have a reliable test that can determine if someone has broken the law (a breathaliser), its somehow unfair? I refer you back to 'if you can't do the time don't do the crime'. I regularly drive at 80 on motorways - I would be annoyed at the 'hypocrisy' of being convicted for that and others not but its my choice and I am aware of the potential punishment.

I think you've got what you want anyway Thracian - a meandering discussion where you can play devils advocate and bring in a few of your 'experiences' and have a bit of a rant about various tenuously linked things you don't agree with.

[WetFlannel]

I think you've got what you want anyway Thracian - a meandering discussion where you can play devils advocate and bring in a few of your 'experiences' and have a bit of a rant about various tenuously linked things you don't agree with.

[Bryn]

Thracian

[Thracian]

But why should you drink and drive in the first place, if you know the risks? Surely that shows some disrepect...

If a police chief does not need to answer for the shooting to death of an innocent man during his watch does that not show disrespect for our laws?

And if that police chief doesn't need to show respect for our laws, why should anyone else?

[WetFlannel]

If a police chief does not need to answer for the shooting to death of an innocent man during his watch does that not show disrespect for our laws?

And if that police chief doesn't need to show respect for our laws, why should anyone else?

Oh yeh, youre right... because of this one incident i feel im going to go out and drink drive. I might possibly kill someone but its allright as a police chief shot someone...

[Rincewind]

Excellent points - you hardly ever hear of people being arrested for careless driving while sleepy and yet the times I've seen artics on the motorway swerving all over the place would probably reach three figures now. How potentially lethal were they?

How do you know that these drivers are not stopped? How do you know that these drivers had not been drinking?

But it's like with Kaebi and Matty Fryatt, they won't listen. Their minds are made up.

Drink driving - however marginally = guilty, whatever part the drink played.

Yes you are correct because that is what the law isays. If you are aware of the limit and stick to it then you will not lose your licence because of it.

Everything else = potentially excusable. Hard to prove. Hard to legislate for. Too many grey areas. Speeding could actually "be safer". Might have been "with good intent," can you believe?

Yes you are correct. A police officer/fireman/ambulance could be on their way to an emergency which could involve the saving of lives and be invoved in an accident enroute.

[Hullfox]

If a police chief does not need to answer for the shooting to death of an innocent man during his watch does that not show disrespect for our laws?

And if that police chief doesn't need to show respect for our laws, why should anyone else?

I'm sorry Thrach but you have well and truly lost it.

Very sad.