Drink Driving

[Thracian]

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.

Sorry if I've provoked people.

But I am close to 60 years old and I suppose there is a big part of me that doesn't like to be told what I can and cannot do by lawmakers who I have no reason to respect anyway.

I don't like, for instance, laws that tell me how to bring up my children especially when the lawmakers have quite likely never had any kids in their lives or might be totally unsuited for other reasons to making laws relating to kids.

I don't like people telling me how and under what conditions I can drive a car when some of those lawmakers and magistrates would probably be lethal in a motor car, have themselves taken drink before driving, and would quite likely be allowed to get away with speeding anyway if it suited their own requirements.

I don't like lawmakers, policemen and magistrates telling me how I should react when intruders invade my property when they are likely to be tucked up at home in bed when it happens.

Besides this is still a supposedly Christian country whose guiding religion was founded on a mere 10 laws or Commandments. We even swear on the Bible when we give evidence in court, unless it's changed now which wouldn't surprise me. Yet several of those simple laws or Commandments are mocked by our supposedly Christian leaders, judges and policemen on a daily basis.

If we don't make any serious attempt to respect our principal laws - like those governing the shooting of innocent people in the street - what's so important about respecting any other laws?

Apart, that is, from the threat of punishment by people who should probably themselves be punished for something if the whole truth were known, especially knowing how easy it is to break our numerous laws anyway.

You see, even on here tonight we've uncovered a serial speeder.

Perhaps, to have a really just society, at least according to all those laws I mentioned, we should lock everyone up and just let the politicians, lawmakers, policemen and freemasons have a good private piss up on their own.

[WetFlannel]

I do respect Thrac's views but i just think hes gone off the rails on this one...

[Dames]

Oh dear. This has decended into a farce.

[Fez of Mahrez]

I don't like, for instance, laws that tell me how to bring up my children especially when the lawmakers have quite likely never had any kids in their lives or might be totally unsuited for other reasons to making laws relating to kids.

You do come out with some crackers. This one is priceless.

[Rincewind]

I think this is what is known as the Great Wall Of Thracian that is located on the M25.

TBH I'm quite happy with the lawmakers in Britain unless we have recently employed people from South America to run the country and enforce the laws.

[Thracian]

I do respect Thrac's views but i just think hes gone off the rails on this one...

Okay, one last try. You have consumed three pints of beer and are sitting at the table of a pub with a friend enjoying a pleasant conversation but otherwise minding your own business.

Suddenly some moron turns up at your table, knocks your drink over and when you move he punches you to the floor. You get up and start defending yourself and the police arrive.

Your assailant gets arrested and charged with assault occasioning actual bodly harm. You get arrested for your part in the affray and perhaps bound over to keep the peace. Is it justice that you were charged with anything despite the fact that you've had a bit to drink?

Cos the motorist I mentioned originally had no way of avoiding being involved in a collision and had done nothing to contribute to what happened. The drink was incidental.

Hullfox says the woman drank before driving and should be punished. I pointed out that others escaped any charge for much more serious allegations and ask how such application of the law can possibly be fair. If that's "off the rails" fine but I still don't understand how it's fair.

I also effectively asked why a death caused by a drink-driver would somehow be worse to the victim's family than a death caused by a speeding, sober yet calculatingly irresponsible maniac. I still don't understand how it would or why the one should be more harshly punished than the other.

[hebangsthedrums]

*Sigh*

Okay, one last try. You have consumed three pints of beer and are sitting at the table of a pub with a friend enjoying a pleasant conversation but otherwise minding your own business.

Suddenly some moron turns up at your table, knocks your drink over and when you move he punches you to the floor. You get up and start defending yourself and the police arrive.

Your assailant gets arrested and charged with assault occasioning actual bodly harm. You get arrested for your part in the affray and perhaps bound over to keep the peace. Is it justice that you were charged with anything despite the fact that you've had a bit to drink?

How is this example relevant? The person has not broken the law and I doubt would have any comeback if it was clear they acted in self defence. A person breaks the law when they drive a car with a higher blood alcohol level than what is deemed safe - the woman you keep referring to was the wrong side of this threshold, wheres the confusion? If you don't agree with the level that is deemed safe then tough

Cos the motorist I mentioned originally had no way of avoiding being involved in a collision and had done nothing to contribute to what happened. The drink was incidental.

They were in control of a vehicle when they should not have been, hence they were prosecuted. She had done something to contribute what had happened - she got in the car and turned on the ignition

Hullfox says the woman drank before driving and should be punished. I pointed out that others escaped any charge for much more serious allegations and ask how such application of the law can possibly be fair. If that's "off the rails" fine but I still don't understand how it's fair.

She broke the law and was punished, sounds fair to me. You've plucked your examples out of the air - when looking at a whole legal system you are bound to find things that seem injust, to avoid it is a practical impossibility.

I also effectively asked why a death caused by a drink-driver would somehow be worse to the victim's family than a death caused by a speeding, sober yet calculatingly irresponsible maniac. I still don't understand how it would or why the one should be more harshly punished than the other.

I wouldn't make judgements myself as to what is worse - I imagine both are equally awful. I don't think one is punished more harshly than the other - cause death by dangerous driving you go to prison, cause death by drunk driving go to prison

[WetFlannel]

Okay, one last try. You have consumed three pints of beer and are sitting at the table of a pub with a friend enjoying a pleasant conversation but otherwise minding your own business.

Suddenly some moron turns up at your table, knocks your drink over and when you move he punches you to the floor. You get up and start defending yourself and the police arrive.

Your assailant gets arrested and charged with assault occasioning actual bodly harm. You get arrested for your part in the affray and perhaps bound over to keep the peace. Is it justice that you were charged with anything despite the fact that you've had a bit to drink?

Cos the motorist I mentioned originally had no way of avoiding being involved in a collision and had done nothing to contribute to what happened. The drink was incidental.

Hullfox says the woman drank before driving and should be punished. I pointed out that others escaped any charge for much more serious allegations and ask how such application of the law can possibly be fair. If that's "off the rails" fine but I still don't understand how it's fair.

I also effectively asked why a death caused by a drink-driver would somehow be worse to the victim's family than a death caused by a speeding, sober yet calculatingly irresponsible maniac. I still don't understand how it would or why the one should be more harshly punished than the other.

I do understand where your coming from, but you shouldnt be driving if you know your over the limit... The law is enforced for a reason, and it is proven that drink slows reaction times etc... Don't get me wrong, maniacs are just as much at fault but, it still doesnt provide a reason for why you should be drink driving. If you go out and drive over the limit, im sure you will be aware of the rules and risks you are taking, which is obviously being ignored. You shouldn't be out, even if it is preventing any alleged blame over drink which may be incidental. As for your example, I'm sure the police wouldn't agree with the fight anyway without the drink, although i do agree in that respect it would hold some of the blame. However, if your example was in pub for instance, that is an environment for drinking. Driving to me isnt considered an environment for drinking, or having any association with drink...

[Rincewind]

In the scenario given I do not see where the fact that you had been drinking would have much bearing on the case. You say the charge was being invoved in the fight. There would be witnesses whose statements would confirm that you were defending yourselves. It also depends if there was any damage done in the pub, It is not an offence to drink inside a pub but it is an offence to get into a car after leaving knowing that you are over the limit. It would be up to the landlord as to whether you would be allowed back in and if they saw the incident was told by eyewitnesses that you were blameless then you would be allowed to carry on drinking there and the other person would be barred. It also depends how involved in the fighting you are. If you are knocking seven shades of shit out of the bloke then of course you are going to be charged with something to do with the fight be it a lesser charge.

Going back to the topic before it is completely sidetracked, we do not know if the woman had acumliated any penalty points for previous drink driving offences. She may have been stopped before and a simple fine did not deter her. I am not saying that is the case as I like others on here are not privvy to all the information.

But even that does not matter. I see my brother once a week in a pub and the last time was the week before xmas. He only had one pint as he said the police were out in force to catch drink drivers this time of year. He could have said 'Sod em the law is an ass and I will do as I please.' he didn't he left early and arrived home without being stopped and charged. That woman could have done the same and said sorry I can't have any more I'm driving.' Simple words which saves time, trouble and possibly lives.

[Guest]

Okay, one last try....Cos the motorist I mentioned originally had no way of avoiding being involved in a collision and had done nothing to contribute to what happened. The drink was incidental.

No it wasn't. She ended up in a position where she got caught by taking an unnecessary risk.

Hullfox says the woman drank before driving and should be punished. I pointed out that others escaped any charge for much more serious allegations and ask how such application of the law can possibly be fair. If that's "off the rails" fine but I still don't understand how it's fair.

I also effectively asked why a death caused by a drink-driver would somehow be worse to the victim's family than a death caused by a speeding, sober yet calculatingly irresponsible maniac. I still don't understand how it would or why the one should be more harshly punished than the other.

Causing death by dangerous driving is a serious offence, a kind of statutory manslaughter if you like. Did you not see the recent case where a lorry driver was imprisoned for causing a fatal crash whilst using his mobile, or has that one conveniently escaped your memory?

Another point; drink driving is an offence of strict liability, and so you cannot "get off", unlike speeding where there are technicalities which have been used to people's advantage. As it is strict liability, if your non-alcoholic drink is spiked, you will still be punished (though if you can prove you didn't know, this is taken into account when it comes to sentencing etc).

The drink/drive limit is set objectively, and for a reason. It creates legal certainty in that if you have X amount of alcohol per Y ml of blood, you are over the limit. Full stop. It takes out the "I'm 6ft5, 22 stone and can drink more than the average bloke" arguments or whatever.

There is a very simple way to avoid being found over the limit. Your woman from Sheffield should have been able to work that one out, because even if she felt safe to drive, you cannot rely on everyone else, and if you get caught, then ultimately it's your own fault. Not anyone elses.

[Hullfox]

I don't like, for instance, laws that tell me how to bring up my children especially when the lawmakers have quite likely never had any kids in their lives or might be totally unsuited for other reasons to making laws relating to kids.

Are you saying therefore that anyone who doesn't like those laws should be able to do as they wish as they know better?

Whilst the law didn't protect this child, at least it caught up with the perpertrators.

Under the terms of your argument, this behaviour should be allowed after all, you don't like, for instance, laws that tell me how to bring up my children especially when the lawmakers have quite likely never had any kids in their lives or might be totally unsuited for other reasons to making laws relating to kids.

Or is it just you and yours who should be exempt?

[Thracian]

Are you saying therefore that anyone who doesn't like those laws should be able to do as they wish as they know better?

Whilst the law didn't protect this child, at least it caught up with the perpertrators.

Under the terms of your argument, this behaviour should be allowed after all, you don't like, for instance, laws that tell me how to bring up my children especially when the lawmakers have quite likely never had any kids in their lives or might be totally unsuited for other reasons to making laws relating to kids.

Or is it just you and yours who should be exempt?

No the law didn't protect her did it?

And why the hell were people like that allowed to live in our country in the first place?

That they did only emphasises why I wouldn't respect people like those who did allow it, to make rules on my behalf.

Pretty regularly I read about MP's and their rent boys, politicians whose own relationships have fallen apart countless times through their philandering among other things...yet you expect me to let them tell me how to bring up kids?

No thank you.

But you do as you please.

[Webbo]

No the law didn't protect her did it?

And why the hell were people like that allowed to live in our country in the first place?

That they did only emphasises why I wouldn't respect people like those who did allow it, to make rules on my behalf.

Pretty regularly I read about MP's and their rent boys, politicians whose own relationships have fallen apart countless times through their philandering among other things...yet you expect me to let them tell me how to bring up kids?

No thank you.

But you do as you please.

Thrac, I think you and I have similar instincts on laws and government in general (ie the less the better) and I take your point about the woman who was prosecuted even though the accident was not her fault. But surely you must concede that alcohol does impede your ability to drive therefore any person caught drinking and driving, whether breathalysed after an accident or simply pulled over because they were seen leaving a pub has to be prosecuted as a deterrent to others.

[Hullfox]

And why the hell were people like that allowed to live in our country in the first place?

People like what?

[Thracian]

Thrac, I think you and I have similar instincts on laws and government in general (ie the less the better) and I take your point about the woman who was prosecuted even though the accident was not her fault. But surely you must concede that alcohol does impede your ability to drive therefore any person caught drinking and driving, whether breathalysed after an accident or simply pulled over because they were seen leaving a pub has to be prosecuted as a deterrent to others.

We do have similar instincts.

And I entirely concede that alcohol impedes ability to drive but in immeasurably varying degrees.

But so do drugs and medicines, mobile phones, domestic arguments before driving, relationship break ups, multiple road signs in unfamilar places, eye problems, reaction problems, indecisiveness, tiredness, moving dogs, moaning children, momentary distractions to insert another CD, speeding to impress mates, trying out the capabilities of a new and faster car, and so many other things.

The degree to which all those things affect driving varies a great deal and cannot usually be judged in a general way no more than the effect of drink can in reality.

Yet the focus remains on the drink driver because of the declared need to cut carnage on the road. But the carnage has remained constant and the real attack needs to be on speeding which is constantly ignored.

As for deterrents I don't really like what amounts to threats. They're another form of bullying. On the other hand...

Why start with drink-drivers who've had a couple of pints and a sandwich? Why not start with the bigger things?

We could have a Punishment Preamble on home match days at The Walkers with offenders getting hammered in some way appropriate to their crime.

At one level paedophiles could have their genitals cut off and sewn into their mouths. The atmosphere would be like the old Roman Colisseum. Thumbs up, he has the stitches cut after 20 minutes. Thumbs down he has to swallow and spend the rest of his life breathing through his nose. scarf:

If that Met Chief were ever accused and convicted of anything he could be let loose in a maze and hunted by a team of Brazilians armed with machine guns just so he could experience what it was like to have a gang of people out to kill you even when you'd done nothing wrong. He'd be safe mind. Either the Government or the freemasons would still run to his rescue.

Convicted speedsters could have their cars smashed with appropriate force by a demolition ball. One swing for every mile an hour over the limit. Repeat offence the demolition ball gets swung at the offender. Well, it'd be one way to get a six-pack.

And if the old hanging days of London were anything to go by, The Walkers would be packed hours before kick off. Benefits all round. I love deterrents. :D

People like what?

Well if you've not bothered to read it I'm bloody sure I'm not going to read it for you.

[Hullfox]

Well if you've not bothered to read it I'm bloody sure I'm not going to read it for you.

Come on, people like what?

[Manwell Pablo]

There are exceptions but I'm wary of any law which punishes people for potential crime rather than actual crime.

It's a good job we don't run Switzerland. We'd have to arrest everyone there for owning a gun and all the potential that presents for potential deaths.

Not all accidents are drink related and not all accidents involving over-the-limit drivers are necessarily caused by drink either.

Legal decisions should be based on what happened not on pre-conceived generalisations.

It is well known that different people have different tolerance to drink anyway so to suggest I am somehow happy for people to drive-drunk is to totally misrepresent what I've said. I don't think anyone should drive drunk but there is usually a big gap between the capabilities of someone after two pints and someone who's drunk.

My wife is a singularly lawful person who wouldn't drive after a drop of alcohol anyway. But quite apart from the law she's simply not safe yet would happily drive with me after I'd consumed, say, a couple of pints. I'd be driving slower anyway.

And after all these anti-drink-driving campaigns and oppressive drink-driving laws which have had serious consequences on a whole lot of pubs and publicans I don't see all those previously wasted lives being saved. Stacks of people are still dying on the roads.

Indeed statistics from the Audit Commission suggest road casualties have remained constant over the last 10 years but if you and the Government are sincere about reducing casualties the answers are simple and it doesn't involve convicting people for doing nothing more than disobey misguided legislation...

The answer is to slow all road traffic in built up areas, to have more one-way systems and to have slower cars generally. Things which would have considerable benefit anyhow.

Why any road car should be capable of more than 70mph I don't know with the law being as it is.

On a broader, more long-term basis, cars should be made of lighter and with more malleable materials.

Together that would cut road deaths, no problem. And it would help the environment, at least so I understand.

l

You should go to New Zealand my friend, four pints in your first hour of drinking, one pint for every hour after.

Quite an experince going out on the town over there, you go out at night witness all these people getting smashed and climbing into their cars. Then wake up in the morning and turn the local news on, car wreck after car wreck, why they haven't changed the law yet I don't know.

I think the limit here is a bit exccesive but there needs to a reasonable limit. It saves I'd say literally thousands of lives everyday.

[Thracian]

You should go to New Zealand my friend, four pints in your first hour of drinking, one pint for every hour after.

Quite an experince going out on the town over there, you go out at night witness all these people getting smashed and climbing into their cars. Then wake up in the morning and turn the local news on, car wreck after car wreck, why they haven't changed the law yet I don't know.

I think the limit here is a bit exccesive but there needs to a reasonable limit. It saves I'd say literally thousands of lives everyday.

I've actually got family there but I can't remember them mentioning the drink driving situation. Mind you, the sort of wacko things they I'd think drunkenly driving into ravines would simply be like bungee jumping in a seat!

[Bert]

Barbados are like New Zealand too.

There is no such thing as drink driving.

Personally i think once you've had a sip of alcohol, you shouldn't be allowed to drive. Just not worth it.

[Rincewind]

Yet the focus remains on the drink driver because of the declared need to cut carnage on the road. But the carnage has remained constant and the real attack needs to be on speeding which is constantly ignored.

15,000 moterists were stopped in Leicestershire over the xmas period in speeding related incidents and will most likely face prosecution.

[Thracian]

Yet the focus remains on the drink driver because of the declared need to cut carnage on the road. But the carnage has remained constant and the real attack needs to be on speeding which is constantly ignored.

15,000 moterists were stopped in Leicestershire over the xmas period in speeding related incidents and will most likely face prosecution.

There has long been the will to combat speeding in built-up areas but the havoc and danger caused by much-ignored speedsters on the motorway still goes on.

And the centre-land driving is just as bad and causes all sorts of problems and irritation too.

I rarely exceed 70mph on motorways during busy periods because any accident is going to cause chaos for hundreds or even thousands of people.

And yet I'm made to feel like a road roller. Drivers just hammer past, many doing 85-90mph or more and we're talking several each minute.

And why? Just to get from Leicester to, say, Stoke, 10 minutes earlier if you're lucky.

Why would anyone want to get to Stoke quicker than they have to?

[Hullfox]

Still waiting....

People like what?

[Bert]

Still waiting....

People like what?

You will not get a response HF.

People don't realise the effects/affects of drink driving until something related has happened to them or someone close to them, which truth be told is quite sad.

[Hullfox]

You will not get a response HF.

People don't realise the effects/affects of drink driving until something related has happened to them or someone close to them, which truth be told is quite sad.

Problem is Bert, we get a response over everything other than a straight question.

Anyway, time for a beer. (No Driving though).

[Thracian]

Problem is Bert, we get a response over everything other than a straight question.

Anyway, time for a beer. (No Driving though).

You've had an answer which was perfectly serious.

Read the article you submitted.

Then answer your own question.

I'm sure you don't need my help.