Well its a simple black and white situation. were you over the limit? then you have the punishment for being over the limit. there is a range of punishments available but you are still guilty of drink driving and should be punished as such
the circumstances leading to a drink driving incident should not be ignored,
Nope - not at all valid. Why you did it is of no relevance, what you did is
Not really most don't even drive that fast, they just don't know how to drive, full stop.
Sorry, I should have explained myself better. They seem obsessed with adhering to the speed limit (60-70kph on some of the Sydney urban motorways), due to the double demerits over the festive period, yet I felt in much more danger than I do on UK motorways.
Lots of drifting around in lanes and (off the motorway, obviously) only casual adherence to the red lights. People were following through on red a looooong time after it went on - the amber isn't used in the same way as the UK.
Despite the 'speed kills, slow down' messages you see everywhere, the road death stats are almost twice as high as the UK.
simple solution to this problem, ban cars!!!!
there is a range of punishments available
So you do agree with me then that my fictitious scenarios should be punished differently, which is what I said above? This was never about have-you-or-have-you-not broken the law. As I also said above, I believe there should be no allowed measure of alcohol. The law should be that you drink OR drive.
Why you did it is of no relevance
I'm no legal beagle but I simply don't/can't believe this to be true, but I'm not going to waste any more of your (collective) time inventing hypothetical scenarios.
Far too much arguing on STW lately. Guys chill out 
just read my last post. It sounds angrier than it was intended. Sorry 
Here, drink-riding is seen by most to be in exactly the same boat as drink-driving; with all the pious rhetoric from non-pub-cyclists as STWers have shown on here for the past two pages. It's seen that way for the reason given in my example. It's not what happens to the selfish drunk rider, it's how their actions might affect others
So the Australian law is based on scaremongering using scenarios that don't happen.
Something like the helmet law then. Based on the belief that cycling is far more dangerous than it is.
INRATS but I like the shame car idea.
It should have CAUTION - I MAY BE PISSED written on the side and should have flashing multi coloured neon lights all over it. And a loudspeaker playing beep beep beep 'warning, drunk driver alert' like the reversing alarms on lorries.
hora - Member
Far too much arguing on STW lately. Guys chill out
completely agree, I wanted to tell my story to try and show a real world scenario, and the effects that this can have upon people.
If you choose to drink and drive fine that is your choice, but the results can and will affect many innocent people and that is the point I was hoping to make.
not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you're loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag.
classy. 
Ron Jeremy , so very well said, and true,all drink drivers should be made to attend the next RTC, and the hospital, and talk to the families, then see their car crushed, on prime time tv.
not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you're loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag
I think that i am qualified to answer this, and for a while i could of agreed with this statement, but trust me on this one
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.."
Oz have some of the most strict traffic rules...woeful driving standards...I've seriously never seen such poor driving anywhere else in the world.
If Australia is the place in the world you've seen the worst driving standards, I suspect you are not widely travelled at all. Consult the deaths/km etc statistics for a more objective global view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Drunk driver to lose his car... fine with me.
He should also lose a considerable period of his freedom 
not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you're loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag.
What complete tosh. Its not difficult at all to prove/decide who owns a car
Please take off the tin foil hat, and step away from the internet.
If you bought your car, you own it (unless its on finance in some cases)
And the evidence to support this?
And the evidence to support this?
maybe i'll start one up. call it something like Vehicle Licencing Agency or if i keep a record of drivers too maybe the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency.
It's a bit long though, maybe it could be shortened?
Right, I missed that the guy has fessed up to drink driving. In that case he's admitted a crime and should take the punishment.. Like someone said before it started getting all hypothetical a coupla pages ago are we gonna start differentiating between someone with a £500 car and a £23k one? I don't think so.
David, fair play to you for sharing your story, hope nobody has to go through an experience like you've had to but I know that won't be the case. To me it puts all the hypothetical scenarios into context. Although I don't know you and can't begin to understand what you went through I'm sorry for your loss.
Oh aye, just read on BBC that Audrey Baxter of the same named soup co has been done for drink driving after taking her partner to hospital by car after drinking and being over the limit.. Seems about right to me.
I'm sure that's what I'd be thinking in retrospect, but most/many of us drink and most of us at some stage or other do so beyond safe driving limits knowing we do not need to drive. I hope I never get put in that sort of situation whereby I have no choice but to take to my car over the limit. As many have pointed out that should be never.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-16425064
well... at least we now know what would happen if you did.
EDIT Doh! too slow
b r » ....And the evidence to support this?
Seriously ?
After I replied, I actually thought you may have been joking? But clearly you weren't.
The same as everything else I own.
I bought it, so I own it. I have an invoice to prove I bought it.
The "registered keeper" can be the same person as the "owner" (as in my case)
Or (as in the case of my brother) the "owner" is the Company he works for.
And he is the "registered keeper"
.
.
.
When I get my insurance there is a section on the form that asks
"who is the owner of the vehicle"
And
"who is the registered keeper of the vehicle"
If the tin foil hat myth is true, anyone who puts down anything other than "no idea" as the owner, has voided their insurance by giving false information.
They should be fined (alot) and banned (for a long time) but they have to still insure and tax their car which they are not allowed to sell for the duration of their ban. Then at the end of their ban the car should be crushed in front of them and they should have to pay for the crushing and the disposal of the car.
Another aspect to consider is surely the drunk driver should be made liable for ALL damage caused if in a crash. Presently, the insurance companies pay for this, with the exception of the drink drivers car. Its incidents like this that push up insurance premiums.
Perhaps this is another incentive to reduce drunk drivers?
The best incentive would be to make it much more likely that you are caught which means random breath tests / roadblocks testing everyone / much tougher enforcement - its the risk of getting aught not he level of punishment that acts as deterrent by and large
Seriously ?
After I replied, I actually thought you may have been joking? But clearly you weren't.
The same as everything else I own.
I bought it, so I own it. I have an invoice to prove I bought it.
The "registered keeper" can be the same person as the "owner" (as in my case)
Or (as in the case of my brother) the "owner" is the Company he works for.
And he is the "registered keeper"
.
.
.
When I get my insurance there is a section on the form that asks
"who is the owner of the vehicle"
And
"who is the registered keeper of the vehicle"
If the tin foil hat myth is true, anyone who puts down anything other than "no idea" as the owner, has voided their insurance by giving false information.
Who said anything about your documentation, I was saying that there is NO government database of car owners, only keepers. Its not difficult to understand.
Surely the Brits have a centralised register for financial interests in serially-numbered collateral like vehicles? No?
Nope.
And also remember if the deterrent is too great then a DD is less likely to stop and could cause greater damage plus if you ban someone for life its most likely they'll just carry on driving in unlicensed/uninsured vehicles.
Not agreeing with anything and I've never driven over the limit, just pointing out what will happen.
Perhaps cars should be fitted with breathalysers, like Nationa express coaches, where the driver has to breathe into a tube, before the vehicle will start, this was brought in after they had a few major accidents with drunk drivers, driving their coaches.
The best incentive would be to make it much more likely that you are caught which means random breath tests / roadblocks testing everyone / much tougher enforcement - its the risk of getting aught not he level of punishment that acts as deterrent by and large
Just an addition with regard to the insurance side of things, when it all happened her insurance became null and void and an organisation called The Motor Insurance Bureau stepped in, they settled the claim without arguement and payed up, we were told that they would seek full reinbursement from the lady concerned in as much as baliffs and seizing of property, not sure if this is still the case, but this is what happened for us. Oh and because it isnt contested it didn't take as long as long as you'd of thought.
Interesting example, given it wasn't on the road, hence he couldn't be prosecuted for cycling whilst drunk.
On the contrary, in Oz (which is the country I'm talking about applying DUI laws to bikes), he'd not only be prosecuted for DUI, but also for using a vehicle in an unauthorized area (i.e. not a road). They'd probably throw trespass on the railway at him for good measure.
As I said, to a lot of people over here, drink-cycling is seen as just as bad as drink driving, for the reasons I outlined previously.
not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you're loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag.
With illiterate homophobic gun-wielding simpletons like you around, I'm sure the world is a much better place...
Zokes - its amazing how things changes - when I was in aus 30 years ago distances in the bush would be measured in cartons - as in a slab of beer and the bush roads were lined with stubbies and cans - drink driving was commonplace and accepted you just drank a can and chucked the empty out of the window and grabbed another when you got thirsty
On the contrary, in Oz (which is the country I'm talking about applying DUI laws to bikes)
Except the incident was in the UK, not Oz. Off you go, find an example either in Oz, or on the road in the UK.
Off you go, find an example either in Oz, or on the road in the UK.
Why? I was highlighting a perhaps bizarre law here, and the perception of the non-cycling community of it. That perception being exactly the same as the majority have shown towards DUI in cars up there ^^^
Regardless of whether it has a basis in terms of how often these incidents occur, are you honestly telling me that the hypothetical situation I outlined couldn't happen? And if it could happen, perhaps laws put in place to try to prevent such an eventuality aren't such a bad thing; and are regarded as such by the non-cycling, or cycling and non-drinking community?
Alternatively, maybe it never happens because there are strict laws against it, and they act as an effective deterrent?
Also, are you saying that the drunk rider who nearly caused a train to derail shouldn't be charged with more that a 30 quid fine for being drunk in charge of a bike? Or should there be stricter laws to act as a deterrent?
TandemJeremy - MemberZokes - its amazing how things changes - when I was in aus 30 years ago distances in the bush would be measured in cartons - as in a slab of beer and the bush roads were lined with stubbies and cans - drink driving was commonplace and accepted you just drank a can and chucked the empty out of the window and grabbed another when you got thirsty
I think all the change has demonstrated is that it wasn't the drink that was the major factor in the appalling driving in this country!!!
probably wading in a bit late, but if the law allows the car to be seized and/or crushed, the worth of the car is irrelevant surely, you can't say "oh well, it's a nice car, we'll let you off with that, but the guy with the shit box Micra loses his"
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
