[Closed] Another cyclist killed

I imagine there may be a self selecting bias there though.

do you drive at prime 'drunk driving time' in built up areas?

I have never been breathalysed either, but I'm rarely out on the road in my car late in the eve or in the wee hours, but I have seen plenty of people stopped and being checked when I've been out on foot or on ym bike at those times.

In 20 years of driving I've never once been pulled over and breathalysed nor have I ever seen a random roadside test station with people getting pulled.

In 10yrs I've never been pulled either but then I don't drive after 10pm as a rule etc etc. So maybe thats why for me.

What's the point of random breath testing considering you can decline the test.
They can only force you if they reasonably believe you are drink driving.

Failing to provide a specimen?

Yup, that's exactly what the lower limits in Scotland are about- taking away that "I'll take the car and have one drink" which sometimes leads to "I'll have a couple more and just get the bus home" then once the decision-making process is screwed by drink, to "I feel fine, I'll just drive home". Not that this is excusable but it's more understandable than deciding while sober to drink and drive.

I've been a bit sceptical of the new limit since it was introduced, but in fairness that is by far the best argument i've heard for it.

A lot of people on this forum want permanent bans for drivers who kill as a result of their poor driving, just wondering if people share the same sentiment when 'life' sentences are handed down for murder etc...should 'life' mean life in those cases?

Just like a life sentence, a permanent ban could be managed by allowing the offender to drive after passing stringent tests and assessments (which they pay for), where their licence would be instantly revoked should they offend in any way again.

Assuming those are concurrent (as I believe they usually are), what's the point in the ban?

<edit> [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/when-is-law-not-law-when-no-one.html ]sauce[/url] (well that's where I learned of it anyway)

just wondering if people share the same sentiment when 'life' sentences are handed down for murder etc...should 'life' mean life in those cases

do you drive at prime 'drunk driving time' in built up areas?

I have done, and living in a busy city, I often do.

I don't drive after 10pm as a rule etc

Because you'll turn into a pumpkin?

[quote=deviant ]It comes down to intent doesnt it?
If i throw a punch i'm trying to hurt somebody, if i stab somebody i'm trying to hurt them or even worse actually kill them....if i get in my car pissed (however stupid that may be) i havent actually set out thinking "right, lets find a cyclist to run down"....the consequences are horrific but the intent to harm isnt there.

If you get in your car pissed you've made a conscious decision to do something dangerous (or sometimes as discussed above failed to take measures to prevent you taking such a decision when your judgement is later inhibited).

If I walk down the street with a loaded gun and it accidentally goes off killing somebody, I didn't set out intending to kill anybody, so presumably I should be let off lightly and be allowed to own guns again?

There is plenty of room between our current laws/practice and a permanent ban. How about an automatic 5 or 10 year ban for causing death by drunk or careless driving ?

I would be in favour of reducing the alcohol limit but as above zero doesn't work

As for testing at Christmas Surrey police set up random breathalyzer stations, I used to see them every year in/around the town I lived in.

robj20 - Member

What's the point of random breath testing considering you can decline the test.
They can only force you if they reasonably believe you are drink driving

A uniformed cop has the power to stop any mechanically propelled vehicle being used on a road for the purposes of verifying ownership and checking documentation.

A stone cold sober cop can smell alcohol after even a small amount of consumption, so if they stop a driver to check for ownership etc, it is immediately apparent whether or not the driver has had a drink. Under those circumstances they will require a breath sample. If the requirement is based on suspicion that the driver has consumed alcohol, and the driver refuses, they can be arrested.

"Random breath testing" is a phrase used by the media, and is a deterrent mechanism and reassurance publicity during festive drink driving campaigns. The powers don't alter and "random breath testing" has no basis in legislation, therefore a refusal by a sober driver who hasn't committed a moving traffic offence or been involved in an accident with no grounds to suspect alcohol will not lead to an arrest.

Because I'm usually hammered after 10pm 8)

I don't think random stopping is lawful in the UK - they police have to have a reasonable suspicion, I believe.

the police do not need any reason to stop any person driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road for a routine check.
...
The police cannot stop a vehicle just to carry out a random breath test.
...
The police can, however, breathalyse a person without a reasonable suspicion that the person has consumed alcohol/drugs, if they have committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle is in motion

-- https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q723.htm

amedias took a corner abit too wide and fast? A few leaps ahead but what if someone was riding home from a night shift and was swiped by said-friend? We'd be in a situation close to the original post.

Exactly my point Hora, he was and idiot and I'm thankful he didn't hurt himself or anyone else. It's only by luck that he got pulled over before he caused an accident.

He chose to drive that night, a choice he wouldn't have made had he not been drinking. It's a double evil as it can lead to you making poor choices you wouldn't make when sober.

I'm not apologising or trying to justify what he did, I'm just saying that I can see how he ended up in that situation and that just because you know its illegal (and stupid) when you're sober doesn't mean you won't still make a stupid decision once under the influence.

It's easy as a sober person to decide not to drink and drive, once you're drunk that decision not to drive can be affected by the very fact that you have been drinking.

The only way situations like the above can be avoided is if *sober* people take steps to ensure their drunk future-selves can't do stupid things. And that's tricky as it's not yet ingrained in peoples minds enough.

Its a difficult concept to struggle with as the decision to drive was made while judgement was impaired.

But the impairment is self inflicted so are we actually punishing them for making the decision to drive* or the decision to drink (to the point of not being in full control of your faculties)?

*a decision they were not capable of making rationally, which would normally be reasonable grounds for a defence!

A thought experiment for you....

If you went MTB'ing, crashed and banged your head, and then drove home, and caused an accident due to the head-injury causing impairment how would that go in court?

you didn't mean to bang your head Vs you didn't mean to get drunk.
But you did, and both events lead to a situation where you decide to drive when you shouldn't and then cause an accident, in both cases an mental impairment due to something you did that was not intentional.

Obviously the two aren't comparable as one is an accident and the other is a well known result of the activity, but they both lead to a situation where the [i]following [/i]decisions and actions are no longer governed by your normal self, but one situation you have control over and the other you didn't.

Which is why I think the only way to handle it is to ingrain in people the importance of making sure that you not only don't intend to drink and drive while sober, but that you take steps to make sure that if you are going to drink you make sure you [b]can't[/b] drive afterwards.

I'll re-iterate my earlier comments though, I'm tee-total, and have no idea how people deal with the idea of doing something which they know could leave them no longer properly in control, so it's hard for me to understand.

Even if we get to a point where it is socially totally unacceptable to even entertain the idea of drinking and then operating heavy machinery, I don't know who we can deal with the fact that people under the influence will do stupid things.

If you went MTB'ing, crashed and banged your head, and then drove home, and caused an accident due to the head-injury causing impairment how would that go in court?

I can kinda see your point here but you dont tend to fall off at the end of a ride though. For instance a couple of months ago I was high sided then landed front-first into rocks. That was mid-ride. I carried on riding and was fine (apart from falling off again) but hey. If I became confused or started throwing up- I'd be calling an ambulance.

If I became confused or started throwing up- I'd be calling an ambulance.

head injury can present well after the fact, doesn't have to be immediate, but the above comment exactly illustrates my point, right now, while [b]not [/b]confused you say you'd call an ambulance, but how can you know that your confused self wouldn't think 'I'm only a couple of miles from home, its not too bad, ill just go slowly...'

synonymous with your sober self saying you'd never drink and drive, and then several hours later pissed-up Hora having delusions of Hamilton.

^ that is what genuinely scares me about alcohol and other drugs, its ability to make rational people do irrational things and not having the awareness to realise it at the time.

I don't think random stopping is lawful in the UK - they police have to have a reasonable suspicion, I believe.

I got stopped some years back and breathalised. They stopped me under the auspices of "driving slowly" (I was doing bang on the limit, so an indicated 30mph, probably a bit under in reality as I was conscious there was a police car following me!).

I was 18 (or so), it was gone 11 at night and I had 3 friends in the car, having just left the weekly pub quiz (police were parked opposite, and followed me for a couple of miles). No one was drunk as such, but everyone except me had been drinking. It was all quite intimidating frankly, they weren't particularly nice about the whole procedure, but of course I was absolutely fine, and free to go on my way. I was told if I declined to provide a sample then I'd be arrested and have to provide a sample at the police station.

I wasn't about to challenge their legal right to stop me, and frankly I'd be happy for them to do random testing with no real reason to suspect, but the fact he specifically said they stopped me for driving "a bit slowly" suggests they don't have powers to just test you on a whim.

the fact he specifically said they stopped me for driving "a bit slowly" suggests they don't have powers to just test you on a whim.

As per the AskThePolice link above, the police don't need a reason to stop your car.

Once you're stopped then a smell of booze gives them the "reasonable suspicion" required to ask you from a breath sample.

As per the AskThePolice link above, the police don't need a reason to stop your car.

This was about 10 years ago, could've been different then, or perhaps he just thought it was better to say he thought I was driving slowly rather than he wanted to randomly breathalise me. That was certainly the justification he gave at the time.

Taking this thread back to the original, grim subject matter-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30633625

Looks like we'll have to wait quite a while for the final outcome but the Fiscals are clearly taking it seriously, as the initial hearing was held in the High Court.

I was wondering recently if shorter bans for lesser traffic offences might be the way to hammer home that driving is a privilege and not a right. Say an automatic one week ban for reaching 6 points, one month for hitting 9 points?

Oblige employers to hold the drivers job open for the duration of the ban so you can't wriggle out of it on those grounds, but leave it up to the driver and employer to sort out loss of pay/holidays if they don't go in to work.

And lets have regular retests for all drivers. A license should be for 10 years max, not for life.

Nice thought MCTD, but currently [url= http://road.cc/content/news/81904-more-8000-drivers-have-12-or-more-points-their-licence-and-are-still-allowed ]they can't/don't even take away licenses when folk reach twelve points[/url].

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/driver-who-racked-up-45-penalty-points-still-on-the-road-9043561.html ]This guy was still legally driving with FORTY FIVE points on his license![/url]

And yes I agree, regular re-tests for all drivers would be a good thing.

One of the reasons I've stopped buying newspapers and avoiding BBC24 is partial reporting.

'Still on the road'. Really? At this moment? Hes insured is he? He can afford it? He might still have his licence but is he really 'still on the road'? I imagine its killing him- the cost and hes taking a sabbatical soon or currently.

Also - driving without insurance- kinda implies that hes not legally driving around anyway. Why they didn't just straight ban him is another matter.

Unaffordable insurance would tend to stop most people with over 12 points I bet.

Grahams - hence my plan for compulsory short bans when I set up my benign dictatorship.

Here is [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/motoring-news/more-than-10000-drivers-escape-ban-despite-full-points-2345157.html ]another story from The Independent in 2011 stating there were more than 10,000 drivers with 12 or more points but no disqualification[/url]! Four out of 10 drivers who hit the limit manage to keep their licence. Madness.

http://road.cc/content/news/44102-courts-let-nearly-half-motorists-who-accrue-12-or-more-penalty-points-continue

Unaffordable insurance would tend to stop most people with over 12 points I bet.

True but you're not supposed to be exempt from punishment just because you are wealthy enough to pay more for your insurance!

Round our way, getting pissed and killing a cyclist, earns you 240 hours community service.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8589152.stm

Of course you could argue that since the police had her car details (left upside down on the dual carriage way)it was a little strange they choose not to visit her house whilst she was "sleeping it off"

another story from The Independent in 2011 stating there were more than 10,000 drivers with 12 or more points but no disqualification

Round our way, getting pissed and killing a cyclist, earns you 240 hours community service.

And an 18 month driving ban. Pathetic. 🙁

(didn't see any evidence that she was pissed though. Seems a little unlikely if she was 6 weeks away from giving birth but it takes all sorts).

Kenneth Lush, 47, of Ware, died when he was hit while cycling on the A414 between Hatfield and Hertford [b]last May.[/b]
Debra Kelly, 38, of Tubbs Croft, Welwyn Garden City, who is due to give birth [b]in six weeks' time[/b], was sentenced at St Albans Crown Court.

Seems a little unlikely if she was 6 weeks away from giving birth but it takes all sorts).

GrahamS - Member

he drove less than half a mile home at 3am in the morning

I realise his judgement was impaired, but how pissed do you have to be to decide that is a better idea than simply leaving the car and walking home, especially if it is so essential to him?

As a student I used to live on the edge of Dartmoor. One evening during my finals I joined some friends and housemates in a nearby pub (The Star Inn iirc, previously run by one of the Wurzels. It had gold discs on the walls in among the normal scythes and horse brasses.)

The others had all finished their exams and were hammered by the end of the evening. One of the guys had cycled over from his house about 3 miles away, and while walking back to my house my housemate, who could barely walk in a straight line, suggested that he grab his keys and give the other guys a lift. I stopped him from doing this and got everyone to sleep in my house.

I mentioned this to my housemate the next day. He denied he would ever have driven while that drunk but he had every intention of doing so the night before. And he's right, when sober he's the sort who would never contemplate drink-driving. I'm sure he's not the only person who has ever thought this.

Sorry for the longish story just to show that people behave differently after drinking. 🙂

Cheers Sam, I should have read that more carefully the first time.