Forum menu
Not looking at the short jail sentance for rehabilitation – just for punishment.
surprised at you TJ, you must know that this won't do anything to reduce offending; surely?
I agree with Binners it's all pretty moot until there are sufficient coppers to enforce existing laws. Anecdotally...I help run ophthalmology clinics, we have lots of folk (mostly oldsters) that come to our sessions that literally cannot see the largest sight test letters from 3m away, and yet under current DVLA rules are still "safe" to drive ie can pass a fields test. There are plenty of folk that aren't safe on the roads without the additional handicap of alcohol.
karanga
your argument is a fallacy . its unrelated to the point at hand . pursuing your points will not reduce the deaths due to alcohol.
they are separate issues.
i hear what your saying but its not relevant to this thread in the slightest because you want a drink.
if you dont like coke or water then alcohol free beer. If its not the taste you like and its the alcohol buzz then that in its self should be a pointer into why its a bad idea to drive after it.
on the jailtime argument.
Overall yes short prison sentences do nothing. However I do believe the punishment for drink driving is not enough. I am primarily aiming that at the "middle class" drink drivers who believe a couple is OK. Once one of their friends has gone to jail for drink driving then do you not think that would act as a deterrent to the rest of them?
I accept its a controversial idea and that it might have no effect and yes - its the fear of getting caught as much if not more than the fear of the punishment but I do think a short jail term for every drink driver might make a difference.
You can already get 6 months in prison. Although from what I gather from hearing stories of such things happening, I think it's usually reserved for repeat offenders? It's still a lengthy driving ban though. I think that would deter most people if they ever thought they would be caught.
"So come on then how many of you who claim to care about road safety have been bothered to take any further driving training since passing your test? If you haven’t then you’re a total hypocrite and don’t have any right to comment on what others can and can’t do."
Agree with Drac's reaction to this but seeing as I have taken extra training since passing my car test - C1 test, C1+E and I'm a qualified driving standards assessor for my workplace - then according to you I can have a say.
I like the idea of the Scottish level being applied to the whole of the UK, it will definitely have an effect on the 'morning after' people and will make a few of the regular 'drink with a meal' types have a second think about how long to leave it before driving and even whether that drink is worth it. Anything that impairs your ability to drive should be taken seriously as the potential for causing large amounts of damage to either property or people is grossly underestimated by most people. Medication mentioned above is another issue and I've had to get involved with people at work who are on long-term treatment who were unable to pass a simple driving assessment due to it. Combine the meds with a drink and you can have a very dangerous cocktail when behind the wheel.
I have seen first-hand the destruction one drunk driver can do. I was following a car on evening and it drifted into the path of two oncoming cars resulting in a head-on crash. The occupants of both oncoming cars were killed or died later from their injuries. The drunk driver walked away with superficial injuries and a broken arm as the fact that he was inebriated meant he didn't tense up just before impact so he 'bounced' as it were, like a child does.
For the record I will say that I am a petrolhead who likes fast cars but I will still be happy to see alcohol levels dropped, the widespread use of average speed cameras, more traffic police and regular retesting with licences revoked if you fail. If you want to drive fast do a track day, if you want a few drinks to wind down after a day's work get a taxi home or a lift with a sober friend. If I knowingly see someone get behind the wheel while over the limit I will phone the police, no qualms about it at all. Rule no.1 of life: Don't Be A Dick.
Once one of their friends has gone to jail for drink driving then do you not think that would act as a deterrent to the rest of them?
This is of course the same reasoning that lead us to the utopia of no one committing murder for these past years, right?
Seriously though, for some offences of drink driving it should be a ban, but there has to be some proportionality. To be facing a jail sentence (with all the other societal issues that may bring; possible job loss, home loss, etc etc) if you're driving home after one sherry at your auntie's and get caught by cops, is clearly nuts.
"if you’re driving home after one sherry at your auntie’s and get caught by cops, is clearly nuts."
theres an easy answer to that .
just make it socially the norm to say no I'm driving i wont have any alcohol by lowering the limit then theres no persuading someone to *cummon its just one youll be under the limit*
The law does NOT allow you a pint.
Most men 2 pints is very marginal / over the limit.
Both statements from tj, the second is correct but the first is not. Note I did not say that the law allows everyone a pint, I was talking specifically about myself and as a fairly large male I am very confident that as long as I avoid the very strongest of ales (and they all have alcohol % on the tap) I am not only legally safe but also not significantly impaired. I also don't neck it and get straight behind the wheel but will usually spend a while over it with some food.
You can try to argue that any sort of impairment is deprecated but in the real world we have probably just about all driven on occasion when slightly tired or distracted or upset for some reason and we all have different levels of skill and attentiveness in the first place so as long as I don't fall well below acceptable levels I'm not going to feel in the least bit guilty about the possibility of being just slightly less than perfect.
just make it socially the norm to say no I’m driving i wont have any alcohol by lowering the limit then theres no persuading someone to *cummon its just one youll be under the limit*
No one bats an eye now if you say I'm driving or I have work the next day, at one time it wasn't the case though. Hopefully I'm qualified enough under Kananga rules to have such an opinion.
To be facing a jail sentence (with all the other societal issues that may bring; possible job loss, home loss, etc etc) if you’re driving home after one sherry at your auntie’s and get caught by cops, is clearly nuts.
~Which is why I said rather than the usual jail sentence of " take him away and lock him up now" the two weeks in jail could be taken at a convenient time for those in work - like during their summer holidays.
There are two types of problem drink driver - the hardcore " get drunk and drive home" these folk it would make little differnce to. My intent is to go after those like postie and the captain who believe a pint or two is OK. Honstly the captain / postirich - if you thought you would go to jail for your drink driving would it change your behaviour? And the captain - you are significantly impaired even after one pint. Thats the science.
theres an easy answer to that .
T-Rat, I don't disagree with you. I would have a zero limit as well, but I think the current sanctions are about right.
The captain -0 tyhe law does not allow you a pint. there are two different offences. Driving under the influence and driving with a level of alcohol above the limit.
Nowhere in the statute does it say " a pint is fine" You are not "allowed a pint"
Zero limit is pretty much impossible - that would put you over 12 hours after a single pint. there needs to be a low limit.
I am not convinced by the jail arguement BTW - just a discussion point. We need something to stop those " pint or two" types
Zero limit is impossible as it's possible to naturally produce alcohol in the body.
Nowhere in the statute does it say ” a pint is fine” You are not “allowed a pint”
No where does it say you are not allowed a pint either - your readings if tested must simply be below the limit - which a pint (unless it's a pint of something like special brew or you're a midget) would not put you over.
We need something to stop those ” pint or two” types
Isn't the Law in some US states that as a barman/waiter you bear some criminal responsibility (and can go to jail) if you serve alcohol to some-one to the point of drunkenness and that person goes onto drink drive and there's a 3rd person injury/death.? I think that's the case in Texas for instance.
Kananga - two points. 1 alcohol metabolism is unpredictable. One pint could easily put you over one day even if most days it does not and 2 - even after one pint with a alcohol level well below even the scottish limit you are still significantly impaired and could be prosecuted for " driving under the influence" Ulikely but possible - it has been done..
Kananga – two points. 1 alcohol metabolism is unpredictable. One pint could easily put you over one day even if most days it does not and 2 – even after one pint with a alcohol level well below even the scottish limit you are still significantly impaired and could be prosecuted for ” driving under the influence” Ulikely but possible – it has been done..
I would say to your first point that based on simple body size v's alcohol amount consumed is almost impossible unless you are incredibly small, or drink a pint of some sort of rocket juice.
To your second, to be classed as 'driving under the influence' with regard to alcohol then you would need to fail a roadside breath test and also a subsequent breath/blood/urine tests back at the station which showed that you were over the drink drive limit. A low to average strength pint would not do this. Drugs are a different story. Please feel free to post your evidence that shows I'm wrong though and I'll stand to be corrected.
tj, it's a basically a free country and I can do what I like so long as I'm not breaking any laws. One pint of ordinary beer leaves me well under the limit (no I've not done any testing but I confidently believe it to be true). The law allows me to drive after a pint because there is nothing in the law to prevent or criminalise such behaviour.
tj, it’s a basically a free country and I can do what I like so long as I’m not breaking any laws. One pint of ordinary beer leaves me well under the limit (no I’ve not done any testing but I confidently believe it to be true). The law allows me to drive after a pint because there is nothing in the law to prevent or criminalise such behaviour.
I think some on here think we should all be under constant strict regulation as to what we can and can't do down to the smallest details, anything with any level of risk is banned, no room for leniency, camera enforcement used to secure evidence and harsh punishments for even minor transgressions. Personal responsibility and decision making would be replaced by the judgement of the state. What a horrible society that would be - remind you of anywhere just north of South Korea?
Far fetched, perhaps but I'm free enough to see the thin end of the wedge - just look at the proliferation of dash cams to see how paranoid we're becoming.
Personal responsibility and decision making would be replaced by the judgement of the state.
Or if your a member of the school of advanced motorists.
"just look at the proliferation of dash cams to see how paranoid we’re becoming."
just look at the number of ME ME MEs who will lie through the skin of their teeth to avoid spending a penny in a situation they have caused to work out why thats happened.
remind you of anywhere ?
seems to be the modern attitude.
Having just checked it seems that the Scottish limit is not as stringent as I'd thought and I'd probably be safely under the limit there after a pint too.
Re Random checks - police here (Basque Country) set up roadblocks and breathalyse drivers on popular routes on Sat/Sun mornings, after lunch etc. I'm all in favour, but there are too many ways around:
I know people who are in whatsapp groups which warn of breathtests, radars etc.
People warn of police checks on Waze.
Out of town clubs close at 8am or so - kids will sleep in their cars for a couple of hours and drive home long after the police have packed up.
It's better than nothing but the last horrific DUI I read about (hit-and-run on a family out on bikes, killed parents and left their 12yo to watch them die in the road) was on a weekday morning when you never see the roadblocks. Driver caught shortly afterwards, blew four times over.
Zero limit is pretty much impossible – that would put you over 12 hours after a single pint.
Where are you getting your TJ facts from today?
If you are suggesting it takes 12hrs to breakdown a single pint, then I would have died from severe alcohol poisoning on a number of occasions.
Or if your a member of the school of advanced motorists.
Do you have a personal problem with people seeking to improve their driving standards - that is very strange!!!
Do you have a personal problem with people seeking to improve their driving standards – that is very strange!!!
No, why would I? I do have a problem with people claiming you can't criticise drink drivers unless you've done an advanced motoring course.
no i suspect he has an issue with someone assertively trying to say that if you don't hold paid for paperwork then your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
which is compounded when you know what he does for a day job and has probably seen first hand the results to form an opinion on drink driving.
gobuchal. Driunk elimination from the body follows a "half life" pattern. Ie half of it is gone every period of time. afterr 12 hours the amount of alcohol in your blood would be minimal but detecable.
IIRC the half life with alcohol is around 4 hrs. so after 12 hours you have 1/16th of the level. Not zero
Hmm, a bit of confusion here. By far the biggest killer on the roads is not speed, not drink, it's bad judgement and poor observation. These things can be HUGELY improved with additional training.
Therefore it's just plain strange that people seem very concerned whether someone should be allowed 0.5 or 0.8mg of alcohol in their system yet they themselves don't seem to care enough about the biggest killer on the roads to do anything personally about it and get some additional driver training!
Kananga - check out offences DR20 and DR 50. Neither require any fixed levels of drink merely that you are under the influence. Its very unlikely you would be prosecuted if you pas a breath test but possible.
Kananga - cite please? Drink driving is responsbible for 300+ deaths a year.
Its well proven that even below the limits your chances of crashing are increased. Well proven. 60 people a year killed like this by drink drivers below the limit.
at a level 0f 0.8 your chances of crashing are much much higher.,
you keep drawing it back to irrelevant arguement . no one disagrees that people not paying attention(and extra training wont stop peoples mind wandering - driving is a boring mind numbing repetitive task its easy to see why minds wander ) is a huge killer. But its a different discussion to the thread title.
Never mind soon our automatic electric self driving car will be able to take us home from the pub paralytic.
Hmm, a bit of confusion here. By far the biggest killer on the roads is not speed, not drink, it’s bad judgement and poor observation. These things can be HUGELY improved with additional training.
Therefore it’s just plain strange that people seem very concerned whether someone should be allowed 0.5 or 0.8mg of alcohol in their system yet they themselves don’t seem to care enough about the biggest killer on the roads to do anything personally about it and get some additional driver training!
No, you believe that others aren't concerned but the subject of bad driver habits causing accidents is often mentioned on here and I can't recall anyone saying it isn't an issue. That does not mean we should ignore changes to drink driving regulations, I'd even say they go hand in hand.
What is plane strange is that you seem to think your beliefs that no one cares is right.
Kananga – check out offences DR20 and DR 50. Neither require any fixed levels of drink merely that you are under the influence. Its very unlikely you would be prosecuted if you pas a breath test but possible.
TJ both of those require evidence of impairment to be established by the result of a blood or urine analysis, which if it was below the legal limit would not be illegal.
gobuchal. Driunk elimination from the body follows a “half life” pattern. Ie half of it is gone every period of time. afterr 12 hours the amount of alcohol in your blood would be minimal but detecable.
How does that work?
Please show me your numbers.
Everything I can find states the liver can typically process an amount of alcohol an hour. Nothing about "half life" type situations.
I am aware it is possible to detect evidence of alcohol metabolism in urine and blood, after the liver has dealt with the alcohol but not actual alcohol.
More than happy to be proved incorrect.
self driving car will be able to take us home from the pub paralytic.
I can imagine it already; The car turns up, tries to grab a handful of your missus, when the car door opens it spews vomit onto your shoes, and insists on playing Club Tropicana very loudly all the way home, then it tells you your it's best mate and falls asleep in the garage....
Kananga – cite please?
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_drivingwhileunfit.php
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php
NO they do not. Seriously go check some law. This is why there is two separate offences. "driving under the influence" which does not require physiological testing and "Driving over the prescribed limit" which does
The prosecution would have to show you were impaired but do not have to establish what your alcohol level actually is. ~Seriously- stop talking out of your hat.
a DR20 with the evidence you describe as required would be a DR10 .....
Your link proves my point
unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition.
No, you believe that others aren’t concerned but the subject of bad driver habits causing accidents is often mentioned on here and I can’t recall anyone saying it isn’t an issue.
Yes but an issue no one can be bothered to do anything about themselves. Easy to have a rant online about drink drive limits - much harder to get off your own arse and do something to improve your own driving standards to make everyone else safer.
Yes but an issue no one can be bothered to do anything about themselves. Easy to have a rant online about drink drive limits – much harder to get off your own arse and do something to improve your own driving standards to make everyone else safer.
Are you saying eveyone on here who has an issue with drink drivers are crap drivers? Yeah you're talking bollocks. Are you drunk?
Your link proves my point
unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition.
No it doesn't -
Evidence is required to show:
- unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition.
- presence of drink or drugs in the body: evidence of impairment can be established by the result of a blood or urine analysis
- unfitness to drive was caused by drink or drugs.
Evidence is require to show all three of the above if unfitness to drive is related to drink.