Forum menu
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"
easy answer just ban alcohol. what good does it do anyway?
this will be alot cheaper then tj's idea of a roadblock every 20 feet 🙄 which considering the police havent got the resources to investigate burglary is the stupidest thing ive seen him write
Surely the Brits have a centralised register for financial interests in serially-numbered collateral like vehicles? No?
Nope.
Yeah, I know. I'm teasing you lot (in a niche way, I admit).
Alternatively, maybe it never happens because there are strict laws against it, and they act as an effective deterrent?
You could try and find out whether such hypotheticals ever happen over here where there is no strict law against it (and no, that train clip doesn't count).
The punishment should be exactly what is handed out by the court. If they decide someone should be hit with a £23k fine then they should hit them with that, they could then sell the car if needed to pay it.
Including the car in the punishment just doesn't work. You then get completely variable fines based on if it's their car, how much the car is worth and how much value it is to them.
And crushing a car that could be nearly new, come on, that is an absolute waste of resources. What suddenly makes that car scrap metal? It's the driver's fault, not the car.
In no way do I think the punishment is enough at the moment, especially for second time bans. One chance is enough, people can make a mistake, think they are ok or make a really bad decision but after doing that once they shouldn't get a second chance to have their licence back. Also agree that the first time punishment needs more financial impact but that has to come down to judging cases individually - ie means testing to make it hurt across the board.
That's a problem with the courts and the fines/bans they hand out, not something that can be sorted by scrapping perfectly servicable motors.
Prison and then a means tested financial penalty? As I said earlier what sort of punishment do you think is sufficient, I can honestly say that originally I was upset about the punishment handed down to her, now I tend not to worry about it, just the knowledge that she has to spend the rest of her life carrying around the knowledge of what she did with her.
You could try and find out whether such hypotheticals ever happen over here where there is no strict law against it
Why? If you're not capable of seeing how a drunk cyclist swerving could cause an accident for a driver, I think it's probably you who needs to spend the time thinking.
(and no, that train clip doesn't count).
On the contrary, it is good evidence that there should be stricter penalties for cycling under the influence, whether you're on the road or not.
To use your 'logic', perhaps there's no need for penalties for breaking the speed limit in a car? I mean, most people do it at some point, but as a percentage of actual infringements (or even those who are caught), the numbers of deaths actually caused are minimal.
Bring back the stocks, stick them in there for a week, bet they don't do it again