[Closed] Drink Driving

Does it matter whether it's worse or better than any other crime. No excuse to be drinking anything and then drinving imo.

or any attempt to reduce deaths

Drink-driving killed 430 people last year

I always find i drive better when drunk though...

So not murder, rape etc then?

My view is that killing someone drink driving is the equivilent of murder anyway.......

[b]Surely having one pint and being alert is a lot better[/b] than using your mobile, arguing with you wife / sat nav and changing CD whilst driving? Or perhaps just driving when you know you're tired, but 'need to get there'?

Oh dear 🙄

Hmmm - smacks of punishing those crimes that are easy to catch (cf speeding), rather than proving someone was too tired to drive or not paying sufficient attention...

There is an offence, it's called driving without due care and attention. 3 points and a fine IIRC.

Unfortunately speed cameras don't detect this. But that's another thread all together though!

I agree, I'd have drink driving quite a way down my list of the most despicable crimes.

Are that many casualties caused by people driving with less than 80mg of alcohol per unit in them, or is the problem that significant numbers of people ignore the existing limit? If it's the latter then lowering the limit is unlikely to help very much.

I think the idea would be to set the limit sufficiently low that you would choose not to drink at all before you drive rather than imagine that you haven't had too much to drink and imagine that you're under the limit.

is the problem that significant numbers of people ignore the existing limit?

I reckon so, the majority of people I've caught have been well over the limit, 2 times or more,

then lowering the limit is unlikely to help very much.

I think that's half right. There are two groups really, those that misjudge how much they can drink and end up a little bit over the limit - it might reduce them for the reasons skidartist gives above. The second group, those that simply don't give a kcuf, it won't make any difference to them.

Acceptable drink levels for driving should be 0mg, no grey area then imho

Oh dear

Why? Oh dear in that you missed the point?

If I were to have one pint, and then drive whilst being perfectly awake and alert - say after a hike or bike ride, I'd say I was considerably more alert than after having been at work for 14 hours then driving home in a daze. You'll be telling me cannabis and ecstasy are more dangerous than tobacco yet, and that's why they're illegal but cigarettes aren't...

There is an offence, it's called driving without due care and attention. 3 points and a fine IIRC.

Indeed. But that's much harder to prove than a breathalyser result or speed camera photo. And why is it only 3 points. Looking where you're going after 1 pint is a lot less dangerous than rummaging for a CD and not doing so...

Acceptable drink levels for driving should be 0mg, no grey area then imho

Really? I do hope you never inadvertently take any medication / eat a rich pudding etc then...

As I said, drink driving has such a large focus (and penalty) because it's easy to catch and prove. As generally being dosy / tired / not paying attention / being distracted are all as dangerous, why don't they carry the same punishment?

To avoid 'grey areas' I'm talking about the relative risk of driving in the following circumstances:

a) after 1 pint of beer over 3.8% i.e. fractionally over 2 units
b) during or after a big row with a partner
c) whilst trying to change CD / radio station, ipod track
d) whilst on the mobile
e) with kids screaming in the back
f) whilst lost and trying to snatch a glance at a map
g) after a long day at work

Can you honestly say that option a is so much more dangerous than any of the other options that it requires a mandatory ban, whereas most others you'd usually be given a formal caution at most if not involved in an accident. Or if found to be the cause of an accident, perhaps careless driving, or driving without due care and attention...

My concern with drink driving is that the limit varies by person. As I pretty much never drink anything 1 pint and I'm merry hence I wouldn't drive staight after 1 someone who drinks all the time probably doesn't get to that state until 4+ pints. Yet we'd be as dangerous as each other but i'd be legal to drive and them possibly not.

The American system of tests makes more sense in some ways to me and can also be used to catch drug drivers. There are flaws with this as well though I accept.

A 0mg limit is applaudable in concept but difficult in reality I'd have thought, what about that nice tiramisu for pudding or the morning after a couple of pints exactly how long do you need before you can drive...

Why? Oh dear in that you missed the point?

Not at all.

I was more concerned about you feeling that it's safer to have a pint (of beer i presume) in your OP than it is to use a mobile, or argue with a stroppy hormone infested wife/girlfriend. Plus all the other actions you mentioned. They are all equally silly things to be doing while in control of a 1.5 ton lump of metal moving at high speed.

In an ideal world we would have police patrols on all our roads preventing accidents from occurring due to the causes you mentioned, plus many more (doing makeup is my personal favorite at the moment). Unfortunately we do not, so Laws need to be passed that give guidelines for decent, intelligent people to follow. There will always be exceptions who feel know better, as I'm sure [b]thegreatape[/b] can testify to.

No offence was meant. It's just your casual assumption was a little bit to sweeping, even by STW standards! 🙂

To avoid 'grey areas' I'm talking about the relative risk of driving in the following circumstances:

a) after 1 pint of beer over 3.8% i.e. fractionally over 2 units
b) during or after a big row with a partner
c) whilst trying to change CD / radio station, ipod track
d) whilst on the mobile
e) with kids screaming in the back
f) whilst lost and trying to snatch a glance at a map
g) after a long day at work

Unfortunately risks are not exclusive, otherwise you might have a point.

If you're driving while rowing with your partner after a long day at work, while the kids are screaming in the back AND you've had a drink, then you are a greater risk than if you had skipped the booze.

[i]I agree, I'd have drink driving quite a way down my list of the most despicable crimes.[/i]

It does however result in more death, serious injury and misery than all the other despicable crimes humble citizens commit put together.

"Drink- and drug-driving is the most despicable crime..."

Setting fire to people is worse. How about nailing puppies to babies heads? Or... disembowelling old ladies with an ice cream scoop? Come to think of it I bet there's lots of more despicable crimes.

Setting fire to people is worse. How about nailing puppies to babies heads? Or... disembowelling old ladies with an ice cream scoop? Come to think of it I bet there's lots of more despicable crimes.

That's more like it 😆

Was getting a bit to serious there for STW!

Acceptable drink levels for driving should be 0mg, no grey area then imho

Quite the reverse actually, thats why they have a limit, similar in fact to allowing a 10% tolerance on speeding to remove any potential dispute.

It does however result in more death, serious injury and misery than all the other despicable crimes humble citizens commit put together.

Again not true, this year so far 2718 people have been killed on the road and less than 500 of those have been attributed to drink driving. Therefore it seems fair to suppose that 2200 odd are attributable to sober drivers. However this receives far less attention and isn't "Sexy" politically so is often simply overlooked as an issue.

Drive pissed you know it makes sense! 😉

Drink driving is a voluntary act that deserves the crime label unlike many of those other road deaths. Don't forget that the 500 you quote are the deaths over the limit. I dispute your 500 figure; alcohol has effects well below the limit that contribute to road traffic collisions but those events don't join the statistics.

Drink driving deaths are volontary breaking of the law and murder and dispicable crime. Many road traffic collisions are involuntary. For example people don't voluntarily have a heart attack and crash into oncoming traffic and can't be accused of murder.

I think War Crimes are probably the most despicable.

What's worse - the local vicar driving home in his Morris Minor after a large sherry with the Woman's Guild or Pol Pot?

Setting fire to people is worse. How about nailing puppies to babies heads? Or... disembowelling old ladies with an ice cream scoop? Come to think of it I bet there's lots of more despicable crimes.

But you're talking about willfully violent, targetted crimes, either as a crime of passion or cruel/sadistic/psycotic crime. Drink drivers are prepared to risk killing or injuring without [i]even[/i] giving it thought, its about as cold blooded a crime as you can imagine. A crime of convenience and expediency rather than a crime of passion.

[i]I think War Crimes are probably the most despicable.[/i]

I agree, that's why I said "humble citizens". As a humble citizen the easiest way to join the ranks of those who have commited a dispicable crime is to drink drive. I don't know anyone that has murdred anyone in the classic sense, but I do know someone that killed someone with a car after drinking and came in just under the limit.

It's not the most despicable crime but you have to be a complete c0ck to drink to a level where you're above the limit (or lower if your tolerance is as bad as mine) and then drive.

IMHO!

Sorry you are all wrong............buying a bike from Halfords crime against the bike community.

Drink driving is premeditated. Consuming something that has a detrimental effect upon your reaction times and then driving? Well worth prosecuting as it is a conscious decision and the potential outcome is well known.

Just on a linguistic point that some you may have missed. "Most" is not always used as a superlative but also a qualifier. In the case of the police quote I read "the most" to mean "particulary", "especially" or "very". You lot are the most pleasing bunch to debate with. 😉

Drink driving is premeditated

with murder in mind? Not sure about that myself. Maybe for those in the second group above i.e. those who don't give a kcuf. However there is a limit which is deemed safe I assume so any accident that happens within this limit is still premeditated? I think a pint, an hours wait, and then driving is ok although I try to avoid. But I can honestly say that driving when tired and the rest of zoke's list has worse affects on me. And then there are those that just can't drive too - surely it's a crime for the examiner to have passed them?

Think about it whippersnapper, you are much more likely to do one or a combination of a-g after a pint. The pint will have raised your confidence level and reduced you attention and concentration levels. You're also likely to make misjudgements such as deciding to answer the phone on the move rather than pulling over. Reduced inhibition makes arguing with the wife or kids more likely. Happy euphorie will get you hunting for that boppy CD in the footwell.

I agree Edukator however if you take the pint out of the equation (which is what I meant) then doing everything on 'the list' is still very possible - I have comitted all offences except the kids one 😥 (not about the kids, the offences) and they do make you take yor eye off the road at best. Sneezing is another one to add to the list. I do not condone drink driving but I think there are limits which are acceptable. Anyway, I'm off to nail puppies to babies heads.

So, when I go for a curry on a friday night with my good lady, have a couple of (small) bottles of Cobra along with the poppadoms, prawn puri, chicken karhai, garlic naan and half a pilau rice, and a couple of glassses of water too, then get in the car and drive the ten minutes back home, am I infact 'pre-meditating murder'??

am I infact 'pre-meditating murder'??

I don't know, is your good lady really such annoying company? 🙂

Most definitely headfirst. If a man with an AK47 took a pot shot at a dispersed crowd and hit someone it would be murder. You are effectively doing the same with a car.

Lmao at skidfirst! 😀

Edukator: hmmmm, exactly as i suspected.....what about if I have an extra naan bread to soak up more of the beer? would that be more like a BB gun than an AK47 then?

You should just leave her at home

I was more concerned about you feeling that it's safer to have a pint (of beer i presume) in your OP than it is to use a mobile, or argue with a stroppy hormone infested wife/girlfriend. Plus all the other actions you mentioned. They are all equally silly things to be doing while in control of a 1.5 ton lump of metal moving at high speed.

Indeed. So why is DD singled out for a banning offence, and the others not?

Oh, that's why - there's no legal limit on the amount of rows you can have whilst driving, or the numbers of CDs you can change etc.... 🙄

If you're driving while rowing with your partner after a long day at work, while the kids are screaming in the back AND you've had a drink, then you are a greater risk than if you had skipped the booze.

On the contrary - if i'd had a pint after work to calm me down before meeting said rowing missus and screaming kids, i'd probably handle the situation in a somewhat calmer manner. Coming straight out of work in full stress head mode would probably make me a much worse driver than after half an hour supping a pint...

This year so far 2718 people have been killed on the road and less than 500 of those have been attributed to drink driving. Therefore it seems fair to suppose that 2200 odd are attributable to sober drivers. However this receives far less attention and isn't "Sexy" politically so is often simply overlooked as an issue.

Got it in one!

Drink driving is a voluntary act that deserves the crime label unlike many of those other road deaths

Epic FAIL. ONLY if you are too unintelligent to sense that you're tired, and therefore should take public transport, or if you have a rare medical condition that causes you to INvoluntarily change radio station (Scott Mills excepted here - that is an involuntary reaction)

However, you can choose to stop driving and resolve said row / screaming kids / map / sat nav. The point is, most people don't, and as such are possibly more of a risk than a driver after 1 pint who happens to be paying attention. The key word there is CHOOSE i.e. you are making a concious decision to carry on driving with the distractions, rather than stopping to resolve them, then carrying on your journey. No different whatsoever to choosing to have a pint, then driving (except that one scenario is currently somewhat more severely punished than the other).

Most definitely headfirst. If a man with an AK47 took a pot shot at a dispersed crowd and hit someone it would be murder. You are effectively doing the same with a car.

Perhaps just leave the car out of it then, as presumably knowing that cars cause 2000-odd deaths a year on British roads makes you a pre-meditated murderer for driving at all. By comparison, only 500 of those deaths are caused by those over the limit. It would be interesting to see just how many/few were caused by people having one or two pints and being slightly over the limit, versus numbers caused by people totally blasted....

Driving whilst under the influence of trying to eat a freshly microwaved burning hot pasty,(available at many petrol stations) as it scalds your mouth and then falls into your lap ! is surely the most dangerous act of all.

I think the issue with the limit as it stands is it sets an arbitrary 'sensible' amount. The problem is this amount is something that can only be measured after the event with a breath of blood sample. You can drink what seems like the right amount, but is food and time really having the effect you think it is? You're relying on the booze being in the strength and quantity you imagine it to be, and on subjectively as to how you feel yourself to be effected

So... with good intensions and a drink you might, despite your better judgement, find yourself to be over the limit if you're either stopped..... or worse.

But what if you have a accident and you're just under. Innocent in the eyes of the law, but how do you live with being 95% culpable?

Whisper it, but common sense suggests the accident rate for people driving over the limit is really pretty low. It's just higher than it is for people under the limit. Most people who get into a car after they've had slightly more than is wise get home entirely safely.

The number of accidents caused by sober drivers under our existing traffic regulations is pretty hideous in some ways. Car accidents are one of the leading causes of death in some age groups. That is regarded as a price well worth paying for widespread, convenient personal motor transport. There's nothing [i]wrong[/i] about driving a car, but occasionally doing it kills people.

Having a few ales and then driving a car takes an existing risk of killing someone (which is regarded as entirely acceptable) and converts it into a slightly higher risk of killing someone, which somehow makes having a few ales a heinous crime even if no-one dies. That is irrational.

The rule against driving when a bit pissed is essentially a Health & Safety regulation. It is designed to reduce risks for the general population by controlling everyone's behaviour based on a utilitarian judgment about efficiency.

(I don't drive, and I certainly don't drive when pished, I just find the hysteria about a marginal increase in risk odd 🙂 )

I'm afraid I don't know what a BB gun is headfirst. The extra naan bread might disperse the crowd a bit but not much as eating only slows alcohol up take tather than preventing it.

Do whatever you can live with Zokes. I just hope you hit a telegraph pole rather than a pedestrian if you crash whilst drink driving within the limit. And that you can live with being accused of a most dispicable crime if you are found to be over the limit. Because that's how many people see it - just like the police quoted in article.

Zokes a few things to get to grips with - if the number of road deaths through alcohol is relatively low compared to other causes of accidents (and its not with the figure being chucked about, its quite a large proportion) then that reflects the fact that drink driving laws exist, are promoted, policed and enforced. Without that the number of people drinking and having accidents would be higher. If the current law and policing can be proved to be effective, and yet some people still drink and have fatal accidents then there might be case for making the law stricter. Which is what is being considered (but its only being considered) As it stands, and as you've read above, for many people the existing limit being already pretty low is sufficient for many people to feel that their best action is not to drink at all, rather than have a drink and be close (but not know how close) to the limit.

The other thing.... complaining that certain crimes are easier to detect and prosecute then others is just boggling. Do you hear rapist complaining that being caught on DNA evidence just isn't sporting enough?

Whats saddening is that speeding and drinking are such common crimes that they justify the massive capital investment is camera systems and dedicated electronic boxes of tricks.

Hi all, just going to throw my two pennies worth in, there is no good reason to drink and drive and if you ask me the limit should be 0mg, but then again I may be biased, after all who else here (apart from me) has had a phone call on a Sunday, from their brother telling him to go to hospital as their mother is in intensive care, and their father is dead after being knocked off their motorbike by a car that had according to witnesses and then verified by accident investigation, had clipped the kerb and span across the road into the path of oncoming traffic (my parents motorbike) the lady driving the car was over the drink drive limit, on a Sunday afternoon, pub lunch anyone? Oh I also had to go and indentify my fathers body for the coroner, then when my mother woke from her morphine induce state, three days later explain to her what had happened and tell her about her husband. So maybe that has clouded my view on the subject somewhat, we also got to go to court and watch as the woman got 18 months. Have a good festive season all. As for my mother by the way she had to give up her job and still suffers from her injuries to this day.

Because that's how many people see it - just like the police quoted in article.

Most people also think that drugs are the second most heinous crime - usually discussing such matters whilst quaffing coffee, tea, alcohol, or smoking.

Most people also don't know how to use apostrophes.

In actual fact, wasn't there an article the other day that said between 50-60% of UK drivers are scared of driving on a motorway, in rain, or at night. That implies most people are scared of driving unless it's sunny, and a quiet road. In that case, surely most people shouldn't drive...

Whats saddening is that speeding and drinking are such common crimes that they justify the massive capital investment is camera systems and dedicated electronic boxes of tricks.

Wrong. Not paying attention is the most common crime on British roads. However, most cases of this go undetected, never mind unpunished...

Do whatever you can live with Zokes. I just hope you hit a telegraph pole rather than a pedestrian if you crash whilst drink driving within the limit.

I shall, thank you. lets just hope you never crash as a result of b-g on my list then, seeing as whilst also potential causes of serious accidents, you are too narrow minded to care about them, believing only the repetitive spiel doled out by the politicians.

Anyway, if speed kills, surely you should be banned for that too?

BiDummy - that is utter piffle. Driving over the limit your odds of having a crash are much higher. Even under the limit they are raised significantly

I think the limit should be much lower. Not zero otherwise after one pt you wouldn't be able to drive the following morning but low enough so either a pint would put you over within a few hours or a bucketful would put you over in the morning.

I would have automatic jail ( just a week or two) for anyone even slightly over the limit. Drunk drivers kill hundreds every year.

I didn't say 'most common'

B to G are all detectable and punishable, it just happens that A is the more verifiable.

And Ron, whilst I have sympathy for your terrible situation, equally plausible is that the same horrific accident could have occurred as a result of b-g too, with or without alcohol involved. I'm not wishing to cause offence, but as you posted on a thread about whether a pint after work is the most heinous of crimes, I'm just drawing your attention to the other errors all drivers make on a daily basis...

Drunk drivers kill hundreds every year.

Indeed they do. Although the non-drunk ones kill thousands. What should we do with them?

zokes - Member
"Drink- and drug-driving is the most despicable crime..."
So not murder, rape etc then?
Surely having one pint and being alert is a lot better than...

But I cannot understand why anyone thinks that their pleasure is a greater right than the safety of other persons on the road. Same principle as all those Clarksons wannabes who think they have a god given right to drive at high speed and treat the rest of us as mobile chicanes.

"It was an accident.." they cry.

Simple rule, your personal pleasures don't justify doing anything that increases the probability of harm to someone else.

Simple rule, your personal pleasures don't justify doing anything that increases the probability of harm to someone else.

Better not go mountain biking then, lest you crash and cause mountain rescue to have to come and get you

(Also possibly not a good idea to be on such a high horse - fixing you after you fall off it may reduce the ability of doctors to care for those whose injuries are not self inflicted)

Are you assuming that the non-drunk drivers are all one catagory, that the state of being non-drunk is itself one circumstance?

You really seem to struggle with reasoning. Are you drunk? Or having a row over the phone with the CD player? 🙂

Some of those couple of thousand others will be the purest of innocent accidents, driving isn't risk free. I heard somewhere that the people who cause death and serious injury on the road fall (in roughly equally quantities) into 5 catagories:

People who are drunk/drugged
People on the phone
People who are late / in a hurry (speed in itself, or impatience and risk taking)
People who aren't wearing seatbelts (because they turn minor accidents into major ones- that means unbelted passengers are a risk to themselves, but they can also kill/injure others in the vehicle)

and another one I've forgotten

It can't be zero. There are a few medicines that would put you above zero (only to 0.something though), but it can't be set at zero for that reason.

Just seen another article about this, suggesting that sentences are 'softened' at the same time as the limit is reduced.

Are you assuming that the non-drunk drivers are all one category, that the state of being non-drunk is itself one circumstance?

In a way, yes. Are you assuming that having one pint makes you as much a hooligan as having 5, then driving? One pint may impair some peoples' driving ability to a minor level. 5 will impair everyone's. Not paying attention through rowing, map reading etc will impair everyone's. This is also assuming that everyone has an equal skill at driving to start with...

So you consider yourself a better driver and less affected by alcohol than most zokes? That is what your posts imply. Please confirm or deny before we proceed.

I'm not making any such assumption. The catagory above are accidents and fatalities where someone is demonstrably drunk within the definition of being a drunk driver as the law stands now. The figures will include people who are little bit over and ones who are miles over.

Rowing, map reading or any of these activities if witnessed by the fuzz will get you pulled and probably charged. As will eating, adjusting your makeup etc etc.

Being evidently drunk will get you pulled and charged. But as a bonus a random breath test will get you charged too. One day they'll come up with a breath test that will demonstrate someone intention to have a row with their wife or their desire to skip a track on their iPod. When the day comes order will be restored.

In the meantime we'll have to tolerate everything being wildly distorted

Ban drinking and driving totally!

Get a taxi home you lazy ****ers!

zokes - Member

................. One pint may impair some peoples' driving ability to a minor level.

No - one pint will have a [b]significant[/b] effect on [b]everyone[/b] driving. Experimentally proven.

For sure a good driver will still be better than a bad - but by an insignificant amount. alcohol has a real and measuable effect on our judgement, spatial awareness and reflexes and this is as true for Michael Schumacher as it for Maureen from the telly programme.

The very fact you believe this shows how unfit you are to drive. Arrogant types make the worst drunk drivers.

As intimated in someones earlier post, half of those busted believe themselves to have been under

of those demonstrably drunk drivers involved in serious accidents I wonder how many believed themselves to be under the limit.

Oh hang on though, there be a new book from the writers of Freakonomics - one of their subjects (obviously thrown in for controversy, but you gotta love 'em) is whether you have an increased chance of getting killed/seriously injured by driving home over the limit or by leaving your keys in the pub and walking home pished.

Being Freakonomics, you know what the answer will be don't you.

And if you're rowing whilst driving the real risk is you'll knock a policemans helmet off with one of your oars. He really will be mad and no amount of being middle class will get you let off. Not even offering to polish it!

So you consider yourself a better driver and less affected by alcohol than most zokes? That is what your posts imply. Please confirm or deny before we proceed.

I consider myself a better driver than the 50-60% who confess to being scared of driving on the motorway....

If I play Forza after a few scoops, I do quite well - especially online. I think my reduced inhibitions mean I'm more likely to take a risk. However, beyond a few scoops, my risk taking is not matched by my reaction times. So I'm guessing, as long as I'm driving on a level somewhere between 2 and 3 scoops, I'll be safe enough and get home faster? 😆

As a shortarse lightweight, will that put me over the limit?

ooooph (that was an ooooph for zokes)

And if you're rowing whilst driving the real risk is you'll knock a policemans helmet off with one of your oars

I have yet to come across a policeman's helmet anywhere near my blade when rowing - is it something you've come across lots?

is it something you've come across lots?

zokes - why do you have such an issue with other people having an issue with drinking and driving? You are virtually frothing at the mouth.

Drinking and driving used to be a much bigger issue than it is now. Enforcement and education have reduced the numbers. The numbers increase at this time of year, hence the higher profile. Why your issue with it?

i think the op was questioning it being the most hideous crime, not a problem with drink driving itself

All together now, one, two, three
Keep you mind on your drivin'
Keep you hands on the wheel
Keep your fancy phone in your pocket
Keep your snoopy eyes on the road ahead
Keep your CDs in the glovebox
Keep your oars to yourself
We're havin' fun unbelted in the back seat
Kissin' and a'rowing with Zokes
(Dee doody doom doom, dee doody doom doom)
(Dee doody doom doom, DOOM)

Edit. Wait a minute, whats Zokes doing in the back seat? I didn't think that through

i think the op was questioning it being the most hideous crime, not a problem with drink driving itself

and then he went on...

just defining the boundaries. Play on 🙂

zokes - why do you have such an issue with other people having an issue with drinking and driving? You are virtually frothing at the mouth.

Drinking and driving used to be a much bigger issue than it is now. Enforcement and education have reduced the numbers. The numbers increase at this time of year, hence the higher profile. Why your issue with it?

Nope, happily sat in front of my fire eating pasta. My beef is with those who follow the political line like sheep. I'm just bemused as to why everyone thinks DD is so so dangerous, but laugh off the other common distractions...

Some people do, some don't. Drink driving will be the worst thing in the world to someone who has lost a family member to such a driver. It is also premeditated as you did it before you got into the car. The other common distractions also cause problems.

whippersnapper - read my question again - I'm asking why zokes has a problem with people who think DD is such a bad crime - I'm questioning his view of their view.

Also - why is zokes getting so wound up about something reported in the media? He is taking the bait tied to the end of 'the political line' set by the journalist and reacting to a reported reaction. Amused at the irony of being outraged by the outrage of others, as reported by a journalist.

Who's laughing off other distractions, nobodies making a case for not concentrating on what you're doing. But individually or combined your list of distraction crimes don't contribute as highly to accidents on the road as the circumstances I listed. You could conclude from that they either aren't as common, aren't as prolonged or aren't as dangerous. Or maybe they just can't be measured

The circumstances I listed are common, are dangerous, are well legislated for, and can effectively be policed and prosecuted. Thats why the roads are getting safer.

Beer anyone?

But individually or combined your list of distraction crimes don't contribute as highly to accidents on the road as the circumstances I listed.

OK then, but if mobile phones are such an issue, why only 3 points? If speeding is such an issue, why only 3 points? I could go on...

Wishing to get back (somewhat belatedly) to my original point - why is DD seen as such a heinous crime, yet other far more prevalent causes of accidents not?

Also - why is zokes getting so wound up about something reported in the media? He is taking the bait tied to the end of 'the political line' set by the journalist and reacting to a reported reaction. Amused at the irony of being outraged by the outrage of others, as reported by a journalist.

Fair cop... 😳

There aren't other more prevalent causes. Those 5 main causes I listed, one of which i forget and one of which is drinking, are roughly equal in terms of the numbers of accidents and deaths attributed.

However the number of speeders, phone users etc may be much greater than the number of drinkers. About 85% of drivers have never had a speeding ticket, so 15% have. I don't know how many drivers have a drink conviction but I bet its not 15%

But if the number of accidents is the same then risk associated with drink would be higher wouldn't it? So a greater punishment (and stigma) would be justified.

La Prévention Routière gives the break down of accident causes [url= http://www2.securiteroutiere.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/MDOA.pdf ]for France in English[/url]

The major factors are alcohol, speeding and safety distances.

There's a detailed break down somewhere which even includes the number of cyclists killed jumping red lights.

If the weather is bad tomporrow I'll have a dig but my cold is much better so I'll probably be busy again.

That link is excellent Edukator. The stats for pedestrian deaths are interesting. Makes you wonder why its always children that feature in road safety films.