[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.