[Closed] Drink Driving

Attitude adjustment towards drink driving often comes when a drink driver mows down someone close.

Be grateful you live in the UK for once.
Belgian drink drive rules are shockingly relaxed & there seems to be little or no social stigma to drink driving!

we have 6 limits each with gradually increasing severity.
0.5 - 0.8 promille = minimum 3 hour immediate driving ban & a fine
0.8 - 1.2 = minimum 6 hour immediate ban & if driving dangerously your licence is taken until your case is in court (& a fine) where you risk a 7 / 14 day ban.
1.2 - 1.5 = same as above but bigger fine
1.5 - 1.6 = 6 hour immediate ban / court case & fine
1.6 & above = 15 day ban / court case / fine & further ban of 1 month (or longer if you have a bad record)
drunk behind the wheel / refusing a breath test = same as above.

For example; double the British limit = expect to pay a thousand euros & lose your licence for a fortnight!

That's why we need cycle paths everywhere!

3 hour immediate ban. Now where would you go if you suddenly had 3 hours to kill.....

Could I just throw into the fray the fact that overtaking a cyclist on a bend is also a voluntary act and also kills many people.

Also bald statistics do not tell the full story. Of the 2724 (has risen by 6 since yesterday), approx 130 are cyclists. As there are substantially less cyclists on the road than motor vehicles and those cyclists travel substantially less miles than motor vehicles do on average, it is reasonable to argue that cycling deaths are in fact a bigger issue than drink driving, but they do not get anything like the level of attention.

In that I am fully in agreement with Zokes, that in fact drink driving occupies a disproportionately large amount of the effort to minimise road deaths. There are pleanty of other significant areas that require simialr attention.

But the person being killed isn't the person at fault. That article of Edukators is very useful,it looks at the deathtolls per vehicle mile for instance. HGV drivers half as likely as car drivers to be involved in accidents (per mile) motorcycle riders over 20 times more likely to cop it. An interesting bit of info in the article is that in an RTA the driver at fault is (averaged out) the least likely to die, their own passengers, the vehicle they collide with and of course cyclists and pedestrians are where all the death happens.

Lots of other variables to throw in though, Young people cause accidents, old people are victims of them. Age, rather and experience has an effect too. So an older person with little experience is safer than a younger person with a lot>

But if cyclists are victims of accidents it isn't 'being cyclists' that is the cause of each of those accidents, they are just who ever happens to be infront of someone driving poorly. I would suspect that most cyclists are injured and killed in an urban context, as are pedestrians, and speed, or at least haste, would often be the contributing factor.

The fact remains, and remains, and remains that although there are a multitude of bad things happening out there and that they all need to be addressed. Few people drink and drive, but drink drive accidents are a large proportion of the annual death toll. So being drunk per vehicle mile is more dangerous than speeding per vehicle mile, for instance. Roughly 1 in 5 of your 2700 odd deaths will be due to drink. Lets guess 1 in 5 are also due to speed. Now when you drive along a motorway at bang on 70 what proportion of the traffic around you is travelling faster? For every car that passes you do you think theres another driver around you thats drunk?

So the effort, address and the severity of action are justified, but is it disproportionately high? It doesn't strike me as onerous at all, a few TV ads, stopping people who are driving badly (which you would do anyway) carry a little party blower. Compared to average speed camera systems and all that infrastructure is strikes me as pretty low key.

Not sure what a large proportion means, but the proportion is in fact just shy of 16% which is not a large proportion in my book, significant maybe, but not large.

The real issue is that all of these deaths are tragedies, but the vast majority, i.e. 84% are not caused by D & D, but that is the one which is a social pariah, whilst people flippantly skip over the others that zokes has highlighted above.

That is the point skidster. Causing death whilst driving should be the pariah, not merely D & D

16% is a huge proportion, when you consider all of the other factors that could contribute to an accident, and how few of the drivers on the road are drunk

I don't think anybody is suggesting that any other form of negligent driving is ok though

My brother killed three people (himself, his best mate, and his girlfriend) due to drink driving. There's no getting round it, you're a c**t if you do it, and a silly c**t for trying to condone it.

Berm Bandit I don't think you fully understand the statistics on this one. If 16% of deaths are caused by drunk drivers then that is a huge problem as I'm pretty sure that the number of drunk drivers on the road is much lower than 16%. So a small group of drivers are causing proportionally more deaths.

To put it in another context, far more people die from smoking related diseases than from say taking heroin however it would not be correct to draw the conclusion that smoking is more dangerous than heroin as there are far more people who smoke than take heroin. Sober driver kill more people because there are more of them.

I do however agree that we in this country do not take deaths on the road seriously enough.

i'd love to see the figures for deaths caused by people who'd only had 1 pint (hovering around the current limit).

a limit of zero is totally impractical, when does someone have no alcohol in their blood? 5 hours after a drink? 3 days?

Yes, the real reveal would be the number of accidents resultant of people having had a drink but not being over the current limit. How many of those remaining 86% have some amount of alcohol in their system, but not what is currently considered to be too much? If there are a significant number then perhaps there's cause for action.

But of course half the problem is as a driver you have no idea where you are in relation to the limit. "1 pint" is a massively variable amount of alcohol. Even with the same brand of beer you can get around a 20% variance in strength. But then theres the perception that food 'soaks it up'. What if you're a big biffa, or some skinny streak of piss. What if you've got oriental genes, What if you've got an underlying liver problem you're unaware of? A seasoned alcoholic with a stuffed liver can get battered on hardly any booze at all.

but I'd imagine most records are on/off though- over the limit /not over the limit.

You'll be telling me cannabis ... [is] more dangerous than tobacco

ahahahaha classic stoner ignoring the facts cos it interferes with their own actions. cannabis is loaded with tar, far more than tobacco. burnt tar in your lungs ain't a good thing...

gonefishin - Member
Berm Bandit I don't think you fully understand the statistics on this one

A tad patronising if you don't mind me pointing that out. I think you'll find everyone else is making sweeping assumptions if you care to read the thread. For instance this one :-

Yes, the real reveal would be the number of accidents resultant of people having had a drink but not being over the current limit.

So thats everyone else then, as I suspect you'll find pretty much everyone else who has had an accident has partaken of alcohol at some point and are not currently over the limit. THINK ABOUT IT!!

as I'm pretty sure that the number of drunk drivers on the road is much lower than 16%.

So a small group of drivers are causing proportionally more deaths.

So here we have a classic case of a sweeping assumption being made. I would respectfully suggest that it is you who don't fully understand anything, including what you yourself have written.

you're a c**t if you do it, and a silly c**t for trying to condone it

Very sorry to hear about your brother barnsleymitch. Fully understand why you would feel that way, however, I don't think you'll find that either I or anyone else has at any point condoned it. For my part I lost my 28 year old nephew in a motorcyle accident relatively recently, and as a result I seriously object to the concept that people seem to think that D & D and speeding are the only serious causes of death on the roads worth spending £100's of millions of pounds on. So the sentiment does in fact cut both ways.

from edukators link
[quote
Alcohol. Driving while under the influence of
alcohol is now the main factor in accidents
ahead of speeding. Contrary to speeding,
driving under the influence of alcohol is a less
frequent behaviour but which is has much
greater effect on accidentology since it is
estimated that the 2.8% of drivers exceed the
legal consumption, 5.9% for accidents causing
death or injury and 17.0% on average in fatal
accidents in 2007. The proportion of accidents
causing death or injury with alcohol involved
comes to 10.5% in 2007 (29.0% for fatal
accidents).

thats for france rather than here but the point is the same point

No it isn't France has a much different problem with drink driving than the UK.

It is different but its the proportion of offenders (low) to consequences (high) thats the point. And all other careless approaches to driving remain reprehensible.

It is different but its the proportion of offenders (low) to consequences (high) thats the point

No its different in that with a similar population France managed to rack up 4602 road deaths in 2007 of which some 1334 were attributed to alcohol, almost 30% as opposed to the UK with just 430 and 16% respectively. So clearly the circumstances are very different and you just cannot attribute the same charactersitics to what is a clearly different situation.

Thats the point, D & D is clearly not right, of that there is no question. However, in this country it is nowhere near as serious a problem as it is in France and there are many other issues also deserving of the attention that D & D currently gets.

The amount of people who don't understand how the limits work is shocking. I can't count how many times I've been asked "the limit is 2 pints, isn't it?"

The most likely difference for the discrepacies between British and French stats for the proportion of accidents in which alcohol is a factor is the way statistics are compiled. All pedestrians killed in an RTC in France are tested for alcohol, only 30% for the UK. A much higher percentage of vehicle users involved in RTCs are alcohol tested in France than in the UK. Only people over the limit are included in stats in the UK but any alcohol gets you into the French statistics.[url= http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/AlcoholCountries/background_&_intro.htm ]Read for yourselves[/url]

The type of vehicles used also affect the total numbers. The number of pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, motorcycles and small, light cars in France is higher. British people move around in tanks and are better protected.

Only 48% of drivers involved in fatal RTCs are tested by police?

I just don't believe that. Breathalysing drivers at 'normal' RTCs is routine, let alone fatals. (Even drivers that are injured or dead are still tested via police hospital procedures).

And what is this 20% tested by the coroners court? How does that work?

So here we have a classic case of a sweeping assumption being made. I would respectfully suggest that it is you who don't fully understand anything, including what you yourself have written.

Okay I'll express it another way. If there were a higher proportion of drunk drivers on the road would there be more or less deaths as a result?

With respect, that is not the point. The point you were making is an assumption that far less than 16% of drivers on the road have taken a drink. You had nothing to support that point at all, and there is no qualititive evidence to support it either way. You were using that assumption to contest my contention that whilst 16% is a significant proportion of deaths, 84% of deaths are caused by other factors. Which is a FACT!

You can faff about with the numbers and come up with any conclusion you like, but I think you will find that the specifics of what I have said will remain an irrefutable fact.

Relatives often refuse autopsies. This influences lots of statistics including the number of athletes killed by performance enhancing drugs.

Would you allow an autopsie on your partner or child if you knew it would show an alcohol level over the limit? It may compromise an insurance payout and would certainly attach stigma to the death.

I'm not sure of autopsie rights in the UK, maybe someone is?

[i]16% is a significant proportion of deaths, 84% of deaths are caused by other factors. Which is a FACT![/i]

Sorry, that is not a fact and the deeper you dig the more you'll realise the level to which drink driving as a factor is under reported in the UK.

Sighs......

Supporting evidence for that assertion please.

I think your point is hard to argue. I have no doubt that pretty much everyone else on here will tell you that anytime they have been driving and involved in an accident where the Police are called they have been breath tested. So I'm hard pressed to understand where you are getting your perspective from.

Read my links Bandit.

I have, now can you please show me supporting evidence of that assertion?

As for the one pint having a serious effect on your driving.

( this is all from memory) I saw some research done a few years ago with bus drivers. They were asked to put two cones the minimum distance apart that they could drive their bus thru then drive it thru. sober - no problem. Two units of alcohiol. 1/3 of them set the cones too narrow to fit the bus thru and another 1/3 hit a cone. Only 1/3 completed the task after 2 units / 1 pint.

Small scale test and I can't remember any details beyond what I quote above. However it tested both driving ability and spatial awareness and showed serious deficit even when below the drink drive limit.

Brrrrrrr. Back from a [i]really[/i] nice walk. I'm recovering from surgery faster than I thought I was. Ace!

BB, really liked your youtube link on the other thread, remember the sketch but had forgotten who was in it. Bookmarked.

err. carry on.

No argument with that TJ, but thats not whats being said here.

The stats I'm quoting are the DOT's figures for deaths caused by D & D, as stated in law in this country. There are no proper stats kept outside of that, so any statement to the contrary is pure guesswork. In the meantime, 84% of road deaths are attributed to other factors. On top of that the majority of the inof and links posted by Edukator are Frecnh and their situation is entirely different from the UK, where we have taken the issue of D & D far more seriously than they have for a very long time.

From the link:

The UK has a higher BAC level that other countries at 0.8mg. France is 0.5mg

The UK only includes road users that fail the BAC level in its statistics but other countries include all road users with measurable alcohol.

In the UK the alcohol level is known for only 68% (48% by police, 20% by coroner?s courts)of driver in fatal accidents. In France it is 90%

The lower you set the limit for including alcohol as a factor in your statistics and the more dead or seriously injured people you test the higher the proportion of "alcohol related" will be in the stats. The UK uses a high limit and doesn't test a lot casualties; alcohol as a factor is therefore underreported. If you can't see that I really can't help you further Bandit and you will have to accept that forum memebers are going to draw conclusions about your ability to reason.

Accepting TJ's example and accepting 84% are mutually incompatible Bandit.

Either you think that no accident at less that 80mg is caused by alcohol and that the people that did not undergo an autopsie had not been drinking.

Or you accept that alcohol at less than 80mg is a factor and the number of drunk people is under reported, and the 84% becomes nonsense.

Edukator, what you say is self evident, except insomuch that you are assuming that "no record" supports your argument, which is fundamentally flawed. Not only that it is also making the assumption that all recorded levels of alcohol are a contributary factor. That is the whole argument about having a limit. For example a considerable number of medicines contain measurable amounts of alcohol, as do mouth washes etc etc, but how does the fact that you might have washed your mouth out and it can be measured in your blood impact on the outcome of an accident? In France the adjudication is that 29% of accidents have alcohol as a contributary factor, and thats with their lower limit. So that still leaves 71% that don't.

You don't have the information to judge anymore than I do, and that is all I am saying about the stats, alongside that the fact that there are many other factors in Road fatalities as outlined in the OP which deserve equal amounts of effort to reduce them. So I really don't see where you are going with this.

Accepting TJ's example and accepting 84% are mutually incompatible Bandit.

No it isn't.

I wholly accept that relatively small amounts of alcohol can effect your judgement. However, I am willing to wait for evidence to support the case for reducing the level before I presume to know more than the DoT on the subject. Simple, compatible and not mutually exclusive.

There were others that were attempting to say that small amounts of alcohol made no difference.

Bermbandit - I believe you are wrong and I have followed the others argument - but for sure they have not made the argument well.

Lets take another tack and say that the proportion of drink driving casualties is low because the offence rate is low, and that that is the case because our legislation is appropriate, policing is targeted and effective and that there is widespread public awareness of the causes and risk, and a suitable stigma.

Where this all started was the assertion by Zokes that the high profile policing and draconian punishment of drink drivers (regardless of whether they are in an accident or not) is [i]only[/i] because detection and prosecution is [i]easy[/i]. You can catch someone drink driving purely by accident, without any suspicion or observation.

So the suggestion is that the police and prosecuting authorities would rather direct their efforts at easy busts cherry picking drunk drivers, rather than doing the real work of prosecuting other drivers that are careless in other ways. And that therefore drink drivers are targetted only as quota achieving exercise.

But I've no experience of the police allowing careless drivers to just swan about being careless, simply because there are higher-scoring prizes to be had. There might be an issue though of making the penalties for other driving offenses more effective.

I personally think the punishment of speeding drivers just doesn't work, culturally speeding drivers feel persecuted rather than punished. I think a whole different model of penalty is required. I would either make the points 'stickier' (take longer to the 'spent'), or as I've suggested before I would make each offence carry a proportionate ban (ie if 12 points= 2 year ban then 3 points should carry a 6 month ban)

[i]So I really don't see where you are going with this[/i]

Using your attempts to wind me up to expose the inconsistencies in your agrguments and reasoning. The limits are for practical and judicial reasons. Many countries have decided the 80mg limit still used in the UK was too high, resulted in too many avoidable collisions and have adopted a lower limit. Nobody has ever set a "safe limit", only a maximum limit to be enforced.

Cars should simply be fitted with a GPS based regulator that stops the vehicle breaking the speed limit anywhere. 🙂 The Dutch are about to do a system that doesn't regulate the car but automatically sends you the bill and points. 🙂 🙂

I find it strange the social stigma associated with drink driving has now resulted in laws being so draconian and people speaking in terms of 'murder'. Drink driving only became illegal in the first place back in the 60s/70s (I seem to remember from school), many of the older generation still happily have half a bottle of wine, get back in their daewoo and potter back home without 'murdering' people. Like they've done for the last 50+ years of driving

Imagine losing your license one morning over the fact you still had some alcohol in your blood stream from having a couple of glasses of wine with the missus the night before.

I'd suggest american style testing people for reactions/coordination etc... would be far more appropriate than a breathilizer for catching people who are real dangers

[i]Drink driving only became illegal in the first place back in the 60s/70s[/i]

Nope, it goes back to 1872.

DT78 - Reaction/ coordination tests are very subjective though, are they not?

This is sometimes the case DT78. Some people pass a breath test yet are obviously impaired. The police can do a roadside impairment test and subsequently, if they fail that, have the person examined by a doctor (as well as require breath/blood/urine samples). Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act deals with driving whilst unfit through drink (or drugs), and doesn't rely on the person being above a specific alcohol limit as Section 5 (the normal drink drive offence) does. Interesting point though as to whether this should be the routine procedure as opposed to breathylising.

The american system is widely held to be flawed because the co-ordination tests are so subjective, they rely on the arresting officer's opinion of how well the tests are performed. But given probably cause you'll still be breath/blood/urine sampled.

Our system doesn't require probable cause

skidartist - the UK one is a standard procedure with a variety of tests included. Only trained police officers can conduct it, and there would subsequently be a doctor's opinion on top of the police's.

EDIT - you posted as I was typing, how do you mean doesn't require probable cause?

DT78 - Member
..............................

Imagine losing your license one morning over the fact you still had some alcohol in your blood stream from having a couple of glasses of wine with the missus the night before.

Which is why I don't advocate a zero limit but a limit around 25% of our current one. You will be over the limit for one drink that evening - but a couple the bight before will be ok. However a bucketful the night before and you will still be over the limit in the morning.

Aye but what I mean is - you can get random testing here, drivers don't need to have demonstrated themselves to be impared.

I've been stopped for other reasons (a dodgy light for instance) and because of the time of year, and time of day, been breathysed too, even though my actions gave no cause to suspect that I had been drinking (and of course I hadn't)

And at this time of year you'll also get random stops for breath tests in the same way you get random pulls for MOT / emissions tests

do you not think that would require a generational shift though TJ? Alot of those in their 60's who were able to do what they wanted before 1965 (the year an alcohol limit was set) still do unfortunately. Those who grew up with DD being made an issue I believe take it more seriously. However I should imagine a large majority on here have driven the morning after when really they shouldn't have been.

"Drink driving only became illegal in the first place back in the 60s/70s"

"Nope, it goes back to 1872."

Drink driving became illegal in 1965.

Aah I see.

There are three circumstances when the police can require you to take a breath test.

1) Suspicion of alcohol (eg. crap driving, staggered out of pub, tip off from public, or smell of alcohol/other sign of impairment on speaking to the driver for some other reason, such as a document check or similar).

2) RTC

3) Moving traffic offence (eg. speeding, careless driving, running red light etc.)

Not quite random, but yes, you can be breathalysed for reasons other than they simply think you're drunk.

It's not even random testing here when they get serious. They just stop every car and everybody blows in the bag. There are motorcycle cops to chase down those that twig and try to nip off. They don't do it often but it certainly makes people think twice.

whippersnapper - the main offender in the UK though are those in their early 20s

Back to the USA comparison... The drink/drive/death rate in the USA is higher even though their alcohol consumption rate is lower than in the UK (and even though our young drink drivers get a 4 year head start)

Annnnnd their sentencing is higher

skidartist that suprises me...

[url= http://law.jrank.org/pages/19578/carriage-drunk-in-charge.html ]Before 1965 it was the drunk in charge law that applied.[/url] My father remembers being asked to walk in a straight line before being allowed to continue.

From Wikipedia:

International Comparisons

In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia drunk driving, and deaths caused by drunk driving are considerably lower than the USA, yet alcohol consumption per capita is higher and the legal age for drinking lower. Research in the United Kingdom has show that the danger group for drunk driving is young men in their early 20's rather than teenagers.[26]
Unlike the USA these countries do not see restricting access to alcohol as having any useful role to play in reducing drunk driving, and their lower drink drive deaths would seem to bear this out. Their experience is that random breath tests, severe penalties, including imprisonment for a first offense, combined with blanket public service broadcasting are the most effective strategy.[27]
It's notable that anti-drink driving adverts in Australia and the UK do not attempt to stigmatize drinking, in fact they make the point that it is a normal social activity - its when you mix it with driving that it becomes a problem.,[28][29]
Australian and British Law also does not recognize the crime of DUI Manslaughter and sentences for causing death by drunk driving much lower than the USA, conversely imprisonment for a first offense is not uncommon.[30]

Using your attempts to wind me up to expose the inconsistencies in your arguments and reasoning. The limits are for practical and judicial reasons. Many countries have decided the 80mg limit still used in the UK was too high, resulted in too many avoidable collisions

What ?? I have no idea what that means.

I know what the limits are there for, and I have said so all along. I am also saying that I don't have sufficient evidence to decide on what the limits should be. I do however know that D & D gets much more attention than other road killers like for example driving whilst using your phone.

It is a given that driving whilst on the phone impairs to a similar degree to driving marginally over the DD limit. So for example show me a case where a driver not involved in any accident has been stopped and as a result given a one year ban and substantial fine.

I'm not arguing that D & D is not serious, I'm not even arguing that the law should be more lenient, merely that there are other equally dangerous things that are not given the same attention.

Not sure why thats so difficult to grasp.

So for example show me a case where a driver not involved in any accident has been stopped and as a result given a one year ban and substantial fine.

In the summer I charged a guy with dangerous driving. He was overtaking on the approach to a bend, and nearly took my police car and two other off the road when I came round the bend the other way. No accident (although I don't know how!), no injuries, no damage. 12 month ban, about a £500 fine.

With phones the law just hasn't been quick enough to catch up yet, and the legislation as it stands left barmy loopholes. The presumed issue with phones was holding the phone, but the risk with hands free is hardly lower, but consumer handsfree systems only really evolved in response the loophole.

You would think that talking hands free would be no less risky than talking to a passenger, but a passenger can actually add to your awareness - if you are mid conversation and a hazardous event begins to unfold your passenger stops talking.

There is a suggestion that the period of risk extends to some 10 minutes after a call, although how thats measured I'm unsure. If someone has called to impart information I presume in the absence of being able to be either note or act on the information must be preoccupying.

But how do you police those 10 minutes?

With phones their widespread adoption and use is just too recent to be able to effectively legislate for yet. I'm sure it'll happen though

Whatever Bandit.

[i]Berm Bandit (Berm Bandit)

Member Since
October 12, 2009 (1 month)
Location
UK
Occupation
Bigot
Interests
Wind ups [/i]

and the legislation as it stands left barmy loopholes.

Too right! Recent case law, someone got off driving on their phone because the police officers hadn't seen whether or not he was speaking, even though he was holding it by his ear whilst driving along with one hand on the wheel! Defence argued that if he wasn't speaking he wasn't [i]using[/i] the phone, so wasn't guilty. Court agreed.

Surely his phone records would have been sufficient? Spose it depends how accurately you can place the time of the offense though (and unless the phone was seized you wouldn't know what phone he wasn't talking into)

If they had them yes, but it's not routine practice to seize phones. For exactly the reasons you suggest. Even if you seize the phone he pulls out of his pocket, was that definitely the one he was holding when I saw him 30 seconds earlier? Bit of a minefield, do we start searching vehicles top to bottom for a mobile phone offence to make sure there's no more, and take all the passengers phones? It's crap, but it's the reality of prosecution and defence in court.

[i]Bit of a minefield, do we start searching vehicles top to bottom for a mobile phone offence to make sure there's no more, and take all the passengers phones?[/i]

Yeah go on! When they start protesting just hand them a copy of the case you refer to justify your actions.

I thought it was an offence to be even holding a phone in a car, whether you are speaking or not?

The point is that a large volume of dosh, time and expertise has been put into making D & D socially unacceptable. As a result attitudes have changed dramatically and it is no longer the jokey socially acceptable misdemeanour that it was.

All I am saying is that if the same effort were put into other issues with frighteningly similar jokey socially acceptable misdemeanour tags as has been put into D & D that would be a good idea. For those jokey things read such things as mobile phone use, assaulting a person with a motor vehicle as recently proposed by both Clarkson and that dickhead chef, and so forth and killing cyclists.

Edukator - Member
Whatever Bandit.

Reading Pass
Comprehension Fail
😉

So did I druidh. The offence is 'using' a mobile phone whilst driving, and using was not further defined, which some defence solicitor has spotted, hence this recent case law.

EDIT This might only apply to Scotland. Prior to this, the High Court (in Scotland) decreed that if you were seen holding it to your ear it could be correctly inferred that you were using it.

OK - but surely the old "driving w/o due care..." bit would still apply?

Yes. That's what the police used to use before the specific mobile phone offence came in.

(Again though, I don't know if you would get it past a court that, on it's own, holding a phone amounted to carelessness. Holding a phone/banana/pie in one hand while steering round a corner would be held to be careless, I've seen that before. Driving down a straight road, not so sure. The new law was meant to be a bit more absolute when it comes to phones. And I'm not saying what happens is right, just highlighting some of the pedantic debates I've seen in courtrooms).

Drink-driving killed 430 people last year

Looks like drunk drivers are angels.

Check out old drivers, per kilometre driven they are just as dangerous according to a German report I saw on TV.

Where this all started was the assertion by Zokes that the high profile policing and draconian punishment of drink drivers (regardless of whether they are in an accident or not) is only because detection and prosecution is easy. You can catch someone drink driving purely by accident, without any suspicion or observation.

So the suggestion is that the police and prosecuting authorities would rather direct their efforts at easy busts cherry picking drunk drivers, rather than doing the real work of prosecuting other drivers that are careless in other ways. And that therefore drink drivers are targetted only as quota achieving exercise.

But I've no experience of the police allowing careless drivers to just swan about being careless, simply because there are higher-scoring prizes to be had. There might be an issue though of making the penalties for other driving offenses more effective.

This is indeed my point, and you got it well, up until the final para I've quoted... As other people have said, the UK police do, especially at this time of year, set up roadblocks and breathalyse everyone. No such thing exists for people reading a map, arguing, pacifying kids etc - they have to be caught veering about before something gets done.

Lets take an example...

Car clips kerb, spins into oncoming cyclist, sadly killing them. Police investigate.

a) he's sober, truthfully says he swerved to avoid a sheep and the accident happened. Police investigate, and find in his favour - verdict, tragic accident.

b) same as above, yet he didn't swerve to avoid a sheep, but says he did. In actual fact he was changing radio station / reading a map / arguing / etc. Police investigate and find in his favour.

c) This time he did swerve to avoid a sheep, but had a pint before leaving the pub. Police instead pin death by dangerous driving on him - using the fact he had alcohol in his bloodstream to do so, even though in actual fact it was non-contributory in this case.

d) same as C, yet this time he had 2 pints. He quite rightly gets the book thrown at him.

These are all scenarios that could happen. Comparing A and C is especially interesting, whilst comparing B and C demonstrates exactly my point. Only possible witness is under the car - it's a rural road so sheep are quite plausible, so driver B gets away with death by careless driving, driver C gets a much worse punishment when he didn't deserve it.

Take away your subjective views about it being a cyclist I've hypothetically put under the car, and the stigma attached to DD, and tell me which is the fairest outcome...

Talking of Zokes scenarios, a friend of a friend was driving to work one morning, he`d had a fair few the night before. A doctor was on his way home from pulling a nightshift at the local hospital, the doctor fell asleep at the wheel, swerved across the road and and drove into him. Both were breathalised and the friend of a friend was still a little bit over the limit and was blamed completely for the accident as he should not have been on the road in the first place. He certainly shouldnt have been but neither should the doctor.

Personally I think the limit should be much lower than it is at present, certainly less than a pint. Im a fair size and have always drank quite a bit, takes a lot to get me drunk, I used to ride motorbikes and if I had just one pint I could really notice the difference, you dont notice the difference as easily in a car but its there alright, hence I never drink anything whatsoever anymore if Im driving.