[Closed] Drink Driving

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.

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?