Diversify

I like shops that sell two incongruous product lines. The was one at the top of Leith Walk that used to sell 2nd Hand TVs and Darts. There was one in Cessnock that used to sell army surplus and haberdashery, and one in Tradeston called Smoke'n'Time that sold Tabacco and Clocks.

I would sell trouser presses and huge paninis

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)

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

That pie chart at the bottom is second only to the pacman pie chart

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]

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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)

Sounds like the title for some sort of highbrow sci-fi film. The semi colon in the middle makes it look like a sequel.

In fact it sounds like one of those untranslatable translated titles for japanese video games like
Metal Gear Solid : Snake Eater

Or like some one has being playing with that fridge poetry stuff

Brrrrrrr. Back from a really 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.

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.

from edukators link

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

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.

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

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.

Prevention better than a cure and all that.

The health benefits from vit c and zinc in relation to coughs and colds tend to be quite heavily overstated. Its measureable across a population but not in a way you'll actually be able to perceive yourself. It won't stop you getting a cold, the duration of the cold might be shorter, but only as an average across all the colds you and other people get, and not by much.

I prefer to keep vitamin deficiencies at bay by living in the early 21st century. If I wanted to meet people with scurvy or beri beri I'd need a loan of someone time machine

The driver will be passed out at the controls, go through his pockets there might be some dregs in his hipflask

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.

Black pudding it technically fruit

bloody young upstart!

I'm 38 and design and build arty 'things'

Given that there are a number of KLF fans gathered here – there was a B side to something or other that quite liberally sampled Voodoo Chile (slight return)

Any remember the name of the track?

Oh, and erm…. Think Tank

If it is then Daisy Duke has let herself go a bit!

Perhaps it isn't the driver, it could be a novelty airbag. The driver is somewhere smothered underneath

whats the other one then?

Beans

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.

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?

It was actually an awkward sexual advance, she was giving you her number in morse.

If beer wasn't good for you they wouldn't sell it would they?

I'm having one

My leg is also ko'ed, still swelling after 3 weeks. Proper ****

We'll thats something to keep you occupied then

I'm recovering from hernia surgery. Never had any cycling related injuries to speak of (touch wood) the reason why I ride is for fitness and health and happiness and being injured doesn't really fit into any of those headings for me

I am nearly 50, cholesterol is way high, I have put a load of weight on since stopping smoking.

I think you're shooting the horse after the gate was bolted 🙂

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

and then he went on…

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

is it something you've come across lots?

only in the bath

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. He really will be mad and no amount of being middle class will get you let off. Not even offering to polish it!

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.

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

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