66 replies to this topic

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.

people get away with breaking the law.
This is a law that is designed to stop stupid selfish people killing and maiming innocent people.

More people need to be caught, and the punishment is nowhere serious enough.


'Let he who is without sin' meand nothing in this context.

[Wolford6]

(1) people get away with breaking the law.
This is a law that is designed to stop stupid selfish people killing and maiming innocent people.

More people need to be caught, and the punishment is nowhere serious enough.


(2) 'Let he who is without sin' means nothing in this context.

The same could be said of people who drive without tax, insurance and a driving licence. These are absolute offences.

However, these are not pursued with remotely the same vigour as drivers who may be just slightly over the limit.

(2) Plenty of people are unwittingly over the limit when driving on a morning after drinking a bottle of wine or six pints the previous evening. I bet the only people on this board who can't accept they may have done this are those who dont drink in their social lives and/or and/or dont need to drive to work or don't drive at all.

The hypocrites are those who get a lft to work every morning. They deprecate drivers who might be borderline on the limit, but never decline the lift.

[ckn]

The same could be said of people who drive without tax, insurance and a driving licence. These are absolute offences.

However, these are not pursued with remotely the same vigour as drivers who may be just slightly over the limit.

(2) Plenty of people are unwittingly over the limit when driving on a morning after drinking a bottle of wine or six pints the previous evening. I bet the only people on this board who can't accept they may have done this are those who dont drink in their social lives and/or and/or dont need to drive to work or don't drive at all.

The hypocrites are those who get a lft to work every morning. They deprecate drivers who might be borderline on the limit, but never decline the lift.

If I'm going to be having more than a few beers then I deliberately ensure that it's on a night when I don't need to drive the next day or until later in the day. If I must drive the next day then I limit myself to a few beers at most. It's not that difficult a concept for me.

The legal limit isn't 0. It reflects that people may have some residual alcohol in their system from the previous day.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

The same could be said of people who drive without tax, insurance and a driving licence. These are absolute offences.

However, these are not pursued with remotely the same vigour as drivers who may be just slightly over the limit.

(2) Plenty of people are unwittingly over the limit when driving on a morning after drinking a bottle of wine or six pints the previous evening. I bet the only people on this board who can't accept they may have done this are those who dont drink in their social lives and/or and/or dont need to drive to work or don't drive at all.

The hypocrites are those who get a lft to work every morning. They deprecate drivers who might be borderline on the limit, but never decline the lift.

driving without tax and insurance and a licence is illegal. What's your point?Although illegal such a driver is less likely to kill someone. Read yout local paper's in the courts section. I think you'll find drivers without documentation are quite well represented.

Ignorance is no defence. It's well known that alcohola stays in the bloodstream. The answer is fairly simple.


yes I'm sure these people are hypocrites. They are also stupid since they are putting themselves at risk.

[Bleep1673]

driving without tax and insurance and a licence is illegal. What's your point?Although illegal such a driver is less likely to kill someone. Read yout local paper's in the courts section. I think you'll find drivers without documentation are quite well represented.

Ignorance is no defence. It's well known that alcohola (l'AM's spelling) stays in the bloodstream. The answer is fairly simple.


yes I'm sure these people are hypocrites. They are also stupid since they are putting themselves at risk.

How do you work that out? Do people without tax and insurance drive safer because they know they are breaking the law already? If that was the case the reverse is true, people WITH insurance and tax drive dangerously.

I'm sure a lot of people on this board have thought..."There but for the grace of God".... as they have probably had 3 pints at Lunch, dinner, after work, after training, after a match, at a match & driven home thinking "I'm alright, it's only 30 minutes/5 miles", then nodded off in front of the TV watching the replay.

It's not acceptable, the lady friend in question has now lost her registration, and her job, so thats another punishment. She is a single parent, who jumped at the chance of a night out, and went home early to let the baby-sitter home early because she wasn't feeling well.

[Methven Hornet]

Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.

We're talking criminal law here, though, rather than theology. The legal process looks at the facts, decides whether the law was broken and punishes accordingly. The officers of the court don't consider 'what they would have done' in the situation.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

How do you work that out? Do people without tax and insurance drive safer because they know they are breaking the law already? If that was the case the reverse is true, people WITH insurance and tax drive dangerously.

I'm sure a lot of people on this board have thought..."There but for the grace of God".... as they have probably had 3 pints at Lunch, dinner, after work, after training, after a match, at a match & driven home thinking "I'm alright, it's only 30 minutes/5 miles", then nodded off in front of the TV watching the replay.

It's not acceptable, the lady friend in question has now lost her registration, and her job, so thats another punishment. She is a single parent, who jumped at the chance of a night out, and went home early to let the baby-sitter home early because she wasn't feeling well.

why did you need to point out my spelling error?

No they don't necessarily drive more safely, but they haven't taken a substance that they know will affect their judgement and kill or maim an innocent person or people

Your friend should have thought of the consequences before acting so irresponsibly: the affect her prosecution has had on her life is entirely her own doing.

[Old Frightful]

She is a single parent, who jumped at the chance of a night out, and went home early to let the baby-sitter home early because she wasn't feeling well.

Well, now you put it like that of course it would have been ok if she'd killed someone on her way back due to being over the limit.

[Severus]

How do you work that out? Do people without tax and insurance drive safer because they know they are breaking the law already? If that was the case the reverse is true, people WITH insurance and tax drive dangerously.

I'm sure a lot of people on this board have thought..."There but for the grace of God".... as they have probably had 3 pints at Lunch, dinner, after work, after training, after a match, at a match & driven home thinking "I'm alright, it's only 30 minutes/5 miles", then nodded off in front of the TV watching the replay.

It's not acceptable, the lady friend in question has now lost her registration, and her job, so thats another punishment. She is a single parent, who jumped at the chance of a night out, and went home early to let the baby-sitter home early because she wasn't feeling well.

When you get caught driving over the limit you know that it will be difficult for you to drive again. That is the punishment.

[Ackroman]

On a point of interest, 5% of all accidents are attributed to alcohol and therefore is by far one of the least contributors to accidents. It is the same rate as speeding (5%).

The driver/rider not paying attention is the biggest contributor at 40% and there are other factors such as vehicle maintenance to consider.

However what is interesting is that in the cases of Pedestrians being involved in accidents, 60% are down to their own lack of attention.

Why should she be penalised to this degree for being statistically no more likely to cause an accident than someone speeding? Remember these stats include those who are 2, 3, or 4 times over the limit.IMO being over the limit by 40% is not likely to create any more impairment to driving than eating, using a phone or having a conversation at the same time.

The punishment should fit the crime.

All figures from 2010, with a downward trend continuing to this day.

[Wolford6]

On a point of interest, 5% of all accidents are attributed to alcohol and therefore is by far one of the least contributors to accidents. It is the same rate as speeding (5%).

Please refrain from trying to confuse board members' opinions by introducing mere facts.

[Rubber Schnib]

5% of all accidents are attributed to alcohol ... The driver/rider not paying attention is the biggest contributor at 40%

I'm not sure how these two things are mutually exclusive; do you have the figures for what proportion of that 40% includes people who had alcohol in their systems, but were under the limit?

Anything you can do to reduce the risk of accidents while driving has to be good - and not drinking and driving seems to be an easy, obvious way to make the roads safer. Accidents do happen, but drinking and driving is basically something that can be avoided - you don't accidentally slip on a wet floor, and drink a load of booze as you skid into your car which just so happens to have the engine running.

[Methven Hornet]

On a point of interest, 5% of all accidents are attributed to alcohol and therefore is by far one of the least contributors to accidents. It is the same rate as speeding (5%).

The driver/rider not paying attention is the biggest contributor at 40% and there are other factors such as vehicle maintenance to consider.

However what is interesting is that in the cases of Pedestrians being involved in accidents, 60% are down to their own lack of attention.

Why should she be penalised to this degree for being statistically no more likely to cause an accident than someone speeding? Remember these stats include those who are 2, 3, or 4 times over the limit.IMO being over the limit by 40% is not likely to create any more impairment to driving than eating, using a phone or having a conversation at the same time.

The punishment should fit the crime.

All figures from 2010, with a downward trend continuing to this day.

Out of interest, what were the figures for drink-driving accidents before it became socially unacceptable. Also, of the accidents attributed to alcohol, what are the consequences in terms of deaths, injury and damage?

[l'angelo mysterioso]

On a point of interest, 5% of all accidents are attributed to alcohol and therefore is by far one of the least contributors to accidents. It is the same rate as speeding (5%).

The driver/rider not paying attention is the biggest contributor at 40% and there are other factors such as vehicle maintenance to consider.

However what is interesting is that in the cases of Pedestrians being involved in accidents, 60% are down to their own lack of attention.

Why should she be penalised to this degree for being statistically no more likely to cause an accident than someone speeding? Remember these stats include those who are 2, 3, or 4 times over the limit.IMO being over the limit by 40% is not likely to create any more impairment to driving than eating, using a phone or having a conversation at the same time.

The punishment should fit the crime.

All figures from 2010, with a downward trend continuing to this day.

because she has consciously chosen to do so knowing what the affect of consuming the substance would be on her ability to drive safely

same with using a mobile phone, whilst driving.

All driving offences which endanger life are punished far too leniently includin g using a mobile and drink/drug driving.

people who do these things for some odd reason aren't thought of or don't think of themselves as criminals.

[gingerjon]

Please refrain from trying to confuse board members' opinions by introducing mere facts.

Okay.

16% of all road fatalities are attributed to alcohol.

[Ackroman]

Out of interest, what were the figures for drink-driving accidents before it became socially unacceptable. Also, of the accidents attributed to alcohol, what are the consequences in terms of deaths, injury and damage?

The figures I looked at were from 1979 to date, so in terms of the "acceptability" of drink driving I think we'd have to go back to the 1960's and I don't know where those numbers might be.

For comparison, in 1979 the figure for alcohol related fatalities was 1640, in 2010, 250. A significant improvement.

This is likely to be attributed to the quality of safety devices and vehicle construction, MOT stringency, improved driving tests, road layouts, traffic lights, more pelican crossings, signage, camera's, as well as alcohol education (IMO seriously lacking).

As far as total fatalities are concerned, these numbers represent approx. 12% of the total.

This suggests that if alcohol causes 5% of accidents but 12% of fatalities, you are more likely to kill someone under the influence of drink.

IMO I would guess that these extra deaths are likely to be traveler's in the car and that it is not statistically more likely that a pedestrian or other road user is killed by a drink driver than for any other instance of distraction.

Edited by Ackroman, 19 March 2012 - 03:20 PM.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

The figures I looked at were from 1979 to date, so in terms of the "acceptability" of drink driving I think we'd have to go back to the 1960's and I don't know where those numbers might be.

For comparison, in 1979 the figure for alcohol related fatalities was 1640, in 2010, 250. A significant improvement.

This is likely to be attributed to the quality of safety devices and vehicle construction, MOT stringency, improved driving tests, road layouts, traffic lights, more pelican crossings, signage, camera's, as well as alcohol education (IMO seriously lacking).

As far as total fatalities are concerned, these numbers represent approx. 12% of the total.

This suggests that if alcohol causes 5% of accidents but 12% of fatalities, you are more likely to kill someone under the influence of drink.

IMO I would guess that these extra deaths are likely to be traveler's in the car and that it is not statistically more likely that a pedestrian or other road user is killed by a drink driver than for any other instance of distraction.

it's even more significant considering the huge increase of vehicles and drivers on the road since 1979

[Ackroman]

because she has consciously chosen to do so knowing what the affect of consuming the substance would be on her ability to drive safely

same with using a mobile phone, whilst driving.

All driving offences which endanger life are punished far too leniently includin g using a mobile and drink/drug driving.

people who do these things for some odd reason aren't thought of or don't think of themselves as criminals.

I entirely agree that drink drivers make a choice, and should be punished when it goes wrong. I was hoping to illustrate that of all the choices we make when driving, drinking is not as big a contributor to accidents as much as we think and therefore the justification for losing your job, and not being able to drive again through lack of insurance is unjustified.

[Ackroman]

it's even more significant considering the huge increase of vehicles and drivers on the road since 1979

Agreed. I can't see how this could be improved further, not even by removing the limit as is being touted.

[gingerjon]

I entirely agree that drink drivers make a choice, and should be punished when it goes wrong. I was hoping to illustrate that of all the choices we make when driving, drinking is not as big a contributor to accidents as much as we think and therefore the justification for losing your job, and not being able to drive again through lack of insurance is unjustified.

I think it's entirely justified.

Many of the other penalties drivers face when they break the law are laughably weak. They should be toughened up, the penalties for drink driving are fine.