Drink driving record broken...

britboy4321 said:
I've used a phone LOADS of times whilst driving and it wasn't dangerous
Click to expand...


I used to spend a lot of time on a motorbike and found people using mobile phones to be a danger to ME as they paid more attension to their conversation and not to me over taking them in the next lane. I have had a couple of close calls for this so 'wasn't dangerous' doesnt wash with me
 
anticonscience said:
What? Why would teetotal people be punished? :confused:
Click to expand...

Because anyone can have a non-zero alcohol level. Alcohol is a by-product of digestion in humans. The levels are almost always extremely low, but they're more than zero and the tests are sensitive. "Endogenous alcohol production", I think. That would work, etymology-wise.

Too many people are too willing to take an extreme stance without understanding what it really means.
 
To be absolutely certain about myself, I have never ever ever had a single drink and then driven immediately afterwards. I would hate it to hang over my head if I had an accident, even if I only had one beer or one glass of wine.

And here is the important line: for the sake of not having a drink, its a very small price to pay for not having the consequences of an accident hang over you for the rest of your life.
 
Zero would not work and be too draconian. As much as it takes your body one hour to process one unit of alcohol, it will still take 24 hours for your body to be totally clear and pass a drink driving limit of zero.

So imagine what that would do to the lifesytle in this country? Everybody who drives to work would not be able to drink from Sunday right through to Friday night (or Saturday if you work on Saturday or are going shopping/visiting). Perhaps you plan to drive somewhere on Sunday as well? In that case, you will have to become a teetotal except when on holidays.

Apart from the fact that I could see that most people would then break the law and have a glass of wine or other drink with their meal, the pub and drink industry in this country would be decimated.

Also because most people would break the law and still have a drink the night before, the police would be almost guranteed a result for everybody they stopped so expect millions of people losing their licence for a year (or until people realise and become teetotal or there is such a backlash, the law gets changed). So you may as well ban drivers from being allowed to buy alcohol.;)

Throw in that some medicine contains very small amounts of alcohol, shandy (the tinned drinks) and you have major problems.

The country would become a disaster. As much as I don't condone drink driving and anybody caught deserves what they get, remember more people are killed in road accidents due to tiredness than drink driving nowadays.

Having systems which limited how many hours you can drive a car or how long since you drove it (to allow for a sufficient rest period) and forcing you to stop every two hours would do far more good than a zero drink driving policy.
 
physichull said:
To be absolutely certain about myself, I have never ever ever had a single drink and then driven immediately afterwards. I would hate it to hang over my head if I had an accident, even if I only had one beer or one glass of wine.

And here is the important line: for the sake of not having a drink, its a very small price to pay for not having the consequences of an accident hang over you for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...


Have you ever speeded. Ever. Yes? But how could you live with the consequences if you slapped into a load of kids out on a walk?
 
ac1d1ty said:
Fact is most people THINK THEY can handle drink to a certain limit, .
Click to expand...

Corrected.

Year before last there was a Tonight special where the presenter got behind the wheel of a car fitted out with special equipment.
This equipment watched your eyes and movements and after only one shot of vodka his eyes were wandering.
2 shots and he was worse but after 5 shots he said that he shouldn't be behind the wheel now.
Funnily enough when they breathalysed him he was under the limit.
 
What is more important is the skill of the driver in question.

Some people drive better drunk than others who are sober (including reaction times)
 
Last edited:
Efour2 said:
Why dont they ban people this extreme for life?
Genuine question
Click to expand...

Because it's too harsh a punishment.

People make mistakes. People also can change. Whats to be gained from punishing someone for ever, for something he'll probably never do again?


Should you be banned from playing computer games or using the internet forever because when you were 17 you made a copy of that 1, single, game?
 
britboy4321 said:
Because it's too harsh a punishment.

People make mistakes. People also can change. Whats to be gained from punishing someone for ever, for something he'll probably never do again?


Should you be banned from playing computer games or using the internet forever because when you were 17 you made a copy of that 1, single, game?
Click to expand...

no but i didn't put peoples lives at risk.

Ok fair enough, life bans for repeat offenders??

Might make people have a bit more respect ?
 
Throw him in prison and throw the person who hosted the party in with him.

Sorry I have no tolerance for drink drivers as I have lost more than one friend to drink driving, and they were not the ones doing it.

If you host a party where there is drink I feel some responsibility falls on you to make sure the people leaving are not hammered if they are driving.

What we used to do was take keys at the door and they did not get them back if we thought they had too much.

I'm sure some of you will flame me for my comments but I don't care, drink drivers are scum, no if and or buts about it.
 
Efour2 said:
no but i didn't put peoples lives at risk.

Ok fair enough, life bans for repeat offenders??

Might make people have a bit more respect ?
Click to expand...

I don't know .. it's a whole different thread when we discuss whether an increase in the punishment stops criminals attempting to commit various crimes. It can't be argued either way.

The '3-strike' rule in the States did precisely zero to stop people committing violent crimes .. just cost their society billions of dollars as they lock up guys for 25 years because they caused bar fights 3 times.

Difficult question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom