Brother been caught drink driving

Zip said:
Out of interest, if a cop pulls u over and u have a bottle of beer, burbon, alcohole of somesort in your hand drinking out of it but u are still under the limit what happens to u then :confused:

Mate, you can get done for eating an apple whilst driving in this country lol.
 
burbleflop said:
I agree entirely. Quite why people want to justify drink driving by liking it to speeding is totally beyond me.


Whhhooooaaaa hold on there jimmy. Where was I justifying drink driving? I was explaining to you why I wanted to know how far over the limit he was.
 
Ol!ver said:
Whhhooooaaaa hold on there jimmy. Where was I justifying drink driving? I was explaining to you why I wanted to know how far over the limit he was.

Sorry, I'm a bit sensitive about this. The death of a loved one tends to make me intolerant to drink driving.

I'll leave this thread now, I've made my feelings clear and I don't want to upset myself by lingering on what happened back in 1999.
 
Last edited:
clv101 said:
All these impairments can range from not being very dangerous to being lethal. It's not black and white.


Exactly. As someone said earlier, it's just part of the 'holier than though' attitude.
 
Enfield said:
Mate, you can get done for eating an apple whilst driving in this country lol.

:eek: Well you learn something new every day :D
Drive thrus at mc donalds would be pointless over there then :p
 
clv101 said:
These threads always get far too extreme. It's all shades of grey - driving at 100mph is significantly more dangerous than driving at 60mph, driving just over the drink drive limit is not significantly more dangerous than driving just under the limit. And as for driving tired, that can be every bit as dangerous as driving twice over the limit.

Whilst driving drunk is certainly dangerous, it doesn't deserve the relative lambasting it gets compared to speeding, driving tired, driving a non-roadworthy car or just being a rubbish driver not paying attention to the road. All these impairments can range from not being very dangerous to being lethal. It's not black and white.

This man speaketh the truth
 
Ol!ver said:
Umm, we have em. Why do people on Oz think they're the only ones with anything?
We dont.
Its just we are allowed to eat when we drive. I cant beleive u can be done for eating an apple :eek: :p

BTW i would much rather live in england then Oz
 
clv101 said:
These threads always get far too extreme. It's all shades of grey - driving at 100mph is significantly more dangerous than driving at 60mph, driving just over the drink drive limit is not significantly more dangerous than driving just under the limit. And as for driving tired, that can be every bit as dangerous as driving twice over the limit.

Whilst driving drunk is certainly dangerous, it doesn't deserve the relative lambasting it gets compared to speeding, driving tired, driving a non-roadworthy car or just being a rubbish driver not paying attention to the road. All these impairments can range from not being very dangerous to being lethal. It's not black and white.
I don't agree.

Just because I have utter contempt for drink driving doesn't imply any tolerance for other driving offences. But speeding is a different category of issue. For a start, doing 100mph on the fast lane of a motorway (say, M45) at 3AM on a Tuesday morning, in good weather, may be considerably safer than doing 80mph, or even 50mph on a motorway in heavy traffic, let alone ice, snow or fog. It's also probably safer than doing 35 in a 30 limit outside a surburban school at school turn-out time.

Speed is also something you can alter rapidly to react to circumstance, but if youy're driving drunk, you're driving drunk 'til you stop driving.

As for things like driving an unroadworthy car, well, there I tend to agree, providing you either know it is or should have had reason to suspect. But providing you have regular, competent servicing, it is still possible a fault could develop that the driver had no reasonable way to know about. It's unlikely he didn't, however, know that he was drinking.

But I also with with Dolph. Speed doesn't kill, but inappropriate speed certainly does. I don't see 73 in a 70 limit as a huge, if any, increase in risk, but I agree with those that say any alcohol is too much if driving. Given that, the law does provide a fair degree of latitude from 'zero' alcohol, so anybody going over that (short of spiked drinks, etc) deserves whatever they get, and if that means losing your job because you lost your licence, so be it.
 
Drink driving was and probably is the ultimate taboo, and should not be excussed under any circumstances.
If and that is an "IF" this guy killed someone, would he still be trying to get off on a technicallity, that's what gets me. It's like "Sorry I killed your son,daughter,husband,wife,family but the police wrote my registration down wrong...WTF.

The problem is it's probably more widespread than we realise coz the police and goverment, seem more interested in fleecing the rest of us for going 4mph over the speedlimit. But thats another story.

p.s just my 2cents not a dig at the original poster as I realise he's an innocent party.
 
I wasn't expecting such an uproar in replies. I'm sorry to hear about your loss, burbleflop.

I think speeding does depend on the road and weather conditions. I think doing 120mph on an empty motorway for example is acceptable, if the weather conditions allow it. I would fear driving though if that was actually made legal, as driving in itself would become more dangerous if everyone was driving so fast. I think if a person decides to speed then it is at their discretion to do so but with the increased penalties if anything should happen. Maybe if our roads were bigger, a faster limit could be a possibility.

As for my brother, he was a couple of units over but I am disappointed that he decided to drive knowing the consequences. But that is the effect of alcohol after all.

We cannot forget that driving too slowly is a dangerous game also.
 
Back
Top Bottom