Drink Driving

Matt82 said:
but people treat it as black and white. if you drink youll die or other kill people whilst trying it.

ive driven with alcohol in me plenty of times. ive never died once

i know there has to be a cut off somewhere, but it doesnt immediately mean people will die if youve had a drink
Click to expand...

Quite.

I would imagine given the British culture, that the majority of motorists at some point in their lives have driven after a drink.
 
TangoSixteen said:
Im certainly NOT condoning drink driving... quite the contrary... I am suggesting is it not the work of the devil like many people make it out to be.

Generally most types of people who drink drive will end up in the **** somehow, regardless of whether its under the influence or not.

My other point was that Drink Driving is perfectly legal, in reponse to the Jehovas that preach they would never so much as touch a drop if they were considering driving.

There needs to be two scales really... one for the kids (teenagers) that go out for a drive with their mates while hammered on drugs and booze at the same time, and the middle aged professional who quaffed a glass of wine that put them slightly over the limit whilst giving their aged mother a lift home...

Id say the minor offenders should be getting say 3-4 months ban... with the punishments being made more severe for the guys with a real INTENT and WILFUL DISREGARD for their own, passengers, and other road users safety.

Its nuts the gaylords getting their g strings in a twist at the very mention of alcohol and driving, when the law quite clearly states that its perfectly legal to do...

Its the same type of idiocy that leads to paediatricians being labelled "paedos" by the same brainwashed morons who cant think for themselves!
Click to expand...

Interesting, so there should be a sliding scale of more drunk = more punishment do you think? I don't see it as two scales as you say, though - just one. I don't see the justification for any more than one scale.
 
Yeah.. thats basically it....

I mean... someone who accidentally happened to be pulled who was a tiny bit over, is not quite the same as a 19yr old out with 5 mates crammed into a Corsa, doing 104mph, wasted after a night out on meowmeow and white lightening, veering all over the road.

Yet potentially, both could recieve a 12 month ban.. makes no sense innit.
 
and take into account whether the offender was still able to drive perfectly sensibly or whether they were being a numpty.

but that would involve initiative. so it wont happen
 
Too many OMG you have a pint don't drive or you will killz someone. They would clearly still be under the limit so get over it.
Click to expand...

I agree; personally I don't ever drink and drive as I am easily affected by drink. If I am going to be drinking thne I leave the car and keys at home. If I am going to be driving then I just don't drink (and if my mates get shirty with me for not gettinginvolved then I will leave them to make their own way homes)
 
TangoSixteen said:
336 caused by drink driving.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you consider 336 deaths a year acceptable?

Robbie G said:
Well yes, obviously.

You are at point A.
Ambulance is at point B.
You must travel A-->B.
Ambulance must travel B-->A-->B.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that. The ambulance service aren't a taxi - they can and do carry drugs and equipment so that they can administer treatment at the scene. If they arrive at a house and can see the person won't make it to hospital, they will have equipment with them to enable them to help then and there.

So it's not a case of "B->A->B" as treatment can be carried out at A.
 
Last edited:
TangoSixteen said:
There needs to be two scales really... one for the kids (teenagers) that go out for a drive with their mates while hammered on drugs and booze at the same time, and the middle aged professional who quaffed a glass of wine that put them slightly over the limit whilst giving their aged mother a lift home...
Click to expand...


You are either over the limit or under. end of story.
 
Basher said:
Is someone who has had 9 pints more dangerous than someone who has had 2?

I'm not saying there should be a sliding scale it's just an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

The problem is that people react differently. So the limit is in place such that those who react poorly don't end up on the road.

I don't understand the problem anyway - why can't people just not have alcohol if they're going to drive? It's hardly an outrageous request.
 
TangoSixteen said:
There is nothing wrong with having a pint and driving
Click to expand...

This is the only part I agree with what he's said. I will freely admit that I will have a pint over a night and drive home later on.

There have been very very few times when I have had 2 pints and have driven home a few hours later. It wasn't a long journey, 3 -5 minutes maximum. I don't like doing this though, just don't feel safe.
 
Basher said:
Is someone who has had 9 pints more dangerous than someone who has had 2?

I'm not saying there should be a sliding scale it's just an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

I hear that, the trouble with a sliding scale is it gives people the impression they will be fit to drive when they are not.

Judgement is not the best when sober, never mind once a drink or two has been had.

No scale. however interesting imo.
 
Tute said:
It doesn't work like that. The ambulance service aren't a taxi - they can and do carry drugs and equipment so that they can administer treatment at the scene. If they arrive at a house and can see the person won't make it to hospital, they will have equipment with them to enable them to help then and there.

So it's not a case of "B->A->B" as treatment can be carried out at A.
Click to expand...

In some cases.

Let's say the waiting time to treatment is exactly the same in either case. It then comes down to - would you rather be treated as hospital or by a mobile unit? Who do you think has access to the better medicine and training?

But thank you for clarifying that the ambulance service aren't also a taxi service, cause that's exactly what I said :rolleyes:.
 
Robbie G said:
Well yes, obviously.
Click to expand...

Oh here we go again ;)

You are at point A.
Ambulance is at point B.
You must travel A-->B.
Ambulance must travel B-->A-->B.
Click to expand...

Mistake 1: You assume all ambulances, when not responding to a call, are stationed at the main acute hospital. This is, of course, not the case.

Mistake 2: You assume all ambulances simply collect a patient and deliver them to an acute hospital for treatment. In reality, an ambulance contains at least one trained professional who can administer potentially life saving treatment at the scene.

Nobody else can really do a better job, except MikeHiow, is basically a pro at everything.

Let's say the waiting time to treatment is exactly the same in either case.
Click to expand...

Except we cant say that, which is a pretty big flaw.

Ambulances are a far better chance at survival than being taxi'd by a beer-ed up... person.
 
[TW]Fox;17222015 said:
Ambulances are a far better chance at survival than being taxi'd by a beer-ed up... person.
Click to expand...


Aye, for one thing they are slightly more likely to make it to the hospital without being in a serious accident because the driver is panicking and unable to make good judgements because of the combination of drink and panic..


And as, has been said the Ambulance crew can/will provide treatment at the scene, on the way and will know which hospital is best suited for what appears to be the problem, able to call ahead and warn them of the incoming patient if it's serious, and know if a particular hospital may be closed.

Many of the more "serious" cases the ambulance medics will be able to start diagnosis and treatment before they leave the scene (very important for certain conditions), and certainly in London at least in the case of heart attacks take the patient straight to a specialist unit which massively improves the chances of survival, and often quite basic treatments early make a much bigger difference in survival than just getting to the hospital a couple of minutes faster.
 
Well I have to make some assumptions, or should I list every potential scenario? Brb, loading Excel...

There are certainly scenarios under which I would drive my friend / relative to hospital myself even with four pints (10mg/l for hardcore drinkers) rather than wait for a wambulance.
 
R420LA6X2/4MNA said:
I hear that, the trouble with a sliding scale is it gives people the impression they will be fit to drive when they are not.
...
No scale. however interesting imo.
Click to expand...
I believe that the problem with the idea of "zero tolerance" is that there are certain conditions that can result in a very small positive reading?

However, I do agree that when driving, you should do everything possible to ensure that you do not have ANY alcohol in your system - that seems a much safer and responsible approach - i.e. if you drink alcohol (or take drugs come to that) - don't drive.

Evenin' all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom