Goalie charged

[DreXeL]

its exactly the same IMO. due to the unpredictable nature of driving (were not fortune tellers, we do not know whats around the next corner)

Indeed we don't, which is why I do not an will not hoon around blind bends

a drink driver gets in the car, his reactions/judgement are a bit impared. you get in the car, sober, but put your toe right down. due to the extra speed youre intentionally carrying, the distance you cover during your reaction time is greater your judgement can be skewed by the urge to chase.

There is no way reactions and judgement can be impared to anywhere near that of a drunk driver by simply driving quickly where conditions and the road allows.

and if you one day wipe someone out whilst on a chase, do you expect to get completely branded as a child killer etc?

Of course I would be expected to be branded a child killer if I wiped out a family through driving like a tool, I fully accept that. But driving fast doesn't automatically mean driving like a tool

Anyone who chooses to break the driving laws and speed limits etc has little or no right to take the moral high ground WRT drink driving IMO.

The point is it can be perfectly safe to drive quickly (even over the posted speed limit) where the conditions and road allows, it's NEVER perfectly safe to drive on public roads whilst drunk. There is a BIG difference between the two.

- the previa could have been technically at fault, in which case wether over the limit or not the same result may of happened, who knows

Yes, of course it could still be shown that the Previa driver was at fault, I'm not denying that, but Mr RR has been charged with causing death by dangerous driving. As already pointed out in this thread, this is a VERY difficult charge to make stick, and people don't get charged with it unless there is very good evidence to prove he was infact driving dangerously. This in itself suggests to me that Mr RR is to blame for the accident, irrespective of the drink-drive charge.

- 7 seater MPVs, a danger to life itself, why cram so many people in a small tin box

What do you suggest large families do, drive around in two or more cars permanently? Should we ban busses and coaches whilst we're at it?

 

[[TW]Fox]

- it's so easy to be over the limit the following day after drinking night before even in moderation, wonder how many of us have been 1.5 times over limit and just not realized

- being over limit next day is impossible to judge, as you feel fine. Mind you, being a goalie he's gonna be a big lad that would take a lot of drink so he should have known

There was no next day, he didn't appear to have gone to bed and just... drove.

- driving a range rover sport does not make you a tool, unless of course, your just jealous, it's a nice motor (with genuine off road ability while being a decent luxo barge that handles)

Can we please get over this forums obsession that any critical comment on an expensive car is fuelled by jealousy?

The RR Sport is an excellent car but you can't help the fact that it tends to be driven almost exclusively by footballers and 'property developers innit'.

 

[Simon]

I don't know why the government waste money on courts, they should just use OcUk

Indeed we don't, which is why I do not an will not hoon around blind bends

You don't need to hoon it. My mate went into the hedge to avoid a car reversing around a bend due to a tractor coming the otherway.

 

[dirtydog]

The point is it can be perfectly safe to drive quickly (even over the posted speed limit) where the conditions and road allows, it's NEVER perfectly safe to drive on public roads whilst drunk. There is a BIG difference between the two.

The law doesn't make a distinction. In the eyes of the law, both are equally dangerous and illegal. You consider yourself above the law and able to exercise your own judgement. That is fine with me; we all (most of us) do that from time to time on the roads, with no harmful consequences. But then people often drive while over the alcohol limit perfectly safely and with no harmful consequences either.

 

[DreXeL]

I'm not denying that there is no difference in the eyes of the law with regards to them both being illegal, but the law certainly doesn't veiw them as equally dangerous, the punishment for drink-driving is much higher than that of breaking the speed limit. But putting legality of the two aside, I'm saying there is a difference in ultimate risk of killing somebody whilst doing either. That's why I feel able to 'take the moral high ground'. I'm talking about risk to other people, not the laws of the land.

 

[Toker]

- driving a range rover sport does not make you a tool, unless of course, your just jealous, it's a nice motor (with genuine off road ability while being a decent luxo barge that handles)

how dare you imply people on this forum would be jealous of an inferior peasant mobile

ocukmotorsforumidiotapedia definition

"peasant mobile"

1. Any automobile, regardless of any credible statistics/looks/valued opinions, which doesn't have the honour of displaying the brand names BMW or Ford.

 

[Dolph]

The law doesn't make a distinction. In the eyes of the law, both are equally dangerous and illegal. You consider yourself above the law and able to exercise your own judgement. That is fine with me; we all (most of us) do that from time to time on the roads, with no harmful consequences. But then people often drive while over the alcohol limit perfectly safely and with no harmful consequences either.

Actually the law does make quite a major distinction in the minimum and maximum punishment levels for the two offences.

The mandatory minimum sentance for drink driving is a 12 month ban, which is slightly different to a £60 fine and 3 points.

You can also be jailed for drink driving, but not speeding.

So I'd say the law certainly doesn't consider them equivilent.

 

[Simon]

You can also be jailed for drink driving, but not speeding.

That guy in the Porsche doing silly speeds got 6 months in jail didn't he?

I guess the charge was something more than speeding though I suppose

 

[Dolph]

That guy in the Porsche doing silly speeds got 6 months in jail didn't he?

I guess the charge was something more than speeding though I suppose

Yep, he was charged with, and convicted for, dangerous driving, not speeding.

 

[Flukester]

Can we please get over this forums obsession that any critical comment on an expensive car is fuelled by jealousy?

The RR Sport is an excellent car but you can't help the fact that it tends to be driven almost exclusively by footballers and 'property developers innit'.

A little ironic though as you called him a 'tool' for driving one (another forum obsession ?). I don't associate a RR sport with footballers or prop devs, just someone who has done well for themselves and can afford a really nice motor.

The jealousy comment I made was tongue in cheek, but I really couldn't fathom how driving X motor (especially a 'good' one) makes you a 'tool'

Image is in the eye of the beholder I guess, I could say the same about BMWs drivers (but I won't)

Didn't realize he drove straight from venue, thats makes him REALLY foolish...

 

[Flukester]

Yep, he was charged with, and convicted for, dangerous driving, not speeding.

Speeding should never result in a jail sentence if no one hurt.. it's just crazy... (they discuise speeding as dangerous driving, though the two are not linked, I believe studys have proved this)

If you step back and think about it, a human, travels as fast as he can from point a to b, where is the crime in that. (only doddering old fools who drive at 20mph on a Sunday, and who are also most likely judges think this way)

 

[dirtydog]

Actually the law does make quite a major distinction in the minimum and maximum punishment levels for the two offences.

The mandatory minimum sentence for drink driving is a 12 month ban, which is slightly different to a £60 fine and 3 points.

You can also be jailed for drink driving, but not speeding.

So I'd say the law certainly doesn't consider them equivalent.

This is a straw man argument. I never said that speeding in and of itself was exactly equal to drink driving.

As has been pointed out to you, you can be jailed for driving at excessive speed. To say you can't be jailed for speeding is playing with semantics.

 

[dirtydog]

I'm not denying that there is no difference in the eyes of the law with regards to them both being illegal, but the law certainly doesn't veiw them as equally dangerous, the punishment for drink-driving is much higher than that of breaking the speed limit. But putting legality of the two aside, I'm saying there is a difference in ultimate risk of killing somebody whilst doing either. That's why I feel able to 'take the moral high ground'. I'm talking about risk to other people, not the laws of the land.

Which is worse; the man who drives the morning after drinking, and is slightly over the limit, which has a neligible or nil effect on his driving performance, or the man who decides to wilfully drive faster than the law permits, overtaking other cars and so on. Of course you are such a good driver that nothing bad could possibly happen when you decide to 'press on'.

(the drink driver in the above example is fictitious and not the footballer this thread refers to)

 

[dirtydog]

Speeding should never result in a jail sentence if no one hurt.. it's just crazy... (they discuise speeding as dangerous driving, though the two are not linked, I believe studys have proved this)

If you step back and think about it, a human, travels as fast as he can from point a to b, where is the crime in that. (only doddering old fools who drive at 20mph on a Sunday, and who are also most likely judges think this way)

What are you saying, that people should only be punished if their actions cause harm? What about the potential for harm. By your logic, drink drivers should only be punished if they cause an accident; if their drunken drive results in no accident then they shouldn't be punished?

 

[FTM]

the simple fact is its inexcusable to get behind the wheel whilst bladdered up...especially in this day and age when EVERYONE is aware of how drink affects you

 

[Flukester]

What are you saying, that people should only be punished if their actions cause harm? What about the potential for harm. By your logic, drink drivers should only be punished if they cause an accident; if their drunken drive results in no accident then they shouldn't be punished?

i think to some extent the law has gone too far in this country with 'potential to harm', just about everything in life has potential to harm.

some things like drink driving are just too much of a risk to be allowed, but if your doing 150mph on a empty motorway then that doesn't deserve jail, maybe a short ban / fine. (jail is for criminals, someone moving too fast is not a criminal)

 

[DreXeL]

Which is worse; the man who drives the morning after drinking, and is slightly over the limit, which has a neligible or nil effect on his driving performance, or the man who decides to wilfully drive faster than the law permits, overtaking other cars and so on. Of course you are such a good driver that nothing bad could possibly happen when you decide to 'press on'.

(the drink driver in the above example is fictitious and not the footballer this thread refers to)

If said man is overtaking where perfectly safe to overtake and exceeding the speed limit on roads that lend themselves to such speeds, then I would still say the man with excess alcohol in his blood is 'worse'. He may feel OK, but the very fact that he still has excess alcohol in his system means his reactions and judgement may still be compromised.

Exceeding the speed limit and overtaking where safe to do so is less dangerous than somebody driving with compromised reaction times and judgement.

 

[Dolph]

Speeding should never result in a jail sentence if no one hurt.. it's just crazy... (they discuise speeding as dangerous driving, though the two are not linked, I believe studys have proved this)

Well, in that particular case the chap was doing 170mph in a car that he didn't have permission to drive or experience of, on an A road in oxfordshire...

If you step back and think about it, a human, travels as fast as he can from point a to b, where is the crime in that. (only doddering old fools who drive at 20mph on a Sunday, and who are also most likely judges think this way)

There's a huge difference between speeding and excessive speed, but in that case the jail sentance was justified

 

[Dolph]

This is a straw man argument. I never said that speeding in and of itself was exactly equal to drink driving.

As has been pointed out to you, you can be jailed for driving at excessive speed. To say you can't be jailed for speeding is playing with semantics.

That was exactly what you said, in the post quoted below.

The law doesn't make a distinction. In the eyes of the law, both are equally dangerous and illegal. You consider yourself above the law and able to exercise your own judgement. That is fine with me; we all (most of us) do that from time to time on the roads, with no harmful consequences. But then people often drive while over the alcohol limit perfectly safely and with no harmful consequences either.

The law does not consider basic speeding equivilent to drink driving, which was the point I made. You can be prosecuted for dangerous driving irrespective of what speed you are doing, so trying to claim that dangerous driving punishments are relevant for speeding offences is simply untrue.

The law does not treat speeding and drink driving as equally dangerous and illegal, if they did, the punishments would be the same. It's like arguing that murder and burglary are treated equally because both go to court.

 

[dirtydog]

Okay Dolph, keep arguing against something I didn't say.