Drink Driving

[psmart]

... is the law correct for Drink Driving?

In Europe, if you're over an arbitary level, but have/have'nt comitted damage to people/property, your presumed guilty of committing a heanious crime and sentenced accordingly.
In Asia, if you damage people/property whilst over an arbitary level, the book (rotting away for life in a sess pit) is thrown at you, otherwise your left alone.

Which is right? Why go to jail if you have commited no crime?

A car is a lethal weapon, get in, point at a pedestrian, press the accelerator, and their dead. Why isnt every driver arrested for 'intended manslaughter'?

Psychologists will argue 'modified state of mind', but Im sure we all know 10pinters, who could beat anyone at a game of 'tower of hanoi' in this state?

 

[SLinKyjoe]

I dont see the correlation between the 2 points you have posed!

drink driving laws, or driving under the influence, is breaking the law. hence you have committed a crime, same as breaking and entering.

but are you seriously suggesting that countries in Europe resort to the dictorial societies of some Indo/Asia areas? If you are caught importing Drugs into Malayasia, the sentance is death! do you think that is a correct sentance for that crime. and interestingly, it has done nothing to reduce the amount of imported drugs into Malayasia. It just makes the criminals do it more discreetly!

I think you maybe trying to say that the sentences that are often given may be inappropriate but if so, why not offer a solution that would stand a reasonable argument, rather than " throw them in a pit and bung the key in the bin!"

or do you think that drink driving laws here are so lax, it has destroyed society to the point where drunken louts drive about all the time? Or maybs that the law itself is not suitable and should be judged by the crime and not by the people who commit the crime. ie, if you are over the limit, the following morning, you are obviously a murderer!!!! or where you just daft, and should have known better? you can always get a taxi to work!

3000 or so people died on our roads last year. 4% were related to drink limits.

one of the reasons to allow 24hr licences was to hope that people would enjoy a social garthering over a longer period of time, which would prevent the binge drinking times we had before. the theory being, that you can go out and have a good time and finish earlier, thus having more time to allow the body to reduce its alcohol content of a greater time. and also should prevent the rush for alcohol in a shorter time later on during the evening.

just putting up the price would have made people drink at home.

 

[psmart]

Well augmented!

Their are many discrepencies with the current law, many driven by the pc brigade. The law as it stands, makes it a crime to have a drink and drive, and the penalties are very severe, as they assume you are guilty of attempting to commit a more serious offence, such as murder.

There are no such draconian laws for other situations, involving a car, ie. driving whilst tired. Was it not Clarkson who made several tests, showing effects on driving, inclusive of alcohol and tiredness. Then take such things as the 10 pinter and a tee-totaller having a wee dram, both are over the limit (potentially), but in all possibility, the tee-totaller will have some kind of accident!

What also of the people who tend to think a car runs on auto-pilot and do anything but drive.... how many poor motorcyclists have come a cropper because of them?

I mention Asia, because they implement a concept of law, that used to be the mainstay British law, 'innocent until proven guilty'. You havent comitted a crime until you have actually comitted it and been found guilty by a jury of your peers.... but, if you have 1 drink, then drive, you are Guilty....

You know full well, if you go out with a gun to kill, your probably going away for a long time (or executed in America). So, shouldnt this be the case for driving? If you go out in your car, drunk, and you fail to control the car resulting in injury or death, your going away for a long time?

In the UK, if you go and have a drink and get stopped by the eager coppers waiting outside your pub, you may not go away for a long time, but you'll have almost as much a diabolical punishment!

 

[mlc]

I cant be the only one that remembers what it was like before the drink drive laws. My dad would drive home after too many drinks with 3 kids in the car, well within the law and well outside anything that we would today call acceptable.

To understand why the law says that you cant drink and drive all you have to do is go to a party with your friends and be the one thats sober because your driving. Which one of your ****ed friends would you like to drive you home in your new car?

The same flawed logic would allow you to stop for a picnic in lane 3 of the motorway and only get into trouble if someone crashes into you.

Just my opinion of course.

Mark

 

[psmart]

I was nearly always the one to stay sober and drive, and still the cops used to stop and breathalyse me? They used to get well prassed off when it didnt go amber or red!

There is a big difference between inebriated and having a drink. Clarkson proved that a tired person is much more likely to have a fatal accident than someone who just had a drink. The Selby crash, he hadnt been drinking, and if he hadnt have gone off the road on the bridge, but into the embankment, he'd have got a strong telling off and told to be on his way! So how can the logic be flawed, that if you have 90mg of alcohol in your blood (1-2 pints), and your a seasoned drinker, that your banned from driving, imprisoned etc without actually having caused damage?

This is all only opinions, Im just raising a point of flawed law. Personally, I cant take drink any longer, 2 drinks and I've a migraine, and in my line of business, this means no-work. I dont propose people drink and drive just pointing out the disparity, that someone who has not drunk can be just as lethal, if not more so, but has no draconian law enforced against them.

 

[mlc]

When I was young I used to get stopped all the time, running up to christmas 2004 I was stopped just after leaving the pub in my sons car, they breatherlised me immediately and were very clearly upset that I was sober. I actually considered complaining about their attitude, clearly they thought they had got one!

Your comment about tired drivers is of course true, which is why HGV's have to stick to the hours, sadly car drivers dont have the same restrictions, although I believe that if you are driving a car for work you should be complying with the 1968 transport act restriction on hours, but since you dont have to keep records nobody would ever know.

Mark.

 

[Myros]

an adjunct to the driver's hours thing

colleagues of my wife's in europe have their travelling time as a part of their working week. My wife, here in the Uk does not. So she gets to schlep up and down the country on her own time to and from the first and last ports of call in the day. Which is safer? Who has a happier workforce? Who makes a greater profit?
Answers on a small postcard please.