Drink driving
- Thread starter goldenecitrone
- Start date
pogofish said:
Re: zero-tolerance: as I said, I did not advocate the change to civil law punishment. Why do you think that would happen in the UK if we changed to a zero limit? What really is the problem with having a coke if you're going to drive?
Random breath-testing interesting read: http://www.pacts.org.uk/parliament/briefings/randombreath.htm Seems to be a correlation between higher levels of breath testing and fewer fatal crashes.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
Poi E said:
But that is effectively what has to happen whern they adopt the system otherwise it becomes unpopular & virtually unworkable very quickly - Which then gives creedence/social acceptability to embittered drunk drivers. Which is a failure all round!
No problem with not drinking at all when driving personally. I'd rather close the pubs & clubs.
There aren't. Manslaughter is manslaughter wherever / however it is committed.ovaltina said:
Pie 1 said:
The thing is, everyone knows that in the UK if you get caught over the limit, even by a teensy bit, even if you have not had an accident, you will ALWAYS get at least one year's ban.
There are no exceptions or letting people off because they are older, richer or whatever.
The reason you don't hear about it (I suspect) is that its less likely that an older guy in a nice car will get pulled over than a gang of 19 years olds in a "modded" Vauxhall Nova anyway.
And because the effects of alcohol on someone who only learnt to drive last month are more likely to result in him driving obviously badly than on a bloke who has been driving for 30 years.
Giles..
detective-boy said:
So what's the difference between manslaughter involving a car and causing death by dangerous driving?
Surely be definition, causing death by dangerous driving is manslaughter, but it is a seperate crime with seperate punishments. Always struck me as odd.
ruffneck23
front left
although i dont drive atm ( just cos of a lack of car ) i do think that zero tolerance should be enforced , you know what its like , have one pint and its never enough so if someone who is driving is thinking like this once the first has been sunk the temptation to have another is so much higher , with zero tolerance they wouldnt get the taste for it in the first place imvho
Ms T
Honey-coloured ramparts
I don't really see the need to change the current system. I am perfectly aware that if I'm driving home I can only have one drink with my meal and so is hendo. Sometimes driving is a good excuse for limiting one's drinking. If we want to drink more, we leave the car at home.
Young men under 25 are the biggest culprits. They just don't think they're going to get caught. Women hardly ever drink and drive.
Young men under 25 are the biggest culprits. They just don't think they're going to get caught. Women hardly ever drink and drive.
Exactly. A friend of a friend had to jump out of the way just last weekend because a car went up on the pavement and almost ran her over. She was on her mobile at the time and got a big bruise on the side of her face. Who the fuck do these people think they are, that they can risk other people's lives just to save money on a taxi? Cunts. Fuck em.
cesare said:
I'm sure that's true, because even twenty or thirty years ago it was regarded as quite acceptable for someone to go to the pub, have a few pints and drive home. And it was more often men than women since pubs were more male-dominated than they are now, and rather fewer women drove. The breathalyser was only introduced in 1967: before that, and even afterwards up to a point, the police wouldn't often prosecute for drunk-driving unless there'd been an accident where alcohol was clearly a factor. It was really only in the '70s and '80s that anti-drink driving campaigns and better enforcement changed attitudes towards drinking and driving. A lot of people who were driving before that continued to drink and drive, because they'd grown up in a climate where it was more acceptable to do so.
It's interesting to look at how attitudes towards alcohol have shifted over the last few decades, and not only in terms of driving. I was reading a bit of James Herriot the other night: he quite regularly - in the '50s - had a few pints before driving out to a farm, performing an operation and then driving home again. Nowadays we'd be horrified if a vet (or doctor) turned up smelling of beer: back then, it was just accepted. I was chatting to a bloke at a preserved railway recently who was a fireman on British Rail in the '50s and '60s: he and his driver frequently had a liquid lunch in the pub before driving their train back. He related how some drivers would happily sink five or six pints before getting into the cab. It was against the rules, but winked at. It took the Eltham crash in 1972, where a drunken train driver took a curve too fast, derailed his train and killed ten people, for much stricter controls to be introduced on turning up to work after consuming alcohol. Even in the context of office jobs, working lunches these days almost never involve alcohol whereas even ten or fifteen years ago many did (and it came as a bit of a culture shock to me at a conference in Denmark the other year, when we were given beer at lunchtime), and I remember how a young lecturer when I was an undergrad made some comment on the 'old school' of lecturers who had six pints at lunchtime before doing afternoon lectures.
Also interesting is how, if the tabloids are to be believed, we've become terribly irresponsible about how much we drink in our leisure time, and yet in working time much more aware of its negative effects...
I voted for the zero alcohol option because that's what I have if I'm driving. Although I am well aware other people can drive after a couple of pints, personally I wouldn't be happy to do so - especially if I've got the children in the car. 
It scares me that the message seems not to have got through to some people who still insist on drinking and driving.
It scares me that the message seems not to have got through to some people who still insist on drinking and driving.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
Ms T said:
Unless there has been a major shift in drinking patterns in the last few years, I think you will find that older men are the biggest offenders & also make-up the majority of the worst/most persistant offenders.
However, I will agree that there has indeed been a bit of a change in attitude amongst younger drivers recently & seems a lot more acceptable to them, compared to 20-odd years ago.
Ms T
Honey-coloured ramparts
pogofish said:Unless there has been a major shift in drinking patterns in the last few years, I think you will find that older men are the biggest offenders & also make-up the majority of the worst/most persistant offenders.
However, I will agree that there has indeed been a bit of a change in attitude amongst younger drivers recently & seems a lot more acceptable to them, compared to 20-odd years ago.
From the Department for Transport's Road Safety website:
Drinking and driving occurs across a wide range of age groups but particularly among young men aged 17-29 in both casualties and positive breath tests following a collision. The Government's most recent drink drive campaigns aims to target this group.
Years ago hendo did a documentary for World in Action about drink-driving, and it was young drivers who were the worst offenders then, too.
spacemonkey
I Love Noodles
In the pub I worked in (up until just recently) it was definately the fellas in their 50's and 60's who were the worst. I never saw anyone under the age of 30 get into a car after 6 pints.
Every night I reckon at least 5 of them would drive home, some of them didn't give a fuck that you knew they were driving.
When I cycled home at 12 o'clock I couldn't help but think how many other pubs had people rolling out of them and into their cars.
Every night I reckon at least 5 of them would drive home, some of them didn't give a fuck that you knew they were driving.
When I cycled home at 12 o'clock I couldn't help but think how many other pubs had people rolling out of them and into their cars.
Ms T
Honey-coloured ramparts
cesare said:
But they're the facts - anything else is anecdotal. Research bears that out - in a government survey in 2002, young men were the most likely to believe they'd driven whilst over the limit. Over a quarter of 16-29 year-olds admitted to driving whilst over the limit.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/r258.pdf
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
You're quite likely right but two possible objections spring to mind:Ms T said:
a. older drivers might have less awareness (or even honestly) regarding this issue ;
b. older drivers might get stopped rather less often.
I think that the current limits are OK when people actually follow them and err on the safe side. I think jailing people who have any alcohol in their system at all, while probably ideal, is impractical. On the other hand, who actually knows what their BAL is after a half pint? Pint? It's so variable that asking people to guess is, de facto, asking for a breach in the law.
Poi E said:And the amount of people that drive home after clubbingI could barely even open the car door!
I used to drive people to and from clubs loads and just drank coke all evening. I was typically the one still bouncing round the dancefloor when everyone else had enough and wanted to go home.I guess there are probably two main groups of people:
-those who drink considerably over the limit but think it is OK/they can handle it/they'll take the risk etc
-those with good intentions that may end up over the limit as a result of ignorance or being tempted into an extra drink which sends them over the line.
I think for the latter group education needs to be the main thrust, and for the former it has to be about enforcement and not letting them think they can get away with it.
I think a small reduction in the limit might not be a bad thing, but a move to a zero/minimal limit could produce a counter-productive backlash.
-those who drink considerably over the limit but think it is OK/they can handle it/they'll take the risk etc
-those with good intentions that may end up over the limit as a result of ignorance or being tempted into an extra drink which sends them over the line.
I think for the latter group education needs to be the main thrust, and for the former it has to be about enforcement and not letting them think they can get away with it.
I think a small reduction in the limit might not be a bad thing, but a move to a zero/minimal limit could produce a counter-productive backlash.
quimcunx
imprimeo, lamino, distribuo
I don't have a car and have never driven after a drink. I think you should know that if you will have trouble not having another drink once you have one you shouldn't drink at all.
But at 1 hr ish processing for 1 unit, I'd quite happily have that one relax into it single unit drink at 8 pm then drive at 11pm or midnight.
But at 1 hr ish processing for 1 unit, I'd quite happily have that one relax into it single unit drink at 8 pm then drive at 11pm or midnight.
They are different offences for different situations and they require different evidence.ovaltina said:
The gross negligence version of Manslaughter (which would be the usual one involved with a road death) requires evidence of gross negligence, to a level where the Court are satisfied that it should be sanctioned by a most serious criminal offence. This is a very high evidential bar to reach in any circumstances. With driving it would be necessary to show way more than carelessness and, probably, more than most "dangerous" driving (for which "recklessness" would probably be enough). For instance, it would be unlikely that speeding would be found to be "gross negligence" unless it was way, way over the limit and, possibly, also in obviously dangerous conditions / situation. Most road deaths do NOT result from someone doing something that they know to be dangerous and continuing anyway (recklessness) and they certainly don't result from them doing anything that clearly presents an imminent, immediate danger of serious injury or death (gross negligence).
Causing death by dangerous driving was brought in to deal with cases which fell short of reaching the "gross negligence" test for mansalughter as it was considered the number of deaths caused by dangerous driving was such that a lesser offence should be introduced to cover them. In this regard drivers are treated MORE harshly that anyone else operating in a public area - if, say, one of the jugglers in Covent Garden acted recklessly and killed someone watching there would be no offence unless the high, gross negligence, bar for mansalughter was reached, there is no equivalent of causing death by dangerous juggling.
The difficulties of even reaching the evidential bar for dangerous driving has led to the problems with achieving convictions that has been observed for some time and, for the same reasons the causing death by dangerous driving offence was introduced in the first place there is now a lesser offence of causing death by careless driving IF unfit / over the drink-drive limit and there are moves to introduce yet another lesser offence of simple death by careless driving (which would theoretically catch any significant breach of the Highway Code leading to death). When introduced this will mean that driving is in a FAR more regulated situation than almost every other common activity carried out by people in public places.
