Drink Driving

[thewobbler]

It is of course a very emotive subject. It's not possible to read something like this opening post, without withering inside.

But those people (such as a few on this thread) who feel the need to wash drink driving as a black and white issue do not help at all.

As with all crimes and misdemeanours, there's 100 shades of grey before you reach the 50 shades of black. While a breathalyser might indicate that someone who is 0.01 over the limit has broken the same law as someone who 6 times the limit, there is not a judge in the world who would treat the cases the same.

But hand on heart, I'd prefer to take my chances on the road with a 5-pint man driving a car within the speed limits, over a pioneer who wilfully drives at 40mph in built-up areas. They're both guilty, but one of them is less likely to kill someone.

A car is one of the most dangerous weapons ever created by man, especially in the hands of a careless person.  There is no doubt that alcohol can be the conduit that evolves a normal person into a careless person, and as such we absolutely need laws that deter that carelessness from taking foot. But without meaning to sound flippant, human beings are a careless bunch, and the only way to stop human beings causing needless car accidents is to either ban cars or to wipe out humans. In scenarios such as the one that 93-DY-SAM describes above, I would put the 2 pints of alcohol a distant third (behind cars, and humans) in the reasons why someone died.

I think this is where your argument misses the point - these two things are not uncorrelated. A 5-pint man behind the wheel is far more likely to drive 40mph in a built up area than if he were sober. Alcohol induces risk-taking.

Cike you will never be able to prove or disprove this statement. I would agree with you though that a person who is a risk taker by nature, is more likely to be a risky driver with a handful of pints in them. But not everyone is a risk taker.

[Clov]

Sorry Wobbler, but there is a ton of experimental evidence indicating that people under the influence of alcohol (even small amounts) take more risks.

[gallsman]

I'm amazed at how good living you all are. I know loads of people who take a lock of pints and drive home a few miles regularly. Most men I know, and a few women would chance it on occasion.

I have lost count of the number of people who would sit to all hours and be up leaving the wains to school/pool/football/party/etc the next morning at all hours

There's a word for those people - c***ts.

Do you drive? Do you drink?

If the answer to both of these is yes the chances are very high that you have drove when over the limit, I can't understand why people are so holier than thou about this.

Which is not to take away from the immense pain that that family, and many others, have gone through as a result of drink driving accidents.

I have driven the next morning after nights out for sure. I have never "had a lock of pints and driven home".

Fair to say you live in an urban environment Gallsman?

It is, but I reject the lonely country farmer having to go five miles to his local "excuse" if that's where you're headed.

[gallsman]

Sorry, jumped the gun when I saw your post. I agree that it's more likely to be a rural problem, buy that doesn't mean I'm during here pontificating about things I can't relate to. Just don't do it, wherever you are.

[LeoMc]

A car, like a gun is a lethal weapon in the wrong hands. Anything which impairs a drivers ability increases risk. In an ideal scenario the limit would be zero but it is set as it is to give some wiggle room for those who may have residual alcohol in their system.
I would contend that there is a difference in a driver with 1 drink and 1 with 8 drinks in their system and the law should reflect that. A man doing 70 in a built up area is much more dangerous than 1 doing 85 on a motorway.
I had think I suggested in a similar thread a number of years ago a graded differentiation within the law. E.g.
20-49mgs (residual alcohol) a formal warning, then 2nd time points
50-79 (2 drinks) 3 month ban and points
80-150mg 1-5 year ban
Over 150mg, jail.
I would have mobile users in band 2 along with people on prescription drugs.
People driving when tired or whilst being distracted by fighting children I would put in category 1.

[Tony Baloney]

Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.

[laoislad]

Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.

+1

[Maguire01]

Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.

If it's 0mg, people can potentially be done from using mouthwash, or very small levels in food or medicines. 20mg seems to he the lowest you can realistically go. But apart from that, agree totally. Why you would risk it is beyond me. I'm surprised with the number of people talking about "shades of grey" on this. I wasn't naive enough to think that people didn't drink and drive, but I thought it was a lot more socially unacceptable than some of the discussion here would suggest.

[imtommygunn]

I would say in rural parts it's done quite a lot maguire. Always wonder going past pubs in the back of beyond in the middle of the day sunday how there would be sommany cars with people drinking. Quite a lot would just drive.

Have been in the car once with a very drunk driver when a lot younger and stranded at night. Wouldn't do it again.

[Farrandeelin]

Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.

This sums it up for me. I don't drink now so you might think I'm sitting on my high horse, but I used to and never once would I go driving, even if I only went to town for one, and as Tony (I think) already said, it's hard to just go for 'one' without having one bought for you, and another, and another etc.

[imtommygunn]

Haven't seen as much of it in city. Remember walking home once in the country and hear a car behind me - the guy driving up the road was that drunk he'd mounted the pavement. Lucky he was going slow.

[Tony Baloney]

I know someone who rang the cops to report their car stolen as they were that blocked when they came out of the pub to drove home they had forgotten where they parked it

[thewobbler]

Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.

And again I'll repeat ad finitum (or at least til one of the 0% brigade acknowledges this) that if you want to go down this route, then we must apply a 0% tolerance with speeding too, especially in built-up areas.

For you know what, the 30mph speed limit wasn't just written down on the side of a feg packet one morning. It's a scientifically reached number that allows for the movement of traffic, while reducing stopping distances to almost nothing in good weather, and even failing that, most people will survive being hit at this speed. At 40mph your chances of survival plummet.

I really wish this message would get though to the  pontificating masses. And I don't mean on this board, I mean in general. Drink driving is very wrong, but to repeat my earlier sentiment, I would much rather get hit by a drunk driver (let alone a drink driver) than someone who is speeding.

[93-DY-SAM]

I live rurally and I just don't buy into this argument about people living miles away from the pub so they have to drive. It's too convenient an excuse. Taxis work in the country just as well as towns and cities. Price of a taxi won't be much more than a pint or two. I just can't get my head around people who think it's acceptable to have a couple of drinks and drive. As someone else say are they really that hard up for a drink they are willing to risk it.

Just out of curiosity if I have two drinks and get stopped by the cops and am found to be just over the limit and nothing more is that an automatic one year driving ban?

[5 Sams]

We could start a whole new thread about exploits and things we saw in the 80s and 90s with lads driving home bingoed. Nothing to be proud of but it happened.