JonathanL Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 Theres a chap who i absolutely chuffing hate who is a regular drink driver. I know where and when he'll be on fridays and saturdays and i relish the thought of him getting a ban, but i just cant grass him up as its not a bit of me.I hope that what goes round comes around and he falls on his own sword. Will you still be comfortable with then when he kills someone? Perhaps someone you know? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 I would say guilty of driving without insurance. Since in a lot of cases drinking will invalidate your insurance, so he gets taken to the station because he blew orange and was involved in a incident. Blood test show he was under, cyclist puts in a claim for all manner of injuries and the insurance get wind he had a drink and wash there hands of him. Lose lose situation, and over caution is a dead give away as to a drinker. Karpman It doesn't mean that you are driving uninsured. You won't be covered for the damage to your car but you are still covered third party. If you weren't then driving without insurance would be a standard additional charge to every drink driving prosecution. I also fail to understand your reasoning here. If he's not over the limit (and assuming that being over does invalidate your policy) then how can the insurance company have a problem with it? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 This is the problem. People have been conditioned to think they can have one or two pints and still be ok to drive. Legally - yes they might, but ethically - no. Drink zero alcohol if you are driving. I'm all for lowering the blood alcohol limit. Alcohol free beer is actually very good these days. Try one! Read what he wrote. He said that you *would* be over the limit. Sorry but I call BS on that. We both knoe it is. The merits of changing the limit are not the point. On that point; personally, I don't really care but on a practical level I don't support lowering the limit. The vast majority of people who getdone are not just a bit over - they are way over. That being the case, lowering the limit won't make any difference because if you are stupid enough to drive at twice or more of the current limit then you will still drive ******-up if the limit is zero. Take Munglers story of the guy with the messy divorce who was probably on his way to top him self; how is a low, or zero, limit going to stop him? It isn't. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Read what he wrote. He said that you *would* be over the limit. Sorry but I call BS on that. We both knoe it is. The merits of changing the limit are not the point. On that point; personally, I don't really care but on a practical level I don't support lowering the limit. The vast majority of people who getdone are not just a bit over - they are way over. That being the case, lowering the limit won't make any difference because if you are stupid enough to drive at twice or more of the current limit then you will still drive ******-up if the limit is zero. Take Munglers story of the guy with the messy divorce who was probably on his way to top him self; how is a low, or zero, limit going to stop him? It isn't. J. Perhaps the vast majority of people who get done, are ones who are driving so erratically - that they are easily noticed and pulled over. The fact is though, even with a small amount of alcohol in your system, your reactions are impaired compared to what they would be with no alcohol. This makes you a higher risk, even if you are within the 'limit'. If that risk was limited to yourself only - then fine do what you wish. But typically when you are behind the wheel of a vehicle, others are involved too. No law is going to physically stop someone from breaking it - that is up to the individual to decide if breaking that law is worth the consequences. As it stands now, it is seen as morally OK to have one or two pints before getting behind the wheel - purely because you would still be within the "limit" and the implication of that "limit" is that you are "safe" to drive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 yes, the re-offending rate is the issue. if you watch those god-awful programs like car cops / motor way police etc.... they constantly pull people over who are disqualified from driving. there was a guy driving around in a white van absolutely wasted. not drunk, wasted. and he was taking out cars left right and center. guy got caught, couldnt even breath in the toximeter he was that drunk, he had been on a ban that had been extended because he keeps getting caught drunk. it apear even prison isnt a deterent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 What is your definition of 'zero tolerance? J. If you are over the limit you are banned. If you need to drive, don't drink. It's that simple. Need it making any clearer Jonathan? As to your comment about it being unlikely that someone who has consumed 2 pints over 3 hours is over the limit, I would agree it's unlikely but that alcohol may impair reaction times enough... Do you want that on your conscience? This is one of the reasons I don't drink whilst shooting, either during or after the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Jump down from your high-horse mate. Do some reading on the subject; it is extremely unlikely that anyone who had consumed two pints over the course of three hours would be over the drink drive limit. J. The reason it's a high horse is because it's such an emotive subject. I would not get in a car with someone who has had 2 pints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeds chimp Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Lower the limit would hit people that just have one or two.... it's the people that have a skin full and then drive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Lower the limit would hit people that just have one or two.... it's the people that have a skin full and then drive Exactly, and its those people who are continually drinking and driving.. as alot of re-offenders are being caught 3-4 times. i wonder how many "people" get caught drink driving compared to the amount of drink driving incidents. it wouldnt surprise me if the numbers were vastly different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overandunder2012 Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 I'm surprised that that is even possible. When you consider the amount of blood a person has in their body and the amount of alcohol in one pint of Stella it would hardly seem possible that they could be over the limit. J. i knew a guy who got done after 1 can of supper tenants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunnerbob Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Lower the limit to ZERO... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchieboy Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 What is your definition of 'zero tolerance? J. My definition of Zero Tollerance is quite simple: If any person is found to be driving with any alcohol in their blood system (regardless of how large or how small an amount) it should result in a long ban from driving effective from the minute you get caught - With no exception to the rule! If they are caught drink driving a second time it should result in an automatic prison sentence and ban from driving for life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_b_wales Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 My definition of Zero Tollerance is quite simple: If any person is found to be driving with any alcohol in their blood system (regardless of how large or how small an amount) it should result in a long ban from driving effective from the minute you get caught - With no exception to the rule! If they are caught drink driving a second time it should result in an automatic prison sentence and ban from driving for life. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Based on the posts so far, I think most of us are up for zero tolerance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Well, I would give some leeway - say 0.005 or 0.01 BAC. It is technically possible for your body to ferment trace amounts of alcohol in the gut, plus breathalisers are not that accurate and could possibly give false readings. At the moment the UK limit is 0.08 - and in much of Europe it is 0.05 Several countries have a 0.00 rule. http://www.icap.org/table/BACLimitsWorldwide The UK's limit is comparatively high compared to the rest of the world. Edited September 30, 2013 by aris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neillfrbs Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 don't mention Christmas its still September Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 everyone knows christmas starts when tescos has quality street in tins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 This is obviously an emotive subject but I don't think an absolute zero tolerance policy is workable. There's a number of things that can cause a very small reading like medicines, mouthwash ect, I don't really think it's fair that these people should face a similar punishment to someone that has clearly been drinking alcohol. Maybe more realistic would be to halve the existing limit and toughen the sentencing. I like the idea of a 2nd offence giving a life ban, if the person drives while disqual then they go in for 12 months each time they're caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboy1403 Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 i quite like how work it in new zealand. zero for young drivers i think it`s under 21 then low middle and high readings. low is borderline and given a warning middle is what is about 3-4 pints of normal larger they are held until below the low limit and summoned to court with a short ban of 3-6 months high is an instant ban and summoned to court to find out how long at least 18 months. they do a drugs test aswell that is scraped on the tongue they do all this from a mobile station with all the proper gear in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Got stopped in NZ a few years ago now. No mucking around, closed off the road and tested everyone going through the roadblock. Should try that here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 yes we are way behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpkiller Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 We can argue back and forth about levels of drunk etc Its strong enforcement on the roads we need. Ill bet most people who actually get done have caused some sort of accident then have been tested just as police procedure, theres people driving around tanked up all the time such as on the school run who are never stopped. We need more police on the road watching what people are doing not more speed cameras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Agreed Pimpkiller. Cameras will not pick up the scummers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet1747 Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Zero drink when you drive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted September 30, 2013 Report Share Posted September 30, 2013 Jump down from your high-horse mate. Do some reading on the subject; it is extremely unlikely that anyone who had consumed two pints over the course of three hours would be over the drink drive limit.J. I don't have a horse and I don't think I'm your mate. Do me a favour get a couple of tenants extra strong in and drink them over two hours, then jump in your car and pop down the local station,tell them what you have done and ask for a breathalyser test,after all you will pass it won't you. Each pint you drink reduces your perception and reaction time,if you are driving don't drink it is so simple and easy to do. I lived in Germany for 8 years and while their limit is slightly lower I knew numerous lads who had a couple after work on the Friday and were pulled and failed tests,it is how you metabolise,and everyone is different. I can drink a huge amount of whiskey and leave you on the floor while I walk out the bar, does that mean I could have a couple of whiskeys because I will look and act fine ,I don't think so. But please let me know how the experiment goes down the police station. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.