Loc k him up for a long time.....

[London Calling]

the first i heard of this was Saturday evening when they stated an unnamed footballer was involved. Sunday, its top news story. unfortunatly ~10 people die everyday on our roads, and im sure this is not a unique incident involving children. sorry but this is cult of celebrity, even an ordinary person was involved it might not have even made the local news.



thats ok in theory until you understand different people metabolise alcohol at different rates and it depends on activity too (sleeping is slower than if you are clubbing for example). if you had no limit at all you'd find people being down for driving at 10pm who had a wine at lunch time, or have used a breath freshener. theres an arguement for a lower limit, but no limit would be unworkable.

My mate is a Policeman and they are not allowed any alcohol in their system, whist on duty.

It is up to him to decide when to stop drinking.

 

[Box of Frogs]

i am not sticking up for him, but he could have had insurance because if you fail the breath test ur insurance then becomes invalid as no company would cover you for driving whilst over the drink drive limit, hence no insurance

No it doesn't! The insurance is still valid regardless of whether the driver was over the limit or not. However, the fact that he was over the limit will severely prejudice any liability arguement he might have. In other words he will struggle to prove the accident was not his fault.

With regard to insurance, the Motor Insurers Database (MID) gives insurers and the Police instant access to the insurance details (or not) of every car on the road simply by entering the registration number and date of accident.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Whoever asked about maximum sentences in this case: 6 months for drink driving (because it's a summary offence, triable in magistrates' court) and 14 years for causing death by dangerous driving.

People never get given maximum sentences, although the fact that two children were involved and the inevitable emotional impact of that will no doubt have some impact on the judge's decision, were the defendant to be found guilty.

In terms of the charge, you get breathalysed by the roadside, which, depending on the police force, may only show pass or fail (some forces can tell the exact level of alcohol, but this is not admissible as evidence). You then have to provide two evidential samples of breath at the police station, of which the lower reading is used in court, where applicable

If the lower reading is over 40 microgrammes of alcohol per 100ml of breath-the legal limit being 35-, you are still likely to be charged, however you have the option to request a sample of blood is taken, which will then be analysed. That has to be sent off to a lab while you're released on bail, so it's safe to assume that this isnt' the case with McCormick, who's already been charged. If it comes up over 50 mcg/100ml breath, then you automatically get charged, no arguments. I assume that to be the case here.

Very few people are able to contest this kind of evidence in court (apart from rich footballers who employ lawyers with no consciences to get them off on the grounds that some overworked copper accidentally spelt the defendant's name wrong on the form etc) and most plead guilty.

Insurance, believe it or not, can throw up lots of grey areas. That McCormick's been charged doesn't necessarily mean he just didn't bother- it could be that his policy expired a day previously, it could mean he had insurance but that it didn't cover the type of vehicle he was driving or the purpose he was using it for, it could be that a direct debit payment was missed meaning the insurance company voided it. Maybe it wasn't his car and he mistakenly thought his own policy covered him to drive it- all are quite regular occurrences.

If there's any doubt re insurance, people tend to get charged anyway, to sit alongside any other charges. If they turn up to court with valid documents, then the charge gets dropped.

 

[Gazwag]

but no limit would be unworkable.

Zero limit will also mean nobody can drive as I believe everybody has trace elements in their body of whatever chemicals are appropriate, some people have more than others, which would give a higher than zero reading for everybody.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Good point, hadn't thought of that, drinking and driving probably negates any insurance policy...thus automatically invalidating any that is held and rendering the driver uninsured.

You're in the world of "probably" and "automatically" I see.

I've just checked a couple of motor insurance policies that I'm responsible for (at work, as it happens) and I can't find any general exceptions along those lines.

My understanding of the need for insurance cover to be available is that if a pissed-up idiot smashes into my vehicle, I would expect his insurance to cover my costs. I wouldn't be at all impressed if his insurance company then claimed that his insurance was "invalid", because he was pissed.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Can I just clarify that your insurance is not invalidated because you're pissed, otherwise it would be grossly unfair on anyone injured or suffering a financial loss due to a drink driver. It would only be the driver himself that was affected by the insurer refusing to pay out for their own car, and most of us would say fair dos to that.

It seems to be the season for drink driving. I've had to carry out more evidential breath tests on people nicked for DD over the past two or three weekends than in the previous three months combined. Summer weather seems to make people lose all sense of reason.


Any one of those could have been in the same boat as McCormick, but perhaps fortunately were spotted and picked up before they had the chance to kill anyone
(

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Luke McCormick was remanded on bail by Fenton Magistrates this morning and is due to appear next in Stoke Crown Court on 16th June.

 

[User removed 4]

Dunno mate. Me dad was killed by a drunk driver, and me mum put in hospital for a long period, when I was eighteen. The kiddie that did it was about the same age as me, not long passed his test and just over the limit. Everybody was traumatised; our family, his family, his mum was horrifically distraught in court (my mum was still in hospital at the time). Lad got six months inside. I think that was about right. People have to live with the consequences of their actions for a very long time, and that's maybe more of a punishment than any arbitrary prison sentence. IMHO like.

i dont know what the word is to describe how forgiving that is , i just doubt i would be the same if something as terrible happened to me .

 

[Gully]

You're in the world of "probably" and "automatically" I see.

I've just checked a couple of motor insurance policies that I'm responsible for (at work, as it happens) and I can't find any general exceptions along those lines.

My understanding of the need for insurance cover to be available is that if a pissed-up idiot smashes into my vehicle, I would expect his insurance to cover my costs. I wouldn't be at all impressed if his insurance company then claimed that his insurance was "invalid", because he was pissed.

OK, I stand corrected...I won't be seeking alternative employment in the insurance industry. However, my opinion was really based on the fact that insurance companies will often do all they can to get out of paying a claim and an assumption that doing something so incredibly stupid as getting behind the wheel when drunk or off your face would nullify the policy...granted that there should still be protection for third parties as they were stupid enough to insure you in the first place.

 

[sully]

I find it incredible four pages in that nobody had the same reaction as me to this news story.

Why is it always the innocents - not in contol of either vehicle involved - that get killed?

And people say there's a god!

It's so desperately unfair.

 

[Mr Blobby]

Footballer in court over deaths

The boys' mother attended court holding a photograph of her sons
Plymouth Argyle goalkeeper Luke McCormick has appeared in court accused of causing the death of two brothers by dangerous driving.

The 24-year-old former England youth international is also charged with driving with excess alcohol and driving without insurance.

Brothers Arron and Ben Peak, aged 10 and eight, from Manchester, were killed in a collision on the M6 on Saturday.

Magistrates in Stoke-on-Trent released Mr McCormick on conditional bail.

He is due to appear at Stoke Crown Court on 16 June.

The boys' mother Amanda Peak attended the hearing at Fenton Magistrates' Court.

Soft toy

She arrived holding a soft toy and a framed picture of her sons.

The charges follow a police investigation into the crash on the southbound carriageway of the motorway in Staffordshire between junctions 15 and 16, near Keele services.

The brothers and their father Philip, 37, were in a Toyota Previa with friends.


Luke McCormick appeared in court facing four charges

Police said it appeared a collision happened in lane two and the Toyota left the carriageway on the near side.

It travelled down an embankment and hit trees at the bottom.

Mr McCormick, originally from Coventry, was driving a black Range Rover and was not injured in the collision which occurred shortly before 0600 BST.

Mr Peak suffered a suspected broken back and neck and remains in the University Hospital of North Staffordshire.

The family, from Partington, Manchester, were on a day out to the Silverstone racing circuit in Northamptonshire.

A family statement released on Sunday said Arron "loved life, especially football, at which he excelled" and Ben was a "happy, loving son and brother".

Three other people in the Toyota were released from hospital on Saturday.

 

[Sheebo]

****

as are all Drink Drivers

 

[eastlondonseagull]

People are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the crash was his fault? How many half-asleep drivers are out on the roads at 5.30am? Not just him, I'm sure.

And people are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the sequence of events was that he had been drinking and got into his car to drive on the motorway? How about the possibility that he might have been drinking the night before, had some kip, got up early and set off, thinking that he had slept off the effects of the alcohol?

Absolutely, LB. Many people on here will have driven the morning after a night out, thinking they've slept it off. I know I have.

The fact is, we don't know what happened. For all we know, the driver of the car that crashed fell asleep himself. Perhaps, his kids had distracted his attention... It may, indeed, all be down to maniac driving by this goalie. But we do not know, and won't do until all the facts come out.

It's a terrible terrible story and as a father myself, I cannot imagine what this family are now going through. But we do not know what happened yet.

.

 

[exeterseagull]

I have just listened to the local news report down here in Devon relating to this, he apparently worked with Devon & Cornwall Police in a road safety campaign last year..how come some footballers have such double standards.., being a Dad and taking my son out regularly on our own, I cannot even begin to fathom out the level of dispair that he and his wife must be feeling....A COMPLETE WASTE OF LIFE AND DESTRUCTION OF A FAMILY....I hope that Luke McCormack never forgets what he has caused....so very very very sad for the family...my thoughts are with them.

 

[tip top]

I see th NSC lynch mob are out in force as usual.

 

[Sheebo]

I see th NSC lynch mob are out in force as usual.

All drink drivers are twats. Fact

 

[tip top]

All drink drivers are twats. Fact

Never driven with a hangover ??

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Never driven with a hangover ??

Exactly (see my post above). I think a poll is required...

.

 

[Cecil]

All drink drivers are twats. Fact

Agreed......

 

[Skint Gull]

I see th NSC lynch mob are out in force as usual.

Oh yeah, sounds pretty unjustified doesn't it!

Bloke who is unisured (FACT, whether deliberate of not he would not be charged otherwise) drives back from a wedding at 5am having had some drinks the night before (FACT - it's bloody obvious you don't need to have had too many to still be over the limit at 5am) and 2 innocent lads are dead because of an accident with his vehicle!

I actually hope its proven to NOT be his fault but that they lock him up for 10 years anyway because he should not have been on the road in the first place. That might make the people who think 'well i'm a good driver, i'll be alright' think twice if they know they'll get locked up even if it's proven to be someone elses fault!