[News] Drink driving - why?

[Steve in Japan]

To answer the general question, I am going to say lack of enforcement. If Ant hadn't crashed, he would have got away with it.

I know there are police represented on this forum who may well have different views, but my impression is that you'd have to be driving pretty badly (or in a car with an obvious defect) to run any real risk of being pulled over. The police are busy enough dealing with the general population who are unable to drive a few miles without crashing into something.

Compare and contrast with other countries who routinely set up road blocks and breathalyse everybody coming through.

 

[The Clamp]

So what if you didn't have too much the night before and you don't have a hangover and you're perfectly fine to drive? Tough, you might have a little alcohol in your blood still so The Clamp says you can't drive.

I doesn't make sense. There's no evidence to say your driving is affected, so banning it just because you don't like to drink until your day's commitments are over is daft.

Whatever. I'm arguing for removing all doubt. Breathalyse yourself in the morning, if you have alcohol in your bloodstream, you're on the bus. Simple. I shouldn't worry though. It'll never happen and I cannot be arsed to get into one of your long drawn out breakdowns of every word of everyone's post.

 

[Springal]

It would help if other drinks were a bit cheaper. When pubs charge £2 for half a pint of cheap lemonade it's not exactly an incentive. And if you want anything with a bit of flavour such as pineapple juice (for instance) then it'll be more than a pint of ale.

Do people think like that?

 

[Triggaaar]

Whatever. I'm arguing for removing all doubt. Breathalyse yourself in the morning, if you have alcohol in your bloodstream, you're on the bus.

If you've got a breathalyser that is accurate enough for that, you could equally check you're under the limit, which removes all doubt.

I cannot be arsed to get into one of your long drawn out breakdowns of every word of everyone's post.

Bye then

 

[The Clamp]

If you've got a breathalyser that is accurate enough for that, you could equally check you're under the limit, which removes all doubt.

Bye then

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's cake with alcohol in it, why wouldn't it be in your blood? It would.

I’m pretty certain the minimal amount of booze in a regular Xmas cake will not even register on your breath a short while after being consumed and absorption into the blood stream is in stages so the minimal amount of booze will be even smaller. Very very quickly the alcohol will be below the level of quantification of the machine. In normal circumstances, regular Xmas cake and a short pause before getting in a car, I struggle to see the issue.

 

[happypig]

No it wouldn’t. As I understand it the process is you have the breathalyser screen, if you fail a blood test is then taken. The conviction is on the blood test. Recently eaten Xmas cake alcohol on your breath will not be in your blood. Neither will a pint from the night before.

Not exactly. The police have a roadside breath test. If you fail that you're taken to the police station and given two goes on the breath machine. The lower reading is used. If you blow between 36 and 40 (the limit is 35), you are offered a blood test. If you blow over 40, you're charged. With the blood test the limit is 79. They can also do urine, the limit being 106.

I've seen literally hundreds of drink drive cases and, somewhat uniquely, it crosses all boundaries, old/young, rich/poor, men/women. The only common factors are "he said he'd only had a pint" and "I thought I'd be ok".

Personally I'd lower the limit to about 10 (in breath, similar reductions for blood/wee) so that one pint/wine/short puts you over the limit but a couple the night before (and I mean a couple, not a skinful) will be ok.

As for penalties, I'd ban repeat offenders for life and those who are caught driving whilst banned should go straight inside.

 

[AmexRuislip]

The thing with drink driving, is you have a choice.
You do or you don't, but if you do, you're knowingly risking your life and also of others, whether you meant it or not.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I agree with the people who think there should be zero tolerance, if you've had a drink, you shouldn't be driving. It should be that simple - however inconvenient.

I understand the temptation to drive if you're feeling fine or only had a couple and you're used to drinking more, and you're not in the right mind when you've had a drink or two - but the law should be very clear and very simple. If you have a drink, you should not be driving and if you choose to do so, you live with the consequences.

 

[Bold Seagull]

...point already covered...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not exactly. The police have a roadside breath test. If you fail that you're taken to the police station and given two goes on the breath machine. The lower reading is used. If you blow between 36 and 40 (the limit is 35), you are offered a blood test. If you blow over 40, you're charged. With the blood test the limit is 79. They can also do urine, the limit being 106.

I've seen literally hundreds of drink drive cases and, somewhat uniquely, it crosses all boundaries, old/young, rich/poor, men/women. The only common factors are "he said he'd only had a pint" and "I thought I'd be ok".

Personally I'd lower the limit to about 10 (in breath, similar reductions for blood/wee) so that one pint/wine/short puts you over the limit but a couple the night before (and I mean a couple, not a skinful) will be ok.

As for penalties, I'd ban repeat offenders for life and those who are caught driving whilst banned should go straight inside.

But I still struggle to see how someone could blow 36 and then fail a blood test after a regular slice of Xmas cake about 30 minutes earlier ie pulled over and now at the station. I gave some explanation above.

 

[Gazwag]

Whatever. I'm arguing for removing all doubt. Breathalyse yourself in the morning, if you have alcohol in your bloodstream, you're on the bus. Simple. I shouldn't worry though. It'll never happen and I cannot be arsed to get into one of your long drawn out breakdowns of every word of everyone's post.

Not sure how a DIY breathalyser can tell how much alcohol is in the blood. Good way to increase bus use of those who use mouthwash though.

 

[A1X]

If someone is caught then crush their car (assuming it's theirs) and ban them from driving for five years. Make the punishment actually hurt.

I'd extend the same to morons who use their phone while driving too, but crushing their phone too and banning them from owning one of them for five years.

 

[Buzzer]

To answer the general question, I am going to say lack of enforcement. If Ant hadn't crashed, he would have got away with it.

I know there are police represented on this forum who may well have different views, but my impression is that you'd have to be driving pretty badly (or in a car with an obvious defect) to run any real risk of being pulled over. The police are busy enough dealing with the general population who are unable to drive a few miles without crashing into something.

Compare and contrast with other countries who routinely set up road blocks and breathalyse everybody coming through.

I might be wrong here but if it's the case that we don't enforce it as strictly or as often then we'd get disproportionately higher deaths from drink-drivers compared to other countries, wouldn't we? The figures don't back that up though:

https://matadornetwork.com/read/mapped-countries-worst-drinking-driving-statistics/

 

[Bozza]

But I still struggle to see how someone could blow 36 and then fail a blood test after a regular slice of Xmas cake about 30 minutes earlier ie pulled over and now at the station. I gave some explanation above.

It wouldn't of course, but you seemed to be stating the case for a 0% limit. Therefore any detectable alcohol in the bloodstream would lead to a conviction being pursued, whether that's come from Christmas cake, medicine (some medicines are as strong as 12.5%) or whatever.

 

[Jam The Man]

The utter bell end that my daughter was going out with until last week used to always have 'just the one' - thankfully that's a risk I wont have to worry about any more. Just one on a list of many reasons why he was a bell end.

My wife's uncle doesn't ever wear a seat belt because he "doesn't want to"

 

[Gazwag]

(some medicines are as strong as 12.5%) or whatever.

Apparently Listerine mouthwash contains 27%

 

[DumLum]

Ant (or Dec) arrested for drink driving after hitting another car and hospitalising a young child in it. Footballer Darren Gibson writing off his Merc at the weekend and all those other selfish c-words who get into their car after a skinful every day of the week. I'm not a big one for grassing people up to the police but I've absolutely no qualms about doing it in the case of drink-driving.

I was under the impression, quite possibly wrong, that we've some of the strictest drink laws in the world. I don't get why people still do it and is there any more we could do to deter people from putting the rest of us at risk? Longer bans? Bigger penalties?

I think it should be a prison sentance.

When a drink driver kills somebody they usually go to prison. I can't see much difference between that and getting in the car drunk other than a slice of luck.

 

[Springal]

If someone is caught then crush their car (assuming it's theirs) and ban them from driving for five years. Make the punishment actually hurt.

What if they don't own the car?

 

[A1X]

What if they don't own the car?

The driving ban suffices. If the owner is found to be a party to the crime however they should see some sort of punishment too.