[News] Drink driving - why?

[Mental Lental]

Japan has a zero tolerance policy on drink driving. They will also prosecute passengers who knowingly let a driver drive under the influence, and the drinking establishment that supplied the driver with the alcohol if there was any way that the bartender could have conceivably known that the punter was about to get in a car afterwards......

https://www.motoring.com.au/drink-driving-in-japan-is-serious-business-50586/

 

[GT49er]

6 weeks in prison and life ban from driving for anyone caught drink driving.

How many would risk it then?

Not the Government for a start.

They can't build enough prisons now, nor can they afford people to staff them
Huge damage to the economy, with huge numbers of erstwhile productive taxpayers ceasing to be economic production units.
Huge backlash from their chums in the motor industry and motor insurance industry who would lose masses of their trade.

Good God, it might even cost them a few marginals too!

 

[GT49er]

I’d go further,life in prison with no parole,would certainly stop repeat offenders.
If you get in a car pissed then that is the consequences if you’re caught.

I sincerely hope you're not driving for the next 24 hours or so!

But fair enough, life sentence with no parole for drinking a pint and driving home - with no parole. Might as well make it the death sentence then - its much cheaper.

Or we could just have mobile gallows parked outside pub car parks......that should do it.

 

[Megazone]

The Drink driving laws needs to be readdressed.

-Death sentence for anyone driving under the influence of Lager.

-Life sentence for anyone driving under the influence of anything mixed with RedBull

-Sectioned under the mental health act 1983, for 10 years, if driving under the influence Strongbow

-Caution if it's stout or ale.

 

[darkwolf666]

Have the Police got the resources for that at a single pub location out of 1000's, when calls are coming in all the time about a multitude of crime and accidents?

No is the simple answer, which is why zero tolerance will be no more effective then the present limit - we don't have the resources to police either.

 

[bhadebenhams]

Bring back the BIRCH

 

[darkwolf666]

I’d go further,life in prison with no parole,would certainly stop repeat offenders.
If you get in a car pissed then that is the consequences if you’re caught.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, it's this sort of sensationalism that doesn't help for reasoned debate.

Not everyone who drink drives is "pissed", many are just over the limit and possibly, quite possibly completely in control - So if the perception is that its those "pissed" drivers that are causing the problem then they clearly won't see themselves as someone who is "pissed" and getting behind the wheel, so not part of the problem

Stop inferring that every drink driver is "pissed" and you may have more joy with your message.

I'm not pissed after two pints but my son in law is after one. He can legally drive at that point, whereas I can't. Maybe we should consider a sobriety test?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I believe our laws are spot on as they are and that people should be free to have a pint or a glass of wine when they're out but be punished if they go too far. Nobody wants to live in a nanny state.

 

[Renegade1]

Drink driving is unacceptable unless you are Kirsty Gallacher in which case no problem.

 

[The Gem]

If you've ever had a drink in your life (or used mouthwash) then there is never a point at which its zero. It's one of those things where it approaches zero without ever getting there. Its called an asymptote in geometry. It does of course get to a level where it is so small that it becomes unmeasurable.
However, by your argument, if you have ever had a drink in your life, you must never drive again.

As quoted here

I think the zero reading is being stated as whatever the standard measuring appliance shows as zero, at least it does in my estimation. Like the lee way on speeding there could be a minimal tolerance which would not entail prosecution.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

I don't see why there isn't a driving life ban on driving with possibly an in house curfew with tags, prison is too costly on the rest of us for their stupidity

 

[The Gem]

Zero, as in zero? What about some medications with a very small amount of alcohol in them. Don't drink and dose?
What about those with auto-brewery syndrome, they would never be allowed to drive!

OK I concede, lets say 3 to 5 micrograms then that is near to zero, people are horrified when a drink driver kills someone, but say no to lowering the micrograms as in this thread.

 

[The Camel]

Not the Government for a start.

They can't build enough prisons now, nor can they afford people to staff them
Huge damage to the economy, with huge numbers of erstwhile productive taxpayers ceasing to be economic production units.
Huge backlash from their chums in the motor industry and motor insurance industry who would lose masses of their trade.

Good God, it might even cost them a few marginals too!

It annoys me greatly that some who drinks and drives and kills someone in an accident is locked up for years, but someone who drink drives but doesn't kill just loses their license for 18 months.

THEY HAVE COMMITTED THE SAME CRIME!

Just pure chance one has killed someone and one hasn't.

And as for building new prisons etc, do you honestly think people are that stupid, that would continue drink driving after the new law came into force?

 

[happypig]

I don't see why there isn't a driving life ban on driving with possibly an in house curfew with tags, prison is too costly on the rest of us for their stupidity

A curfew order can be a requirement when imposing a community penalty. A neighbour of mine had one for a while and he said it was "absolutely terrible" (which is a good thing from a deterrence perspective).

 

[GT49er]

Now that this thread has descended into farce, hyperbole and fantasy {life without parole for drinking a pint and then driving, for example) it's time to add another stat (source DfT) into the mix.
Almost 1800 people are killed on Britain's roads every year - far too many, and each one a major tragedy for family and friends involved. One in seven (13%; DfT figures for 2016) were caused by drink drivers. Whilst it is obviously a good thing to reduce the number of drink drivers on the roads, perhaps a little more attention should be paid to the other 87% who are killing six times as many people without the need for so much as a drop of alcohol.

 

[GT49er]

It annoys me greatly that some who drinks and drives and kills someone in an accident is locked up for years, but someone who drink drives but doesn't kill just loses their license for 18 months.

THEY HAVE COMMITTED THE SAME CRIME!

Just pure chance one has killed someone and one hasn't.

And as for building new prisons etc, do you honestly think people are that stupid, that would continue drink driving after the new law came into force?

No they haven't. If a death is involved, the charge can be causing death by dangerous driving (driving when pissed is by definition dangerous) or even manslaughter.

Still, it annoys you. OK - do you honestly think any government will take that into account?

 

[The Camel]

No they haven't. If a death is involved, the charge can be causing death by dangerous driving (driving when pissed is by definition dangerous) or even manslaughter.

Still, it annoys you. OK - do you honestly think any government will take that into account?

They have committed the same crime crime (driving while pissed) but not the same offence. It is completely random if they kill or not.

Ant will be back on I'm a Celeb for the next season. You can bet your house on that. If the 4 year old in the car he hit had died, he wouldn't be. That is fuzzy thinking IMO.

Do I think imprisoning all drink drivers would make the offence less popular? Absolutely sure it would. Deaths by drink driving would be slashed.

Do I think any government would have the balls to implement my proposal? Zero chance.

 

[The Camel]

Now that this thread has descended into farce, hyperbole and fantasy {life without parole for drinking a pint and then driving, for example) it's time to add another stat (source DfT) into the mix.
Almost 1800 people are killed on Britain's roads every year - far too many, and each one a major tragedy for family and friends involved. One in seven (13%; DfT figures for 2016) were caused by drink drivers. Whilst it is obviously a good thing to reduce the number of drink drivers on the roads, perhaps a little more attention should be paid to the other 87% who are killing six times as many people without the need for so much as a drop of alcohol.

I agree with this.

As far as I understand the sentencing of people who commit crimes is based on 3 factors:

Keeping the public safe from offenders, rehabilitation and deterrent for others committing the same crime.

Now, for certain crimes, where none of the above apply I think sentences are too harsh.

But for driving crimes, I think sentences are too soft.

I saw a young guy driving down a town centre street at about 60mph the other day. A kid could easily have strayed into the road and they would have died if he'd hit them.

If the driver knew that if a policeman saw him driving like that, he would be in prison for a month, he would not have drivin that way. The deterrent would be huge.

 

[GT49er]

They have committed the same crime crime (driving while pissed) but not the same offence. It is completely random if they kill or not.

Ant will be back on I'm a Celeb for the next season. You can bet your house on that. If the 4 year old in the car he hit had died, he wouldn't be. That is fuzzy thinking IMO.

OK then, sensible discussion. For all offences, there is usually a range of sentences the judges or magistrates can apply, and the outcome of the crime is one of the things they will quite properly take into consideration when determining the sentence. If you assault someone and put them in hospital (probably GBH) you will get a sentence. If the injuries you inflict turn out to be life changing and they leave the bloke permanently in a wheel chair, you can reasonably expect a longer sentence. Do you not think that's as it should be?
Similarly with drink driving - two people in court (after random breath tests, no accidents or casualties involved). One is 5% over the limit, the other three times over the limit. What would you suggest - equal punishment, or a much more severe sentence for the one who was patently smashed?

 

[Notters]

OK then, sensible discussion. For all offences, there is usually a range of sentences the judges or magistrates can apply, and the outcome of the crime is one of the things they will quite properly take into consideration when determining the sentence. If you assault someone and put them in hospital (probably GBH) you will get a sentence. If the injuries you inflict turn out to be life changing and they leave the bloke permanently in a wheel chair, you can reasonably expect a longer sentence. Do you not think that's as it should be?
Similarly with drink driving - two people in court (after random breath tests, no accidents or casualties involved). One is 5% over the limit, the other three times over the limit. What would you suggest - equal punishment, or a much more severe sentence for the one who was patently smashed?

This surely applies to all crimes in any case. E.g. a builder not following building regs with or without the house collapsing and killing the occupants. You couldn't have the maximum sentence for everyone as a large number of crimes could ultimately lead to someone getting killed. Ultimately, I guess it's down to probability?