Drink driving limits

2 pints is 2.5 times the legal limit? 1 pint is usually over the limit.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your argument. You say people should be allowed to drink 2 pints and drive even though thats more than twice over the limit, yet people who break the legal limit and kill someone should get done for murder?

What kind of stuff have you been drinking?

Obviously it varies depending on a person's mass, what they've eaten, metabolism etc. but from most sources I've ever seen/heard 2 pints is roughly on the limit.

I obviously don't think people should drive around over double the limit. Why would you pretend that I think that?

bonkers

Explain.

What kind of stuff have you been drinking?

 

Obviously it varies depending on a person's mass, what they've eaten, metabolism etc. but from most sources I've ever seen/heard 2 pints is roughly on the limit.

 

I obviously don't think people should drive around over double the limit. Why would you pretend that I think that?

 

 

 

Explain.

I apologise, I thought the limit was 1 x 4% lager, but just checked and you're right. I've always kept to the one myself.

I've driven after one pint plenty of times because I know it has no effect on my judgement.

But it's now illegal in Scotland and most of Europe.

Explain.

You think drink driving is the same as attempted murder, I said that's bonkers, and I need to explain!

You get some f*cking weirdos on this place.

It's the dickheads you see driving, whilst holding a mobile to their ear, in a car which is clearly fitted with bluetooth or some other system that doesn't mean they need to hold a phone. Morons.

Thats because they are using the blue tooth for music. Working back on the roads I see it everyday, hundreds of them either phoning or texting. Doughnuts.

Fwiw they are now thinking of banning bluetooth aswell and effectively saying that you shouldnt be on the phone at all whilst driving. Atleast one large company (bt?) has banned bluetooth in their vehicles and make sure their staff pull over to make calls. Also if you have an accident whilst on the phone, even bluetooth, it will go against you in court.

From a drink drive limit POV I think they have a choice to make, leave it as it is or just go to effectively zero. There really is little point cutting it in half. Its not enough to change culture yet will effectively make many people 'drink drivers'

I support Lighthouses POV though not murder but to ensure drink drivers face harsher penalties. And its definately worse than speeding IMO. Driving 100mph on the motorway isnt inherantly dangerous dependant on conditions, statistically motorways are our safest roads. If you speed on say rural roads however you are probably a bit of a tit

That's a bit harsh ! They should be allowed to drive provided they have proof that they're dropping off or picking up their old man from the pub, or doing the weekly shop.

 

Talking of pubs and being over the limit in the morning, I play 5 a side with a copper. He told me they now moniter cars left in pub car parks overnight. By leaving your car you are advertising the fact that you're on the lash. When you pick your car up in the morning they breathalise you. He said they're nicking as many drink drivers in the morning as they are at night. He advised us to never leave you car in pub carpark overnight ,unless you're 100% sure you'll pass the test next morning. Leave your car on a nearby street.

Years ago, I collected someone in the same trade as myself to price a job on a sunday morning. He asked me to drop him at eastleigh conservative club as he'd left his car there overnight, and as he drove away I saw a police car immediately pull him over. He lost his licence, though to be fair he really was a very heavy drinker.

2 pints is 2.5 times the legal limit? 1 pint is usually over the limit.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your argument. You say people should be allowed to drink 2 pints and drive even though thats more than twice over the limit, yet people who break the legal limit and kill someone should get done for murder?

It's different for everyone - You can't say '2 pints is over' for everyone because it's not. Age, gender, build, etc are all factors.

If you have a drink, you shouldn't drive. Simple.

Good to see the police out in force last night . Just pulling motorists over to do a breath test . Previous years it was for a broken light , erratic driving or normally doing winter road checks. At least in ow they will not need a dodgy light to pull you over.

Local restuarants in Scotland have been asked to reduce the amount of wine and alcohol used in their cooking techniques

You think drink driving is the same as attempted murder, I said that's bonkers, and I need to explain!

 

You get some f*cking weirdos on this place.

So deliberately doing something very dangerous and not caring if you kill anyone is nowhere near as deliberately trying to kill someone in your opinion?

To me it's the same. If your kids were run over and killed by a drunk driver and he came up to you and said, "look I didn't try to kill them, I just don't give a sh*t that I did," how would you feel? That's what it comes down to, a dead person is dead whether you meant to kill them or not.

So deliberately doing something very dangerous and not caring if you kill anyone is nowhere near as deliberately trying to kill someone in your opinion?

 

To me it's the same. If your kids were run over and killed by a drunk driver and he came up to you and said, "look I didn't try to kill them, I just don't give a sh*t that I did," how would you feel? That's what it comes down to, a dead person is dead whether you meant to kill them or not.

It's criminal negligence, but definitely not attempted murder. You are trying to change the very basis of criminal law, which is intent.

Look up Actus Reus, Mens Rea and criminal negligence.

So deliberately doing something very dangerous and not caring if you kill anyone is nowhere near as deliberately trying to kill someone in your opinion?

 

To me it's the same. If your kids were run over and killed by a drunk driver and he came up to you and said, "look I didn't try to kill them, I just don't give a sh*t that I did," how would you feel? That's what it comes down to, a dead person is dead whether you meant to kill them or not.

Same could be said for speaking on the phone whilst driving, or texting, or smoking, or changing CD, or eating, or driving too fast, or checking out the ass of some totty in your wing mirror whilst you should be watching the road. All potentially dangerous so as bad as attempted murder - in your opinion?

It's criminal negligence, but definitely not attempted murder. You are trying to change the very basis of criminal law, which is intent.

 

Look up Actus Reus, Mens Rea and criminal negligence.

Perhaps, I'm not expecting this to be the law and I'm sure there is a lot of legal waffle about why it couldn't be made the case. I just see it as being that bad on a moral level.

To me it is in the same mindset as walking into a school with a gun and shooting in random directions. You might not be trying to kill anyone but you are wilfully committing actions which very easily could kill someone.

I would say it's worse than simply negligence. To give another example, supposing you were the safety inspector in some form of industrial gasworks. A negligent man would not bother to check a safety value, leading to a big explosion. Whereas drink driving would be like deliberately opening a safety value for no reason, knowing that it would release explosive gasses.

Sorry if these examples seem odd, I'm just trying to show how I think drink driving is worse than simply negligence.

Same could be said for speaking on the phone whilst driving, or texting, or smoking, or changing CD, or eating, or driving too fast, or checking out the ass of some totty in your wing mirror whilst you should be watching the road. All potentially dangerous so as bad as attempted murder - in your opinion?

You could list a hundred distractions to the average road user. Kids, pets, music, food, whatever. We've all had a text whilst driving and looked down to see who it's from, or changed the radio, eaten some God forsaken Ginsters pasty from the services. etc. etc. I think there should be tougher sentences for people caught using phones. Food not so much, I'm perfectly capable of eating a sandwich whilst driving and never looking away from the road.

Drink driving is worse than any of them IMO because it impairs your judgement, coordination and reaction times for the whole duration of the journey. It would be like looking down at your phone writing a text for the WHOLE time you were driving.

I don't see why the punishments should be less than attempted murder. There is no need for ANYBODY to EVER do it. If I ruled the country I would say it's 10 years in prison and if you don't like it then don't drink drive.

You could list a hundred distractions to the average road user. Kids, pets, music, food, whatever. We've all had a text whilst driving and looked down to see who it's from, or changed the radio, eaten some God forsaken Ginsters pasty from the services. etc. etc. I think there should be tougher sentences for people caught using phones. Food not so much, I'm perfectly capable of eating a sandwich whilst driving and never looking away from the road.

 

Drink driving is worse than any of them IMO because it impairs your judgement, coordination and reaction times for the whole duration of the journey. It would be like looking down at your phone writing a text for the WHOLE time you were driving.

 

I don't see why the punishments should be less than attempted murder. There is no need for ANYBODY to EVER do it. If I ruled the country I would say it's 10 years in prison and if you don't like it then don't drink drive.

You might want to check the other thread about using your phone whilst driving:

"a driver’s reaction times slowed by 46% when he or she was making a call on a hand-held mobile, by 37% when texting while driving and by 27% during hands-free calls.

For those on the drink-drive limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, reaction times were reduced by 13%"

I don't drink and drive, or condone it, but i know people who do it all the time and they havn't killed anyone - fact is some people can probably drive better after a few beers than some idiots can sober.

You might want to check the other thread about using your phone whilst driving:

 

"a driver’s reaction times slowed by 46% when he or she was making a call on a hand-held mobile, by 37% when texting while driving and by 27% during hands-free calls.

For those on the drink-drive limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, reaction times were reduced by 13%"

 

I don't drink and drive, or condone it, but i know people who do it all the time and they havn't killed anyone - fact is some people can probably drive better after a few beers than some idiots can sober.

I wouldn't argue against it if using a phone whilst driving was given a similar punishment. Texting certainly is lethal.

The difference is that someone might spend 30 seconds of an hour long car journey distracted by texting. A drunk driver will have impaired judgement and reactions for the entire journey.

Perhaps, I'm not expecting this to be the law and I'm sure there is a lot of legal waffle about why it couldn't be made the case. I just see it as being that bad on a moral level.

 

To me it is in the same mindset as walking into a school with a gun and shooting in random directions. You might not be trying to kill anyone but you are wilfully committing actions which very easily could kill someone.

 

I would say it's worse than simply negligence. To give another example, supposing you were the safety inspector in some form of industrial gasworks. A negligent man would not bother to check a safety value, leading to a big explosion. Whereas drink driving would be like deliberately opening a safety value for no reason, knowing that it would release explosive gasses.

 

Sorry if these examples seem odd, I'm just trying to show how I think drink driving is worse than simply negligence.

But the bottom example is criminal negligence or gross criminal negligence, so you've proved my point.

Criminal negligence is recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death. This can be careless, inattentive, neglectful or willfully blind.

This becomes gross when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life".

How does this not cover what you are saying?

No, you are right with that definition. If that's the same as what I am saying then fair enough, it is gross negligence. I just feel it should be distinguished from being simply lazy or careless as you are actively choosing to put lives in danger for no valid reason.

No, you are right with that definition. If that's the same as what I am saying then fair enough, it is gross negligence. I just feel it should be distinguished from being simply lazy or careless as you are actively choosing to put lives in danger for no valid reason.

And here is a case where it was applied:

“The act of the oncoming driver who was seriously over the drink driving limit for alcohol was gross criminal negligence and amounted to the unlawful killing of the deceased.”

And some sentencing guidelines for you:

Death by Dangerous Driving

Death by dangerous driving

Date Updated: January 2012

Title: Road traffic offences

Offence: Causing death by dangerous driving

Legislation: Road Traffic Act 1988 s.1

Commencement Date: 1 July 1992

Mode of Trial: Indictable only

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty:

14 years imprisonment with effect from 27/02/2004 (increased from 10 years imprisonment by s.285 Criminal Justice Act 2003)

Minimum disqualification of 2 years with compulsory extended re-test.

Sentencing Range: See below

Relevant Sentencing Guidelines (If Any)

The SGC definitive guideline "Causing Death by Driving" applies to all offenders convicted of this offence and sentenced on or after 4 August 2008.

The guideline applies to a "first-time offender" aged 18 or over convicted after trial who has not been assessed as a dangerous offender requiring a sentence under ss. 224-228 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (as amended).

Culpability & Harm

Levels of seriousness

The 3 levels are distinguished by factors related predominantly to the standard of driving; the general description of the degree of risk is complemented by examples of the type of bad driving arising. The presence of aggravated factors or combinations of a small number of determinants of seriousness will increase the starting point within the range. Where there is a larger group of determinants of seriousness and/or aggravating factors, this may justify moving the starting point to the next level.

Level 1 - The most serious offence encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others. Such offences are likely to be characterised by:

A prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving AND/OR

Consumption of substantial amounts of alcohol or drugs leading to gross impairment AND/OR

A group of determinants of seriousness which in isolation or smaller number would place the offence in level 2.

Level 1 is that for which the increase in maximum penalty was aimed primarily. Where an offence involved both of the determinants of seriousness identified, particularly if accompanied by aggravating factors such as multiple deaths or injuries, or a very bad driving record, this may move an offence towards the top of the sentencing range.

The most serious offences encompassing driving that involved a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others

Starting point: 8 years custody

Sentencing range: 7-14 years custody

In the past week at least ten people have been killed in Scotland many in the highlands and Grampian areas.not one has been through drink driving by any of the parties involved .

Accidents do occur but there is to much emphasis on alcohol as being the cause. It's not in a couple if recent cases it's been down to the stupidity of the driver overtaking at the inappropriate moment not realising what's coming in the opposite direction .

All car drivers should spend two weeks riding a motorbike on the roads. I did it for 4 years before taking my car test and its a huge eye opener to taking notice of things like the conditions and road surface, but also just how terrible most car drivers are. On a bike you have to expect cars to not see you, to not check properly at junctions, to overtake when they should not, to drift over the white line at bends (happens frighteningly often), to not leave enough braking space and a host of other things. I am convinced it made me a better driver.

On the subject of alcohol, I never touched it while on a bike, seeing as I had to check for potholes and gravel and wet leaves. In a car, I rarely do, but a maximum of one.

In the past week at least ten people have been killed in Scotland many in the highlands and Grampian areas.not one has been through drink driving by any of the parties involved .

Accidents do occur but there is to much emphasis on alcohol as being the cause. It's not in a couple if recent cases it's been down to the stupidity of the driver overtaking at the inappropriate moment not realising what's coming in the opposite direction .

I do find the driving up there extraordinary. The overtaking is often suicidal. They should be educating the youngsters.

There is also no crime up there so the police have nothing to do other than to target drink drivers. I have been stopped several times up there; they are far hotter on it up there than down here.

Sergei , I no exactly where your coming from . There is crime up here . But the police either deny it or manipulate the figures to show there us next to know crime .

The police have said there us no burglary in Orkney ask the folk who have been burgled . They will tell you a different story . The Italian chapel had two plaques stolen . But it's not recorded as theft . It's worse on the Scottish mainland .

I do find the driving up there extraordinary. The overtaking is often suicidal. They should be educating the youngsters.

 

There is also no crime up there so the police have nothing to do other than to target drink drivers. I have been stopped several times up there; they are far hotter on it up there than down here.

Soft targets. Easy work for lazy policemen.

Maybe , the police should be now testing for drugs as well . How hte hell did this guy get a way with being an HGV driver for when he had been a heroin addict for almost 20 years. I wonder how many accidents he caused in that time

"Death driver on heroin A lorry driver who died after driving into the back of a stationary motorway warning lorry told paramedics he had taken a bag of heroin the night before the crash.

John Paul Pratt was fatally hurt in the crash on the M80 near Denny in 2012.

A Fatal Accident Inquiry heard that he had been a heroin addict for almost 20 years, and had drugs in the lorry."

I've been given a couple of leaflets by Hampshire County Council to distribute among the staff today about how long after drinking it's safe to drive:

http://www.morning-after.org.uk/index.html

As per above link.....Drink five bottles of lager and you should not drive for at least 11 hours. That's 11am the morning after if you finish drinking at midnight.

Seems a bit OTT to me. 5 bottles of lager is about 3 pints. Not saying you should drive home, but I'd have thought you'd be ok in the morning.

As per above link.....Drink five bottles of lager and you should not drive for at least 11 hours. That's 11am the morning after if you finish drinking at midnight.

 

Seems a bit OTT to me. 5 bottles of lager is about 3 pints. Not saying you should drive home, but I'd have thought you'd be ok in the morning.

Isn't that table alcohol free? 4 units is the drink drive limit so probably more like 7 hours...