PDA

View Full Version : Drunk Driving.


gingernut
30th Nov 2006, 15:21
So the police have launched their annual Christmas drink drive campaign. (Don't more people drink and drive in the summer?)

Whilst not advocating d&d, having seen the disasterous results many times in my professional life.

The (massive) resources we spend on the boys in blue, advertising campaigns etc. etc. is money not well spent, as it seems to make little difference to peoples behaviour.

Are we spending our money wisely?

djk
30th Nov 2006, 15:38
Wasn't there a campaign a few years ago where the police were telling people to not drink and walk?
They did some research and found out that a lot of the fatal accidents were not caused by drunk drivers, but by drunk pedestrians either staggering out in front of cars or thinking they can make it across the road in time even though their judgement was impared by alcohol.

allan907
30th Nov 2006, 15:42
Of course they are spending money wisely - in the authorities view. And that is simply because it is easier than the administration involved in overtime, issuing summonses etc etc etc by keeping the boys in blue on the road where they belong rather than behind a desk.

It is a simple matter which the authorities continually fail to grasp:

more coppers about and visible = less road crimes (D/D, tax evasion, speeding etc etc)

It's just so much easier to sign off for a 5 million quid/dollar advertising campaign and salve ones conscience (and of course suck up to the boss immediately above you)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
30th Nov 2006, 15:46
Wasn't there a campaign a few years ago where the police were telling people to not drink and walk?
They did some research and found out that a lot of the fatal accidents were not caused by drunk drivers, but by drunk pedestrians either staggering out in front of cars or thinking they can make it across the road in time even though their judgement was impared by alcohol.

Drunk walkers only kill themselves. Drunk drivers kill otheres - it's the being in charge of a couple of tons of lethal speeding metal while pi55ed that makes it unacceptable.

VFE
30th Nov 2006, 16:35
http://www.helpjacqui.com/

Not for the faint hearted. I think it's a reasonable reminder.

VFE.

gingernut
30th Nov 2006, 17:14
Very graphic reminder VFE, perhaps we need to spend less on the police, and divert the to advertising campaigns, or vice versa.

(Although we tried something simillar in the 70's to try and stop people smoking- pictures of diseased lungs- it didn't work because people viewed themselves as being far removed from such images.)

Watched a bloke on "Traffic Cops," last night, cowering in a wood after his drunk driving resulted in horrific injuries to an "innocent" driver. Can't help thinking that no amount of high visibility policing, advertising, would make a difference to him, or others like him.

Isn't it about time we were a little more imaginative ?

frostbite
30th Nov 2006, 18:34
Can't help thinking that no amount of high visibility policing, advertising, would make a difference to him, or others like him.


Absolutely! It would take a miracle or, preferably, a severe whipping, to make any impression there.

Lon More
30th Nov 2006, 19:03
Watched the same documentary yesterday.
The brave Pikey did a runner, leaving his uninsured, untaxed BMW SUV behind but was found cowering behind a fence by a police dog (why didn't it give him a good biting BTW). He admitted being in the car, but said he'd had so much to drink he couldn't remember who'd been driving.
One of the police said on camera that the Pikey, Lee, had done the same trick last Christmas Day and had got away with it. At his caravan his wife denied all knowledge of any BMW. No forensic traces were found in the car so unfortunately the unrepentant sod was released.
Now the good bit, CPS decided to go aheadwith the case as there was a witness and CCTV footage jst before the accident. Result he's been banged up for several years. Hope that the IRS take a look at his affairs whilst he's away.
The point, TV advertising will do nothing to this type of criminal, even prison is very little deterrent. Bring back the lash

green granite
30th Nov 2006, 19:13
Drunk walkers only kill themselves.

Really what about the driver who, perhaps instinctively, swerves to avoid him on a wet road and ploughs into a crowd on the pavement. they would all have been killed/hurt because of a drunk pedestrian . :ugh::ugh:

Juud
30th Nov 2006, 20:24
gingernut, what are the penalties for DUI in the UK, and how big is your chance to get caught if you do decide to drink and drive? Also, what is the legal limit?

I was stopped at 2PM today by police doing a general check, and got breathalyzed. This is not unusual in Norway, the police is a visible presence and you know that your chances are very slim to get away with DUI.

Also, the legal limit is ZERO. Nice and easy, no mistakes or wheedling excuses possible. You consume any alcohol at all, you don't drive.
If you do, you go to jail, get a hefty fine, lose your driver's license and you might even lose your car if your reading was high enough.

When I moved here long ago from Holland, I was totally amazed at the way the Scandis would always pool their cars when going to a party, and always get a (very expensive) taxi to get back home.
I considered it rather 'unmanly'.

Having grown used to it, I realize that ther way of doing things is actually a hell of a lot smarter than what they do in most places.

Very little public awareness campaigns, but a lot of roadside checks at any hour day or night. Populace sees and feels the traffic police breathing in their necks. Add to that draconian punishments and Bob's your sober uncle.

(Scandis drink like fish, about as bad as Brits, so if they can do it here, you should be able to do it in the UK too)

Nice copper wasn't even fussed about the fact that I didn't have my license with me, nor any ID. Checked me via the license department and told me to be on my merry way.

tony draper
30th Nov 2006, 20:36
I think the Scandyhooligan zero alcohol blood level is a good idea,still lots of blokes about who say to themselves I can have another pint and still be under the limit,24 hours bottle to wheel,removes all the ambiguity.
:cool:

gingernut
30th Nov 2006, 21:26
Hi Judd, I'm not sure of the legal limit in terms of mg/ml, but I'm told that it equates to about 3 units, (about one and a half pints of "standard" UK bitter).

I seem to remember reading that you have a 4 x chance of being involved in an accident after only 2 units.

My clients report consuming 4-5 pints and "getting away" with the final test, having failed the roadside breathalyser- probably related to the delay between drinking and final testing.

Interestingly, the police are now stopping people on their way to work, around the Christmas period, looking for the effects of the "night before."

Shaggy Sheep Driver
30th Nov 2006, 21:45
Really what about the driver who, perhaps instinctively, swerves to avoid him on a wet road and ploughs into a crowd on the pavement. they would all have been killed/hurt because of a drunk pedestrian . :ugh::ugh:

I suppose that could happen, but it's a bit unlikely. What does happen all too often is that drunken drivers plough into other road users - cars, pedestirans, cyclists. That's why drunken driving isn't acceptable. You sound like you might be one trying to justify it?

Loose rivets
30th Nov 2006, 22:29
There is one immutable fact about zero alcohol level logic: it is that first drink that takes away the judgment not to have the second...third...fourth..........

"It'll be okay, I feel fine." Famous last words...for someone.

bjcc
30th Nov 2006, 22:37
gingernut

The limit in simple terms is 2.5 units for an avaarage person.

Thats about 1.25 pints of normal strength beer.

The trouble is thats impossible to judge accuratly. Avarage is what most people are not. Normal strength beer? Well, what's that?

It depends on a persons matabolism, what they have eaten, how quickly they have drunk (as the drink is going in, its also passing out of the system at the rate of about 1 unit an hour, again, for an avarage person)

As for chances of being caught? Slim in the UK, I would say, and thats from expereince of being on the side trying to catch people. Usually its plain bad luck if you get caught.

The UK does not have random testing as such, you can only be tested if you commit a moving traffic offence, are invloved in an accident, or a Police oficer has reason to suspect you are driving with a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. That is of course different from driving while drunk.

VFE
30th Nov 2006, 23:30
That's cuz there's no cars up there! :}

Sorry...... coat...... getting....

Seriously, with two pilot crews there's less chance of carnage with 3 units of booze in the system than there would be with one driver on the road. Not justifying it. Just stating the obvious. However, the problem might come in the 'unlikely event' of an emergency but we're in danger of going off topic.

The stats stand for themselves:

How many deaths on the road due to drink driving?

How many deaths in the air from drink flying?

The point many pilots try to make here is that there are far, far greater risks to flight safety than a hungover pilot but it's simply not as newsworthy, plus the remedies for these greater safety problems cost money so henceforth get ignored.

VFE.

BlooMoo
30th Nov 2006, 23:33
you can only be tested if you commit a moving traffic offence

BJ, if you think that the above represents some kind of 'constraint' to your average traffic cop/police 'service' then you really need to lift your gaze above the paperwork - difficult as it must now be - I do accept.

BM

G-CPTN
1st Dec 2006, 00:06
I was stopped at 2PM today by police doing a general check, and got breathalyzed. This is not unusual in Norway, the police is a visible presence and you know that your chances are very slim to get away with DUI.
Also, the legal limit is ZERO. Nice and easy, no mistakes or wheedling excuses possible. You consume any alcohol at all, you don't drive.
That's mighty difficult at work when you've got all those bottles of champagne to quaff during quiet moments when the passengers are sleeping! If you self-drive from work then you're KNACKERED! Unless you have an overnight (and even then you could have an early roster . . . )
I know that the Skandis are sensitive about this (twenty years ago I believe that Sweden was zero - maybe Norway too - whilst Denmark was 'a little' but nobody that I knew contemplated driving after imbibing. Mind you, the public transport was so good (in Odense) that there really was no excuse - I could catch a big red Volvo at the end of my road and get ANYWHERE within the urban area on just one ticket. All routes met in the Town Square and waited a few minutes until all had arrived. In fact it was possible to catch the bus into the Centrum, do about half-an-hour's shopping and catch a bus back home (loaded down with bags) on the same (cheap) ticket. It was a fixed fare (so you always knew how much). I wonder if it's still the same? Every bus had a large electrically-controlled (analogue) clock and drivers kept to the timetable! Folk just didn't bother with trying to take the car into town. Many did not even OWN a car (there was a 180% import duty on cars and Nationals weren't permitted to drive cars with foreign licence plates). I kept my UK licence, and although I owned a Danish car (after the first few months I returned my UK car to England) I was in great demand to drive the test vehicles with German and UK plates on public roads, so had regular weekend transport paid for by the firm. I was once caught (eventually) at ridiculous speed by a Police bike (he had to work hard to keep up and I eventually felt sorry for him and slowed down. Turned out he had friends in Newcastle so we exchanged pleasantries (in English!), I got a lecture and we parted good friends. Turned out there were only six Police bikes outside Sjaelland, so I made certain not to get caught again! 'My' vehicle was a 'hot' 3-litre Rover Vitesse . . . (on UK licence plates).
It was a long straight road yer honour and there was no other traffic (apart from HIM that is).

Must tell you sometime about the cyclist who DID manage several short stints punctuated by 'complete falling over'.

bjcc
1st Dec 2006, 06:36
BlooMoo

Oh dear, suffering from the pprune syndrome, of not reading are you Bloomoo?

Try again, read the whole thing,. and learn.........

paulc
1st Dec 2006, 07:02
It is also very difficult to judge if you are over the limit. Somebody i know went to an xmas party knowing full well that he would be drinking. He did the responsible thing and booked a taxi. Sometime during the following day, he was stopped and breathalised (some 12 hours after the party) and was still over the limit.

green granite
1st Dec 2006, 08:55
I suppose that could happen, but it's a bit unlikely. What does happen all too often is that drunken drivers plough into other road users - cars, pedestirans, cyclists. That's why drunken driving isn't acceptable. You sound like you might be one trying to justify it?

:confused::confused: Nowhere in my post do I condone drunk driving, I was pointing out that a drunk pedestrian could just as easily cause a tragedy, it's you who seem to be justifying drunk pedestrians. Neither IMHO are acceptable.

cessna l plate
1st Dec 2006, 10:25
The problem is education based to start with. Whilst "old-wives" tales of having X amount of beer to get to the limit are still doing the rounds then the problem will never go away. The issue is that there is a limit, and like a speed limit, people go up to it, or attempt to anyway. The only way to reduce this is to make the limit zero to start with. Then we will dispence with this "going to the limit" culture, as accidents, deaths etc are something that happen to other people. I have seen a bloke consue 8 pints of strong beer and remain under the limit, I personally can only take 2 or 3 pints over an entire evening to be on the limit. I know this as I once went to the nick by foot from the pub and asked for a breath kit to see if I was over. (I used to serve by the way). On training I rinsed my mouth with a little whisky, and then spent an hour in the canteen whilst it left my breath, so it depends on time as well.

The reality is that ANY amount of alcohol in the system reduces ability, end of! In that case why do we have a limit at all? However, as we live in "rip-off Britain" although not condoning the activity in any way at all, I can understand the motive to "take a risk with the limit". As buses stop before the pubs do, and taxi drivers expolit the fact that people leave cars at home and start adding on for past midnight and such. As the risks of being caught are so low I can see why some take the chance!

The American idea of making the accused go to a post-mortem is excellent, I have to admit taking all these risks myself when I was in my teens, then I joined the force and attended an RTA where the victim was seriously injured, and the accused spouted the "I only had a couple" routine The things I saw that night cured me totally, and I never have anything other than soft drinks when I drive, no booze at all! But until we have a zero limit in this country it will never go away. By the same token though, picture the scene, Winters night, 11pm and I am off to walk the streets for 8 hours. I would look out of the window, if it was raining I would take a breath kit with me. Walk a few hundred yards to the local entertainment centre (bars clubs, cinema etc) and wait on the road out. The latest I ever got back to the warm dry nick with a prisoner was midnight! It can be easy to get caught if there are sufficient police to have an effect, but that's another thread I think.

Bangkokeasy
1st Dec 2006, 10:31
Now, I do NOT condone drunken driving in any of its warped shapes or forms. :=

...but I live in a country where it was not illegal to drive drunk until around a decade ago and testing machines are still as rare as rocking horse droppings.

I recall an incident many moons ago when a friend, after waaay too many, took a tuk tuk (literally), putting the driver in the back and attempting to drive it home himself. After some distance, he was stopped by the police, mostly because he couldn't work out how to drive the thing properly. Being so far gone, he flatly refused to get out. He only agreed to move, when the police acquiesced to provide him with a police escort, presidential style, while he drove the tuk tuk back to his lodgings.

gingernut
1st Dec 2006, 12:00
Sorry to be pedantic, but is a zero limit a true zero limit?

I think at anyone time, the human body contains some alcohol.

I had half a pint of "Fiddlers elbow" (real ale), and two (small) glasses of wine last night at about 8pm. Would I be guilty under a "zero" limit whilst driving to work at 7am this morning.

(I'm not an expert on physiology, but by my reckoning, I would still have some alcohol in my blood stream still.)

bjcc
1st Dec 2006, 13:10
Gingernut

This keeps being mentioned by some, but, in my time in the Police, I saw a fair few blow absolute zero on breath and come back as zero on blood tests.

In fact I had an accident a few months ago, and was breath tested by Hants Police (now done as a matter of routine) and blew zero. I had had 2 pints the night before, but I wouldn't have expected them to be in my system at all, which was correct, more than 8 hours later, they were not.

I don't know if that is because there is a filtering of low readings, but given the limit is zero in some countries I doubt it.

eal401
1st Dec 2006, 13:33
A zero limit would be nice, but realistically would it really make a difference? (In the same respect as speed limits don't exactly work, along with many other rules of the road.)

What needs to be tackled is the concept of drinking, specifically reinforcing the fact that you do not always have to drink alcohol to have a good time. If you feel you do need booze to enjoy yourself, you are mentally ill in some way.

As a back up, public transport needs to run later that it does in some areas. I'm lucky, everywhere I've lived has buses going home after the old closing time.

But, what does make me angry is the increased "policing" of drink driving at this time of year. Is it not as important at other times?

VFE
1st Dec 2006, 13:46
If you feel you do need booze to enjoy yourself, you are mentally ill in some way.
That's most my mates screwed then! Still, I knew that anyway. :}

I'm sorry but that's just a cosmic example of naivety.

VFE.

gingernut
1st Dec 2006, 14:33
Yeh, I guess I am being pedantic, but if bjcc had had 2 pints the night before his crash, you would have had some alcohol in your system, albeit, so small the blood/breath test failed to detect it.

I think we've got to be careful when banding around terms such as "absolute zero," as this does not reflect the true picture.

Any physiolgists care to elaborate ??

Eal, you said, If you feel you do need booze to enjoy yourself, you are mentally ill in some way.

In fact, the opposite could be true, as it is widely accepted that some drinking is actually beneficial to your health. In fact, some would say that rates of "ill health, " (including mental health), are higher in tea-totallers. Do you drink yourself?

I accept your point about the usefulness of extra policing- I'm not aware of any figures supporting the effectiveness of this strategy- perhaps we should use the money more effectively.

dublinamg
1st Dec 2006, 15:15
Got done for drink driving myself last week. I was a total dick to risk it but I did and unluckliy I got stopped and was over the limit. Spent the night in the cells and will be in court next month. I only have a provisional license so it was a totally stupid thing to do - I didn't plan on having much to drink but I had more than I should and stopped using my brain.

Worse thing for me is that I have a suspended sentence from 2 years ago so it could end up pretty nasty for me in court. From what I did before I threw away my chance of being a pilot for years or joining the Air Corps - now at best I'll lose my license for a while and have huge insurance when I get it back and may end up inside. All for a few lousy drinks - mad.

Curious Pax
1st Dec 2006, 15:28
When you get out you should buy a Personal Title "JB's Own Con"!!!

cessna l plate
1st Dec 2006, 15:41
[QUOTE=dublinamg;2996890]Got done for drink driving myself last week. I was a total dick to risk it but I did and unluckliy I got stopped and was over the limit. Spent the night in the cells and will be in court next month. I only have a provisional license so it was a totally stupid thing to do - I didn't plan on having much to drink but I had more than I should and stopped using my brain.[QUOTE]

I would hardly use the word "unlucky" I would say it should be more like "lucky the police caught you". Yes it is fair to say that your insurance is going to go up, but I don't know what sort of view the Irish courts take over this. In England you would be looking at a minimum 12 month ban, min £400 fine and it stays on your licence for 11 years following conviction. At the risk of appearing harsh if you do get some bird for this then it will serve you right and will be well justified. There is no excuse for drink driving, and having had to clear up at the aftermath of a drink related accident I have no sympathy whatsoever. Your self critisism is about the only positive in your statement, and yet what appears to have brought you to your senses is the thought of gaol. Ever thought about the poor copper that has to go to a house and inform Mum & Dad at 2 in the morning that their daughter is in hospital because of a drink driver, never mind the family involved whose anguish is 2000 times greater. I was lucky, I had to deliver a hospital message, not a death one!!!

The moral of this post is don't come on here looking for sympathy, you wont get any for something as reckelss (not stupid, reckeless) as this. What bothers me more is we are discussing this on a pilots website, whatever your connection with aviation I hope it has nothing to do with the pointed end in any way!!!

frostbite
1st Dec 2006, 15:42
But, what does make me angry is the increased "policing" of drink driving at this time of year. Is it not as important at other times?


Shock, horror! Found myself agreeing with eal !

Must sit down and have a drink.

(coffee, 'cos I've been TT for 25yrs)

cessna l plate
1st Dec 2006, 16:24
No Kirstey, I have made mistakes in my life, I have cocked up at times, and I do have regrets. By the same token there are varying degrees of mistakes, and this is one that yes I must have come close to in my youth, but never actually got there, and perhaps you would like to go a victims family and ask them if they think it to be a mistake. Surely if you drink and drive there is a pre-meditation to commit the offence?

As for being a keyboard warrior, I get my kicks elsewhere in life, not by flaming people at random in here, but I'll make an exception in this case. Drink Driving is not a mistake. Calling your boss names at the Xmas party might be, speeding a couple of mph over the limit could be a mistake I suppose.Taking the car to the pub, drinking sufficiently to be over the limit and then driving home is not, never has been and never will be a mistake!

And as for the name calling, perhaps you need to read the rules before coming into JB! Or are you one of those that think it safe to "have a couple of pints" before driving? As any Doctor will tell you, any amount of alcohol degrades performance.

Kirstey
1st Dec 2006, 16:46
I'm not saying it's not serious.. and I'm not saying we should all give him a big JB hug and forgive.

But actually he's learnt his lesson, he'll continue to lean his lesson.. possibly from a prison cell.

Actually, there's a thousand worse things one could do... and I'd explain that to the poor victims families.. blah blah.. when your your times up your times up.. it happens.

I suspect our Irish friend won't be contrubuting to the death toll by drinking while under the influece.. job done.

cessna l plate
1st Dec 2006, 17:00
I think you've missed the point really Kirstey. I doubt anyone comes to JB for a "hug". Yes he'll learn a lesson from a cell. But why did it get that far in the first place?

In addition, yes I too beleive that when the bell rings for you then game over, and yes there are a million more horrible ways to die it's true. I am sure that knocking on the door at 2 am saying "your sons just been killed in a drink related RTA, but look on the bright side, he could have been killed by (insert horrible death of your choice here) would go down great!

The fact remains, and not just dublin either, it's just that he came here and admitted doing it and all power to him for that at least, but for every drunk driver that gets caught, there are more that get away, and consider it, like dublin, "unlucky" when they are caught. It should be more like lucky you were caught before you killed someone. And again this goes to the deep seated attitude that there is a limit, so lets see how close we can get to it. If there were no limit, and an effective campaign from the poice, not adverts, more coppers out and about targetting drink driving then it would drop away, as has been demonstrated in other countries.

Mikeyb59
1st Dec 2006, 17:07
As far as I am concerned drink driving is a no-no.

Yes, In my youth I was guilty of such a thing but luckily never got caught.

However, in my view a far worse offence is using a hand held mobile while driving.

I saw a recent documentary on TV comparing performance of a drink driver to someone using a mobile. The mobile user was far worse.

I almost never use my mobile while driving and I have a fully fitted hands-free kit.

The cost of said HF kit is minimal compared to a few years ago and it is the non-users that scare me more than drink drivers.

My personal view is that if the authorities spent a little less time, effort & cost relying on speed cameras and a little more on visible policing then we could see an improvement on DD and road safety in general.

Don't even start on me on cycle lanes and the lycra nazis not using them!

Kirstey
1st Dec 2006, 17:12
I've not missed the point.. he got into the position he did becasue he f*cked up!! Like we all do to a greater or lesser extent!

My thoughts are.. he's going to pay the price.. no need to patronise him.

cessna l plate
1st Dec 2006, 17:52
I am certainly not patronising the guy, indeed fair play for admitting getting caught, but it isn't a badge of honour! Yes he is going to pay a price, but only by virtue of previous mis-deeds, and not on this one alone! I freely admit to flaming the guy, and comprehensivley so, and if it makes just one person think this Christmas before they drink and drive, then it's a price worth paying for all concerned.

The question now needs to be asked of Dublin is he remorseful for the deed, or for getting caught? As I said, there are mistakes to a greater or lesser extent, but drink driving is not a mistake. It might, at best, be an error of judgement, but by virtue of what it takes to commit this offence, it can never be a mistake. And any aftermath can certainly not be an "accident"

Mac the Knife
1st Dec 2006, 19:24
Drunk walkers only kill themselves.

That really is not true.

Here in S.A. we have some world-beating road carnage - a LOT (dare I say, the majority) is caused by completely intoxicated pedestrians staggering along and into the road. You can be stone-cold sober, driving along at the speed-limit and people wander into the roadway completely oblivious. It's quite scary, you have to be very careful. Many times the driver and/or passengers are seriously hurt or killed after hitting or swerving to avoid drunk pedestrians.

It is a very serious problem in our country.

:(

Mac

Curious Pax
1st Dec 2006, 19:34
Sounds to me like he's learning his lesson.

If you look back in his previous posting history you may come to the conclusion that he isn't!!

flybhx
1st Dec 2006, 21:14
The drink drive campaign is just that, a campaign. They do have a less high profile one in the summer as well if we actually get one. Any checks that are carried out to look for drunk drivers have a multitude of other crime related benefits.
Safe to say that there wont be any overtime paid to do it as our lovely government dont like paying out for anything good for us ( you know, doctors, nurses, firefighters etc)

jumpseater
2nd Dec 2006, 00:03
'But, what does make me angry is the increased "policing" of drink driving at this time of year. Is it not as important at other times?'

I suspect it is as important at other times of the year, however it's probably more common, or a higher risk of occurance at this time of year. How many work's parties are there in the summer for example? Thinking of the UK here, certainly far fewer than there are xmas piss ups, and they are not concentrated into a few weeks either. I imagine if England ever get to a world cup footy final there will be a d&d crackdown in the week or so leading up to, and immediately after the big match.

As an aside a couple of weeks ago a girl at work was done for a morning after breath test. Banned for nine months, three remission for attending educational course I believe. Not sure what that course entails, but probably not attending a PM.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
2nd Dec 2006, 02:40
The American idea of making the accused go to a post-mortem is excellent,Small point, but I think if they do it, they probably do it with the guilty.

Still accused, guilty, what's the difference eh?




I can't believe this thread has got to post 46 before someone mentionned DWT

eal401
2nd Dec 2006, 12:04
I'm sorry but that's just a cosmic example of naivety.
So, you are saying it's impossible to enjoy yourself whilst sober?

Anyone got the number for Alcoholics Anonymous?

mlc
2nd Dec 2006, 12:55
The only difference between the current 'campaign' and the rest of the year is that all it now takes two hours to record and submit stats forms for all the breath tests submitted.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
2nd Dec 2006, 13:33
...which is of course Driving While Tired.


a problem whose effects and consequences are almost wholely overlooked. Rather than a zero alcohol limit, it would be much better to have a reasonable alcohol limit combined with some regulation against tiredness.



...though I would support a zero alcopop limit :yuk:

dublinamg
2nd Dec 2006, 19:22
[quote=cessna l plate;2996949

I would hardly use the word "unlucky" I would say it should be more like "lucky the police caught you". Yes it is fair to say that your insurance is going to go up, but I don't know what sort of view the Irish courts take over this. In England you would be looking at a minimum 12 month ban, min 400 fine and it stays on your licence for 11 years following conviction. At the risk of appearing harsh if you do get some bird for this then it will serve you right and will be well justified. There is no excuse for drink driving, and having had to clear up at the aftermath of a drink related accident I have no sympathy whatsoever. Your self critisism is about the only positive in your statement, and yet what appears to have brought you to your senses is the thought of gaol. Ever thought about the poor copper that has to go to a house and inform Mum & Dad at 2 in the morning that their daughter is in hospital because of a drink driver, never mind the family involved whose anguish is 2000 times greater. I was lucky, I had to deliver a hospital message, not a death one!!!

The moral of this post is don't come on here looking for sympathy, you wont get any for something as reckelss (not stupid, reckeless) as this. What bothers me more is we are discussing this on a pilots website, whatever your connection with aviation I hope it has nothing to do with the pointed end in any way!!![/quote]

Not looking for a bit of sympathy - just saw the topic and thought I would add to it - it's been the main thing on my mind for the past week.

They've just started random testing here now so alot of people are probably going to get caught. The only thing I am saying is that a year ago when the limits were higher people would drive around safely and would be perfectly legal - doing exactly the same now makes you a 'drunk driver' - when you would have been perfect a while ago.

I don't make a habit of driving drunk. I don't think that I ever have but I have sometimes driven with a few drinks but only if I was pretty sure I could. I didn't have any accident or crash or anything like that - but I was over the limit and I accept that.

The penalties are pretty similar here I think - automatic 1 year ban for first drink driving offence (it is), fine of up to 1,270 and up to 6 months in prison.

I only have a provisional license so I think that will mean they'll give heavier penalties but not exactly sure. I know it is aginst the law to drive alone while on a provisional license and I was doing that - as most people do all the time.

I have a got a criminal record from when I was younger but haven't been in any trouble at all for the past 2 years and have been getting on with things. I do have a 6 month suspended sentence from the last time - so I know there is a good chance that I will get locked up for getting caught over the limit when I have that hanging over me. Hope that doesn't happen but have to be realistic.

I can honestly say I would never put myself in that situation again but I still have never had an accident or anything like that and I'm not a boy racer.

Oh and just to let you know - I'm not a pilot or anything like that. As I said that is what I always wanted to do or join the Air Corps but my past record is a problem. I'm really interested in the airline business and was going to start flying lessons next year but don't know about that now.

BALIX
2nd Dec 2006, 21:10
Whilst there may be an argument against the annual anti-drink driving campaign now I think it deserves a lot of credit for encouraging most of the views expressed here. The campaigns started back in the seventies and at the time the prevailing wisdom was that you could drink and drive but you might be unlucky and be caught. In effect it was acceptable.

Nowadays, people who drink and drive are demonised by the majority and rightly so. It is an incredibly selfish thing to do and there is no excuse. I'm no fan of the nanny state but in this instance the great British public needed educating.

BellEndBob
2nd Dec 2006, 21:54
Watch the adverts when you are sober and you are horrified. Go to pub, have a few beers and forget all about it. That is why these campaigns are a waste of time. More visible and robust policing is required to catch those who do it. But, seeing as we no longer have a police force in this country, just a touchy feely service, things will remain the same or get even worse.
And, coupled with that, as our society is now totally geared to peoples rights and not their reponsiblities, we will reep what we sow.

In a bad mood because the missus has grabbed the remote and is watching 'Take That'.

419
2nd Dec 2006, 22:38
I know it is aginst the law to drive alone while on a provisional license and I was doing that - as most people do all the time..

So does that mean that apart from driving whilst over the legal limit, you were also driving without valid insurance?:ugh:

finfly1
2nd Dec 2006, 23:35
For awhile, the police in eastern Long Island were impounding the cars of drunk drivers who had been arrested and convicted previously of a drunk driving offense.
Far more than confiscating a piece of paper, taking away the car really gets to the heart of the problem, at least for recidivists.

cessna l plate
4th Dec 2006, 08:38
They've just started random testing here now so alot of people are probably going to get caught. The only thing I am saying is that a year ago when the limits were higher people would drive around safely and would be perfectly legal - doing exactly the same now makes you a 'drunk driver' - when you would have been perfect a while ago.

There is a world of difference between being "legal" and being safe. Yes the limits might have changed and a lot are going to fall foul of them. But you have just proved my point about limits. If a limit exists then people will get as close to it as they can. If there is no limit, then the problem goes away to a degree. As for being safe that is open to debate. Any, and I do mean ANY amount of alcohol in the system degrades performance. So given the normal performance of the average driver these days, add some alcohol and the standard drops well below anything remotely close to safe. Why do you think the blood/alcohol level for pilots is so low?

As I said, all power to you for at least adminting a stupid error of judgement, but coupled with the other offences as well, such as unsupervised driving, no insurance etc I think there is a heavy book flying in your direction, and at the risk of being annoying, rightly so. There are too many people who regard driving a car as a right, it is a privelege and until the perception of that in society as whole changes then we can expect more posts like this!

The bottom line is you consumed alcohol and drove. Over the limit / under the limit, it doesn't matter, your performance was degraded and as I said, lucky the police caught you before you hurt someone. Whatever you get, learn a lesson from it, and never even think of doing it again and you will be on the road to being a responsible person.

dublinamg
4th Dec 2006, 13:25
From where I am now I can say for sure that I won't be doing it again. I'll be in court in January and am going to plead guilty and take whatever comes. Not nice to have it hanging over me over Christmas but I know it's my own fault.

Capt. Queeg
4th Dec 2006, 14:04
Bad luck Dublin, hard to credit the Irish taking public drunkeness seriously but there you go...

you do not always have to drink alcohol to have a good time. If you feel you do need booze to enjoy yourself, you are mentally ill in some way.
You must be pissed, coming out with something like that....!!! :D

But, what does make me angry is the increased "policing" of drink driving at this time of year. Is it not as important at other times?I thought speed cameras made you angry? Or was it a lack of a sufficient number of speed cameras...??? Can't quite recall...:rolleyes:

bjcc
5th Dec 2006, 19:38
A lot has been mentioned about the annual xmas campaign, the perception being that drive/drive is only enforced at xmas.

That perception is wrong, what happens at xmas is there is publicity, in an attempt to make drivers think. Usually that fails, and more people get arrested than at other times of the year, either through stupidity (ie a long way over and don't care) or nievity (thinking 2 pints is ok and don't think). The idea is prevention, not cure. Given that we are bombarded with the message at xmas, anyone who is stupid enough to drink/drive really deserves to get caught.

Some forces now routinley breath test after accidents, no matter what time of the day they happen (Hants for example) certainly I used to breath test the same number of people in the summer as I did near xmas.

What has changed since the 70's is it is no longer as acceptable to commit the offence in the first place.

The comparrison with drinking and being tired is misleading, tiredness does effect your reactions, yes, but it should not effect your ability to make the decision you are too tired, and should not drive.

Unwell_Raptor
6th Dec 2006, 09:27
Just for the record, the UK limit is 80mg/100ml of blood (the Americans would call that .08). In most of the EU nowadays it is 50mg/100ml. For pilots I believe that it is 20mg/100ml.
The 2006 Road Safety Act brings in provision to order an offender not to drive again until an alcohol/ignition lock has been fitted to his car, and the proposal is that these would be set at 20mg/100ml too.

It is unsafe to talk of so many drinks to the limit, because there are so many variables. Most English pubs have drinks with alcohol content varying from about 2.5% to well over 40%. Draught beers run for the most part betwen 3%and 6%. Then there is your body weight, your gender, what you have eaten, and so on. A 20 stone man can drink more than twice as much as a 10 stone woman to get to the same reading.

Breath analysers are quite cheap, and can be useful to discover your own tolerances, but if you get it wrong the courts will cut you no slack.

Another little-known fact is that the licensing authority, DVLA will flag you as a High-risk offender if you have a high reading, are caught twice, or refuse the test. Then they will not issue a new licence until they have seen medical evidence that your alcohol use is no longer problematic. There are tens of thousands of offenders (nearly all of them men) who will never be given a licence again.

gingernut
7th Dec 2006, 14:53
are caught twice,

I think the DVLA insists on an "LFT" - Liver Function Test, prior to issuing a license, if the offender is caught twice in 10yrs.

Whirlygig
7th Dec 2006, 15:20
The comparrison with drinking and being tired is misleading, tiredness does effect your reactions, yes, but it should not effect your ability to make the decision you are too tired, and should not drive.

Tiredness can affect ones judgment; it's called "Press-on-itis"!

Cheers

Whirls

Tigs2
8th Dec 2006, 03:21
To many of us out there
I think you are being very judgemental on the open and honest coments by Dublinamg.
Drink driving is seen as being sociably unacceptable. However, DID YOU NOW! if you only have five hours sleep during a night, the following morning if you drive, it has been prooved(in clinical trials)you are just over just over the(UK)drink driving limit in terms of your reaction times. If you have had 20 hours of wakefullness and then drive, your reaction times are(clinically tested!)the same as someone that has had 5 pints of beer.

The message is this! If you have never driven after having slept for only five hours, or have never driven after 20 hours of wakefullness then you are entitled to comment adversley about the rest of us on this thread, if not then shut the F**k up. The drink drive situation is socially unacceptable, yet the fatigue issue(which is the same, if not more)is ignored, and is equally as bad. I for one have been guilty in my time of both. I want you premadonnas who have commented on Drink Driving above to consider. have you driven with minimum sleep? If so you are just as guilty and irresponsible as anyone who has driven over the drink drive limit.
Comments from the unbeleivers/protesters welcomed, however Science is on my(the scientific)side. Me thinks that all of us in our times have fallen into the same situation .I am the same as Dublinamg (in terms of CLINICAL reaction times) and you (we) are all in the same boat. One situation the police find acceptable and the other they bag(and with many police mates i know that they are THE worse for drink driving)us. Drink driving accounts for 30% of road accidents. It is calculated that fatigue accounts for 60%. So what is your excuse/motive ?? Cause i bet you have driven with only five hours sleep or twenty hours wakefulness, and that makes you just the same as Dublinamg!