Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Drink Driving
- Thread starter Lenny Rider
- Start date
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
But you will know you were drinking the night before so you might be over the limit. Same as if you have two pints of Harveys and drive an hour later, you might pass a breathalyser, but it's down to you if you don't.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
I think most people would suggest its for this reason (if we are talking about the person someone has suggested)...I know I am thinking that way
Creaky
Well-known member
Totally agree - the same attitude should be applied to speeding in my opinion - far more injuries and deaths occur where speed is a factor compared to those where alcohol is a factor.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
There is no excuse for drink driving. Get what they deserve imo
BensGrandad
New member
But you still cannot guarantee that driving home from work at 5pm you will be under the limit, possibly, probably but not. guaranteed
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,286
or the next day, cant guarantee right?
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,195
Is it down to speeding though?
Or is it more the dangerous habits that seem to be more and more common on the roads that are the real danger instead
- Tailgating
- Undertaking
- Poor road positioning (being in the left hand lane of a dual carriageway and pulling across the right hand lane to turn right (usually without signalling or checking their blind spot first)
- Cutting other vehicles up (for example, on dual carriageway roundabouts because they do not leave enough room for a vehicle in the right hand lane when they straight line it)
- General aggressive driving (impatient driving, etc)
- Mobile phone use
- Other driver distractions (I've seen people with lap tops balanced on steering wheels, people placing orders by phone as they flick through a catalogue which is balanced on the steering wheel whilst driving at 70mph, etc.....)
- unnecessarily slow drivers (who brake every time there is a slight bend, a vehicle approaching which isn't in their lane, etc)
- Road rage, etc........
and all things which are not detected by a speed camera but we rely on them as our main way of controlling driving behaviour which doesn't really tackle the problem
BensGrandad
New member
My point is that there is no definitive time or level of consumption of alcohol and for this reason I believe the level should be Zero with advice to not drive for 24 hours.,
Creaky
Well-known member
I’m sure that all the above contribute to accidents but it is irrefutable that the largest contributory factor in accidents causing injury or death recorded by the police is speed, (either speeding or speed inappropriate for the conditions).
It seems though that it is socially acceptable to speed in just the same way that it was acceptable to drink and drive when I first passed my test.
This morning I was driving past a primary school in Hayward’s Heath where the road is subject to a 20mph limit - some idiot decided that wasn’t fast enough and overtook both myself and the car in front of me. To my mind a driver breaking that speed limit, whether overtaking, (as in that I have just described), or not is just as dangerous as a driver who may have had a couple of pints. Both should be treated the same and lose their right to drive a vehicle.
... and speeding?
Funny how most people abhor drink driving but congratulate and celebrate someone getting somewhere faster! (i.e. normally speeding)
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,286
seems to me a self-fulfilling factor, especially with the caveat "appropriate" thrown in. when digging into figures seems its a moderate proportion actually record injuries related to speed, this insurer reckons 11%.
Creaky
Well-known member
That’s 53+ casualties a day where speed was a contributing factor - more than twice as many where drink was a contributing factor.
Just as dangerous as speeding:
1. Driving a 1.5 tonne missile whilst myopic and refusing to wear corrective glasses/contacts.
2. Ditto, but staring at and tapping away at a mobile.
3. Driving whilst drunk or on drugs.
4. Driving without ever passed a driving test. Also meaning they’re uninsured.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
Yep agree with that. At the end of the day it's a lethal weapon
The 'Whisky Mouthwash' defense
The 'Vodka Toothpaste' gambit
I suppose a pina colada enema is not admissable.
Puppet Master
non sequitur
- Aug 14, 2012
- 4,055
Your only possible defence is either distance drove (eg to the end of your driveway) or you were helping someone who's life was in immediate danger. That or something like the police breathalyzer was ****ed.
If you've got nothing like that, you'd be a massive fool to plead not guilty.
If you've got nothing like that, you'd be a massive fool to plead not guilty.
Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,195
As you say, speed is a very low cause of accidents and fatalities on the road, however safety groups seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time and effort to challenge this behaviour and do not tackle other factors which are far more dangerous and far more likely to cause an accident or fatality with the same determination, simply because its easier to Police speed through a fixed / mobile speed camera
But what is more dangerous?
Someone traveling at 75 in a 70mph zone, having left plenty of space between them and other vehicles so they have a safe zone in which they can react to what happens ahead or around them and prevent an accident? (say 4am on an empty motorway)
- or someone traveling at 60mph in a 70mph zone, who is tailgating the vehicle in front? (or even weaving their way through traffic, under and over taking other road users?)
According to how the safety groups campaign, it seems they deem the former far more dangerous and campaign around that, with harsh penalties in place for offenders, yet how many have actually been prosecuted for tailgating? (which surely comes under dangerous driving legislation?)
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
The evidence needs a urine or blood sample to back up the breathalyser reading.
There used to be a get out clause, where people said they were needle phobic or couldn't produce enough urine, but now that comes under failing to provide a sample which carries the same penalty.