Scottish Drink Drving Chages
Discussion
Dammit said:
I'd like Forrins to be banned everywhere for being naughty, but I'd like to be able to break their laws with impunity.
I think that's quite straightforward.
Exactly. Just like it's every Englishman's right to move to the sun and only speak English, but Johnny Furrin MUST jump through lots of hoops and be fluent to even think about coming here...I think that's quite straightforward.
TooMany2cvs said:
Dammit said:
I'd like Forrins to be banned everywhere for being naughty, but I'd like to be able to break their laws with impunity.
I think that's quite straightforward.
Exactly. Just like it's every Englishman's right to move to the sun and only speak English, but Johnny Furrin MUST jump through lots of hoops and be fluent to even think about coming here...I think that's quite straightforward.
While by your logic I'm guessing that you'd want sharia law imposed here on anyone accused of drinking while working or on holiday in one of the Arab/Gulf states.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 7th December 15:40
Yes, got it in one - advocating a sort of "area of responsibility" across the EU where driving offences committed in one nation would carry over to the others is EXACTLY THE SAME as cutting off peoples hands for theft, and stoning women to death for suspected infidelity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Dammit said:
Yes, got it in one - advocating a sort of "area of responsibility" across the EU where driving offences committed in one nation would carry over to the others is EXACTLY THE SAME as cutting off peoples hands for theft, and stoning women to death for suspected infidelity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
I don't think that stoning or amputation for drinking is on the statute even in Saudi.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
As for an area of responsibility across the EU that would effectively mean a federal licence penalty system just like the US.Which the Germans ( to their enormous credit ) have obviously rejected knowing that it would be based on the lowest common denominator of the UK brake type supporters.
Dammit said:
You are suggesting harmonisation of law, surely?
I'm suggesting no such thing - let Herman continue to enjoy his autobahn, for ~5 seconds before a lorry pulls out.
However, if he tries to do the same (peak) speed in France then he should have his federal EU licence endorsed.
As you've said you seem to support the idea of a federal European licence penalty system just like the US.Which in this case ( would have ) translated into losing a German ( or UK ) licence for exceeding a ridiculously low unrealistic French speed limit.Ironically ( and very luckily in this case )what Germany wants is more important than what the UK's Brake led agenda wants.Which is why we've also got the situation here now where someone could be banned for exceeding a local ridiculously low alcohol limit in Scotland that is considered as being safe and legal here.All of which seems like a case of be careful what you wish for.Assuming that is anyone isn't a full on believer and supporter of the Brake traffic law and/or Libdem federalist agenda's. I'm suggesting no such thing - let Herman continue to enjoy his autobahn, for ~5 seconds before a lorry pulls out.
However, if he tries to do the same (peak) speed in France then he should have his federal EU licence endorsed.
I don't see why you should hold someone else's laws in contempt and get away with it, put simply.
If the Scots have made a decision that "none" is the safe number of drinks to have then you have two options- don't drink, or drink and deal with the consequences.
Or, of course, moan about it being unfair because where you live you can drink more.
Analogy is a tricky beast, here on Pistonheads, but I'll give it a go.
If I ask you not to piss in the fire when in my house then I'd expect you to obey my rules, no matter what you do when your bladder becomes uncomfortably full and you are at home.
Just because you can relieve yourself into the flames when at Casa XJ Flyer does not mean that it is "unfair" that I don't want you to do it, and I don't believe that Brake have anything to say on the matter either.
If the Scots have made a decision that "none" is the safe number of drinks to have then you have two options- don't drink, or drink and deal with the consequences.
Or, of course, moan about it being unfair because where you live you can drink more.
Analogy is a tricky beast, here on Pistonheads, but I'll give it a go.
If I ask you not to piss in the fire when in my house then I'd expect you to obey my rules, no matter what you do when your bladder becomes uncomfortably full and you are at home.
Just because you can relieve yourself into the flames when at Casa XJ Flyer does not mean that it is "unfair" that I don't want you to do it, and I don't believe that Brake have anything to say on the matter either.
Dammit said:
I don't see why you should hold someone else's laws in contempt and get away with it, put simply.
If the Scots have made a decision that "none" is the safe number of drinks to have then you have two options- don't drink, or drink and deal with the consequences.
Or, of course, moan about it being unfair because where you live you can drink more.
Analogy is a tricky beast, here on Pistonheads, but I'll give it a go.
If I ask you not to piss in the fire when in my house then I'd expect you to obey my rules, no matter what you do when your bladder becomes uncomfortably full and you are at home.
Just because you can relieve yourself into the flames when at Casa XJ Flyer does not mean that it is "unfair" that I don't want you to do it, and I don't believe that Brake have anything to say on the matter either.
No the analogy in the case of French autoroutes and Scottish drink drive limit with a federal licence penalty system would be/is more like paying rent for a house.Then being told that the toilet can only be used once maybe twice per day otherwise you have to go home to your parents house.If you break that rule then you will also be locked out of your parents house. If the Scots have made a decision that "none" is the safe number of drinks to have then you have two options- don't drink, or drink and deal with the consequences.
Or, of course, moan about it being unfair because where you live you can drink more.
Analogy is a tricky beast, here on Pistonheads, but I'll give it a go.
If I ask you not to piss in the fire when in my house then I'd expect you to obey my rules, no matter what you do when your bladder becomes uncomfortably full and you are at home.
Just because you can relieve yourself into the flames when at Casa XJ Flyer does not mean that it is "unfair" that I don't want you to do it, and I don't believe that Brake have anything to say on the matter either.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 7th December 17:43
Dammit said:
No, that doesn't work at all.
If you don't consider the speed limit on the Autoroute to be reasonable, don't go to France.
Obviously myself and the Germans are in full agreement with the analogy I've provided and unfortunately for the Brake supporters 'that' is the one the UK has had to accept 'if' the information is correct.If only similar could have been the case with Churchill and the Kaiser in 1914.If you don't consider the speed limit on the Autoroute to be reasonable, don't go to France.
XJ Flyer said:
I think you missed the point that firstly in this case we're discussing a ridiculously low alcohol limit.
IYHO.And, no, we're not.
We were discussing whether Scottish courts can impose UK-wide penalties.
We're now discussing whether driving licence penalties should be reflected across the EU, rather than just in the country they were imposed in.
XJ Flyer said:
Which in many cases those 'foreigners' impose less harsh penalties for exceeding than here.
If a <say> French court only imposes points for an offence you'd be banned for here, then if you are penalised by a French court, you wouldn't be banned here.BUT if you're banned here for the same offence, the question is whether you should be able to drive in France.
XJ Flyer said:
While by your logic I'm guessing that you'd want sharia law imposed here on anyone accused of drinking while working or on holiday in one of the Arab/Gulf states.
<fx: clicks stopwatch off>Your true colours are starting to show. Stop now before you make a real fool of yourself.
Various people have been slugging it out on this thread over the last few pages and I've just been watching, so here comes another four pennorth.
Much has been made by CVs and others about there only being one country as far as the UK is concerned. Many would argue with that statement, but that's not the point of my post.
Other people have said a lot about whether or not bans in one EU country will see you banned in another EU country, and the example has been cited of the German autobahn lack of a speed limit and why a German should not get banned in Germany for doing 110mph down the M4, whilst he would be banned in the UK. I doubt that anybody would have too much of a problem with that.
The root problem that has emerged here is that, whether or not Scotland is a different country from the UK (which you could argue it is not) or whether it is a different country from England and Wales (which few would argue that it is not). And in this case, whether or not Scotland is a fully independent country (which it isn't - yet), it is to all intents and purposes acting like one in this case.
It has changed the rules that cover what you need to do wrong to get a DD10 conviction, and getting a DD conviction on your licence will cause you a number of serious problems. Whilst earlier in this thread somebody went just a little over the top by suggesting that it is like being banged up, let us have a look at the true implications:
First, you get a minimum year's ban from driving. Secondly, insurance companies start adding the date and the square of their grandmother's age to premium quotations when you get your licence back. Thirdly, if you happen need to drive for a living, it's welcome to P45 land and the Job Centre, old chum.
If we were talking a slap on the wrist like they have in other EU countries for low readings over the limit, say £100 fine and a few points for a 50 to 80 reading, I could live with that concept. If that's what the Jocks want to do - fine - let them got on with it. But we are not talking slaps on wrists, we are talking the full repercussions of a DD10 conviction, but for a transgression which is only illegal in part of the UK. You know the UK, that's the "one country" that embraces England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Only it no longer does embody one united country as far as DD legislation is concerned.
That is why, purely and simply, the penalty to be imposed needs challenging in the courts. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view) it won't be me doing the challenging because I live 300 miles south of Gretna and have never driven in Scotland with any alcohol on board anyway. The important point to me is one of principle.
Much has been made by CVs and others about there only being one country as far as the UK is concerned. Many would argue with that statement, but that's not the point of my post.
Other people have said a lot about whether or not bans in one EU country will see you banned in another EU country, and the example has been cited of the German autobahn lack of a speed limit and why a German should not get banned in Germany for doing 110mph down the M4, whilst he would be banned in the UK. I doubt that anybody would have too much of a problem with that.
The root problem that has emerged here is that, whether or not Scotland is a different country from the UK (which you could argue it is not) or whether it is a different country from England and Wales (which few would argue that it is not). And in this case, whether or not Scotland is a fully independent country (which it isn't - yet), it is to all intents and purposes acting like one in this case.
It has changed the rules that cover what you need to do wrong to get a DD10 conviction, and getting a DD conviction on your licence will cause you a number of serious problems. Whilst earlier in this thread somebody went just a little over the top by suggesting that it is like being banged up, let us have a look at the true implications:
First, you get a minimum year's ban from driving. Secondly, insurance companies start adding the date and the square of their grandmother's age to premium quotations when you get your licence back. Thirdly, if you happen need to drive for a living, it's welcome to P45 land and the Job Centre, old chum.
If we were talking a slap on the wrist like they have in other EU countries for low readings over the limit, say £100 fine and a few points for a 50 to 80 reading, I could live with that concept. If that's what the Jocks want to do - fine - let them got on with it. But we are not talking slaps on wrists, we are talking the full repercussions of a DD10 conviction, but for a transgression which is only illegal in part of the UK. You know the UK, that's the "one country" that embraces England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Only it no longer does embody one united country as far as DD legislation is concerned.
That is why, purely and simply, the penalty to be imposed needs challenging in the courts. Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view) it won't be me doing the challenging because I live 300 miles south of Gretna and have never driven in Scotland with any alcohol on board anyway. The important point to me is one of principle.
TooMany2cvs said:
XJ Flyer said:
I think you missed the point that firstly in this case we're discussing a ridiculously low alcohol limit.
IYHO.And, no, we're not.
We were discussing whether Scottish courts can impose UK-wide penalties.
We're now discussing whether driving licence penalties should be reflected across the EU, rather than just in the country they were imposed in.
XJ Flyer said:
Which in many cases those 'foreigners' impose less harsh penalties for exceeding than here.
If a <say> French court only imposes points for an offence you'd be banned for here, then if you are penalised by a French court, you wouldn't be banned here.BUT if you're banned here for the same offence, the question is whether you should be able to drive in France.
By the same comparison wether you should get points on,or lose,a German or UK licence for exceeding a ridiculous French speed limit for example.
Obviously ( extremely fortunately depending on point of view ) the second question at least seems to have been answered by the UK not getting its way in the form of the type of federal licence penalty system that applies between here and Scotland.In large part because of the objections of German motorists who share my views.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 7th December 22:13
rs1952 said:
If we were talking a slap on the wrist like they have in other EU countries for low readings over the limit, say £100 fine and a few points for a 50 to 80 reading, I could live with that concept. If that's what the Jocks want to do - fine - let them got on with it. But we are not talking slaps on wrists, we are talking the full repercussions of a DD10 conviction, but for a transgression which is only illegal in part of the UK.
If it was a slap on the wrist then people would be less inclined to obey the restriction - the point of the automatic, 12 month ban is to stop people from thinking "ah, it's only three points if I do get caught".It's not like it's hard to work out what you have to do in this case- if you are in Scotland, don't have an alcoholic drink, it's much simpler than the UK where there can be (semi)legitimate confusion over how much you can have.
Easiest, and probably best thing to happen would be the UK following suit.
Dammit said:
rs1952 said:
If we were talking a slap on the wrist like they have in other EU countries for low readings over the limit, say £100 fine and a few points for a 50 to 80 reading, I could live with that concept. If that's what the Jocks want to do - fine - let them got on with it. But we are not talking slaps on wrists, we are talking the full repercussions of a DD10 conviction, but for a transgression which is only illegal in part of the UK.
Easiest, and probably best thing to happen would be the UK following suit.I didn't realise that the only way in which one could get to a country pub was to drive to it.
If, just for one second, we imagined a world in which we could get to the pub in some other way just think - we could have 3, 4 or even 5 drinks!
Utter madness of course - any fule kno that it's impossible to travel from A to B without being in a car (that you yourself are driving).
If, just for one second, we imagined a world in which we could get to the pub in some other way just think - we could have 3, 4 or even 5 drinks!
Utter madness of course - any fule kno that it's impossible to travel from A to B without being in a car (that you yourself are driving).
Dammit said:
I didn't realise that the only way in which one could get to a country pub was to drive to it.
If, just for one second, we imagined a world in which we could get to the pub in some other way just think - we could have 3, 4 or even 5 drinks!
Utter madness of course - any fule kno that it's impossible to travel from A to B without being in a car (that you yourself are driving).
£20 round trip for two taxi journey's to enjoy one £4 pint is not sensible.If, just for one second, we imagined a world in which we could get to the pub in some other way just think - we could have 3, 4 or even 5 drinks!
Utter madness of course - any fule kno that it's impossible to travel from A to B without being in a car (that you yourself are driving).
I cannot get to/from work on public transport so any after work drink would never happen again if I lived in Scotland.
Dammit said:
I didn't realise that the only way in which one could get to a country pub was to drive to it.
Utter madness of course - any fule kno that it's impossible to travel from A to B without being in a car (that you yourself are driving).
The idea of the car enthusiast gathering at a country pub where it is accepted practice for decades that around a pint will be legal and no danger to society would fit that definition and is nothing new.The fact is the type who are not going to care about the accepted existing limit here aren't going to care about a lower one or even zero either. Utter madness of course - any fule kno that it's impossible to travel from A to B without being in a car (that you yourself are driving).
Scotland has a completely different legal system to England & Wales. An English solicitor or barrister is not entitled to appear in Scottish courts, and vice versa.
DVLA code DD10 is just one drink drive offence. There are many others. For example, causing death by careless driving whilst OPL has a 14 year maximum. Assuming the Scots have that offence (anyone?) then it's now much easier to prove as the prescribed limit for that offence is the same as section 5.
I've been looking at the legislation and consultation that brought about the change in the law. There are some arguments about the legitimacy of the legislation, but the easier course would be a change in the law so that a Scottish ban for 22-35 in breath is not effective here. Write to your MP?
Also, the press release about the new law and the blood limit is a bit silly. Very few people are prosecuted on the basis of their blood alcohol content. 90% of the time, you don't have the option to give blood. A breath test is the usual method and I'd anticipate that most people know the limit is 35, even if they don't understand what that means. So, why is the limit expressed as 50 in blood in the press release? Very odd.
DVLA code DD10 is just one drink drive offence. There are many others. For example, causing death by careless driving whilst OPL has a 14 year maximum. Assuming the Scots have that offence (anyone?) then it's now much easier to prove as the prescribed limit for that offence is the same as section 5.
I've been looking at the legislation and consultation that brought about the change in the law. There are some arguments about the legitimacy of the legislation, but the easier course would be a change in the law so that a Scottish ban for 22-35 in breath is not effective here. Write to your MP?
Also, the press release about the new law and the blood limit is a bit silly. Very few people are prosecuted on the basis of their blood alcohol content. 90% of the time, you don't have the option to give blood. A breath test is the usual method and I'd anticipate that most people know the limit is 35, even if they don't understand what that means. So, why is the limit expressed as 50 in blood in the press release? Very odd.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff