Parallels between drink driving and speeding
Discussion
I was recently clipped by someone who was under the influence of alcohol, and I can say it was probably one of the most unpleasant experiences of my motoring life. Worst part was that she drove away while still under the influence as I was phoning the police. The rest of the time I was incredibly worried that my failure to keep her from driving off may have had dire consiquences.
I understand that both issues are a social problem in their own right, but don't think that situations can be fully compared. I completely agree that excessive speeds in built up areas is incredibly silly and that there's no excuses. But a lot of the speeding I witness is on the NSL during times where the car and driver appear to be in complete control. You have to remember that the speed limit was created at a ti.e where cars were less capable. Cars have evolved since then, stopping distances decreased, stability improved etc. But I don't think that the human body has evolved to handle alcohol better since the limits were introduced.
In all honesty, I don't I'd probably always judge a drunk driver harsher than someone creeping 10mph over the NSL due to these reasons. People who speed about in residential areas though, they're just as bad as DD in my opinion.
I understand that both issues are a social problem in their own right, but don't think that situations can be fully compared. I completely agree that excessive speeds in built up areas is incredibly silly and that there's no excuses. But a lot of the speeding I witness is on the NSL during times where the car and driver appear to be in complete control. You have to remember that the speed limit was created at a ti.e where cars were less capable. Cars have evolved since then, stopping distances decreased, stability improved etc. But I don't think that the human body has evolved to handle alcohol better since the limits were introduced.
In all honesty, I don't I'd probably always judge a drunk driver harsher than someone creeping 10mph over the NSL due to these reasons. People who speed about in residential areas though, they're just as bad as DD in my opinion.
Jayho said:
I was recently clipped by someone who was under the influence of alcohol, and I can say it was probably one of the most unpleasant experiences of my motoring life. Worst part was that she drove away while still under the influence as I was phoning the police. The rest of the time I was incredibly worried that my failure to keep her from driving off may have had dire consiquences.
I understand that both issues are a social problem in their own right, but don't think that situations can be fully compared. I completely agree that excessive speeds in built up areas is incredibly silly and that there's no excuses. But a lot of the speeding I witness is on the NSL during times where the car and driver appear to be in complete control. You have to remember that the speed limit was created at a ti.e where cars were less capable. Cars have evolved since then, stopping distances decreased, stability improved etc. But I don't think that the human body has evolved to handle alcohol better since the limits were introduced.
In all honesty, I don't I'd probably always judge a drunk driver harsher than someone creeping 10mph over the NSL due to these reasons. People who speed about in residential areas though, they're just as bad as DD in my opinion.
Then it's a good job that this thread isn't attempting to do that. It's comparing the arguments made in defence of speeding with the arguments made in defence of driving after drinking, which was a common thing at one time.I understand that both issues are a social problem in their own right, but don't think that situations can be fully compared. I completely agree that excessive speeds in built up areas is incredibly silly and that there's no excuses. But a lot of the speeding I witness is on the NSL during times where the car and driver appear to be in complete control. You have to remember that the speed limit was created at a ti.e where cars were less capable. Cars have evolved since then, stopping distances decreased, stability improved etc. But I don't think that the human body has evolved to handle alcohol better since the limits were introduced.
In all honesty, I don't I'd probably always judge a drunk driver harsher than someone creeping 10mph over the NSL due to these reasons. People who speed about in residential areas though, they're just as bad as DD in my opinion.
I think dangerous driving/putting others at unacceptable risk is already frowned upon.
The guy doing 150mph on the M6 toll at 3am does not cause an unacceptable risk. The lot that fly through busy 30mph zones at 45mph do cause an unacceptable risk.
Answer to your question I think is speed alone does not mean the driving is unacceptable
The guy doing 150mph on the M6 toll at 3am does not cause an unacceptable risk. The lot that fly through busy 30mph zones at 45mph do cause an unacceptable risk.
Answer to your question I think is speed alone does not mean the driving is unacceptable
Esceptico said:
Spot on. The picture painted on PH of the average speeder is someone fully in control and knowing where and when it is safe to speed. That may apply to some but isn't my experience. It is not surprising if you consider why people might speed. Some or all the following probably apply:
- a liking for risk and risk taking activities because of the buzz it provides
- impatience
- aggressiveness
- lack of consideration for others
- willingness to break rules
The average speeder is probably someone doing 38mph in a 30, not somebody driving 75mph in a 30.- a liking for risk and risk taking activities because of the buzz it provides
- impatience
- aggressiveness
- lack of consideration for others
- willingness to break rules
You make it sound like everyone is tearing around like maniacs, but the majority of people caught speeding have only made a minor indiscretion. You even say yourself in your other thread that you try to stick to speed limits, but occasionally slip over. Do you think it's morally right to give fines and points for a very easily made slip up? Enforcement is fine if it's sensibly done, but when small driving errors lead to punishment then something is wrong with the system.
Speeding will hopefully never cause the same social outrage as drink driving. One is a conscious decision to drive in a dangerous state, the other happens millions of times a day as a byproduct of a corrupt industry.
witko999 said:
Esceptico said:
Spot on. The picture painted on PH of the average speeder is someone fully in control and knowing where and when it is safe to speed. That may apply to some but isn't my experience. It is not surprising if you consider why people might speed. Some or all the following probably apply:
- a liking for risk and risk taking activities because of the buzz it provides
- impatience
- aggressiveness
- lack of consideration for others
- willingness to break rules
The average speeder is probably someone doing 38mph in a 30, not somebody driving 75mph in a 30.- a liking for risk and risk taking activities because of the buzz it provides
- impatience
- aggressiveness
- lack of consideration for others
- willingness to break rules
You make it sound like everyone is tearing around like maniacs, but the majority of people caught speeding have only made a minor indiscretion. You even say yourself in your other thread that you try to stick to speed limits, but occasionally slip over. Do you think it's morally right to give fines and points for a very easily made slip up? Enforcement is fine if it's sensibly done, but when small driving errors lead to punishment then something is wrong with the system.
Speeding will hopefully never cause the same social outrage as drink driving. One is a conscious decision to drive in a dangerous state, the other happens millions of times a day as a byproduct of a corrupt industry.
Very small indiscretions ignored through to court hearings with other stages in-between.
Exceeding the drink drive limit isn't necessarily driving in a dangerous state (like speed it's dependent on wider circumstances), it is passing a line in the sand again though, with small margins over resulting in no action.
With the speed limit you have a measurement device in front of you, not so with the drink. In that respect you could argue that the conscious decision in crossing the line is more obvious when exceeding the speed limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 2nd May 23:03
Black_S3 said:
I think dangerous driving/putting others at unacceptable risk is already frowned upon.
The guy doing 150mph on the M6 toll at 3am does not cause an unacceptable risk. The lot that fly through busy 30mph zones at 45mph do cause an unacceptable risk.
Answer to your question I think is speed alone does not mean the driving is unacceptable
Like some earlier posters, I grew up in a time and place where DD was far less frowned on (the local bobby used to come in to our local close to closing time and have a coffee before setting up for breath tests - which was the signal for the car park to empty....)The guy doing 150mph on the M6 toll at 3am does not cause an unacceptable risk. The lot that fly through busy 30mph zones at 45mph do cause an unacceptable risk.
Answer to your question I think is speed alone does not mean the driving is unacceptable
I don't DD, nor would I, but I can honestly say that, having had lifts back from that pub (and elsewhere) there are some drivers who are safer after 3 or 4 pints than some drivers are sober.
Their technical car control is better their reaction times (even slowed by the drink) are better, and their observation / reading of the road and potential hazards is far better.
That doesn't make it acceptable for them to drive over the limit, but it does suggest that - like "speed alone", "drink alone" isn't an automatic risk - how can it be if some drivers are still safer over the limit than others are under it?
The one possible difference is that drink does reduce your capacity for self awareness, so it can leave you feeling far more capable than you are.
But the same can be said for many people who speed - like many drink drivers they get away with it for a long time which helps to inflate their sense of ability. Until one day they don't.
Fun little reaction tester here for all those driving gods:
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
I'll set the benchmark:
My average over a few tries was 340ms (0.34s) and my best over a 5-test run was 0.276s.
That's 0.34 seconds between something happening and me acting on it with a very simple (and fast) action of a mouse click. In a car doing 60MPH I've covered 9 metres in that 0.34 seconds, at 80mph I've gone an extra 3m - before I'm even aware that a hazard exists, let alone before I've decided what to do about it (break / steer / accelerate / pray) and acted on that decision.
Now, bear in mind that test is for a single event, that you know is going to happen, you know exactly where it's going to happen, you know what you're expected to do when it happens, and you know it's not going to involve sudden failure of your equipment (such as a blow-out).
That slants the odds a LONG way in your favour compared to a road scenario where your concentration has to be split through 360 degrees (plus the condition of your own car) looking for unknown things that may or may not happen at all.
It's not unusual for people to take a whole second or more to react on the road, although they'll always swear blind that they reacted "instantly" - because they're only aware of the need to react after their reaction time has expired.
The pont of all that is that the parallels between one person's beliefe that they're safe to DD and another person's belief that they're safe to speed are a lot closer than some might like to admit.
Edited by Variomatic on Monday 2nd May 23:14
I was pondering a similar question last night after having the misfortune to drive through our town centre at pi55ed o'clock.
It was like driving through a zombie apocalypse, idiots everywhere doing idiotic things, mostly ignored or tolerated by the Old Bill because they can't lock everyone up and anyway, hey they're drunk.
As I dodged past yet another tool staggering into the road, I drove past numerous public services waiting to scrape people up including the council funded SOS bus which is laid on to help the little dears after they've drunk too much and need patching up, water or shoes to walk home in....
It seems that being drunk is an excuse to get away with all sorts and to be fair, when you're drunk your ability to make decisions is impaired, so has diminished responsibility ever been a defence for drink driving?
It was like driving through a zombie apocalypse, idiots everywhere doing idiotic things, mostly ignored or tolerated by the Old Bill because they can't lock everyone up and anyway, hey they're drunk.
As I dodged past yet another tool staggering into the road, I drove past numerous public services waiting to scrape people up including the council funded SOS bus which is laid on to help the little dears after they've drunk too much and need patching up, water or shoes to walk home in....
It seems that being drunk is an excuse to get away with all sorts and to be fair, when you're drunk your ability to make decisions is impaired, so has diminished responsibility ever been a defence for drink driving?
MrBarry123 said:
singlecoil said:
Efbe said:
what a completely stupid thread.
What a completely stupid response.I don't understand the purpose of this thread either. All it's becoming is a debate regarding whether speeding or drink driving is more the dangerous act.
Wollemi said:
Esceptico said:
Isn't the limit just an arbitrary number that ignores the specifics of the situation?
No, the current drink drive limit is not arbitrary at all. The limit was set at 80mg /100ml blood as being the point where driving impairment becomes significant.Not sure there is a parallel to be drawn here, only to say that speeding is illegal, as is drink driving, racing on public highway, jumping red lights, etc etc....
However, if intoxicated, you are NOT in control of a vehicle. If you are speeding, it ain't necessarily so.
There is a B road in the countryside near me, just been resurfaced, good twisty road with plenty of visibility, not much traffic, yet speed limit was NSL some 20 years ago, then dropped to 50, then 40, & about 2 years ago to 30mph. I don't recall any major accidents, & as mentioned elsewhere, tyre/brake technology has moved on in massive strides, so I am puzzled....
However, if intoxicated, you are NOT in control of a vehicle. If you are speeding, it ain't necessarily so.
There is a B road in the countryside near me, just been resurfaced, good twisty road with plenty of visibility, not much traffic, yet speed limit was NSL some 20 years ago, then dropped to 50, then 40, & about 2 years ago to 30mph. I don't recall any major accidents, & as mentioned elsewhere, tyre/brake technology has moved on in massive strides, so I am puzzled....
The history of the legislation of, and the enforcement of, drink driving laws is fascinating, at least for me.
It wasn't so much that the police did not want to prosecute before the Road Safety Act and proscribed limits but that the procedures were such that it was all but impossible to secure a prosecution against anyone with a defence brief. Doctors were also reluctant to assist in a prosecution because they would be called to court a number of times before the case went ahead; normal tactics for the time.
There was a suggestion of reluctance of jurors and those in authority to restrict the amount of alcohol they could imbibe.
The propaganda suggestion for the introduction of proscribed blood levels is right. There were loads of ads everywhere. There was lots of justification for the legislation and there was some stretching of the truth. There was a fair bit on the TV as well, with professional drivers showing how they were affected. The most common comment afterwards was something like 'I never realised how bad my driving got after just two pints.'
I was told that when blood limits came in there was a surge of interest from PCs, especially those who had been to RTAs where they had alcohol fumes breathed on them but could do nothing.
I was a probationer in '75-77 and I used to bag quite a few. It was seen by supervisors as a good job. I would get half a dozen or more a month and be praised. I was often given an 'early slide' on nights if I was going to court the next day.
Speeding, on the other hand, was always seen as a 'nothing job' by everyone other than traffic. It is, after all, a regulation. I was overtaken by a driver in a 30mph. I followed and recorded 55mph for a distance of over half a mile. I got him stopped - I was in a plain car - and my sergeant showed a degree of contempt for my efforts. He said if I'd been in a marked car, or that there was a case of careless/dangerous, then he'd have been happy.
So police attitudes were, at least up until 10 years ago, substantially different when it came to DD and speeding.
It went for doctors as well. After accidents you have to ask the doctor in charge of any casualty if we could ask for blood. I did it three times and each time permission was given instantly. I always put this down to casualty doctors being fed up with RTA victims being brought in when drivers stank of alcohol, and drunks in casualty.
I was regularly called to casualties to eject drunks.
Only my experiences of course. If they differ from yours, it doesn't make me 'wrong'.
It wasn't so much that the police did not want to prosecute before the Road Safety Act and proscribed limits but that the procedures were such that it was all but impossible to secure a prosecution against anyone with a defence brief. Doctors were also reluctant to assist in a prosecution because they would be called to court a number of times before the case went ahead; normal tactics for the time.
There was a suggestion of reluctance of jurors and those in authority to restrict the amount of alcohol they could imbibe.
The propaganda suggestion for the introduction of proscribed blood levels is right. There were loads of ads everywhere. There was lots of justification for the legislation and there was some stretching of the truth. There was a fair bit on the TV as well, with professional drivers showing how they were affected. The most common comment afterwards was something like 'I never realised how bad my driving got after just two pints.'
I was told that when blood limits came in there was a surge of interest from PCs, especially those who had been to RTAs where they had alcohol fumes breathed on them but could do nothing.
I was a probationer in '75-77 and I used to bag quite a few. It was seen by supervisors as a good job. I would get half a dozen or more a month and be praised. I was often given an 'early slide' on nights if I was going to court the next day.
Speeding, on the other hand, was always seen as a 'nothing job' by everyone other than traffic. It is, after all, a regulation. I was overtaken by a driver in a 30mph. I followed and recorded 55mph for a distance of over half a mile. I got him stopped - I was in a plain car - and my sergeant showed a degree of contempt for my efforts. He said if I'd been in a marked car, or that there was a case of careless/dangerous, then he'd have been happy.
So police attitudes were, at least up until 10 years ago, substantially different when it came to DD and speeding.
It went for doctors as well. After accidents you have to ask the doctor in charge of any casualty if we could ask for blood. I did it three times and each time permission was given instantly. I always put this down to casualty doctors being fed up with RTA victims being brought in when drivers stank of alcohol, and drunks in casualty.
I was regularly called to casualties to eject drunks.
Only my experiences of course. If they differ from yours, it doesn't make me 'wrong'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff