Parallels between drink driving and speeding

Parallels between drink driving and speeding

Author
Discussion

Esceptico

Original Poster:

7,334 posts

108 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Thinking about the ethics of speeding it struck me that there are parallels with drink driving - please note this means there are similarities, not a one to one correspondence (this is probably a failed attempt to stop some on here raising objections to arguments I'm not making).

Although drink driving laws have existed for a long time they were not rigorously enforced for many years. Given how prevalent drink driving was when I was growing up in the 70s it was also socially acceptable to a degree unimaginable today (I don't mean driving whilst completely drunk but well in excess of today's limits). Only with the introduction of blood alcohol limits was an objective test introduced (previously I believe there was a lot of discretion on the part of police officers who had to enforce the drink driving law). A concerted public information campaign to demonise drink driving together with stricter limits and harsh punishments have made drink driving socially unacceptable and rarer.

Similarly, speeding was initially not enforced very much because it relied on policemen catching you in the act. Only with the introduction of technology like speed guns and more recently speed cameras have the police been able to catch much higher numbers of speeders. I see parallels between the "don't drink and drive" and "speed kills" public information campaigns. Clearly the speed kills has not yet had the same "success", at least in the UK. In Switzerland they have been more successful in making speeding unacceptable - partly because of some high profile crashes where young foreigners caused innocent parties (Swiss people!) to die.

A less obvious parallel is that a defence of drink driving could be mounted in the same way as for speeding. Although there is a statistical link between drink driving and accidents it is also true that the vast majority of people that do and have driven over the limit have not crashed or caused accidents. It is also true that when and where you drive will have a significant impact on the danger of drink driving (half a mile from the pub on a deserted road not the same as in town at 3:30 on a school day). It is also true that alcohol affects people differently so some people below the limit may be affected more than some people above the limit (personally I don't feel comfortable driving after even one drink). It could be argued that whether someone is capable of driving after drinking should be left to their own discretion as they are better able to judge whether they are in a fit state or whether they are endangering anyone by their actions. Why should such people stick to the drink driving limits? Isn't the limit just an arbitrary number that ignores the specifics of the situation? If I feel perfectly able to drive after 4 pints what right does the government have to infringe upon my personal freedom of enjoying a legal beverage?

I've not heard the argument above used to defend drink driving. In fact I've not recently heard anyone defend drink driving at all. The arguments sound implausible yet are used in defence of speeding. However, with the on-going campaign to demonise speeding will people in twenty years have a similar view towards current arguments defending the right to speed? Of course, in twenty years if speeding has been demonised enough such that governments are able to introduce technology to prevent us from speeding (or we are all on self driving cars) then the point might be moot.

ikarl

3,730 posts

198 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Esceptico said:
Thinking about the ethics of speeding it struck me that there are parallels with drink driving - please note this means there are similarities, not a one to one correspondence (this is probably a failed attempt to stop some on here raising objections to arguments I'm not making).

Although drink driving laws have existed for a long time they were not rigorously enforced for many years. Given how prevalent drink driving was when I was growing up in the 70s it was also socially acceptable to a degree unimaginable today (I don't mean driving whilst completely drunk but well in excess of today's limits). Only with the introduction of blood alcohol limits was an objective test introduced (previously I believe there was a lot of discretion on the part of police officers who had to enforce the drink driving law). A concerted public information campaign to demonise drink driving together with stricter limits and harsh punishments have made drink driving socially unacceptable and rarer.

Similarly, speeding was initially not enforced very much because it relied on policemen catching you in the act. Only with the introduction of technology like speed guns and more recently speed cameras have the police been able to catch much higher numbers of speeders. I see parallels between the "don't drink and drive" and "speed kills" public information campaigns. Clearly the speed kills has not yet had the same "success", at least in the UK. In Switzerland they have been more successful in making speeding unacceptable - partly because of some high profile crashes where young foreigners caused innocent parties (Swiss people!) to die.

A less obvious parallel is that a defence of drink driving could be mounted in the same way as for speeding. Although there is a statistical link between drink driving and accidents it is also true that the vast majority of people that do and have driven over the limit have not crashed or caused accidents. It is also true that when and where you drive will have a significant impact on the danger of drink driving (half a mile from the pub on a deserted road not the same as in town at 3:30 on a school day). It is also true that alcohol affects people differently so some people below the limit may be affected more than some people above the limit (personally I don't feel comfortable driving after even one drink). It could be argued that whether someone is capable of driving after drinking should be left to their own discretion as they are better able to judge whether they are in a fit state or whether they are endangering anyone by their actions. Why should such people stick to the drink driving limits? Isn't the limit just an arbitrary number that ignores the specifics of the situation? If I feel perfectly able to drive after 4 pints what right does the government have to infringe upon my personal freedom of enjoying a legal beverage?

I've not heard the argument above used to defend drink driving. In fact I've not recently heard anyone defend drink driving at all. The arguments sound implausible yet are used in defence of speeding. However, with the on-going campaign to demonise speeding will people in twenty years have a similar view towards current arguments defending the right to speed? Of course, in twenty years if speeding has been demonised enough such that governments are able to introduce technology to prevent us from speeding (or we are all on self driving cars) then the point might be moot.
rolleyes

Ok, imagine the scenario where someone 'feels' ok drinking 10 pints, and then kills someone you love...

Drink driving is, imo, in a much higher risk category than speeding. There are many reasons people do not defend drink driving.

Esceptico

Original Poster:

7,334 posts

108 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
ikarl said:
rolleyes

Ok, imagine the scenario where someone 'feels' ok drinking 10 pints, and then kills someone you love...

Drink driving is, imo, in a much higher risk category than speeding. There are many reasons people do not defend drink driving.
How is that so different from someone who thinks it is okay to drive at 140 but then crashes and kills someone you love?

Clearly they are not exact parallels because if you drink 10 pints you are more dangerous all the time you are driving whereas you could stop speeding at any point.

ikarl

3,730 posts

198 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
I wouldn't say it was any different at all, but then I'm not the one saying that it should be left to peoples own discretion.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with all the laws we have, but laws are required


TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Two people driving along. One exceeding the speed limit, sober. One within the speed limit, but above the drink-drive limit.

A situation looks like it might start to develop. The one exceeding the speed limit can quickly slow down. Can the other one sober up as quickly?

No? And that's why any drawing of parallels is utterly doomed to failure.

Pete317

1,430 posts

221 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
It comes down to mechanism.

Except for when approaching the limits of grip etc, like when you're going too fast to negotiate a bend, there's no mechanism - no direct causal link between speed and accidents.
Once you have controlled for the myriad other factors, you will see a statistically higher number of accidents with increased speed, as well as a higher proportion of serious accidents, over a sufficient period of time.
But this is purely because of the greater likelihood of being in the wrong place at the wrong time as speeds increase.

On the other hand, there are several mechanisms by which drink driving directly causes accidents.

You can't draw parallels between the two.

Edited by Pete317 on Monday 2nd May 15:15

snorky782

1,115 posts

98 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Five replies in and already we're comparing the impacts and justifying why speeding is OK and drink driving isn't. The point of the thread seems to be to draw parallels between the change in social acceptance of the two.

I agree with the OP to a large extent. Drink driving was socially acceptable, much stronger enforcement has led to it becoming a social no no.

Speeding is starting head down the same route. There are several roads I have to use, where the majority of drivers drive at dead on 30mph all the time. They also get very, very angry if you dare to overtake them. The social acceptance of speeding is not well judged on this site, due to it being a forum for car enthusiasts, most people aren't on here and most people have little interest in cars.

vsonix

3,858 posts

162 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
I see what the OP is saying - it's pretty much the case that although driving after a few drinks but not considered impaired/inebriated/intoxicated is less accepted because of social engineering although the overall drop in drink/drive fatalities hasn't gone down proportionately to the percentage of drivers who no longer drive when they have imbibed any alcohol at all.
However, I think that the attitudes regarding social acceptability of - let's call it 'non-problematic drink driving, for want of an established phrase - do vary. In a nutshell, the less urban and built up the area, the more people are expected to 'have' to drive home from the pub or from socialising and to apply their own discretion about if it is safe to drive, and caution in doing so. And not surprisingly either since the potential damage one can do to others and their property is generally considerably less when crawling along the lanes at 35 mph at 3am than in would be in a built up residential area. And this they do with little incident - the real serious DUI casualties are caused by reckless behaviour, i.e. drinking beyond the point of impairment and then attempting to do things that they probably would never do if they were sober. And the people that behave recklessly like this will do so regardless of what laws exist, just like in countries with the death penalty for murder, certain individuals still commit murder.

And when it comes to the point, I would say that the actual enforcement of the drink driving laws in the UK is done relatively gently compared to other countries. Random stops to conduct breath testing are rare outside the winter festive season, and generally a motorist needs to have been observed acting erratically or in the course of committing a different offence to be considered worth a pull for a breath test. Which is by and large how it should be. Our behaviour is moderated by social pressure and our own conscience and, much like breaking the speed limit, if a person can do so and be observant of speed cameras, (un)marked police, potential hazards and still not come to harm or draw attention to themselves while doing it, chances are that it will happen every day and life will go on as normal.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
snorky782 said:
The social acceptance of speeding is not well judged on this site, due to it being a forum for car enthusiasts, most people aren't on here and most people have little interest in cars.
Exactly right. You'd need to post this question on Pissheads as well as Pistonheads to get a fair response.

I think speeding is becoming far more socially unacceptable, but this isn't the place to notice it. When my kids were at primary school a few years ago, a mum done for speeding would be the talk of the playground, and not in a nice way! Would be even worse now I guess.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
Two people driving along. One exceeding the speed limit, sober. One within the speed limit, but above the drink-drive limit.

A situation looks like it might start to develop. The one exceeding the speed limit can quickly slow down. Can the other one sober up as quickly?

No? And that's why any drawing of parallels is utterly doomed to failure.
2 drivers - one drunk doing 20mph and one sober doing 80 - both down the back twisty roads.

In that scenario I would say the some driver has no chance of slowing down should a hazard be just round the corner.

Both illegal, both stupid.

singlecoil

33,311 posts

245 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Esceptico said:
Stuff
I see what you are getting at even if many of the people responding won't.

It's not about the offences themselves, it's about the parallels in the arguments which are used to defend committing them. The drink drivers have lost their argument, but the speeders still feel they should be allowed to judge their own limits.

Now if they were all as good at driving as they think they are, I wouldn't mind them choosing their own limits. But a lot/most of them aren't, they are the ones than need limits, and I am happy to have limits imposed on me, even though I don't need them, in order that they are also imposed on the people who do.


TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
garyhun said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Two people driving along. One exceeding the speed limit, sober. One within the speed limit, but above the drink-drive limit.

A situation looks like it might start to develop. The one exceeding the speed limit can quickly slow down. Can the other one sober up as quickly?

No? And that's why any drawing of parallels is utterly doomed to failure.
2 drivers - one drunk doing 20mph and one sober doing 80 - both down the back twisty roads.
So 60 NSL...?

garyhun said:
In that scenario I would say the some driver has no chance of slowing down should a hazard be just round the corner.

Both illegal, both stupid.
And you'd say that "exceeding the speed limit" was the most serious offence in that case, would you?

Esceptico

Original Poster:

7,334 posts

108 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
Now if they were all as good at driving as they think they are, I wouldn't mind them choosing their own limits. But a lot/most of them aren't, they are the ones than need limits, and I am happy to have limits imposed on me, even though I don't need them, in order that they are also imposed on the people who do.
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


Pete317

1,430 posts

221 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
garyhun said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Two people driving along. One exceeding the speed limit, sober. One within the speed limit, but above the drink-drive limit.

A situation looks like it might start to develop. The one exceeding the speed limit can quickly slow down. Can the other one sober up as quickly?

No? And that's why any drawing of parallels is utterly doomed to failure.
2 drivers - one drunk doing 20mph and one sober doing 80 - both down the back twisty roads.

In that scenario I would say the some driver has no chance of slowing down should a hazard be just round the corner.

Both illegal, both stupid.
Reductio ad absurdum

Johnnytheboy

24,498 posts

185 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
snorky782 said:
Drink driving was socially acceptable, much stronger enforcement has led to it becoming a social no no.
The curious thing is it doesn't seem to have worked in quite the same way for speeding, or at least yet.

One of my jobs at work is taking letters to be posted recorded delivery when people get caught for speeding.

Invariably, if I mention this while stood in the queue at our little village post office, almost everyone there says they've been done, none of them seem to think it's anything to be ashamed of, and all are sympathetic.

I don't know if this was ever the case for drink driving; perhaps the difference is that you were invariably given a good telling off by a policeman when caught, whereas the overwhelming majority of speeding tickets arrive in the post, so it seems more like getting a parking ticket than being caught for a proper criminal offence.

0000

13,812 posts

190 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Oh Jesus wept.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
Esceptico said:
The picture painted on PH of the average speeder is someone fully in control and knowing where and when it is safe to speed.
Well, yes, of course.

Because if not, it isn't just exceeding the speed limit - it's a different, and much more serious offence. I doubt you'll find many here condoning careless driving or dangerous driving - and they can be done within the speed limit, too.

Quite simply - if "exceeding the speed limit" is the most appropriate offence to charge somebody with, then they ARE by definition driving safely and in full control. Just one number is bigger than another number.

singlecoil

33,311 posts

245 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
Esceptico said:
The picture painted on PH of the average speeder is someone fully in control and knowing where and when it is safe to speed.
Well, yes, of course.

Because if not, it isn't just exceeding the speed limit - it's a different, and much more serious offence. I doubt you'll find many here condoning careless driving or dangerous driving - and they can be done within the speed limit, too.

Quite simply - if "exceeding the speed limit" is the most appropriate offence to charge somebody with, then they ARE by definition driving safely and in full control. Just one number is bigger than another number.
Not necessarily. More serious offences are probably going to be defended and will require a higher level of proof, and will often come down to opinion in any case. By only being charged with speeding does not for a moment prove they are driving safely.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Esceptico said:
The picture painted on PH of the average speeder is someone fully in control and knowing where and when it is safe to speed.
Well, yes, of course.

Because if not, it isn't just exceeding the speed limit - it's a different, and much more serious offence. I doubt you'll find many here condoning careless driving or dangerous driving - and they can be done within the speed limit, too.

Quite simply - if "exceeding the speed limit" is the most appropriate offence to charge somebody with, then they ARE by definition driving safely and in full control. Just one number is bigger than another number.
Not necessarily. More serious offences are probably going to be defended and will require a higher level of proof, and will often come down to opinion in any case. By only being charged with speeding does not for a moment prove they are driving safely.
But "exceeding the speed limit" wouldn't be the most appropriate charge, merely the most expedient one.

singlecoil

33,311 posts

245 months

Monday 2nd May 2016
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Esceptico said:
The picture painted on PH of the average speeder is someone fully in control and knowing where and when it is safe to speed.
Well, yes, of course.

Because if not, it isn't just exceeding the speed limit - it's a different, and much more serious offence. I doubt you'll find many here condoning careless driving or dangerous driving - and they can be done within the speed limit, too.

Quite simply - if "exceeding the speed limit" is the most appropriate offence to charge somebody with, then they ARE by definition driving safely and in full control. Just one number is bigger than another number.
Not necessarily. More serious offences are probably going to be defended and will require a higher level of proof, and will often come down to opinion in any case. By only being charged with speeding does not for a moment prove they are driving safely.
But "exceeding the speed limit" wouldn't be the most appropriate charge, merely the most expedient one.
Not necessarily, the person might be driving safely and in full control. The issue I had with your post is the 'they ARE by definition' part.