Discussion
Streetcop said:
I think alex means that a stiffer sentence should be handed out to drink drivers who haven't collided with anything, but who were just simply pulled over...
What I mean is that if a drink-driver kills someone, it doesn't make the crime more serious, it just has a more tragic consequence.
Given that killing someone is a likely consequence of drink-driving, the sentence should be severe in cases.
WildCat said:
As matter of fact - do write to MPs and CCs in Cumbria und Lancs - they get regular letters - suggesting trafpols und not cams. Dick Ed, of course is a complete waste of space.... he never replies nor listens..... not even to our rantings on subject of drugs und proper policing ..... und family medics and myself know a thing or two about those .....
Keep it up....every week....
Also, I think central government and the office of the Home Secretary should also be on your list...
Encourage more of your friends and family....you know the elite of the elite that you tell us about.....tell their groundsmen and gamekeepers to write in also....
Keep up the good work....because i'll tell you what....I bet you're in a minority...lots of bleaters in this country and not much action.....all mouth and no trousers etc etc
Alex said:
I think alex means that a stiffer sentence should be handed out to drink drivers who haven't collided with anything, but who were just simply pulled over...
What I mean is that if a drink-driver kills someone, it doesn't make the crime more serious, it just has a more tragic consequence.
Given that killing someone is a likely consequence of drink-driving, the sentence should be severe in cases.
I agree with most of the sentiments, but what is never addressed in drunk driving cases and is not written into the law, and in particular the sentencing, is any allowance or even recognition of alcohol abuse.
It strikes me that someone in this day and age who is fully aware of the consequences and still regularly does this has to be looked upon in many cases as an alcoholic.
I relate this to the kind of horrendous accidents that are linked to drunk driving when the driver is a repeat offender maybe for the third or fourth time and is seriously over the limit; do you really think that person is wicked or intends to get that drunk and go out and kill?
If they are an alcoholic, probably the worst thing you can do with them is to stick them in jail.
If any of you have personal experience of this you will now what I'm talking about, it is a dreadful problem to deal with, and has no instant fix.
When someone gets behind a wheel it simply elevates the manifestation of their alcoholism to a different level.
It strikes me that someone in this day and age who is fully aware of the consequences and still regularly does this has to be looked upon in many cases as an alcoholic.
I relate this to the kind of horrendous accidents that are linked to drunk driving when the driver is a repeat offender maybe for the third or fourth time and is seriously over the limit; do you really think that person is wicked or intends to get that drunk and go out and kill?
If they are an alcoholic, probably the worst thing you can do with them is to stick them in jail.
If any of you have personal experience of this you will now what I'm talking about, it is a dreadful problem to deal with, and has no instant fix.
When someone gets behind a wheel it simply elevates the manifestation of their alcoholism to a different level.
IOLAIRE said:
I agree with most of the sentiments, but what is never addressed in drunk driving cases and is not written into the law, and in particular the sentencing, is any allowance or even recognition of alcohol abuse.
It strikes me that someone in this day and age who is fully aware of the consequences and still regularly does this has to be looked upon in many cases as an alcoholic.
I relate this to the kind of horrendous accidents that are linked to drunk driving when the driver is a repeat offender maybe for the third or fourth time and is seriously over the limit; do you really think that person is wicked or intends to get that drunk and go out and kill?
If they are an alcoholic, probably the worst thing you can do with them is to stick them in jail.
If any of you have personal experience of this you will now what I'm talking about, it is a dreadful problem to deal with, and has no instant fix.
When someone gets behind a wheel it simply elevates the manifestation of their alcoholism to a different level.
Absolutely true, but you must also protect society from the consequences of their addiction. If there was a sensible way of stopping a repeat offender from doing it then prison would not be the only option. Alco-locks are about to be / are being trialled which would prevent the offence from occurring. Could this be the thin end of the wedge - speed limiters to stop serial offenders from speeding instead of banning them?
It had also escaped my notice that the ban in this case was reduced from 15 years to 7 years.
For the full SP on this case go 'Google' and search under 'Amy Gonzales'.
It'd bloody disgraceful that any sentance for DD or D by DD should be reduced to, in practice, just a couple of years.
For the full SP on this case go 'Google' and search under 'Amy Gonzales'.
It'd bloody disgraceful that any sentance for DD or D by DD should be reduced to, in practice, just a couple of years.
StressedDave said:
I agree with most of the sentiments, but what is never addressed in drunk driving cases and is not written into the law, and in particular the sentencing, is any allowance or even recognition of alcohol abuse.
It strikes me that someone in this day and age who is fully aware of the consequences and still regularly does this has to be looked upon in many cases as an alcoholic.
I relate this to the kind of horrendous accidents that are linked to drunk driving when the driver is a repeat offender maybe for the third or fourth time and is seriously over the limit; do you really think that person is wicked or intends to get that drunk and go out and kill?
If they are an alcoholic, probably the worst thing you can do with them is to stick them in jail.
If any of you have personal experience of this you will now what I'm talking about, it is a dreadful problem to deal with, and has no instant fix.
When someone gets behind a wheel it simply elevates the manifestation of their alcoholism to a different level.
Absolutely true, but you must also protect society from the consequences of their addiction. If there was a sensible way of stopping a repeat offender from doing it then prison would not be the only option. Alco-locks are about to be / are being trialled which would prevent the offence from occurring. Could this be the thin end of the wedge - speed limiters to stop serial offenders from speeding instead of banning them?
Well that's the big question isn't it Dave.
But the real danger here, and we've already seen it, is from lunatics like Brunstrom who, in his own words, want to,"make speeding as socially unacceptable as drunk driving".
He is of course talking about zero tolerance enforcement of limits.
Can you imagine the consequences of enforcing that?
The fact that he would attempt an analogy between the two demonstrates how warped his thinking has become.
IOLAIRE said:
IOLAIRE said:
I agree with most of the sentiments, but what is never addressed in drunk driving cases and is not written into the law, and in particular the sentencing, is any allowance or even recognition of alcohol abuse.
It strikes me that someone in this day and age who is fully aware of the consequences and still regularly does this has to be looked upon in many cases as an alcoholic.
I relate this to the kind of horrendous accidents that are linked to drunk driving when the driver is a repeat offender maybe for the third or fourth time and is seriously over the limit; do you really think that person is wicked or intends to get that drunk and go out and kill?
If they are an alcoholic, probably the worst thing you can do with them is to stick them in jail.
If any of you have personal experience of this you will now what I'm talking about, it is a dreadful problem to deal with, and has no instant fix.
When someone gets behind a wheel it simply elevates the manifestation of their alcoholism to a different level.
Absolutely true, but you must also protect society from the consequences of their addiction. If there was a sensible way of stopping a repeat offender from doing it then prison would not be the only option. Alco-locks are about to be / are being trialled which would prevent the offence from occurring. Could this be the thin end of the wedge - speed limiters to stop serial offenders from speeding instead of banning them?
Well that's the big question isn't it Dave.
But the real danger here, and we've already seen it, is from lunatics like Brunstrom who, in his own words, want to,"make speeding as socially unacceptable as drunk driving".
He is of course talking about zero tolerance enforcement of limits.
Can you imagine the consequences of enforcing that?
The fact that he would attempt an analogy between the two demonstrates how warped his thinking has become.
That's mild for Bumstorm.
How about "There's no excuse for drifting over the speed limit just as there is no excuse for drifting a knife into somebody" ? (word for word, IIRC)
The guy is a politically correct nutter.
Streetcop said:
I do like some of his stances though... I must say.....
I mean...he doesn't like chavs....like some other Chief Constables seem to ..
No, he doesn't like them but he doesn't do a lot about them when an offence is reported. Do you remember my post about reporting a chav neighbour smashing a 'phone box (erm, it may have been on Peipipoo or SafeSpeed)?
Unfortunately, like most CCs he believes that all of life's problems can be solved by cameras and issuing stress balls/sun lotion.
lunarscope said:
I do like some of his stances though... I must say.....
I mean...he doesn't like chavs....like some other Chief Constables seem to ..
No, he doesn't like them but he doesn't do a lot about them when an offence is reported. Do you remember my post about reporting a chav neighbour smashing a 'phone box (erm, it may have been on Peipipoo or SafeSpeed)?
Unfortunately, like most CCs he believes that all of life's problems can be solved by cameras and issuing stress balls/sun lotion.
I don't go on Pepipoo or SafeSpeed, I'm afraid....
I only go on this one....(and a local cruising one...to see what the chavs are up to next..
) Don't know the details of the neighbour v phone box. What happened? in brief/.....
lunarscope said:
I do like some of his stances though... I must say.....
I mean...he doesn't like chavs....like some other Chief Constables seem to ..
No, he doesn't like them but he doesn't do a lot about them when an offence is reported. Do you remember my post about reporting a chav neighbour smashing a 'phone box (erm, it may have been on Peipipoo or SafeSpeed)?
Unfortunately, like most CCs he believes that all of life's problems can be solved by cameras and issuing stress balls/sun lotion.
Und heroin prescription on NHS ......
IOLAIRE said:
Well that's the big question isn't it Dave.
But the real danger here, and we've already seen it, is from lunatics like Brunstrom who, in his own words, want to,"make speeding as socially unacceptable as drunk driving".
He is of course talking about zero tolerance enforcement of limits.
Can you imagine the consequences of enforcing that?
The fact that he would attempt an analogy between the two demonstrates how warped his thinking has become.
It was tried by a Coroner in London a couple of years before I gave the whole business up - she browbeat the CPS into running a couple of 40-in-a-30 mph pedestrian fatals as death by dangerous. Neither was a winner. Making speeding as unacceptable as drink driving will only work when a majority of the popultion accept that speeding is as dangerous as drink-driving.
Before we start on speed we should deal with other far more important safety issues:
1) Proper observation
2) Proper observation
3) Proper observation
4) Correct following distances
5) Proper observation
ca092003 said:
I think we are back to the old arguement: 'Do we punish the crime or the consequences of the crime'?
Personally, I think all drink drivers should go to jail.
Really.
You drop a banana skin on the ground, some one slips on it and breaks their neck, killing them.
Should you go to prison for the consequences?
As for drink driving, unless you are advocating a total ban on drinking alcohol if driving (which I would agree with) then to suggest drink drivers should all go to jail is ridiculous.
Being fractionally over the limit is quite different from being 3 times over the limit.
swilly said:
I think we are back to the old arguement: 'Do we punish the crime or the consequences of the crime'?
Personally, I think all drink drivers should go to jail.
Really.
You drop a banana skin on the ground, some one slips on it and breaks their neck, killing them.
Should you go to prison for the consequences?
Causing death by slapstick comedy perhaps?
There should be a law against it...
Streetcop said:
As matter of fact - do write to MPs and CCs in Cumbria und Lancs - they get regular letters - suggesting trafpols und not cams. Dick Ed, of course is a complete waste of space.... he never replies nor listens..... not even to our rantings on subject of drugs und proper policing ..... und family medics and myself know a thing or two about those .....
Keep it up....every week....
Also, I think central government and the office of the Home Secretary should also be on your list...
Encourage more of your friends and family....you know the elite of the elite that you tell us about.....tell their groundsmen and gamekeepers to write in also....
Keep up the good work....because i'll tell you what....I bet you're in a minority...lots of bleaters in this country and not much action.....all mouth and no trousers etc etc
We do... write each week.....whole family - very active in this.... The Lancs mob (along with a lot of other angry people und our other heroes
) may have just possibly helped Lancs make a decision to revise its prosecution policy by that cat's whisker - we had a real ak-ak dogfight with them last year Later on - we had Lancs' statement of warning letters and 10% plus 4 across whole range of limits "getting invite to course". People did suggest it should be widened. Who knows for sure if it was result of sackfuls of dissatisfaction from locals or "logical conclusion by Lancs Prats" .. but still - a small result which cannot be sneezed at - und we are still at it. Still- did not get a partner and supports for Dibs though.... ... but we shall never surrender! Shall fight to the last highway, dual carriageway, NSL road, car, for decent speed limits and right kind of enforcement (and punishments for right twazaks!)StressedDave said:
Before we start on speed we should deal with other far more important safety issues:
1) Proper observation
2) Proper observation
3) Proper observation
4) Correct following distances
5) Proper observation
Um
Concentration
Obervation
Anticipation
Space
Time
Und.....
Courtesy
Anticipation
Responsibility
Patience
Alex said:
...Brunstrom who, in his own words, want to,"make speeding as socially unacceptable as drunk driving".
Actually, speeding is socially acceptable. Unrealistic speed limits and blanket enforcement are making it more so.
I think we should try to make speeding (above an unrealistic limit, etc,...) totally acceptable.
I have tried whilst a passenger with a holier than thou, 'non speeder' driving. Try this: Start the discussion on speeding by waiting until an NSL appears and commenting that, at 45mph, the car is causing an obstruction as it is travelling substantially below the limt.
Once you have had the argument of whether NSL=40mph or NSL=60mph, wait until a 40mph or 30mph restriction appears. Keep an eye on the speedo and count the number of times the needle drifts above the limit.
After a suitable amount of time has elapsed, comment that the driver has committed x number of criminal offences and now would be banned for 6 months under the totting-up rules.
It soon wipes the smug smile off their face
swilly said:
I think we are back to the old arguement: 'Do we punish the crime or the consequences of the crime'?
Personally, I think all drink drivers should go to jail.
Really.
You drop a banana skin on the ground, some one slips on it and breaks their neck, killing them.
Should you go to prison for the consequences?
As for drink driving, unless you are advocating a total ban on drinking alcohol if driving (which I would agree with) then to suggest drink drivers should all go to jail is ridiculous.
Being fractionally over the limit is quite different from being 3 times over the limit.
No, no Swilly, you're not getting the hang of the game properly!
Quite clearly you have to jail the Jamaican who cut down the banana in the first place; it's his fault.
Apart from anything else he's probably a dope smoking, Rastafarian sex maniac, so he deserves what's coming to him, and you can sell his wife and daughter on to the slave trade and spend the money on a few extra speed cameras.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff