Chris Tarrant - Drink Drive

[TwigtheWonderkid]

hooblah said:

. I've driven pissed before, I don't make a habit of it but I know my limit and what I can get away with.

This is exactly the attitude that makes me laugh like a drain whenever I hear about someone getting done.

A few years ago his daughter Freya got done. He was very vocal about how it was appalling behaviour and she deserved everything that she got.

I wonder what she said to him today.

[Boosted LS1]

^ That would be priceless.

[caelite]

bqf said:

WCZ said:

no. in the countryside people drink drive. I'm not saying 10 pints and drive home but 4-5 is extremely common and lots of the pubs would die if people didn't do this as there's not many taxis and no public transport. rarely hear of crashes too and the police aren't bothered. it's more built up areas that cause problems

This, 100%, although I'm now going into my bunker, wearing a full suit of armour.

Yeah, talking about the real world outside of London seems to merit a lot of flak on here. Could bring up all the uninsured, untaxed, un-MOT'd pickups/4x4s that crawl out the woodwork in Scottish villages when the bad snow hits, then disappear as quickly as they appeared when it warms ups. Certain things slide out in the countryside which are simply unacceptable in the citys. Police turn a blind eye as they recognise, not only the minimal effect of the crime being committed, but also of the negatives effects to public perception that rigid enforcement of these 'absolute' offences would cause. In my mind it would be better if the legal system reflected this as well, removing the idea of 'absolute' offence and prosecuting people on a more means tested and fair bases. For instance, a blood alcohol of 0.50, indicating a fairly minor (but definitely present) lack of inhibitions/reactions, should merit a lesser punishment, then someone who is visibly pissed, slaloming all over the road, intended journey should also be taken into account, a 2 mile doddle along a country lane indicates a fairly low risk, driving a 44 ton wagon along the motorway indicates a somewhat increased risk.

To me the current method of prosecution for drink driving could be likened to if we did away with speeding FPNs, and issued the same punishment for those doing 46 in a 40, to those doing 85 in a 30

[Boosted LS1]

^ My take exactly. Let the level of punishment match the level of the offence.

[DoubleD]

But doesnt the ban increase the more you are over the limit? And distance is of no relevence.

[Boosted LS1]

^ Being 1 point over the limit shouldn't justify a ban imo. A higher financial penalty may be more suitable or community service or?

[caelite]

DoubleD said:

But doesnt the ban increase the more you are over the limit? And distance is of no relevence.

Not necessarily distance, but the type of journey. In my mind doddling home from your local, on a quiet, rural road you likely know rather well, merits a far lower factor of risk than someone who has, lets say had 3 or 4 pints with his dinner in Glasgow then decides to drive back through rush hour to his home in Edinburgh, much higher risk to the public, in my mind should merit a higher punishment.

I thought first offence was fairly consistent 1 year ban + income tested fine? Unless an accident/injury was caused or a history of alcoholism was present.

Well raising the point, would also very much like there to be a more solid distinction between drink driving and 'being drunk in charge of a vehicle'. The latter being where the driver just happened to be in his vehicle drunk (whether sleeping, or fetching items, in a camper/caravan etc), and cannot prove that his intent wasn't to drive. In my mind the burden of proof of intent really needs to be shifted to the prosecution.

[Loyly]

Boosted LS1 said:

It suggests to me the drink drive message being sent out by the government isn't getting through. Perhaps it's flawed in the same way the speeding campaign is.

More like it's been so long since the concerted push to stigmatise drink driving that many PH'ers either don't remember it or are too thick to understand it.

Drink driving and speeding aren't comparable.

[Boosted LS1]

^ Rubbish. The powers that be have sought to stigmatise both but have failed. Most of the population is guilty of one or the other or both. How about you, are you Mr perfect?

Otherwise please explain why people DD or exceed the speed limit? The answer is because people set their own rules to suit the circumstances. Thousands of us get that right whilst some get it wrong.

Mind that doorstep.

[Loyly]

Boosted LS1 said:

Some ste

No, I speed all the time, I just don't speed where it'll attract attention or where I'll be seen doing it.

Drink driving, on the other hand, is a benchmarked loss of control. You can speed and maintain complete control with no impairment to your ability. Most drink drivers underestimate their level of impairment and the deterioration in their driving ability and get away with it for so long, until they plough into a pedestrian.

The government have to set the standard somewhere and so 35ug alcohol to100ml of breath is the benchmark. If you can't keep away from the drink, sling your licence, for our sake.

[FN2TypeR]

DoubleD said:

But doesnt the ban increase the more you are over the limit? And distance is of no relevence.

Yes, along with it being a second (or third etc etc) offence, that has a hefty impact to. My ex girlfriends brother did it, twice, the fool. Second time around he wasn't as pissed as he was for the first offence but the ban was double in length, three years instead of eighteen months (Scotland)

[Boosted LS1]

Loyly said:

Boosted LS1 said:

Some ste

A lot more st, loads more what a twunt

So you in your little moral world are happy to speed compared to a person over the limit driving like Miss Daisy. Is it time for Billy Smart to come along? They have a vacancy just for you at the circus. You could be the clown or arse end of a horse. Either way, I'll laugh.

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Thursday 18th January 21:58

[Sa Calobra]

cybersimon said:

Christ Tarrant has been banned for 12 months for 50microgrames of alcohol in 100 ml of breath - limit being 35 micrograms.
Fair enough. He had been drinking in a pub.

The thing that gives me pause is that he was reported to the poice by a member of public in the pub.

Would you have been that citizen?

I'm not sure I would.

Serious? I wouldn't hesitate. Full stop.

This isn't some sort of 'grass m8' it's dealing with a selfish dangerous idiot.

[Legacywr]

Boosted LS1 said:

^ Being 1 point over the limit shouldn't justify a ban imo. A higher financial penalty may be more suitable or community service or?

Being 1 point over the limit doesn't automatically get you a ban.

But, your views on DD are generally are quite odd though IMO.

[Boosted LS1]

^ You try telling that to the thousands of people who have a tipple and drive every day without crashing or causing carnage. It's about moderation and sensible limits.

[Legacywr]

Or luck!

[Boosted LS1]

What, over how many miles travelled and at what speeds. Luck has nothing to do with it. People just don't cause carnage every time they have a drink.

The fact is that many people drink and drive daily without issue. They're not all dangerous and perhaps the 'law' should be adjusted somehow to sort out the pissheads from those who had one tipple to many.

[Legacywr]

Can we assume you exceed the 35mg limit and drive?

[DoubleD]

Or just leave it as it is. It works just fine.

[Boosted LS1]

Legacywr said:

Can we assume you exceed the 35mg limit and drive?

You exceed the speed limit, you lunatic! Get off the road before you kill somebody.