Rural drink-driving
Discussion
rockandrollmark said:
Just here to say, shame on you for those defending this behaviour. If someone fancies drink then it’s on them to work out a way of getting home that doesn’t risk taking out an innocent party.
I see a lot of this in the villages around my way. Smacks of arrogance. Impaired is impaired. You don’t get to choose how the law applies to you as and when it suits you.
The law applies differently even within the UK.I see a lot of this in the villages around my way. Smacks of arrogance. Impaired is impaired. You don’t get to choose how the law applies to you as and when it suits you.
English limit is 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood. Scottish limit is just 50 milligrammes, which is the most common limit across Europe. It's equivalent to one beer or one small glass of wine.
Should the UK be harmonized to the lower limit of 50 milligrammes in the interest of improved safety?
bigothunter said:
rockandrollmark said:
Just here to say, shame on you for those defending this behaviour. If someone fancies drink then it’s on them to work out a way of getting home that doesn’t risk taking out an innocent party.
I see a lot of this in the villages around my way. Smacks of arrogance. Impaired is impaired. You don’t get to choose how the law applies to you as and when it suits you.
The law applies differently even within the UK.I see a lot of this in the villages around my way. Smacks of arrogance. Impaired is impaired. You don’t get to choose how the law applies to you as and when it suits you.
English limit is 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood. Scottish limit is just 50 milligrammes, which is the most common limit across Europe. It's equivalent to one beer or one small glass of wine.
Should the UK be harmonized to the lower limit of 50 milligrammes in the interest of improved safety?
h only got a years ban.Something else to consider is that maybe the bulk of drink driving is done during the morning by people who would never condone drink driving?
It's not uncommon around here to spot an afternoon drinker, especially on a Friday. The person who's had a couple after knocking off or over a Sunday lunch. You'll be sitting behind them and they turn too early for one corner and then too late for another. But come the morning, all across the U.K. there will be huge numbers getting into their cars to mix it with the school run who are still over the limit.
And then there are the low functioners. They aren't on drugs or alcohol but they are still unable to operate a car safely. They can't negotiate corners, junctions and sometimes straight sections of road. Why do so many horrific crashes appear to involve the sort of idiot who packs an old car that has bald tyres full of their family and then speed into an object?
Alcohol, drugs, medicine, low IQ none of these things are remotely good for our roads beyond a basic level but we have laws for alcohol and drugs but guidance that's ignored for medication and zero relevant testing for thickness. And the English countryside is riddled with inbred stoopid.
But so are our towns. Absolutely riddled with thickos but the difference is that urban tards tend not to need a car for starters so stick to locking bus windows but the nature of urban roads tends to mean that tards who do drive tend not to be able to reach the speeds where the vehicle is travelling faster than their brain can function so cornering is easier and more reliable.
Ultimately, the permanent issue in the countryside stems from economics. The sparser population and lower average incomes means there is no logical economic case for more policing, buses, any taxis and pretty much the only way to move around is by car.
It's not uncommon around here to spot an afternoon drinker, especially on a Friday. The person who's had a couple after knocking off or over a Sunday lunch. You'll be sitting behind them and they turn too early for one corner and then too late for another. But come the morning, all across the U.K. there will be huge numbers getting into their cars to mix it with the school run who are still over the limit.
And then there are the low functioners. They aren't on drugs or alcohol but they are still unable to operate a car safely. They can't negotiate corners, junctions and sometimes straight sections of road. Why do so many horrific crashes appear to involve the sort of idiot who packs an old car that has bald tyres full of their family and then speed into an object?
Alcohol, drugs, medicine, low IQ none of these things are remotely good for our roads beyond a basic level but we have laws for alcohol and drugs but guidance that's ignored for medication and zero relevant testing for thickness. And the English countryside is riddled with inbred stoopid.
But so are our towns. Absolutely riddled with thickos but the difference is that urban tards tend not to need a car for starters so stick to locking bus windows but the nature of urban roads tends to mean that tards who do drive tend not to be able to reach the speeds where the vehicle is travelling faster than their brain can function so cornering is easier and more reliable.
Ultimately, the permanent issue in the countryside stems from economics. The sparser population and lower average incomes means there is no logical economic case for more policing, buses, any taxis and pretty much the only way to move around is by car.
The jiffle king said:
J4CKO said:
I got told before I went to Atlanta with work that "They have a zero tolerance approach to drink driving over here", implication being being British I would probably go drink driving.
Never seen as much drinking and driving as over there,
I lived just north of Atlanta and fully agree. I never did as I just don't agree with it but a bottle of wine and driving was fairly common. We chose not to socialise with people who did drink driving but even at work amongst those who were well educated and remunerated it was rife. Never seen as much drinking and driving as over there,
When I went into rural Wisconsin it was even worse than Georgia
LA though... If someone orders a second drink regardless of the driving situation people start planning an intervention.
DonkeyApple said:
Something else to consider is that maybe the bulk of drink driving is done during the morning by people who would never condone drink driving?
It's not uncommon around here to spot an afternoon drinker, especially on a Friday. The person who's had a couple after knocking off or over a Sunday lunch. You'll be sitting behind them and they turn too early for one corner and then too late for another. But come the morning, all across the U.K. there will be huge numbers getting into their cars to mix it with the school run who are still over the limit.
And then there are the low functioners. They aren't on drugs or alcohol but they are still unable to operate a car safely. They can't negotiate corners, junctions and sometimes straight sections of road. Why do so many horrific crashes appear to involve the sort of idiot who packs an old car that has bald tyres full of their family and then speed into an object?
Alcohol, drugs, medicine, low IQ none of these things are remotely good for our roads beyond a basic level but we have laws for alcohol and drugs but guidance that's ignored for medication and zero relevant testing for thickness. And the English countryside is riddled with inbred stoopid.
But so are our towns. Absolutely riddled with thickos but the difference is that urban tards tend not to need a car for starters so stick to locking bus windows but the nature of urban roads tends to mean that tards who do drive tend not to be able to reach the speeds where the vehicle is travelling faster than their brain can function so cornering is easier and more reliable.
Ultimately, the permanent issue in the countryside stems from economics. The sparser population and lower average incomes means there is no logical economic case for more policing, buses, any taxis and pretty much the only way to move around is by car.
to add to that much of the drink driving around here in the village's are not those with low incomes, much of the countryside is very wealthy indeed. Its carried out by entitled tossers who have plenty of money and good jobs, and drink drive because they think the law is not something they should be concerning themselves about along with knowing that there is a very low chance of them getting caught.It's not uncommon around here to spot an afternoon drinker, especially on a Friday. The person who's had a couple after knocking off or over a Sunday lunch. You'll be sitting behind them and they turn too early for one corner and then too late for another. But come the morning, all across the U.K. there will be huge numbers getting into their cars to mix it with the school run who are still over the limit.
And then there are the low functioners. They aren't on drugs or alcohol but they are still unable to operate a car safely. They can't negotiate corners, junctions and sometimes straight sections of road. Why do so many horrific crashes appear to involve the sort of idiot who packs an old car that has bald tyres full of their family and then speed into an object?
Alcohol, drugs, medicine, low IQ none of these things are remotely good for our roads beyond a basic level but we have laws for alcohol and drugs but guidance that's ignored for medication and zero relevant testing for thickness. And the English countryside is riddled with inbred stoopid.
But so are our towns. Absolutely riddled with thickos but the difference is that urban tards tend not to need a car for starters so stick to locking bus windows but the nature of urban roads tends to mean that tards who do drive tend not to be able to reach the speeds where the vehicle is travelling faster than their brain can function so cornering is easier and more reliable.
Ultimately, the permanent issue in the countryside stems from economics. The sparser population and lower average incomes means there is no logical economic case for more policing, buses, any taxis and pretty much the only way to move around is by car.
Also anyone driving after they've had a skin full the night before deserves little sympathy. Its not difficult to restrain yourself if you know you are having to drive the following day, or at the very least take a personal breath test.
I also know of a functional alcoholic who drives several times a day. Because of their alcohol tolerance a lot of the time you wouldn't know they're drinking, then they drink to excess at night then start topping up in the morning. They want their licence taking away as one day they are likely to drink too much and drive.
Have to say it's pretty disappointing to read a few comments on a motoring forum which are tacitly condoning or excusing DD.
The effect of alcohol on your body is a scientific fact. Anyone who has ever had a few drinks knows what it does to you. Yes, some people have more tolerance for it than others - in my 20's it would usually take a few pints before I could start to feel the effects, these days I don't really drink much, when I do sometimes I can start to feel it after just the first pint. But when it comes down to it the limits need to factor for the lowest common denominator.
The "whataboutism's" really don't matter. Yes, a "decent" driver who's had 3 or 4 pints might still be "safer" than a sober but tired driver, or some old duffer who can barely see past the steering wheel, or a school run mum who's distracted by 3 screaming kids. But ultimately that decent driver would be even safer if they'd stuck to soft drinks or 0% beer. And a blood alcohol limit is a straightforward method to legislate with little room for dispute.
I will very occasionally have a half pint with a meal if I know I won't be driving for a few hours, but most of the time I share the driving duties with the wife, and whoever is driving somehow manages to achieve what half the population seem incapable of - going without alcohol for an evening.
The effect of alcohol on your body is a scientific fact. Anyone who has ever had a few drinks knows what it does to you. Yes, some people have more tolerance for it than others - in my 20's it would usually take a few pints before I could start to feel the effects, these days I don't really drink much, when I do sometimes I can start to feel it after just the first pint. But when it comes down to it the limits need to factor for the lowest common denominator.
The "whataboutism's" really don't matter. Yes, a "decent" driver who's had 3 or 4 pints might still be "safer" than a sober but tired driver, or some old duffer who can barely see past the steering wheel, or a school run mum who's distracted by 3 screaming kids. But ultimately that decent driver would be even safer if they'd stuck to soft drinks or 0% beer. And a blood alcohol limit is a straightforward method to legislate with little room for dispute.
I will very occasionally have a half pint with a meal if I know I won't be driving for a few hours, but most of the time I share the driving duties with the wife, and whoever is driving somehow manages to achieve what half the population seem incapable of - going without alcohol for an evening.
When I was about 19/20 I got pulled and breath tested by the fuzz. I had drunk one low alcohol can of lager (Swan Light if anyone remembers that from the 80s, it was about 0.5% alcohol). I had been at a house party and had been sent out get more beer as I had a car and the offie was miles away. The alcohol on my breath did actually register on the device, although below the limit. Coppers let me on my way with a lecture about not even taking one drink when driving. Really surprised me that a small 0.5% beer would show up, and it put me off ever drinking anything like that before driving again. Not so much as a Top Deck shandy.
I live in a rural English shire and have thousands of acres of family farmland over which I will drive in the Rangerover to and from dinner parties, BBQ's and a couple of pubs. All of which will involve no public roads and I would never drive on a public road over the limit as a conviction has serious implications to my job and would have to be declared.
Driving with heightened care because you know you need to can often mean you drive more safely than normal. So it happens a lot in rural areas with very little practical negative impact. It is wrong but I also think the law is an ass in not having a more graduated penalty system.
Penalties for being in an accident or totally pissed should be draconian and prison for repeat offenders. But there needs to be a spectrum below that where somebody on four pints quietly making their way home causing no grief to others gets a slapped wrist that doesn't lose them their license. There also needs to be much fairer focus on drugs other than alcohol.
I own quite a few miles of rural roadside hedges and have about ten cars a year crash through them. It's usually between midnight and 7am. The Sommelier of the local posh restaurant ended up on his roof at two a.m. last year outside my place (nasty off camber bend) and stank of booze and the police turned out and much to my surprise didn't have a breathalyser kit and sent him in his way (it was a busy Saturday night).
Most commonly the crashed cars are "recovered" by extended family members the next day and I leave a note on the windscreen asking them to contact me about repairing the hedge without me sending pictures to the police and my insurers. I generally ask for and gt about £250 for a few posts and rails to fill the gap.
The most common trend I note is the appalling number of vehicles with illegally worn tyres.
Driving with heightened care because you know you need to can often mean you drive more safely than normal. So it happens a lot in rural areas with very little practical negative impact. It is wrong but I also think the law is an ass in not having a more graduated penalty system.
Penalties for being in an accident or totally pissed should be draconian and prison for repeat offenders. But there needs to be a spectrum below that where somebody on four pints quietly making their way home causing no grief to others gets a slapped wrist that doesn't lose them their license. There also needs to be much fairer focus on drugs other than alcohol.
I own quite a few miles of rural roadside hedges and have about ten cars a year crash through them. It's usually between midnight and 7am. The Sommelier of the local posh restaurant ended up on his roof at two a.m. last year outside my place (nasty off camber bend) and stank of booze and the police turned out and much to my surprise didn't have a breathalyser kit and sent him in his way (it was a busy Saturday night).
Most commonly the crashed cars are "recovered" by extended family members the next day and I leave a note on the windscreen asking them to contact me about repairing the hedge without me sending pictures to the police and my insurers. I generally ask for and gt about £250 for a few posts and rails to fill the gap.
The most common trend I note is the appalling number of vehicles with illegally worn tyres.
Boo-urns said:
I'm firmly in the drink-driving is never acceptable camp. As others have said, it smacks of arrogance and/or stupidity that anyone thinks it's fine to get behind the wheel after a skinful.
I've always maintained it would be sensible to have progressive penalties for drink-driving to differentiate between those slightly over the limit to those who are blind drunk.
Say, for example (in mg/100ml blood). Obviously these figures are purely illustrative.
50 - 80: 9 points
80 (current English limit) - 120: One year ban (current penalty)
120 - 180 - 3 year ban
180 upwards - lifetime ban/prison sentence
Anyone who attempts to drive a car completely inebriated does not deserve to have a licence. Period. This happened recently in Hampshire and it's crazy that the driver will be back on the road in two years: https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/dangerous-...
I think that would be un-necessarily complicated, the current system should be enough of a deterrent to anyone that's actually going to be deterred. I've always maintained it would be sensible to have progressive penalties for drink-driving to differentiate between those slightly over the limit to those who are blind drunk.
Say, for example (in mg/100ml blood). Obviously these figures are purely illustrative.
50 - 80: 9 points
80 (current English limit) - 120: One year ban (current penalty)
120 - 180 - 3 year ban
180 upwards - lifetime ban/prison sentence
Anyone who attempts to drive a car completely inebriated does not deserve to have a licence. Period. This happened recently in Hampshire and it's crazy that the driver will be back on the road in two years: https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/dangerous-...
Also alcohol effects people differently, the current ban for DD with additional charges if you actually crash or hit someone seems fair enough.
I know a bloke that got a 5 year ban for his third offence (after two 1 year bans) due to habitually driving home from the pub, it's not even particularly far.
Honeywell said:
But there needs to be a spectrum below that where somebody on four pints quietly making their way home causing no grief to others gets a slapped wrist that doesn't lose them their license. There also needs to be much fairer focus on drugs other than alcohol.
I can't believe comments like this, absolute nonsense! An average person who's had 4 pints will definitely be feeling the effects of alcohol and their ability to drive safely. You never know who's going to be in the road or whats round the next bend. Zetec-S said:
The "whataboutism's" really don't matter
Yeah. It’s absolutely fine to drive badly or dangerously, for whatever reason, just so long as you haven’t had a pint with your dinner in a country pub. Over 95% of all U.K. road accident casualties have nothing to do with any party being over the drink-drive limit.
NomduJour said:
Zetec-S said:
The "whataboutism's" really don't matter
Yeah. It’s absolutely fine to drive badly or dangerously, for whatever reason, just so long as you haven’t had a pint with your dinner in a country pub. Over 95% of all U.K. road accident casualties have nothing to do with any party being over the drink-drive limit.
Honeywell said:
Penalties for being in an accident or totally pissed should be draconian and prison for repeat offenders. But there needs to be a spectrum below that where somebody on four pints quietly making their way home causing no grief to others gets a slapped wrist that doesn't lose them their license. There also needs to be much fairer focus on drugs other than alcohol.
Lol. 4 pints would be nearly twice the legal limit in UK/Wales, and 3 times in Scotland. At what point would you suggest harsh penalties kick in?? Unbelievable.
NomduJour said:
Zetec-S said:
The "whataboutism's" really don't matter
Yeah. It’s absolutely fine to drive badly or dangerously, for whatever reason, just so long as you haven’t had a pint with your dinner in a country pub. Over 95% of all U.K. road accident casualties have nothing to do with any party being over the drink-drive limit.
Thanks for proving my point about whataboutisms...
Killboy said:
Honeywell said:
Penalties for being in an accident or totally pissed should be draconian and prison for repeat offenders. But there needs to be a spectrum below that where somebody on four pints quietly making their way home causing no grief to others gets a slapped wrist that doesn't lose them their license. There also needs to be much fairer focus on drugs other than alcohol.
Lol. 4 pints would be nearly twice the legal limit in UK/Wales, and 3 times in Scotland. At what point would you suggest harsh penalties kick in?? Unbelievable.
How about just being an adult and not drinking before getting in the car?
We've all done stupid things and I wouldn't claim to be squeaky clean on the driving front, but knowingly making yourself worse at something that could have a huge effect on your and others lives seems a bit daft.
Speed addicted said:
Yeah, I'm not a small chap but 4 pints would limit my ability to safely pilot a couple of tonnes of machinery past other people at speed.
How about just being an adult and not drinking before getting in the car?
We've all done stupid things and I wouldn't claim to be squeaky clean on the driving front, but knowingly making yourself worse at something that could have a huge effect on your and others lives seems a bit daft.
Thankfully I dont have worn tires, else that would be stupid. How about just being an adult and not drinking before getting in the car?
We've all done stupid things and I wouldn't claim to be squeaky clean on the driving front, but knowingly making yourself worse at something that could have a huge effect on your and others lives seems a bit daft.
Zetec-S said:
Over 99.99% of all UK road accident casualties have nothing to do with any party wearing a blindfold. So I guess that's ok too?
It’s statistically irrelevant, so I wouldn’t waste too much time stopping random people and checking them for blindfolds. Probably better to focus your resources on the bigger issues. I bet there’s many people that have driven over the limit without even knowing it the day after a heavy night. People think once they’ve slept and got up in a new day they will be back to zero, nope. A friend at college was done for drink driving at 11am after being on the booze the day before.
Glenn63 said:
I bet there’s many people that have driven over the limit without even knowing it the day after a heavy night. People think once they’ve slept and got up in a new day they will be back to zero, nope. A friend at college was done for drink driving at 11am after being on the booze the day before.
It’s one of the reasons I bought a breath tester. Never would I knowingly drink and then drive on a night out, but the morning after can potentially catch you out, as many have said.
The funny thing is, if I had been day drinking, gone home and had 7 hours sleep to wake up the same evening, I’d never think about getting behind the wheel. Yet 7 hours sleep and being the next day it’s easy to forget it might still be in your system.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff