Discussion
toad_oftoadhall said:
Can I ask for comments about how to tackle drink driving?
I'm a bit suprised at you but my advice is to take it a bit slower and suck on a polo.
You might get away with it for years!
;-) Very funny. Seriously, though. Obviusly we need more traffic police (and less cmaeras). But what do people think about the current level, is it too high/low?
Should the police be able to request a breath test without giving a reason?
Should we have use roadblocks to undertake mass breathtests?
Are the penalties sufficient?
etc....
rospa said:
;-) Very funny. Seriously, though. Obviusly we need more traffic police (and less cmaeras). But what do people think about the current level, is it too high/low?
More Trafpols
rospa said:
Should the police be able to request a breath test without giving a reason?
Yes
rospa said:
Should we have use roadblocks to undertake mass breathtests?
Yes along with Tax & insurance checks
rospa said:
Are the penalties sufficient?
No, life ban
rospa said:
;-) Very funny. Seriously, though. Obviusly we need more traffic police (and less cmaeras). But what do people think about the current level, is it too high/low?
More traffic police. With more charisma and a new minimum limit of at least one brain per car. (This requirement is based purely on my experiences of a limited number of Traffic police)
rospa said:
Should the police be able to request a breath test without giving a reason?
Yes, absolutely - if you're fine you've nothing to fear.
rospa said:
Should we have use roadblocks to undertake mass breathtests?
No due to the resounding failure of experiments in the past. More effective to target specific vehicles driven badly. ((Re:Tax & insurance checks - remove road tax completely, and replace with an insurance disk. tax is on petrol, and easier insurance checks.)
rospa said:
Are the penalties sufficient?
Depending on the level of offence. A blanket life ban will overly punish those who fail by a low amount. These people will either keep reoffending as reasonable police won't arrest, or lose careers, families and ruin lives for a poor offence. Those who are smashed off their faces deserve everything they get. Repeat offenders - life ban. Mitigating circumstances should be considered.
OJG said:
More traffic police. With more charisma and a new minimum limit of at least one brain per car. (This requirement is based purely on my experiences of a limited number of Traffic police)
I should think that it is a very limited number
........Traffic Police are courtious, fair and pleasant to deal with but upset them and they can be cunning and wicked and cause you more problems than you can imagine. !rospa said:
;-) Very funny. Seriously, though. Obviusly we need more traffic police (and less cmaeras). But what do people think about the current level, is it too high/low?
Should the police be able to request a breath test without giving a reason?
Should we have use roadblocks to undertake mass breathtests?
Are the penalties sufficient?
etc....
Well personally I am inclined to the view that the current approach is right.
Simple fact is that the police already randomly breath test and use road blocks although they they do this under the auspices of vehicle safety checks.
I know full well if I go out drinking approaching Christmas in Sussex there is a chance that on my way back I will be stopped in a "vehicle" check, and find a police officer taking an avid interest in what I have drunk. I equally have no complaint as I will be under the limit.
I think the limit should remain as existing, as it is a compromise. Simple fact is that significant numbers of people still get caught, and there is also a number of hard core drinkers who continue to drive. Until those are caught theres no point reducing the limit.
As regards the punishment I think that the punishment should more reflect the amount one is over the limit. Anyone 3 or more times over the limit should be banned for life. Having said that a 12 month ban is a long time, and as someone has said there is a danger of more people driving whilst disqualified if you lengthen the ban.
One of the biggest deterrents to DD must be the effect on insurance premiums once the ban has expired. I would suggest that perhaps insurance companies should have the right to impose a condition on a driver that allows them to test a driver after a ban regularly to see if they are a heavy drinker, and adjust the premium accordingly.
My suspicion is that many people have driven whilst over the limit (possibly only by a small amount and probably in the past) but the people that really need catching are the persistent offenders.
In this extent its no different to speeding where the peole caught by cameras are the older more experienced drivers, whilst the younger inexperienced ones have all the accidents.
You cant really, it depends on a lot of different points....metabolism, how much food youve had and more importantly, how much to drink.
Obviously the best time for catching people is 6,7 or 8 oclock but im my experience they are normally under if theyve stopped drinking at 11ish.
But as ive said, you really do have to be very careful and if you have been drinking then dont attempt to drive too early otherwise you will be sh*tting yourself whenever a Police car is behind you.
In my experience, theres no better feeling when you get stopped for a Breath Test around Xmas time and you havent had anything to drink...its most satifying.
Obviously the best time for catching people is 6,7 or 8 oclock but im my experience they are normally under if theyve stopped drinking at 11ish.
But as ive said, you really do have to be very careful and if you have been drinking then dont attempt to drive too early otherwise you will be sh*tting yourself whenever a Police car is behind you.
In my experience, theres no better feeling when you get stopped for a Breath Test around Xmas time and you havent had anything to drink...its most satifying.
I see where you're coming from tony...
The thing that really boils my p
s is when you see someone who's obviously been on the drink, driving home after a night out, all over the road and yet you can't do anything about it.
A mate of mine (who is a copper) has just bought a dark blue V70 T5 - we were out in it last night, it's amazing how many people become the worlds safest driver when they see it - shame the DD brigade (three at the last count last night) don't...
The thing that really boils my p
s is when you see someone who's obviously been on the drink, driving home after a night out, all over the road and yet you can't do anything about it. A mate of mine (who is a copper) has just bought a dark blue V70 T5 - we were out in it last night, it's amazing how many people become the worlds safest driver when they see it - shame the DD brigade (three at the last count last night) don't...
Rospa...assume this is to some extent due to the apparent increase in DD related accidents.... I am sure this is partly due to 'people forgetting'- and what I mean by that is that several years ago they started heavily campaigning about DD on tele etc..and sure enough, it went down. I dont remember seeing ANY 'general population' media about this for a while now. The belief that most people take driving seriously and think about these things is an obvious myth to anyone who drives on our roads....
Dont think the limit is an issue - most people would be relatveily safe under it and dangerous over it I would think.
Three have ben several mentions on the thread about the penalty. Part of the problem is that the consequences of the DD'd actions, whilst severe, arent promoted enough or necessairly threatening enouhg.
finally...I hear the 'wouldnt that just mean more people would drive whilst disqualified' a lot. Yes, it would.....but frankly so what? There are currently a percentage of people who drive with no license. Does this mean the driving license is a waste of time? Nope....cos the majority of the population obey the law through belief it's right, or more commenly, fear of getting caught. Some dont..and there aint a thing that can be done about them. I would gues a lot of DDer's (BiB agree?) do it 'accidently'...rather than being the hardened 'I'll do what I want brigade'....so they then dont drive during a ban.....
Night
Dont think the limit is an issue - most people would be relatveily safe under it and dangerous over it I would think.
Three have ben several mentions on the thread about the penalty. Part of the problem is that the consequences of the DD'd actions, whilst severe, arent promoted enough or necessairly threatening enouhg.
finally...I hear the 'wouldnt that just mean more people would drive whilst disqualified' a lot. Yes, it would.....but frankly so what? There are currently a percentage of people who drive with no license. Does this mean the driving license is a waste of time? Nope....cos the majority of the population obey the law through belief it's right, or more commenly, fear of getting caught. Some dont..and there aint a thing that can be done about them. I would gues a lot of DDer's (BiB agree?) do it 'accidently'...rather than being the hardened 'I'll do what I want brigade'....so they then dont drive during a ban.....
Night
tonyrec said:
You cant really, it depends on a lot of different points....metabolism, how much food youve had and more importantly, how much to drink.
Don't forget your old friend, the
PYLORIC VALVE
Which is, in case you've been neglecting it, the sphincter muscle of the pylorus that separates the stomach from the duodenum!!
CB-Dave said:
NO SYPMATHY WHATSOVER FOR ANYONE THAT DRINKS AND DRIVES OVER THE LIMIT
no sympathy whatsoever for anyone that drinks and drives... period.
I'm a firm believer that the DD limit should be 0mg...
And those that have a large lunch and drive dozy should be penalised, and those with young children in the back should be restricted.
While I think DD is a definite crime, it should be treated as other distractions that occur. A very pissed driver WILL eventually do some hideous damage, and should be penalised accordingly. A person who has flu is more dangerous than a driver with 5 mg(?) on a breathaliser test. Also, there is a recognised medical condition where food of certain types ferment in the gut, and the generated alcohol can be enough to put someone over the limit. Should these people be treated leniently or severely...?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff