Newsbot Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 Common excuses used by drink-drivers are being used in the Isle of Man's seasonal campaign. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7109313.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devil Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 As it says, there is no excuse! I have been banned for Drink Driving personally, I wish I haddn't had a sip! but I beleive the drink driving limit off 1beer should be removed and said, you are not allowed to drive after any amount of alochol. I say this because I wouldn't have drove if this was the case, I beleived I was under the limit but once pulled over for a rear brake light being out then being breathalised I was about 1/4 a pint over the limit.. I had very little to drink, but because I haddn't eaten allnight (I just had breakfest) the alcohol stayed there :S. I know it is my own fault and stupidity I got banned. But if you enforce that you are not allowed a drink at all, there are NO EXCUSES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 As it says, there is no excuse! I have been banned for Drink Driving personally, I wish I haddn't had a sip! but I beleive the drink driving limit off 1beer should be removed and said, you are not allowed to drive after any amount of alochol. I say this because I wouldn't have drove if this was the case, I beleived I was under the limit but once pulled over for a rear brake light being out then being breathalised I was about 1/4 a pint over the limit.. I had very little to drink, but because I haddn't eaten allnight (I just had breakfest) the alcohol stayed there :S. I know it is my own fault and stupidity I got banned. But if you enforce that you are not allowed a drink at all, there are NO EXCUSES. I don't like the idea of a zero limit. It is possible to have some level of alcohol in your body a day or two later, so this policy would catch out and criminalise a lot of law abiding people - who don't actually present a risk. I would be happier to see the limit lowered, to say 50mg, so they could say 'even one pint could put you over the limit', but a zero limit approach would target the wrong people - when the real issue is these idiots regularly drinking over the limit, who think they can get away with it - because they generally do get away with it. I'd rather see more random stops - and not just 'playing at it' with these token stops around xmas when people have finished work - I mean set up stops at 10pm/11pm etc. at random places around the island all around the year, varying from main roads, to back roads and roads on housing estates. Just as people are aware of these undercover cop cars which are changing people's driving behaviour behaviour, not knowing when there could be a random drink/drugs test stop on their way home would maybe even make the hardest of drink drivers and drug users start to think a little more, and mean that it will literally 'only be a matter of time' before they are caught. In other words, I'd rather see the police actively targetting the bad guys, instead of some lowest common denominator legislation that will do nothing, other than 'doing something for the sake of doing something' - when the reality would be nothing would change for most drink drivers. The real solutions to road safety are in active policing, not just inventing additional laws. I never drink a single pint if I have got the car with me, in fact I'll make every effort to either avoid going into a pub at all, or drop the car off home first. Sometimes I have left the car overnight, to pick it up next AM (getting a parking ticket first thing on two occasions). I am aware of the consequences of doing this, but the fact is many people are not and stopping and finding them (and making them think they will get stopped) when they are driving is the only real solution to getting them off the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I don't like the idea of a zero limit. It is possible to have some level of alcohol in your body a day or two later, so this policy would catch out and criminalise a lot of law abiding people - who don't actually present a risk. I would be happier to see the limit lowered, to say 50mg, so they could say 'even one pint could put you over the limit', but a zero limit approach would target the wrong people - when the real issue is these idiots regularly drinking over the limit, who think they can get away with it - because they generally do get away with it. Seconded Penalties should be way more draconian, though. Automatic long ban + re-test + hefty fine measured on income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Penalties should be way more draconian, though. Automatic long ban + re-test + hefty fine measured on income. Interesting idea, fines measured on income. Doubt if it would work though, would that mean that someone who's unemployed wouldn't have to pay a fine? Or that if Mr Clarkson caught, his fine would run into millions? I think it would be more fair if the punishment was based on how badly a rule is broken, rather than how hardworking you are in your normal life. Don't you? -------------------- Tech Blog - Personal Blog - Hobby Blog - ManxFriends Profile Got a Manx website: Submit it on SearchMann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devil Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Well that is a very fair point Albert . Owen the fines arn't stupidly high and tbh I got £500 fine, yet people who are somthing like a blood reading of 280mg get a fine like 800! hows that work? I breathed 46! legal was 35! I doo beleive they need to rethink the punishment so people think twice before doing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saltire Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I think the limit should be lowered, not made a zero limit for the same reasons mentioned above, re small amounts of alcohol staying in the body. Lets face it even mouthwash has a tiny amount of alcohol in it. Regarding not just targeting people at Christmas. Here in the UK the police say they catch more drink drivers in the summer than at Christmas. Combination of folk going driving to a country pub on a nice evening and having one too many before driving home, or getting caught next day after a boozy barbeque. Another trend here is younger drivers are turning to drink driving (obviously a minority). Apparently the reason is although they know it's illegal, they aren't old enough to remember the big ad campaigns when it became anti-social to drink and drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 @devil: I was just commenting on the idea of having a "means-tested" fine. Is that the way they are done at the moment? Sorry, don't really know enough about the subject, but I would expect fines should be in proportion to the offence, not to someone's declared income ... -------------------- Tech Blog - Personal Blog - Hobby Blog - ManxFriends Profile Got a Manx website: Submit it on SearchMann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berty ditch Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 they should the limit to 50 ( which i think they are doing or thinking about it ) any one with a very high reading or for the second time should lose there licence for good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devil Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Well Owen, Im not sure, I was 100% complient, amitted the offence, said I was sorry, the fact I was a delivery driver was on my side for a more leanient sentence, yet I still got 12month ban and a 500 fine. Moyles said out of 1 in 10 drink drivers I would have been below the 1! thats how little I was over the limit, he also said it was the minimum sentence he could give me :s. Oh and a retest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berty ditch Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 i think in the case of like devels a where the reading is very low somthing like a 12 month ban suspended for say 2 years and in that 2 years if any driving offence is commited you go back to court, i dont mean lights out on your car ect things like speading , a lot of people just need a wake up call Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emesde Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I quite like the system I have seen in some countries where a person can be banned for say 100 or 200 days . However the ban is served at weekends only. So that you cannot drive from Friday evening through to Monday morning .Therefore a 100 days ban would keep you off the roads for 50 weekends. It does mean that you can keep your job if you need to drive Monday-Friday and doesn't totally screw up your life and that of your family. However if you fail to comply with this ban or get caught again Drink Driving then the courts come down very hard . This seems a fairer approach especially for someone who is marginally over the limit and hasn't been involved in any other driving offence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I don't like a zero limit, or a reduced limit. What they should really be doing is deciding what is driving whilst "impaired". I think a zero limit is daft because after a night out you could still have a miniscule trace of alcohol in your blood - it could be 1 milligram - but even that would be enough to have your license yanked and your totally f**ked. That is plainly stupid as would 1 milligram have absolutely any affect on your driving? If you used a fresh breath spray it would probably leave more alcohol in your system. A lower limit again could get you arrested next day. You could wake up totally fine, feel totally in control and yet still have a small trace in your blood. The issue should be would this small trace "impair" your ability to drive even if it is well below the current drive drive limit? As i drove to work the other day behind some silly bitch doing her hair and applying her make up as she wasw in the traffic queue for Quarterbridge I'm guessing that this is more impaired and more likely to result in a crash than a very low level of alcohol after the night before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 A lower limit again could get you arrested next day. You could wake up totally fine, feel totally in control and yet still have a small trace in your blood. The issue should be would this small trace "impair" your ability to drive even if it is well below the current drive drive limit? How do you test accurately for how impaired someone feels though? It is extremely problematic because feeling fine is not the same as being fine. Breathalysers are not prohibitively expensive if you wanted the reassurance. As people have discussed above, the current regulations make it unclear as to how much you can actually have, to the extent that many find it easy not to bother, as I do myself. The 50mg limit seems to account for any 'trace' readings whilst also making it clear that one pint is too much. As i drove to work the other day behind some silly bitch doing her hair and applying her make up as she wasw in the traffic queue for Quarterbridge I'm guessing that this is more impaired and more likely to result in a crash than a very low level of alcohol after the night before. This is confusing the issue somewhat. Drink-driving laws are mainly intended to stop people driving soon after they've drank, though obviously people should be aware they may still be over the limit the next day. Yes, the driver in your example was being irresponsible, but that should not distract from the importance of preventing alcohol-related collisions. Jeremy Clarkson has often pointed out that having children in your car is probably the most distracting thing by far, again, that doesn't mean we should focus on that instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devil Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I see where you lot are coming from with the zero limit. But just thinking about it... You won't get pulled and breathilsed by the police unless you are doing some thing that implys you are drunk, or that your stick of alcohol..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.