Nitro 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. Did you not get any points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devil Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I wasn't informed of any points. But I will see when I get my license back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 People who speed are more of a road risk than drivers who are over the alcohol limit, and the greater the speed probably has similarities with the higher the alcohol consumption. Speeders therefore should also be banned for long periods and sent to prison if one carries the hysteria to it's logical conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 People who speed are more of a road risk than drivers who are over the alcohol limit, and the greater the speed probably has similarities with the higher the alcohol consumption. Speeders therefore should also be banned for long periods and sent to prison if one carries the hysteria to it's logical conclusion. Cool.. you assume that both the offences come in discrete situations, throw a 'probably' in after your broad subjective opinion (presented as a 'strewth'), and then reaffirm the idiocy by making a 'logical' conclusion from your highly subjective, arbitrary statements. Troll on. I personally think the campaign's a good idea around this time of year: not only are the chances of someone drink-driving greater, the road and visibility conditions are at their worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macmannin Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Every pub has regulars who drink drive at will.Usually park just down the road from the pub,seen it happen plenty of times which begs the question why the coppers dont see it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 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. This is exactly my point. I may as well give up alcohol totally than run the risk. I will never drive after having had alcohol - just like you. But if a reduced limit means that I can't now run the risk of picking my car up the next day then I might as well join the temperance league and jack alcohol in completely. Also lets not forget most of Central Douglas is disc zone so your virtually forced to pick your car up early if you've been out the night before so they are assisting all those who might be border line in being convicted just because they are greedy for parking fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Every pub has regulars who drink drive at will.Usually park just down the road from the pub,seen it happen plenty of times which begs the question why the coppers dont see it too. So your going to keep watching until something bad happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Cool.. you assume that both the offences come in discrete situations Actually, you seem to have assumed that for me, incorrectly as it happens. But while certain miscreants may well combine both offences at the same time, the fact remains that they are separate offences. throw a 'probably' in after your broad subjective opinion (presented as a 'strewth'), Eh? I know what the words mean but your context escapes me. and then reaffirm the idiocy by making a 'logical' conclusion from your highly subjective, arbitrary statements. My conclusion is borne out of facts. How many of the recent serious and very serious rta's were caused by drunk drivers? I can't remember the last time I heard of one. And by excessive speed? All of them? Troll on. Hmm...; ) I personally think the campaign's a good idea around this time of year: not only are the chances of someone drink-driving greater, the road and visibility conditions are at their worse. You are entitled to your opinion of course. It's at odds with mine. I'd say the chances of someone drink-driving are considerably less at this time of year what with all the previous seasonal campaigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Well if you want the step by step.. People who speed are more of a road risk than drivers who are over the alcohol limit Not so, speeding (and drunk driving for that matter) both come with different metrics, so to assume someone who is speeding is inherently more dangerous than someone drink driving is pretty inconceivable (hence why someone driving at 100mph in a 30 would get a different sentence from someone travelling at 35, even if they've both committed the same infraction, ignoring other charges for now). You will also find that the vast majority of drivers speed on some occasion, no matter how much over the speed limit; and the added risk could be no more than when they pass onto the 'unlimited' stretch 10 metres later.. whereas drink driving increases the general risk no matter where you are and whether you're following all other laws or not. and the greater the speed probably has similarities with the higher the alcohol consumption Nice factual assertion there, true or otherwise. Note this is what your logical conclusion would appear to stem from, but I don't see how one can logically base an assertion off an uncorroborated opinion in the first place? Speeders therefore should also be banned for long periods and sent to prison if one carries the hysteria to it's logical conclusion. Again, because you say so therefore it is? I don't see the logic behind it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Not so, speeding (and drunk driving for that matter) both come with different metrics, so to assume someone who is speeding is inherently more dangerous than someone drink driving is pretty inconceivable (hence why someone driving at 100mph in a 30 would get a different sentence from someone travelling at 35, even if they've both committed the same infraction, ignoring other charges for now). You will also find that the vast majority of drivers speed on some occasion, no matter how much over the speed limit; and the added risk could be no more than when they pass onto the 'unlimited' stretch 10 metres later.. whereas drink driving increases the general risk no matter where you are and whether you're following all other laws or not. We could argue this all night, but you won't convince me that speeding is less dangerous than being over the limit for alcohol. and the greater the speed probably has similarities with the higher the alcohol consumption Nice factual assertion there, true or otherwise. Note this is what your logical conclusion would appear to stem from, but I don't see how one can logically base an assertion off an uncorroborated opinion in the first place? My point was that the danger increases as speed/alcohol consumption increases. You appear to agree? Speeders therefore should also be banned for long periods and sent to prison if one carries the hysteria to it's logical conclusion. Again, because you say so therefore it is? I don't see the logic behind it.. If the heavy handed approach to drink/driving is justified then it is logical that speeders should also receive a similarly heavy hand. If the policies are to act as a deterrent, and road safety is the true goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 I am strangely having to agree with Keyboarder to a certain extent on this matter. Speaking as someone who has lost several friends in DD related crashes, I know it is a very emotive subject. However, being 10ml over the drink driving limit does not even come close to doing 100mph in a 30mph zone, and yet the penalties are not that different. As far as the dangers of drink driving verses speeding, speeding causes far more crashes and fatalities, yet there are very few who think twice about drifting over the speed limit. If you doubt it just look at the 1995-2005 study on accidents that the government did. Speed was at or near the top of the list. If memory serves me correctly, DD was at the very bottom of the list below crashing into stationary cars and accidents caused by having a dog loose in the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 I'd suggest these days that driving whilst under the influence of drugs is also becoming an issue yet all the publicity seems to focus on booze. Having said that, has any practical method of testing for that been devised yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.