%age Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 From Manx Radio website This is a call from Michael Moyle, High Bailiff and Coroner of Inquests. I have a lot of respect for Mr Moyle but I feel a bit uneasy about this latest homily. Our Michael is human indeed and likes a drink himself, of course and enjoys a trip down t'pub. I would support this call 100% provided that Mr Moyle sets an example to us all by undergoing a voluntary breath test every time he sits in his car say, for the next 2 months... I know Mr Moyle has access to these forums and has even been known to quote from them in court (!) Well how about it Mikey, you could be famous for all the right reasons here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theman Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 i agree it need's to be limited... as where all dieing out.. there's not a nuff of use drink drivers where just like the manx .. dieing out lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I dunno. What percentage of people are actually involved in accidents with lower levels e.g. 50 to 80mg etc. - are there statistics, and would it make a real difference - and what good would it have served in the case of this particular woman who was 113mg? I think there is a danger here of the focus moving away from the education of a minority to overly penalising the majority, who after an evenings drinking at home could easily be caught out over the limit even if that was only at say 55mg (for say a 50mg limit v a current 80mg limit) in the morning - yet be considered perfectly OK to drive today. Personally, I think the answer would be to keep the current limit, but make the penalties for breaching it far higher, including multiple thousand pound fines, longer bans, much harsher sentences for persistent offenders, and even cars taken off people and sold - the monies recouped could then go into various all year round campaigns and major training programmes for drink drivers as well as schools, colleges etc. instead of just the usual xmas rout. For example, if you know you are automatically going to jail for 3 months for drinking and driving anything over 80mg, might have your car sold and get a £5000 fine, I think that would be a sufficient deterrent for most. But it's education that is really important, such as why someone such as in this case would actually risk what she did, and how can we avoid that in the future? - that's what really needs tackling. Otherwise, I think simply lowering the level stinks of desperation and failed campaigns - and is not going to really tackle the problem much at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyorhythm Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 If you take a drink, "don't drive" no risk of accident or conviction EASY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 i agree with moyle how many accidents are caused by people who had one because it's legal, but then got the "taste" and had a couple more. then drove. and increase the checks "the morning after". there must be so many drunk people on the road at 8am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 The legal limit here was reduced to zero many years ago, which has reduced the number of accidents caused by intoxicated drivers considerably (there was more than 50% reduction in alcohol-related RTAs between 1996 and 2005 and alcohol-related RTAs now account for less than 5% of RTA deaths). To my mind the zero tolerance approach, combined with regular checks, is a good one: it removes the ambiguity about what is and is not acceptable. Requiring drivers to assess whether or not they are over a limit of something which they have no reliable way of measuring is asking for trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 What percentage of people are actually involved in accidents with lower levels e.g. 50 to 80mg etc. - are there statistics, and would it make a real difference - and what good would it have served in the case of this particular woman who was 113mg?..........Otherwise, I think simply lowering the level stinks of desperation and failed campaigns - and is not going to really tackle the problem much at all. Difficult to know what the answer is. In the case in question, there were said to be numerous other influences as well as drink - like a bit of ice on the road. Maybe had the road not been icy, she'd have "got away with it". Had she not had her senses blurred by alcohol, she may have driven slower and been able to cope with the icy conditions. A bit of "Catch 22". Suggesting that the drink driving limit should be reduced on the strength of a case where someone was over the current limit seems to be a bit of overkill in my view. Education would be a good idea - videos of the results of drink driving accidents to be shown to school pupils coming up to the age they can start driving, people applying for driving licences to have compulsory viewings as part of the test regime, etc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 According to the DFT website in the UK: Why isn't the limit zero? Even without drinking, some alcohol can be present in the body produced by fermentation processes when certain foods are digested. This means that a zero limit isn't practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Considering how many people get canned up over here each night/weekend and how many accidents are caused by drink driving then would zero tolerance really achieve anything? There is always going to be a bunch of ignorant selfish people who choose to ignore the law so i dont think changing the goalposts will make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 According to the DFT website in the UK: Why isn't the limit zero? Even without drinking, some alcohol can be present in the body produced by fermentation processes when certain foods are digested. This means that a zero limit isn't practical. True but by zero limit I believe it means above what can be regarded as expected body level due to digestion, a lot of the countries that have the zero limit have set it at equivelent to 1/2 pint. For me I am with him all the way, drink driving is unacceptable in any form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Personally, I think the answer would be to keep the current limit, but make the penalties for breaching it far higher, including multiple thousand pound fines, longer bans, much harsher sentences for persistent offenders, and even cars taken off people and sold - the monies recouped could then go into various all year round campaigns and major training programmes for drink drivers as well as schools, colleges etc. instead of just the usual xmas rout. For example, if you know you are automatically going to jail for 3 months for drinking and driving anything over 80mg, might have your car sold and get a £5000 fine, I think that would be a sufficient deterrent for most. But it's education that is really important, such as why someone such as in this case would actually risk what she did, and how can we avoid that in the future? - that's what really needs tackling. Otherwise, I think simply lowering the level stinks of desperation and failed campaigns - and is not going to really tackle the problem much at all. Surprised you take the argument that penalties should be harsher. I don't think higher penalties would be a greater deterrent as much depends on whether you will get caught. As the alcohol limit is a relatively small amount I think it better to have zero tolerance on alcohol consumption whilst driving. It could be argued (but maybe I am wrong in thinking it) that setting it at zero creates a recognition in the community that drinking and driving really is a social taboo as there is no 'margin' of acceptability. In such a way drinking would be frowned upon far more and would may dissuade. But I agree that education is crucial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidney Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Do what they do in Germany, second offence=lifetime driving ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Just FYI Mr Moyle is ALWAYS collected from 'tpub' by Mrs Moyle (lovely lovely lovely lady) so it would be pointless giving him a breath test, what purpose would it serve if he wasn't driving? Immortalpuppet has a good point, there are too many people over here who think it is OK to get hammered every day, I cannot drink (never have been able to) people say I should practice more, I think I would prefer to get pissed on 2 pints than risk becoming an alcoholic just to 'look like I can handle the booze' - it is a great shame people do not drink for fun anymore, come to think of it...why do these people who can handle their beer drink? seems a waste of time/money and effort to me. Alcohol is a horrifically dangerous drug but its socially excepted, phhhhft, who knows about drinking and driving really, its obviously not good but people still do it. It is quite unfair really, consumption of alcohol makes people think differently, perhaps a person who when fully sober would not contemplate drink driving yet, may drive after a few pints because they think that they are OK/under the limit because alcohol clouds their judgment. Legal people are not the best to judge on this either, all the advocates etc I know can sling em back and you wouldnt even know they had been drinking (but for the stench). They can make all the laws they want, no one really knows what you are and are not allowed to do anymore. Self control and self discipline seem to be areas that need attention, not flinging more stupid laws at us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Listen to Lee Mack (1 minute in to this video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1oElIM2B6o NSFW (a bit of swearing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Considering how many people get canned up over here each night/weekend and how many accidents are caused by drink driving then would zero tolerance really achieve anything? I agree, there will always be a stupid minority, though Zero % is not really practical, but a lowered level to incorporate slight intake of alchol. I remember a video of a test that was done on bus drivers, they had 2 cones and had to guess the smallest distance they could fit the bus through, all 10 passed, they where then given half a pint of beer and retook the test, i seem to remember 9 failed and knocked the cones over..... Do what they do in Germany, second offence=lifetime driving ban. IMO this would be an excellent idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.