# Driver caught no front tyres and Drunk



## Pinky (Feb 15, 2008)

Motorway cops in Manchester caught a driver with no front tyres, trying to drive while SIX times over the limit.
Hopefully the sentence when he gets to court will be at least SIX times the usual bans and fines and time in Prison but probably not .
This is totally shocking and he should be banned for life , Same as all drink /drug /drivers caught over the limit even the ones caught the morning after .
(I will get flamed for stating this but so what .)I have seen the after affects of Drink /Drug driving and it's not nice ..


----------



## Andyblue (Jun 20, 2017)

Yes was on M66 on New Year's Day - blew 196 micrograms.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...chester-news/you-can-see-came-notice-17497950

Totally unbelievable!!!


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

It is unbelievable what some people do. They should be hammered. 


There was an appeal in Edinburgh. A BMW M140i had a serious accident that would have left the occupants badly hurt. They got out and left the car. 

Between 12am and 3am on the 1st Jan it's hard to think the driver wasn't drunk. 

The police had to conduct a search including a helicopter to make sure they didn't end up dead in a ditch. They didn't find them. 

Yet another BMW M140i involved in a serious incident. It's way too common.


----------



## Bristle Hound (May 31, 2009)

He blew a 196, limit being 35 !!!
Its a wonder he's not dead TBH 

This idiot needs naming & shaming
Agree with the driving ban for life
The driver should get a substantial jail sentence but in all likelihood he won't


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Bristle Hound said:


> He blew a 196, limit being 35 !!!
> Its a wonder he's not dead TBH
> 
> This idiot needs naming & shaming
> ...


He'll be named and shamed once finished in court.


----------



## Cyclonetog (Jul 22, 2018)

I have no problem with what you've said (OP).

I lost one of my 3 best mates when we were 15, half way through our GSCE's. Knocked off his bike by a driver that was close to the limit but not over when tested. He laughed at my mates sister in court.

Rightly or wrongly it's my reason for not drinking any alcohol when I'm going to drive. I don't believe in any limit other than zero, and I get flamed for my opinion too...

After what we went through, I realise that anybody can have a genuine accident and take a life. If it's me, I won't have "just one pint / half" on my mind for the rest of my life, I'll know that I was on zero.


----------



## andy__d (Jun 27, 2018)

IF there was any "justice" he would be banned for life and get a Long prison sentance.
there isnt ,, expect some BS hardship ****** a fine and short ban

thing is , there ARE drunk drivers on the roads And drugged drivers who dont give a flying, so what they loose there licence, just means they dont buy insurance or pay the tax and carry on. 


i detest and despise ALL those who drive drunk or on drugs, Personal POV string a Few of them up as a lesson to the rest , and that clownshoes falls into the "short rope/long drop winner" catagory


----------



## cole_scirocco (Mar 5, 2012)

I've lost someone I know of, so not a friend but someone who shared same interests (modified car groups) due to his mate driving like a complete twit. 

Rumours state he was intoxicated through drugs, coincidentally he is in a coma but the passenger (known acquaintance) has lost his life and the driver possibly will too.

It is so tragic when it comes to drinks and also drugs.

In this case, it should as stated be a very long jail term, hefty fine and ban.

What will actually happen is a possible 5 year ban, 6 month jail sentence and up to £1,000 fine.

You get worse for speeding!


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Cyclonetog said:


> I have no problem with what you've said (OP).
> 
> I lost one of my 3 best mates when we were 15, half way through our GSCE's. Knocked off his bike by a driver that was close to the limit but not over when tested. He laughed at my mates sister in court.
> 
> ...


===============================================
If the driver was close to the limit, it obviously wasn't the cause of the accident (sounds more like an attitude problem)so why do you demand a zero limit?. 
I can't agree with most of the posts on here. Drivers are already given disproportionate fines and sentences for their misdemeanors when you consider they let Terrorists and rapists out after just a few years.
Of course in this case where the driver is so over the limit its untrue he needs a prison sentence to make him see the error in his ways but most so called "Drunk Drivers" are caught just over the limit which for a regular drinker is pathetic as they wont even sense the alcohol. You shouldn't get a years ban, huge fine and threatened with a sentence for drinking 2 pints and driving. Its totally disproportionate.
There are far bigger problems on our roads than drink/drug driving. The general ability of many, many people is so poor its unbelievable and many when sober are a far greater risk on the roads than your average 2 or 3 pint on the way home kind of guy!.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> ===============================================
> If the driver was close to the limit, it obviously wasn't the cause of the accident (sounds more like an attitude problem)so why do you demand a zero limit?.
> I can't agree with most of the posts on here. Drivers are already given disproportionate fines and sentences for their misdemeanors when you consider they let Terrorists and rapists out after just a few years.
> Of course in this case where the driver is so over the limit its untrue he needs a prison sentence to make him see the error in his ways but most so called "Drunk Drivers" are caught just over the limit which for a regular drinker is pathetic as they wont even sense the alcohol. You shouldn't get a years ban, huge fine and threatened with a sentence for drinking 2 pints and driving. Its totally disproportionate.
> There are far bigger problems on our roads than drink/drug driving. The general ability of many, many people is so poor its unbelievable and many when sober are a far greater risk on the roads than your average 2 or 3 pint on the way home kind of guy!.


Most drivers charged aren't just over the limit. The limit is 35mg/100ml of breath, but like speed limits there is allowances. I stand to be corrected, but usually 50mg/100ml is where drivers get charged. You have a good allowance on top of an already good tolerance.

Only some of the most hardened drinkers/alcoholics who are used to consuming the most crazy amounts of alcohol won't sense 35mg/100ml. It will be very unusual.

People know when they have a couple of drinks in the evening they are in dangerous territory. They will recognise the effect of the alcohol kicking in.

Following morning after a big drinking session they'll have bloodshot eyes, feel drousy, stink of beer even after brushing their teeth and dousing themselves in aftershave, yet they'll deem themselves fit to drive.

I bet everyone in their offices or factory can name countless occasions someone has come in stinking of drink.

Facts prove that people under the influence of alcohol, but within the limit, are far more likely to be involved in serious accidents. One drink affects people. That's why Scotland's limit is less than England.

I don't believe that zero alcohol is the way to go, but the allowances we have are more than high enough.

Punishments should be a year's ban and a significant fine. There should also be more police to catch more of them to start deterring the rest. People know they are doing it, they just don't think they'll get caught.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Kerr said:


> I bet everyone in their offices or factory can name countless occasions someone has come in stinking of drink.


On that story......

We had a guy come in for a 3pm backshift one day. His job was working dangerous heavy manufacturing equipment.

We could see him struggling to walk straight walking down the workshop floor.

He was pulled aside and then sent home suspended as he was clearly drunk.

Following day he came back in for his backshift and started working. He was that drunk the previous day he had no recollection of what happened the day before. :doublesho

He drove to work.


----------



## cole_scirocco (Mar 5, 2012)

Kerr said:


> On that story......
> 
> We had a guy come in for a 3pm backshift one day. His job was working dangerous heavy manufacturing equipment.
> 
> ...


Just wow.


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

If he gets banned he will probably drive regardless.

Apparently some drive without insurance as the fine is lower.


----------



## macca666 (Mar 30, 2010)

Kerr said:


> Most drivers charged aren't just over the limit. The limit is 35mg/100ml of breath, but like speed limits there is allowances. I stand to be corrected, but usually 50mg/100ml is where drivers get charged. You have a good allowance on top of an already good tolerance.
> 
> .


I didn't quote your full post Kerr but if you're above 50 it'll be an automatic charge. 40 to 50 you will be given the option if you want to opt for a blood or urine sample as opposed to the breath sample and 39 or under you're unlikely to be charged.

As you mention we are less in Scotland so its 22 instead of 35.

I agree a zero limit isn't practical but there is no excuse for deliberate drink driving and there's no excuse for those that do it!


----------



## Cyclonetog (Jul 22, 2018)

RS3 said:


> ===============================================
> If the driver was close to the limit, it obviously wasn't the cause of the accident (sounds more like an attitude problem)so why do you demand a zero limit?.


Wow what an insensitive remark.

First off, I have made no "demands" it's a limit I impose upon myself, I made that pretty clear in my post.

Alcohol is a mind altering drug. If you think that has no effect until some pre-determined amount where it acts like a switch then you are very misinformed.

I don't know if the alcohol was a cause of MY FRIENDS DEATH, you say it obviously wasn't the cause.
Well in Scotland, he would have been over the drink drive limit so would it have obviously been the cause if the accident happened north of the border?

Don't bother answering my questions, I won't reply.


----------



## garage_dweller (Apr 10, 2018)

RS3 said:


> ===============================================
> 
> If the driver was close to the limit, it obviously wasn't the cause of the accident (sounds more like an attitude problem)so why do you demand a zero limit?.
> 
> ...


You clearly think it's acceptable to drink alcohol and drive. Driving after 2 pints would affect my judgement, not that I would do that, if I'm driving I don't drink any alcohol. It's not worth the risk.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

macca666 said:


> I didn't quote your full post Kerr but if you're above 50 it'll be an automatic charge. 40 to 50 you will be given the option if you want to opt for a blood or urine sample as opposed to the breath sample and 39 or under you're unlikely to be charged.
> 
> As you mention we are less in Scotland so its 22 instead of 35.
> 
> I agree a zero limit isn't practical but there is no excuse for deliberate drink driving and there's no excuse for those that do it!


That's the guidelines. It's not what happens, but maybe in some areas they are stricter.

If someone blows a bit over they know by the time the doctor comes they have no chance.


----------



## Radish293 (Mar 16, 2012)

The legal limit in England for breath is 35ug%. However some forces will only Charge to court at 40. The statutory option for levels between 35 -50 to have the breath test replaced with a laboratory test, blood or urine was removed some years ago. If your over it’s a mandatory 12 month ban.


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

I have issues with losing your licence as a punishment. There are as mentioned those that will just keep driving regardless, you see banned drivers stopped on police programmes constantly. The other issue is depending on your circumstances losing your licence affects you in different ways. Me, driving from site to site in work I'd be instantly out of a job. My neighbour drives 4 miles to work and back again Mon to Fri and that's about it. He could quite easily bike to work and back and has his wife with car too. So he'd be inconvenienced but not really impacting his life that much.


----------



## andy__d (Jun 27, 2018)

Darlofan said:


> I have issues with losing your licence as a punishment. There are as mentioned those that will just keep driving regardless, you see banned drivers stopped on police programmes constantly. The other issue is depending on your circumstances losing your licence affects you in different ways. Me, driving from site to site in work I'd be instantly out of a job. My neighbour drives 4 miles to work and back again Mon to Fri and that's about it. He could quite easily bike to work and back and has his wife with car too. So he'd be inconvenienced but not really impacting his life that much.


so if being caught drunk driving will affect someones life,, its simple
DONT drink and drive

IT DOES affect the lives of those who have family or friend murdered by the scum who think it is "OK" to drive drunk... 
Booohooo if that means you got caught and lost your job or have to Walk/ride/take the bus to work.

ask me where my wife and daughter are,... unless you are one of those drunk/drug driving scumbags


----------



## uruk hai (Apr 5, 2009)

Unfortunately drink driving is still a big problem, there was a guy in the Bristol area caught and blew a 174, he was driving a refrigerated HGV and had driven it all the way from the continent. People have and I imagine still do get banned only to walk out of the court to their car and drive off, I've known three get caught doing this, they all went to prison but some get alway with it.

I don't believe the current sentencing creates a big enough deterrent but I won't dive into that particular can of worms right now !


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Darlofan said:


> I have issues with losing your licence as a punishment. There are as mentioned those that will just keep driving regardless, you see banned drivers stopped on police programmes constantly. The other issue is depending on your circumstances losing your licence affects you in different ways. Me, driving from site to site in work I'd be instantly out of a job. My neighbour drives 4 miles to work and back again Mon to Fri and that's about it. He could quite easily bike to work and back and has his wife with car too. So he'd be inconvenienced but not really impacting his life that much.


Its a question of by how much over the limit you are but more importantly, how drunk you are.
When someone gets pulled at 07:30 and is breath tested just over after a bottle of wine with his meal the night before, has slept, had breakfast and feels absolutely no impairment at all, yes indeed the punishment is unfair. If its someone whos had 5 pints in the pub and stupidly decided hes only 5 mins away so hell take the car, id say its a fair punishment.
Again, a regular drinker has 2 pints on the way home from work, does not feel impaired at all, gets pulled just, 1st time and just over the limit, is a year ban fair? If it was the 2nd time maybe but not 1st.

Losing a licence for any period is a real hardship to anyone and a fitting punishment to those who are drunk driving and risking lives but for those who are not drunk driving but for a variety of reasons just fail the test, it is in my opinion unfair.


----------



## Mark R5 (May 21, 2013)

macca666 said:


> I didn't quote your full post Kerr but if you're above 50 it'll be an automatic charge. 40 to 50 you will be given the option if you want to opt for a blood or urine sample as opposed to the breath sample and 39 or under you're unlikely to be charged.
> 
> As you mention we are less in Scotland so its 22 instead of 35.
> 
> I agree a zero limit isn't practical but there is no excuse for deliberate drink driving and there's no excuse for those that do it!


The 40-50 blood option may still be vaild in Scotland - I honestly don't know. But I can say for certain it is no longer the case in England and Wales. It went out a couple of years ago.

If you blow over 35 in the roadside preliminary test and then provide two further specimens at the station, anything 40 and over and you get charged. 39 and under you're not charged. They allow 35-39 as the leeway.


----------



## Mark R5 (May 21, 2013)

Darlofan said:


> I have issues with losing your licence as a punishment. There are as mentioned those that will just keep driving regardless, you see banned drivers stopped on police programmes constantly. The other issue is depending on your circumstances losing your licence affects you in different ways. Me, driving from site to site in work I'd be instantly out of a job. My neighbour drives 4 miles to work and back again Mon to Fri and that's about it. He could quite easily bike to work and back and has his wife with car too. So he'd be inconvenienced but not really impacting his life that much.


But you (I'd like to think) take enough responsibility not to run the risk of you drink driving from site to site. It's about accaountability and responsibility. If you know you're going to be driving, then don't drink. It's quite simple.

I think losing your licence is the least of your worries. If you're (I don't mean you specifically, just generally speaking) caught drink driving and haven't caused any injury; it's simply by sheer luck. I think if you cause injury or death through drink or drug driving, YOU should be the one to tell their loved ones. Why should I have to go through it time and again??

You won't bloody do it again!

As for the person who suggested motorists are too heavily penalised for misdemeanors....which misdemeanors are you referring to?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> Its a question of by how much over the limit you are but more importantly, how drunk you are.
> When someone gets pulled at 07:30 and is breath tested just over after a bottle of wine with his meal the night before, has slept, had breakfast and feels absolutely no impairment at all, yes indeed the punishment is unfair. If its someone whos had 5 pints in the pub and stupidly decided hes only 5 mins away so hell take the car, id say its a fair punishment.
> Again, a regular drinker has 2 pints on the way home from work, does not feel impaired at all, gets pulled just, 1st time and just over the limit, is a year ban fair? If it was the 2nd time maybe but not 1st.
> 
> Losing a licence for any period is a real hardship to anyone and a fitting punishment to those who are drunk driving and risking lives but for those who are not drunk driving but for a variety of reasons just fail the test, it is in my opinion unfair.


If your licence means that much to you don't take the risk in the first place.

Nobody is failing the morning after having a bottle of wine with dinner. A bottle of wine will have 9 units for a standard 700ml bottle at 13% alcohol.

They say the average person manages to burn off 1 unit of alcohol per hour. The average person would be completely free of alcohol hours before their 7.30am drive. A complete lightweight still has an extra few hours to recover plus the drink drive allowance.

People know when they are over the limit the morning after.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Mark R5 said:


> The 40-50 blood option may still be vaild in Scotland - I honestly don't know. But I can say for certain it is no longer the case in England and Wales. It went out a couple of years ago.
> 
> If you blow over 35 in the roadside preliminary test and then provide two further specimens at the station, anything 40 and over and you get charged. 39 and under you're not charged. They allow 35-39 as the leeway.


It must vary by force, as others do give more.

My local newspaper names and shames all drink drivers. I can't find one below 57mg/100ml of breath.


----------



## Mark R5 (May 21, 2013)

RS3 said:


> Its a question of by how much over the limit you are but more importantly, how drunk you are.
> When someone gets pulled at 07:30 and is breath tested just over after a bottle of wine with his meal the night before, has slept, had breakfast and feels absolutely no impairment at all, yes indeed the punishment is unfair. If its someone whos had 5 pints in the pub and stupidly decided hes only 5 mins away so hell take the car, id say its a fair punishment.
> Again, a regular drinker has 2 pints on the way home from work, does not feel impaired at all, gets pulled just, 1st time and just over the limit, is a year ban fair? If it was the 2nd time maybe but not 1st.
> 
> Losing a licence for any period is a real hardship to anyone and a fitting punishment to those who are drunk driving and risking lives but for those who are not drunk driving but for a variety of reasons just fail the test, it is in my opinion unfair.


What a flawed argument. If you fail the test, you're drink driving, end of. If you blow over the limit the next day, you're still over the limit.

It matters not how you feel, it matters what the alcohol limit is in your system.


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

RS3 said:


> Its a question of by how much over the limit you are but more importantly, how drunk you are.
> When someone gets pulled at 07:30 and is breath tested just over after a bottle of wine with his meal the night before, has slept, had breakfast and feels absolutely no impairment at all, yes indeed the punishment is unfair. If its someone whos had 5 pints in the pub and stupidly decided hes only 5 mins away so hell take the car, id say its a fair punishment.
> Again, a regular drinker has 2 pints on the way home from work, does not feel impaired at all, gets pulled just, 1st time and just over the limit, is a year ban fair? If it was the 2nd time maybe but not 1st.
> 
> Losing a licence for any period is a real hardship to anyone and a fitting punishment to those who are drunk driving and risking lives but for those who are not drunk driving but for a variety of reasons just fail the test, it is in my opinion unfair.


England has the highest drink driving limit in Europe, no excuses if you are over, no excuses of hardship, nobody poured it in, it's like Russian roulette.
You take knowingly, willingly and purposely that drink, with the knowledge that it can be possible the end of your career, job, marriage, and respect.
You have no excuses if you loose everything, I won't take anybody on or offer employment with a drink or drug driving history.
Not even on our shunter vehicles, you decided to throw the dice, you lost, your problem.

I agree with losing your license, in the Netherlands you need to see a psychologist and redo you driving exam before they hand your license back after you lose your license. 
If you can pass and if you can afford the insurance premium you maybe could go back on the road.

Also many European countries have lower limits for people with less experience (less than 2 years experience and or under 24. Years of age)


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

BRAKE put forward an argument that the drink driving limit has to be reduced. 


They say that accident figures show the drivers under the influence of alcohol, but under the limit, are 600% more likely to be involved in a fatal collision. 

Hard to argue against that!


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Mark R5 said:


> But you (I'd like to think) take enough responsibility not to run the risk of you drink driving from site to site. It's about accaountability and responsibility. If you know you're going to be driving, then don't drink. It's quite simple.
> 
> I think losing your licence is the least of your worries. If you're (I don't mean you specifically, just generally speaking) caught drink driving and haven't caused any injury; it's simply by sheer luck. I think if you cause injury or death through drink or drug driving, YOU should be the one to tell their loved ones. Why should I have to go through it time and again??
> 
> ...


I'm not a heavy drinker anyway (hangovers are very,very bad for me). Bit yeah I'm very careful about drinking and driving the next day. Worked in pubs for 20yrs and have to say the worst are still the older gents, retirement sort of age, professional types, rural areas. Pop in after work for a quick one and 7pints later off they go home.


----------



## James_R (Jun 28, 2007)

If I'm in the car - I don't drink.

In the past I'd sometimes have 1 pint of beer if was out for a meal at the local (and its less than a mile back to home)

Now I generally have a coffee if I'm in the car.

I had to do a hospital run on xmas day for the mrs to take her mum in, and I hadn't been drinking, I got back in the house at 5am Boxing Day morning.
I poured myself a double whisky and went to bed and said to the mrs, count me out of driving anywhere today before lunch.

Ended up not going anywhere anyway.

Not worth the risk.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

garage_dweller said:


> You clearly think it's acceptable to drink alcohol and drive. Driving after 2 pints would affect my judgement, not that I would do that, if I'm driving I don't drink any alcohol. It's not worth the risk.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I do indeed know its acceptable to drink alcohol and drive as long as you are safe to do so (know your limits). After 2 pints, it may well marginally effect my judgement too but so would man flu!. This is because I am not a drinker any more. I have been a drinker in the past and 2 pints wouldn't have affected me at all back then.
I agree its not worth the risk but I still feel a complete ban for a year and the subsequent job loss, divorce etc for someone just over the limit is way, way too harsh.
Speeding is also life threatening but you only get 3 points for marginal speeding and more for more serious speeding. You would have to be putting lives seriously at risk before getting a ban for speeding. All i'm suggesting is the sentence doesn't fit the crime for a marginal alcohol test failure.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Kerr said:


> If your licence means that much to you don't take the risk in the first place.
> 
> Nobody is failing the morning after having a bottle of wine with dinner. A bottle of wine will have 9 units for a standard 700ml bottle at 13% alcohol.
> 
> ...


I am sat next to someone who lost there license 5 years ago for exactly that - one bottle of wine drunk the night before. The last glass was gone by 23:00 and at 07:30 charged with drunk driving and she lost her job at the time and has never really recovered from the shame from family and friends.
Completely undeserved, draconian penalty and no, she did not know she was over the limit.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Caledoniandream said:


> England has the highest drink driving limit in Europe, no excuses if you are over, no excuses of hardship, nobody poured it in, it's like Russian roulette.
> You take knowingly, willingly and purposely that drink, with the knowledge that it can be possible the end of your career, job, marriage, and respect.
> You have no excuses if you loose everything, I won't take anybody on or offer employment with a drink or drug driving history.
> Not even on our shunter vehicles, you decided to throw the dice, you lost, your problem.
> ...


I would very much welcome positive action such as retaking driving tests and perhaps making someone pass an advanced test and awareness courses following a minor breach of the rules rather than the draconian sentence currently handed out. I wouldn't agree with different limits for different people though, that's just discrimination.


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

This feels like one of those where there's no consensus, and there's no point trying to convince anyone with the opposing viewpoints because it's not gonna happen.

Fwiw, in my opinion if you're drinking, don't drive, and if you're driving, don't drink.
There may be a legal limit but there's no "safe" amount. Any amount impairs your responses and your judgement, so why take the risk?


----------



## mar00 (Jun 24, 2018)

RS3 said:


> I am sat next to someone who lost there license 5 years ago for exactly that - one bottle of wine drunk the night before. The last glass was gone by 23:00 and at 07:30 charged with drunk driving and she lost her job at the time and has never really recovered from the shame from family and friends.
> Completely undeserved, draconian penalty and no, she did not know she was over the limit.


how is it undeserved over the limit is still impaired and illegal, should have taken responsibility then ignorance isn't an excuse,

I doubt all the people killed by drink drivers got over it or the families either,

should be zero tolerance no need to drink and drive and most caught won't be the first time,


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

mar00 said:


> how is it undeserved over the limit is still impaired and illegal, should have taken responsibility then ignorance isn't an excuse,
> 
> I doubt all the people killed by drink drivers got over it or the families either,
> 
> should be zero tolerance no need to drink and drive and most caught won't be the first time,


Over the limit is not necessarily impaired as was my colleague who said she felt 100% after her 7 hrs sleep and breakfast.


----------



## garage_dweller (Apr 10, 2018)

mar00 said:


> how is it undeserved over the limit is still impaired and illegal, should have taken responsibility then ignorance isn't an excuse,
> 
> I doubt all the people killed by drink drivers got over it or the families either,
> 
> should be zero tolerance no need to drink and drive and most caught won't be the first time,


I don't get how anyone can think it's undeserved either. If you're over the limit you're over the limit. It's the drivers responsibility to make sure they're not. If they're caught it's their fault and there's no unfairness about it.



RS3 said:


> Over the limit is not necessarily impaired as was my colleague who said she felt 100% after her 7 hrs sleep and breakfast.


If I had a bottle of wine I certainly wouldn't feel 100% fine next morning!
The limit is the limit for a reason and the '' I'm fine to drive after a few pints' is typical drunk driver attitude.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mar00 (Jun 24, 2018)

RS3 said:


> Over the limit is not necessarily impaired as was my colleague who said she felt 100% after her 7 hrs sleep and breakfast.


irrelevant sill shows blood alcohol limit was over, I bet everyone charged with drink driving said they felt ok and were safe to drive too,

over the limit is still illegal, should we all just get to chose the laws we want to abide by


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

garage_dweller said:


> I don't get how anyone can think it's undeserved either. If you're over the limit you're over the limit. It's the drivers responsibility to make sure they're not. If they're caught it's their fault and there's no unfairness about it.
> 
> If I had a bottle of wine I certainly wouldn't feel 100% fine next morning!
> The limit is the limit for a reason and the '' I'm fine to drive after a few pints' is typical drunk driver attitude.
> ...


I never said getting caught and found guilty was undeserved. I said the punishment was undeserved as it is so excessive.

"over the limit is still illegal, should we all just get to chose the laws we want to abide by"

Again, iv'e not suggested that being over the limit isn't illegal or wrong or that we should choose which laws we abide by at all.


----------



## garage_dweller (Apr 10, 2018)

RS3 said:


> I never said getting caught and found guilty was undeserved. I said the punishment was undeserved as it is so excessive.
> 
> "over the limit is still illegal, should we all just get to chose the laws we want to abide by"
> 
> Again, iv'e not suggested that being over the limit isn't illegal or wrong or that we should choose which laws we abide by at all.


But the person knew the punishment when she was committing the crime.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> I am sat next to someone who lost there license 5 years ago for exactly that - one bottle of wine drunk the night before. The last glass was gone by 23:00 and at 07:30 charged with drunk driving and she lost her job at the time and has never really recovered from the shame from family and friends.
> Completely undeserved, draconian penalty and no, she did not know she was over the limit.


We have gone from having wine with dinner to drinking at bedtime.

It still matters when the bottle was started. If she hammered the bottle from 10.30pm to 11pm then she would have alcohol in her system in the morning.

It is shameful when you're caught. That's exactly why people tell lies. They pretend they've drunk less than they have and pretend they feel perfectly fine.

How often do you watch the police programmes on the TV and they pull over cars not driving too well. They'll smell the alcohol, the driver will have glazed eyes and look drunk. They'll still claim they've had just a pint, yet blow something silly on the machine. You can see on the TV they are drunk and just lying.

Don't believe anyone that claims to have had a small amount of alcohol. They have a reason to lie and pretend they weren't irresponsible.



RS3 said:


> Over the limit is not necessarily impaired as was my colleague who said she felt 100% after her 7 hrs sleep and breakfast.


Sleep and food makes no difference.

I'm genuinely surprised to see how naive you are.

Again if she was dependent on her job and licence she really shouldn't have taken any risks.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

The other strange thing is the chances of being stopped by the police is tiny. It's the biggest coincidence in the world the one time they had a glass of wine is the only time they've been stopped or involved in an accident. 

There's usually a reason behind either....


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Kerr said:


> We have gone from having wine with dinner to drinking at bedtime.
> 
> It still matters when the bottle was started. If she hammered the bottle from 10.30pm to 11pm then she would have alcohol in her system in the morning.
> 
> ...


Sleep and Food makes no difference! Really, and yo say i'm naive!.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> Sleep and Food makes no difference! Really, and yo say i'm naive!.


Explain away. I'm all ears how sleep and breakfast reduces alcohol in the body.

To save you a post, the answer is it doesn't.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Sleep takes time. Alcohol in blood is reduced over time. Simple.

http://www.responsibledrinking.org/what-happens-when-you-drink/how-you-drink-matters/


----------



## mar00 (Jun 24, 2018)

RS3 said:


> Sleep and Food makes no difference! Really, and yo say i'm naive!.


no, sleep may improve bodies absorption ability, how can eating 7 hours after help its already in the blood,

also police don't prosecute just on the roadside breathalyser the do further test so must have still been plenty there,

clearly didn't learn a lesson if still making excuses, should be 3 years min ban and for life second time,


----------



## garage_dweller (Apr 10, 2018)

RS3 said:


> Sleep takes time. Alcohol in blood is reduced over time. Simple.
> 
> http://www.responsibledrinking.org/what-happens-when-you-drink/how-you-drink-matters/


Clearly the person didn't leave enough time between hammering a bottle of wine then driving. Should have left it another few hours, she chanced it, she got caught so all the repercussions are her fault.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> Sleep takes time. Alcohol in blood is reduced over time. Simple.
> 
> http://www.responsibledrinking.org/what-happens-when-you-drink/how-you-drink-matters/


Alcohol starts to reduce in your blood from 1 your after you START drinking. Drink faster than your body can handle alcohol you'll get drunk.

The average person burns off 1 unit of alcohol per hour irrelevant to if they are awake or not. It doesn't add up over the course of a night and then only reduce once sleeping.

Breakfast the alcohol is already long in the blood stream. Eating lots of food and drinking loads of coffee is just people trying to hide the obvious fact-------they are drunk and know the alcohol is affecting them.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

garage_dweller said:


> Clearly the person didn't leave enough time between hammering a bottle of wine then driving. Should have left it another few hours, she chanced it, she got caught so all the repercussions are her fault.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


She knows this now! She doesn't complain about getting caught but I still feel the punishment was excessive. She actually doesn't and still feels ashamed.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> She knows this now! She doesn't complain about getting caught but I still feel the punishment was excessive. She actually doesn't and still feels ashamed.


She was caught drunk in charge of a car. She can't be trusted on the road with other road users so they've taken away her privilege to drive.

It's a punishment that fits the crime perfectly.

If drink drivers knew they could make feeble excuses to get out punishment then far more would run the risk of drink driving.

The jails are full of innocent people.

The courts are full of people that have never done anything wrong before in their lives. They keep pleading it's all completely out of character blah blah....

We all know they are lying. It's the very same with drink drivers. They aren't a better class of criminal.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Kerr said:


> She was caught drunk in charge of a car. She can't be trusted on the road with other road users so they've taken away her privilege to drive.
> 
> It's a punishment that fits the crime perfectly.
> 
> ...


She wasn't caught drunk in charge of a car. She was found to be just over the blood level limit. She was pulled over as her number plate had been ripped off of the back of her car in the hotel she was staying at and didnt know about it.
So do you think that someone speeding (lets say 35 in a 30 zone) should lose their licence for a year. If you do, please tell me you are not a magistrate.


----------



## garage_dweller (Apr 10, 2018)

RS3 said:


> She wasn't caught drunk in charge of a car. She was found to be just over the blood level limit. She was pulled over as her number plate had been ripped off of the back of her car in the hotel she was staying at and didnt know about it.
> So do you think that someone speeding (lets say 35 in a 30 zone) should lose their licence for a year. If you do, please tell me you are not a magistrate.


Was she not done for drunk driving?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mar00 (Jun 24, 2018)

RS3 said:


> She wasn't caught drunk in charge of a car. She was found to be just over the blood level limit. She was pulled over as her number plate had been ripped off of the back of her car in the hotel she was staying at and didnt know about it.
> So do you think that someone speeding (lets say 35 in a 30 zone) should lose their licence for a year. If you do, please tell me you are not a magistrate.


what ?, if you're driving a car then you are in charge of that car and as she was over the limit then she was drunk in charge of the car the police just got lucky, if she wasn't drunk and hungover she may have noticed there wasn't a number plate too,


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> She wasn't caught drunk in charge of a car. She was found to be just over the blood level limit. She was pulled over as her number plate had been ripped off of the back of her car in the hotel she was staying at and didnt know about it.
> So do you think that someone speeding (lets say 35 in a 30 zone) should lose their licence for a year. If you do, please tell me you are not a magistrate.


She wasn't caught in charge of a car, but she was pulled over driving the car? 

Do you think someone in the hotel realised she was properly drunk and pulled the plate off the car to stop her driving? Seen that done before when the keys couldn't be taken.

It is amazing on the one day that a driver has a reason to be stopped they are drunk. My suspicion is they are just a habitual drink driver that has been lucky before rather than desperately unlucky on one occasion.

By the time a blood sample had been taken the actually alcohol in her body would have decreased considerably.

The more you say the more I'm convinced she was properly drunk.

As discussed in the last page the drink drive limit is already pretty high. You've got an allowance on top of the limit as well.

You know when you learn to drive the likely punishments for speeding and drink driving. People caught speeding struggle to accept responsibility too. Drivers are the very worst for denial and passing blame.

Do I consider driving at 35mph as bad as drink driving? Not even close to the same ballpark.

How many excuses do you have? :lol:


----------



## Mark R5 (May 21, 2013)

Catching drink and drug drivers is a huge pleasure and I'm bloody glad I get to do it. Anyone defending (in whatever crappy context you try and spin it) the driving after drinking well, good luck if I catch you. I'll be doing every bloody thing I can to prosecute you. 

Don't be surprised if you have a marker magically attached to your vehicle (and any other you may drive for that matter too).


----------



## Mark R5 (May 21, 2013)

Equally, people who use drugs and then drive, might not be aware that drugs stay in their system a lot longer than drink. Cannabis will stay in their system for days and days, and if they fail a preliminary drug wipe, guess what, regardless of if they're feeling tip top, they're drug driving. The end. Simple. End of. 

It's exactly the same with drink. No matter how long ago you had your last drink. If you fail the test, you're driving whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit. It's quite simple. There's no middle ground, no ambiguity.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Great. So we have a copper who not only condones ruining the lives of people who aren't under the influence of anything but actually enjoys it. Making threats of marking my car(s) to be pulled when I've already explained that I dont drive drunk ever and i dont condone it either is an abuse of your position.
My only comment is regarding the severity of the sentence being disproportionate to the crime when the accused is only just over the limit. The difference between having just under the limit in your blood (you walk free) and having a mouthful worth of booze extra in your blood (You potentially lose your job, home, family with a years ban) just isn't fair.
I wont back down. I believe in justice and feel the sentences for virtually all crime is pathetic but in this case, when it's very marginal, it can be far too severe and I believe my argument is fair and reasonable.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

"Do I consider driving at 35mph as bad as drink driving? Not even close to the same ballpark".

Speeding is deliberate and could kill in the same way but for doing 35 you get 3 points. You can repeat offend 4 times before you get a ban which will probably be only a 3 month ban at that. Dont get me wrong, I think this is fair and reasonable punishment but is repeat offending of speeding up to 16 times to get the same punishment as someone who has stupidly driven home 3 miles after drinking 2 pints of lager and been pulled proportionate? No.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

mar00 said:


> what ?, if you're driving a car then you are in charge of that car and as she was over the limit then she was drunk in charge of the car the police just got lucky, if she wasn't drunk and hungover she may have noticed there wasn't a number plate too,


As Mr RS has explained with respect to drugs and alcohol you can indeed have toxins in your blood long after its effects have worn off therefore you are not driving whilst under the influence but still breaking the law.


----------



## Radish293 (Mar 16, 2012)

It’s quite simple the law has set a limit for alcohol and drugs exceed the limit and it’s against the law no ifs no buts. The penalty is severe as a deterrent. If you can’t do the time don’t do the crime. I have no sympathy for drink drivers. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mar00 (Jun 24, 2018)

RS3 said:


> As Mr RS has explained with respect to drugs and alcohol you can indeed have toxins in your blood long after its effects have worn off therefore you are not driving whilst under the influence but still breaking the law.


you don't seem to have a grasp of facts or reality,

I don't see where you were threatened, it was a general point that know drink drivers or people reported buy public could get a marker on them, I would imagine that would be the same for speeding or dangerous driving or any number of things


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> Great. So we have a copper who not only condones ruining the lives of people who aren't under the influence of anything but actually enjoys it. Making threats of marking my car(s) to be pulled when I've already explained that I dont drive drunk ever and i dont condone it either is an abuse of your position.
> My only comment is regarding the severity of the sentence being disproportionate to the crime when the accused is only just over the limit. The difference between having just under the limit in your blood (you walk free) and having a mouthful worth of booze extra in your blood (You potentially lose your job, home, family with a years ban) just isn't fair.
> I wont back down. I believe in justice and feel the sentences for virtually all crime is pathetic but in this case, when it's very marginal, it can be far too severe and I believe my argument is fair and reasonable.


You really have a backwards and twisted view on this.

You have a police officer who takes great pride is trying to SAVE lives.

Drink drivers are dangerous. Even drivers UNDER the limit are 600% more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than someone completely sober.

Not having a car doesn't destroy a person's life. Many people manage well without a car through choice. You can manage your life perfectly fine without a car in most parts of the country.

If driving is absolutely vital then is common sense to me would make sure 100% that you don't drink drive.

I can't begin to grasp why you are trying extremely hard to make the offenders of a very serious crime into poor hard done to victims. You are totally wrong.

Where do you want the drink driving limit set? You keep going on about just over the limit. No matter how high the limit is set someone is always going to be just over the limit.

Your whole argument makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

I think this thread's run its course tbh.

The note from Mark was a simple message that once caught for drink or drug-driving, you'll be marked as a person of interest and more likely to be stopped in future. It wasn't a threat to anyone in particular.

Drink driving is entirely avoidable, and deserves a large deterrent.
Speeding, by comparison, is underpunished. Many people treat points as a minor inconvenience, and some have gone far beyond the normal points for a ban because it would cause 'exceptional hardship' to take their vehicle away.

We need to remember that driving is a privilege, not a right. That way perhaps more people would drive sensibly.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

"Where do you want the drink driving limit set? You keep going on about just over the limit. No matter how high the limit is set someone is always going to be just over the limit."

I never said or even suggested the limit should be changed, I dont think it should.
Just a review of the way people are punished please and in the case of the guy caught, was it 6 times over the limit - send him to prison for a very long time. I'm not in favour of drink driving at all, but I do know others, 1 of whom works for me who where just caught out who I know are very ordinary decent law abiding folk and have suffered what seems to me to be excessive hardship. The stats for speeding are very similar where fatalities rise massively for cars driving over 30 mph yet attracts a penalty roughly 1600% less. Go figure...


----------



## Radish293 (Mar 16, 2012)

RS3 said:


> "Where do you want the drink driving limit set? You keep going on about just over the limit. No matter how high the limit is set someone is always going to be just over the limit."
> 
> I never said or even suggested the limit should be changed, I dont think it should.
> Just a review of the way people are punished please and in the case of the guy caught, was it 6 times over the limit - send him to prison for a very long time. I'm not in favour of drink driving at all, but I do know others, 1 of whom works for me who where just caught out who I know are very ordinary decent law abiding folk and have suffered what seems to me to be excessive hardship. The stats for speeding are very similar where fatalities rise massively for cars driving over 30 mph yet attracts a penalty roughly 1600% less. Go figure...


Again your argument is flawed. Kill someone while speeding and the offence that you will get prosecuted for is Causing Death by dangerous driving or by careless driving. Both of which carry more severe penalties than drink driving. The mandatory ban and fine is intended as a deterrent.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

There is no such a thing as a little bit over the limit, you are over or not.
Neither is there a little bit dead for victims of drink/drug driving related accidents.
If you don’t want to risk losing your license, don’t drink at all, it’s that easy.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> "Where do you want the drink driving limit set? You keep going on about just over the limit. No matter how high the limit is set someone is always going to be just over the limit."
> 
> I never said or even suggested the limit should be changed, I dont think it should.
> Just a review of the way people are punished please and in the case of the guy caught, was it 6 times over the limit - send him to prison for a very long time. I'm not in favour of drink driving at all, but I do know others, 1 of whom works for me who where just caught out who I know are very ordinary decent law abiding folk and have suffered what seems to me to be excessive hardship. The stats for speeding are very similar where fatalities rise massively for cars driving over 30 mph yet attracts a penalty roughly 1600% less. Go figure...


A pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 30mph is 50% likely to die. At 40mph you are 90% likely to die. At 20mph you are only 10% likely to die according to safespeed. Not condoning speeding, but a sober driver reacts faster than a driver under the influence. They will react faster and slow down more before impact.

Again when I'm quoting a 600% increase in fatal accidents that is WITHIN the drink drive limit. Not in excess of the limit. One drink affects driving ability of people.

Accident records are getting better in this country, yet we've just set the highest drink driving deaths in a decade. That's also when a larger percentage of people are giving up on drink and modern cars are safer than ever.

The problem is getting worse and you're calling for more leniency. The current punishment is not enough of a deterrent.

Clearly they aren't law abiding. They have a criminal record.

Over the limit gets you a 12 month ban which is the minimum. The more serious the drink driving offence the longer the ban.

Again if you and your friends value their driving licences, they really need to show some responsibility.


----------



## Mark R5 (May 21, 2013)

RS3 said:


> Great. So we have a copper who not only condones ruining the lives of people who aren't under the influence of anything but actually enjoys it. Making threats of marking my car(s) to be pulled when I've already explained that I dont drive drunk ever and i dont condone it either is an abuse of your position.
> My only comment is regarding the severity of the sentence being disproportionate to the crime when the accused is only just over the limit. The difference between having just under the limit in your blood (you walk free) and having a mouthful worth of booze extra in your blood (You potentially lose your job, home, family with a years ban) just isn't fair.
> I wont back down. I believe in justice and feel the sentences for virtually all crime is pathetic but in this case, when it's very marginal, it can be far too severe and I believe my argument is fair and reasonable.


I have not specified you at all. I don't know you from Adam and cannot (and would not try) be able to identify you from this site. No point whatsoever.

When I was referring to adding vehicle markers to people's cars it is those whom I have had dealings with not you. So rest assured I won't be adding anything to your vehicle. I need a reason (which is all documented) to add markers - clearly, I can't go about adding anything to yours.

Yes I actually enjoy this aspect of my job. It's my job to catch those irresponsible enough to have that 'mouthful extra booze' in their blood and then think it's acceptable to drive. Come back to me when you've had to tell a parent that their child is dead because of the driver's blasé attitude to drink driving.

When you get that call to make sure that the parent gets to the hospital before their child dies so they can say goodbye. All they were doing was getting a loaf of bread but now they're dead.

Don't worry though, it was only a mouthful of extra booze in their blood.

When that person suffers life altering injuries due to some selfish so and so who couldn't say no to that last glass of wine/beer. That person cannot play football with their son again now they've lost both legs. Cannot see their child at a school play now they're blind from headbutting the windscreen as the drink driver ploughs through them.

Don't worry though, it was only a mouthful of extra booze in the blood.

You're quite correct, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. I just back mine up with a bit of expereince and firmly believe that for once the justice system is absolutely spot on regarding drink and drug driving. You should lose your licence (even if you're 1 point over the limit), if that in turn loses you your job etc then so be it. No one forced you to have 2 pints (or an entire bottle) and drive.


----------



## Mark R5 (May 21, 2013)

RS3 said:


> As Mr RS has explained with respect to drugs and alcohol you can indeed have toxins in your blood long after its effects have worn off therefore you are not driving whilst under the influence but still breaking the law.


I'll say it slowly, so you can keep up.

If you provide over the limit, you are driving whilst under the influence. It does not matter how you feel, or how long after your last alcoholic drink or intake of drugs. It matters what level of drink or drugs is in your system at the time you're driving.

It's as black and white as that.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

"I'll say it slowly, so you can keep up."
You may speak to Joe Public in such a patronising manner but I don't think it's necessary on here. Insults are too easy, especially when talking to a copper so please don't tempt me.

"If you provide over the limit, you are driving whilst under the influence"
This statement is untrue. A measure of alcohol in blood, urine or breath is not a measure of sobriety and does not tell if the individual is under the influence but of course its the best measure available although sobriety tests are still used in America rather than just a blood alcohol test alone to convict. You said yourself how long toxins can stay in your system long after the effects have worn off (i.e. not under the influence). I know the law is black and white (except if you are johnny foreigner then you may get away with it on account of your different culture) hence the old adage - The law is an ass, which is what I am complaining about.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Radish293 said:


> Again your argument is flawed. Kill someone while speeding and the offence that you will get prosecuted for is Causing Death by dangerous driving or by careless driving. Both of which carry more severe penalties than drink driving. The mandatory ban and fine is intended as a deterrent.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Actually, you will be charged with:

Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink
and you may get:

14 years' imprisonment
an unlimited fine
a ban from driving for at least 2 years
an extended driving test before your licence is returned

according to the Government website.

Notice the ban is only at least 2 years (only 1 year more than someone who hasn't killed or even had an accident). Again this is disproportionate and IMO should be a lifetime ban after you have killed someone due to drink driving.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Caledoniandream said:


> There is no such a thing as a little bit over the limit, you are over or not.
> Neither is there a little bit dead for victims of drink/drug driving related accidents.
> If you don't want to risk losing your license, don't drink at all, it's that easy.


Semantics - Of course you can be well over or a bit over in reality but the law seems to agree with you and doesn't discriminate enough in between. A victim may consider themselves a little bit dead if they've lost limbs or maimed such as loss of sight.

"If you don't want to risk losing your license, don't drink at all, it's that easy".

So anyone who drives a car must now be completely tea total?. Really.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Caledoniandream
"The problem is getting worse and you're calling for more leniency. The current punishment is not enough of a deterrent"

I'm only calling for fairer punishment across the board. I would personally go a lot farther with serious breaches than the law currently allows and yes, depending on circumstance, slightly more lenient on border cases.

How about this?.
Reduce the amount of alcohol allowed from 80mg to 50mg same as Scotland.

If caught with 55mg to 80mg (within the current english limit)3 Points, £500 Fine.
If caught with 80 mg to 100mg (Im not sure about the detail but Im assuming 100mg equates to about 2.5 pints lager)8 Points, 3 month ban, £1000 fine.
If caught above 100mg, 1 year ban, £2500 fine, 3 months prison.
Over 120mg, 10 year ban, unlimited fine and 1 year in prison.
Over 150mg, Lifetime ban, unlimited fine, 5 years prison.
Any repeat offending will take you to the next level in terms of the punishment.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Right, who's next?. Ill take you all at once if I have to!


----------



## garage_dweller (Apr 10, 2018)

RS3 said:


> Insults are too easy, especially when talking to a copper so please don't tempt me..


This statement says so much about the type of person you are and why it's not worth anyone responding to you further.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mar00 (Jun 24, 2018)

RS3 said:


> Right, who's next?. Ill take you all at once if I have to!
> View attachment 58016


what do you think you have actually done ? you're delusional, you've just twisted other people posts in to random nonsense,

also seem to have an issue with Police are you a wannabe gagster  or just desperate for attention,

the limit should be zero just to make it easier for the morons to understand,


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

I think it needs to become compulsory to have a licence to be set loose on the internet. :lol:


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

mar00 said:


> what do you think you have actually done ? you're delusional, you've just twisted other people posts in to random nonsense,
> 
> also seem to have an issue with Police are you a wannabe gagster  or just desperate for attention,
> 
> the limit should be zero just to make it easier for the morons to understand,


Delusional, hows that?.
I have no issues with good Police, I do have issues with bad ones. Wannabe Gagster??, WTF?.
You have your opinion on where the limit should be and what should be done once breached and I have mine but the difference is you see things in black and white and I see everything in-between and I don't ignore it and don't call those with differing opinions childish names.


----------



## cole_scirocco (Mar 5, 2012)

RS3 said:


> Delusional, hows that?.
> I have no issues with good Police, I do have issues with bad ones. Wannabe *Gagster*??, WTF?.
> You have your opinion on where the limit should be and what should be done once breached and I have mine but the difference is you see things in black and white and I see everything in-between and I don't ignore it and don't call those with differing opinions childish names.


Be careful with your words


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Cole_E91 said:


> Be careful with your words


Which words Cole?.


----------



## rob267 (Nov 27, 2015)

I think he means gagster buddy.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

RS3 said:


> Caledoniandream
> "The problem is getting worse and you're calling for more leniency. The current punishment is not enough of a deterrent"
> 
> I'm only calling for fairer punishment across the board. I would personally go a lot farther with serious breaches than the law currently allows and yes, depending on circumstance, slightly more lenient on border cases.
> ...


Have to say I sort of agree with your idea of having differing punishments for different levels of alcohol. Somebody blowing just over the limit is not as bad as somebody(Like here in N Wales over Xmas) blowing more than 4 times the limit.

Speeding has differing fines, bans etc. And let's be honest the limit is just a figure that someone has decided upon for whatever reason. Different countries have different levels, why is that? Does their alcohol make you behave differently when driving?

Sadly where you lost me was when you started having a go at the police (all police in your first mention then you changed it to bad police when somebody picked you up on it) in my experience if you treat police with respect they'll treat you with respect. Usually find those that have issues with police have not been on the right side of them in the past.


----------



## mar00 (Jun 24, 2018)

RS3 said:


> Delusional, hows that?.
> I have no issues with good Police, I do have issues with bad ones. Wannabe Gagster??, WTF?.
> You have your opinion on where the limit should be and what should be done once breached and I have mine but the difference is you see things in black and white and I see everything in-between and I don't ignore it and don't call those with differing opinions childish names.


opinions and facts are very different, no childish names just facts,

you accuse some one that happens to be a police officer of threatening you when he was stating a fact,

you like to repeat "with respect to drugs and alcohol you can indeed have toxins in your blood long after its effects have worn off therefore you are not driving whilst under the influence but still breaking the law"

thats a contradiction, having drugs in you blood is influencing you body and you don't know how, i think its safe to assume you're not a medical professional or a chemist, so how do you know what those compounds are doing and how they interact with whatever else you put in you body, the point the Mark was clearly making is just because you feel ok doesn't mean you are, just because you don't want to believe something that doesn't make it right,

i do believe we should have zero now, we clearly have a social problem and drinking is a huge part of that, only England and USA have that high level, majority of northern Europe have zero or very close to including Russia as the have problems, and these are all countries with a drinking culture


----------



## Mark R5 (May 21, 2013)

Darlofan said:


> Have to say I sort of agree with your idea of having differing punishments for different levels of alcohol. Somebody blowing just over the limit is not as bad as somebody(Like here in N Wales over Xmas) blowing more than 4 times the limit.
> 
> Speeding has differing fines, bans etc. And let's be honest the limit is just a figure that someone has decided upon for whatever reason. Different countries have different levels, why is that? Does their alcohol make you behave differently when driving?
> 
> Sadly where you lost me was when you started having a go at the police (all police in your first mention then you changed it to bad police when somebody picked you up on it) in my experience if you treat police with respect they'll treat you with respect. Usually find those that have issues with police have not been on the right side of them in the past.


I think to some extent this takes place when convicted at Court, i.e. for the lesser amounts the Courts give the obligatory 1 year ban, but in certain cases they offer that to be halved if XY and Z is completed - things like alcohol awareness courses, or an extended test to be passed by a certain deadline etc.

So technically your ban is only 6 months if you do as you're told. I am quite passionate about drink and drug driving because I think that it is one of very few bits of legislation that almost provides a punishment to fit the crime.

How many other victims out there don't get what they deserve becasue of the justice system. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it's the only one we have and whilst it is as strict as it is, and there are the amount who still persist in drink and drug driving, I think lowering the parameters of sentencing sends the wrong message. Just my two pence worth.


----------



## Pinky (Feb 15, 2008)

Thanks for all the replies and interesting discussions I enjoyed reading them.
I agree if over the drink/drug limit then you are driving under the influence and deserve all that comes with this .
It should be a minimum of 1 years ban , made to resit an advanced test and car taken away no matter the circumstances.
I got called to an rta years ago and the driver was well ****ed and only stopped by a tree from rolling down a large hill onto the beach , we got the police called but they couldn't come to hospital before seeing the scene which took them ages and the driver discharged himself before they got there despite our telling them he was going to do that.
He was done for drunk driving through having bloods taken so another Drunk driver off the road .
Upshot being he had been stopped the week before for drink driving.
I never heard the outcome .
His attitude was so what I got caught again and he didn't care .Shocking 
IMO the penalty is not severe enough.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Police Scotland have released their figures for over the festive period.

From 480 drug tests 185 failed. That's a significant percentage. 

There was a total of 8687 drink and drugs tests. Obviously only 480 roadside drug tests which are new here. 

395 people failed drink drive tests with 29 the morning after.


It looks like driving under the influence of drugs is a bigger issue than alcohol.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Alcohol is a drug.
Its no surprise that non alcohol drug driving may be deemed a bigger problem because of the latency of many illegal drugs. Cannabis can stay in the blood for days in an occasional user and weeks for a regular user. 
https://mol.im/a/7894177
This sentence above seems fair but not on the basis of her need to do the school run. That's a pathetic excuse IMO unless she has a bus/taxi allergy.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> Alcohol is a drug.
> Its no surprise that non alcohol drug driving may be deemed a bigger problem because of the latency of many illegal drugs. Cannabis can stay in the blood for days in an occasional user and weeks for a regular user.
> https://mol.im/a/7894177
> This sentence above seems fair but not on the basis of her need to do the school run. That's a pathetic excuse IMO unless she has a bus/taxi allergy.


What a strange coincidence that she managed to drive in the pitch dark at 1.30am in the morning and was that unobservant that she didn't realise she hadn't turned her lights on.

What a strange coincidence the police noticed she wasn't functioning well and was lacking awareness/confused. They didn't think she looked fit to drive.

Then also noticed that they could smell alcohol. It's just all bad luck these events and observations happened and then coincidentally she failed the breath test? Nonsense, she was drunk. It's not a silly error.

One drink and left a reasonable time before driving? Either the one drink was an exceptionally large high alcohol drink, or like many she is just lying. You don't drink a little alcohol and look under the influence, and stink of alcohol, after one drink hours later.

Clearly by the evidence the alcohol was affecting her ability to drive safely.

She had only managed to pass her test months before. How did she manage before? A sensible person, yet was irresponsible enough to lose her licence after just few months. My definition of sensible is at odds of this. She's 39, not some daft child.

Her address given at court is directly across the road from a primary school. Is her claims of hardship genuine, or has she just mislead the court again? It'll be interesting to find out if her kids go to the local school.

Remember it's a swab test and not a blood test for drugs at the roadside. Again if you look under the influence and then fail a test there is probably substance in that.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

Actually, Reading it again as well as the above, blowing 55mg, driving without lights, she should have got both barrels with possibly 18 month ban. If he was also in the car, he should be struck off as an acomplice. I didnt realise the 10 points where suspended. What a joke.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> Actually, Reading it again as well as the above, blowing 55mg, driving without lights, she should have got both barrels with possibly 18 month ban. If he was also in the car, he should be struck off as an acomplice. I didnt realise the 10 points where suspended. What a joke.


She has been given 10 points and will need to resit her test. She was only allowed 6 points within 2 years.

It'll also means once she passes her test again she is only 3 points away from losing it again.

I don't know why I have the suspicion there might be a reason she didn't get a licence until her late 30s.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

https://mol.im/a/7895609
Poor article doesn't make it clear exactly what he was done for. He didn't fail his test. Causing death by dangerous driving? 4 years is pretty woefull too for what is manslaughter.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> https://mol.im/a/7895609
> Poor article doesn't make it clear exactly what he was done for. He didn't fail his test. Causing death by dangerous driving? 4 years is pretty woefull too for what is manslaughter.


As facts prove even drivers under the limit, but still under the influence, and far more likely to be involved in serious accidents and fatalities. There is another one to add the list.

It'll just add more strength to the argument that the limit is too high.

Driving at 50mph in a 30mph zone and losing control of the car is still death by dangerous driving. She knew he was drinking and got into the car. Neither of them put their seatbelt on either.

What a sad set of circumstances to die.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Channel 4 999 What's your emergency on now. 

The police aren't painting a good picture when they openly admit that highway patrol is highly depleted and you're highly unlikely to get caught drink driving or using the phone.

They don't even have the resources to respond to calls for drink driving. 

Lorry driver ripped the roof off a petrol station. He had an empty wine bottle and cans of cider in the cab.


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

The eastern European wagon drivers are well known for it. Usually beer and vodka.
Wont be too long where you will need to blow into a device before you can start a car / wagon. That will hopefully sort it out.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RS3 said:


> The eastern European wagon drivers are well known for it. Usually beer and vodka.
> Wont be too long where you will need to blow into a device before you can start a car / wagon. That will hopefully sort it out.


He was English in this case as was the other drink driver and the guy who failed the drugs test. He was still adamant the fact he was visibly drunk had nothing to do with the fact he misjudged the height of the petrol station and ripped the roof to bits.

Both drink drivers lost their jobs as they obviously required to drive for the their job. The drugs test guy was just a known housebreaker the police were desperate to get.

The cost of having devices connected up to the ignition will be too much. I can maybe see that we might end up with the French method that you must have a breathalyzer in the car. If you're drunk you'll not use it, but it would remove any doubt for those who want to know.

999 What's Your Emergency is a good programme. It'll be a different topic next week.


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

Kerr said:


> He was English in this case as was the other drink driver and the guy who failed the drugs test. He was still adamant the fact he was visibly drunk had nothing to do with the fact he misjudged the height of the petrol station and ripped the roof to bits.
> 
> Both drink drivers lost their jobs as they obviously required to drive for the their job. The drugs test guy was just a known housebreaker the police were desperate to get.
> 
> ...


Haven't time to confirm but I'm sure I read the French were getting rid of the carrying your own breathyliser law. Always thought it a bit daft as those clearly drunk will still drive but I suppose those that ate caught just over after a few glasses the night before would think twice.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Darlofan said:


> Haven't time to confirm but I'm sure I read the French were getting rid of the carrying your own breathyliser law. Always thought it a bit daft as those clearly drunk will still drive but I suppose those that ate caught just over after a few glasses the night before would think twice.


I read it's a legal requirement, but no punishment if you're caught without one. 

It would stop the people claiming they didn't realise they were over the limit, or that they had no way to know.

It'll not deter regular drink drivers. They will still carry on taking risks.

I guess the other issue is people will use it to stretch the limit as far as they can. The issue in that is if you've only recently had the drink you can end up blowing higher slightly later on.


----------

