|
Kat, your kind thanks are all that we need on this site.
|
Not to detract from the seriousness of the offence, and not to disagree with doctorchris at all. Merely to say that I don't think you can suggest (as somebody else did) that the chap has an alcohol problem *just* because he is twice over the DD limit. Three pints of beer does that.
Equally I don't imagine he will get a custodial sentence. Moreover I hope he will not get one as it would be a waste of the nation's resources. Having to be driven everywhere will be plenty of punishment enough.
And equally, from what I know of people who are caught DUI it won't be the only time he will have done it, and twice won't be the drunkest he'll ever have been. Just remember, OP, if he'd killed somebody whilst drunk driving they'd have thrown away the key. It seems somehow unjust that two drunk drivers, one unlucky enough to kill somebody, the other not so unlucky, are treated so differently.
My father had to go to one of the Scandanavian countries probably thirty years ago to get a contract signed. The senior Government official was spending a statutory week in prison as a result of a DD offence. So my father turned up to the prison to get the signature, and went with a posse of his colleagues who considered it nothing out of the ordinary. It was standard practice. If you bang people up too easily then it is no deterrent.
|
It seems somehow unjust that two drunk drivers one unlucky enough to kill somebody the other not so unlucky are treated so differently.
This is the same for very many motoring offences.
|
|
I think what Mapmaker is really driving at is that it seems unfair, not to say idiotic, that safe over-the-limit drivers get banned from driving while dangerous idiots are left free to kill people on the roads merely because they aren't drinkers... As for justice, its links with the law have always been tenuous to put it mildly.
|
I feel that things are getting confused here.
The law dictates a certain level of alcohol in the bloodstream that may present a danger to that driver and other people. In the UK that level is higher than in other countries.
If a driver's judgement of his alcohol intake tells him that he will not exceed that limit then good luck to him. However, as the level of alcohol in the blood is multifactorial then that judgement may be incorrect.
When one's consumption of alcohol has reached a certain point then that alcohol significantly impairs judgement, in this case regarding ability to drive safely.
The lack of traffic police in this country these days does mean that driving whilst over the alcohol limit is not difficult to get away with. This applies both to the normally careful driver who may remain relatively safe and the maniac who, under the influence of alcohol becomes more maniacal.
However, we cannot develop a system which includes how safe or maniacal a driver is into the drink driving laws.
Personally, I feel that the only sensible system is to set the safe limit at zero alcohol in the bloodstream. Hence, sensible and maniacal drivers both know where they stand.
|
I agree with everything you say doctorchris except the last thing (a zero level). I think that is what they have in Sweden (see Mapmaker's post above), so that a few scoops the night before can make a staid and respectable Volvo pilot technically 'drunk' on the way to work the next day.
That's fine for the Swedes no doubt, all part of life's rich tapestry, but it would be a galloping pain for many people here and would put most of the remaining country pubs out of business. PC gone mad, and more than a bit uncivilised, is the way it would feel.
|
The country pub issue is easily dealt with, as we lads did in the 1970's, one person drives and drinks soft drinks, the rest get bladdered as they wish.
The "morning after" issue is more difficult. I can only suggest a personal breathalyser or abstaining from alcohol until the early evening before driving on the morrow.
I hope I do not offend when I admit to being an alcoholic in recovery. I hope that my comments will carry more weight as a result of this revelation.
Alcohol is a dangerous but socially accepted drug. If it were discovered today rather than many thousands of years ago, it would be totally banned due to it's toxicity and awful side effects.
|
No, you don't offend at all dc. It makes what you say all the more incontrovertible, all of it.
But I hope I don't offend by admitting to being an old-fashioned libertarian on these matters. I suppose many in the alcohol-using western societies are tiptoeing cautiously around on the fringes of alcoholism, and of course we have all experienced the dire effects of drunkenness on behaviour and personality, in ourselves and in others.
Nevertheless it's a somewhat ambiguous part of our 'culture' and many of us as you know are fairly comfortable with its contradictions. Perhaps in future it will be banned or severely repressed, and no doubt we will live longer and healthier lives as a result. Liking the odd drink, or even the regular few drinks, is nothing to feel smug about, but nor is it a sign of demonic possession.
|
Perhaps in future it will be banned orseverely repressed and no doubt we will live longer and healthier lives as a result. Liking the odd drink or even the regular few drinks is nothing to feel smug about but nor is it a sign of demonic possession.
With the greatest of respect and sympathy to doctorchris, I have to disagree slightly Lud.
We will not live longer if alcohol, cigarettes, fatty foods, fast cars, motorbikes et cetera ad infinitum are banned.... it will just feel like a lot longer!
|
We will not live longer if alcohol cigarettes fatty foods fast cars motorbikes et cetera ad infinitum are banned.... it will just feel like a lot longer!
That isn't just a joke actually Harleyman, it is true in an everyday sense.
Humans use intoxicants to make their lives more tolerable, to release emotion or just have a holiday, by way of altered consciousness, from normal reality. Clearly they do this because normal everyday reality becomes, for many of them, a bit burdensome in one way or another.
In a perfect world in which everyone was happy and fulfilled and in tip-top physical and mental condition, drink and drugs would fall out of fashion. They wouldn't improve things in any way but would still have whatever side effects they have.
But that isn't the world we live in. We live in an imperfect, stressful one in which we need to watch out for the cure as well as the disease. For example the ancient, and still current, medical standby opium is an unparallelled specific against pain and discomfort when used properly. But it is quite addictive in all its forms and bad for people if used to excess (indeed it is an effective poison too in quite small doses). 'In nothing too much' (Socrates).
|
someone once said to Bernard Manning that if he gave up smoking, moderated his drinking and did a bit of exercise, he could put at least 3 years on his life..
he thought about it for a moment and then replied "ah yes, but that would be the last 3 wouldn't it"..
|
|
Personally I feel that the only sensible system is to set the safe limit at zero alcohol in the bloodstream. Hence sensible and maniacal drivers both know where they stand.
Sensible drivers know where they stand in any case. Maniacs should not be on the road.
IMO the "limit" in this country is very reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
