So where did you get this bit of info from? I think you will find the majority blow between 40 and 48, which is not "far" from the limit at all. Maybe if some people could be the first on scene picking up the peices of mangled bodies, and then be the ones who knock on the next of kins door at 3am in the morning telling them there loved ones are on the slab they would have a different outlook on DD.
..... and speeders and careless drivers and mobile phone users and anyone who's too tired to drive and people arguing with their family/partner and those who are worried about their job and......
DD is an arbitary method of pigeonholing an accident into an explainable category. I don't agree with it and agree it should be stopped. The current Blood/alcohol level is pitched so that if you are over it, the book is thrown at you. On the continent those who fail (the lower limit) but only by a small margin receive much more lenient sentencing/fines.
I agree DD should be stopped, but so should all the other faults on our roads. DD provides a "measure" by which someone's failings can be assessed. All other categories, with the exception of speeding, are subjective and by their nature cannot be absolute and are less likely to be successfully prosecuted.
I'de happily shop a drink driver, but would ask that the £500 be contributed to the fireman's, police and paramedics benevolent funds due to the enormous distress they must suffer through picking up the mess of ALL serious accidents.
|
I agree DD should be stopped,
Sulk. That's you off the Chrimbo Card list :o)
|
:o)
I meant Drink Driving! Nothing can stop the Dynamic D!
No Dosh - but then who has?
|
EVERY fatal rta after 2300 hours that I attended during my years in the LAS involved a drink driver.
There was a saying in the service - "if you attend a serious rta at night & there's no drunk driver present, you'd better start looking"
That is the reality of drink driving - smashed up cars, broken bodies, disorientated people crying and being sick with pain and fear, people cuddling their DEAD girlfriends/boyfriends etc.
And they are usually young.
PLEASE - think. The slogan is absolutely spot on.
|
Some years ago in Germany I attended a police seminar run on the effects of alcohol on driving ability; it was run by a University medical team.
On arrival you were issued with your personal mouthpiece that connected to a machine reading alcohol level. You then were tested for your reactions on some fairly sophisticated machines with computer printout of your results.
Then came the good part - you wined and dined at the German Government's expense. Throughout the evening you could retake the tests and get re-breathalysed, although you had to wait for a period for the latter as alcohol in the mouth would give a false reading.
Initially the results of my reaction tests improved - a combination of alcohol relaxing me and learning the test procedures according to the doctors. However when I was well inebriated I suddenly 'lost it' on one of the tests and did seriously badly.
However the most revealing part for me was at the end of the evening when I was drunk. I am a big guy and was (then) very fit. I had consumed a lot of booze and eaten a fair amount. However I was still just below the legal limit for driving, yet there was no possible way I could have driven a car.
If my experience is typical if you are above the limit you are seriously impaired. Indeed I would consider the current limit as set too high.
|
|
|
Just want to urge people to listen to eric's son's version of this.
We all have, at times, the 'not me' mentality but at the same time we are all aware of our responsibilities - so, just to say everyone, whatever the temptation, please don't drink and drive.
Please.
HF
|
please don't drink and drive.
Last time I tried, I spilt it. No cupholders in my car you see!
|
|
No excuse for Drink Driving...I have a (very good) social life and manage it with my zero drink policy. Last night is a case in point. Went, by car, for a meal out. Had three pints and a glass of wine. Left car in car-park collected this afternoon. Drink driving is indefensible (most of the time) the 80mgs is not a "safe" limit zero is easily achieved.
|
I have a good deal going with a neighbour and a friend who lives nearby. If I need to get into town for a night out, one of the others will give me a ride - I then just get a taxi home.
The saving is about 10 quid for the night which is better than a poke in the eye.
|
Exactly, Pugugly, it is quite possible for any one of us to collect our cars the next day. Why most people won't do this really puzzles me.
HF
|
Exactly, Pugugly, it is quite possible for any one of us to collect our cars the next day. Why most people won't do this really puzzles me.
It depends on where you left the car the night before and whether you consider it to still be there in the morning (untouched, intact and no fine)
Mate of mine left his in a public car park, but remembered he hadn't got a ticket for it. Tickets are needed for parking from 8am until 6pm. Knowing that he wouldn't be up before 8am the next day to collect car - so to avoid a fine - he walked back to his car after being on the lash, got the ticket and plod arrested him for DD because they thought he was going to drive the car as he had keys in hand and opened the door. He tried reasoning with Jobsworthy plod and tried explaining the reason why he had opened the car door, but to no avail. Drink had got the better of my mate, so typically being drunk he lumped the copper. That didn't help his cause. Mate got 18 months ban and fined £75 for assulting a copper!!
|
Aside from the "lumping" of the copper, in which case he should have got a darn sight more than a 75 quid fine, IMHO; I find it difficult to believe that if he is standing there with a new all-night parking ticket that the police would have arrested him.
Typically, if they had, they would have had a tough time in court when chappie produced the ticket he had just bought and explained to a Magistrate the circumstances.
|
Mark,
I failed to add in my previous post that said mate actually got in the car to retrieve jacket from back seat for the walk home. The copper see him get in the car and assumed that he was going to drive it. In all the confusion and scrapping, I beleive the ticket went wayward.
DVD would be able to answer this one:- is it not a crime to have your car keys on you whilst in a drunken state? Something to do with the having the temptation to drive if you so wish?
|
It is only a crime if you intend to drive. Of course, if you do not have the keys on you, then nobody can suggest you intended to drive.
I can't remember where the burden of proof lies; whether you have to prove you did not intend to drive or the police have to prove that you did.
Either way, a parking ticket just bought would tip it in your favour in front of a Magistrate.
|
Sect 5 (1) (b) Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it :
an offence for a person to be in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place (note the vehicle not the person) after consuming so much alcohol that he is O.P.L.
There is however a defence if he can prove at the time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of driving the vehicle whilst OPL. A Court hearing this defence may disregard any injury to him or damage to the vehicle.
As a general rule once a person takes a vehicle out on the road/public place he remains in charge of it until he has taken it off the road/PP or unless he puts someone else in charge of it (handing keys over to another to prevent himself driving it or loses effective control over the vehicle (i.e. stolen or where he had gone to bed). Persons other than the owner may assume in charge of it. In such cases consideration must be given (DPP v Watkins 1989) to whether or where he was in the vehicle or how far from it, what he was doing, whether he was in possession of ignition key, evidence of intention to take control by driving or otherwise and the position and circumstances of other persons who were also in the vehicle.
Taking all this on board then consider a person who takes his car on the seasonal rounds to friends, parks on the road outside their house retains the ignition keys, enters and inbibes spirits and intends to drive back home.Not wishing to be a party pooper he drinks more than he should and whilst there someone runs into his parked car. Plod comes to deal and asks the question "Now who is in charge of the vehicle parked outside"
Well he is isn't he?
Don't risk it...... saddle SHMBO with the keys and control of the vehicle and make sure she stays sober.
(Note SHMBO could read HHMBO)
DVD
|
"(Note SHMBO could read HHMBO)"
What a lovely idea.
It must be Christmas.
|
What, legally, are the rules concerning the following? I had always believed that, having parked up for the night, on a public road, no intention whatsoever to drive, if you later, after having imbibed over the limit,and then remember you have forgotten to take something out of your car that you need, it is an offence to do so because you have the keys and cannot prove no intention of driving. Similar to what's been said already, but is this right?
HF
|
HF
Applying the law on this to its extreme then we all, with exceptions, may well have been technically DIC. The legislators in their wisdom obviously were aware of this and for this reason made the defence that has been quoted available.
Surely Plod would not be convinced lady in nightie and fluffy slippers was going to drive?
DVD
|
Yep, and happy Xmas DVD - continue this another time. maybe (I hope) but in the meantime
Agree 100% btw,
HF
|
Bleedin' heck, I make no sense at all at that time of night do I?!!
Just wanting to point out that I don't wear fluffy slippers. (Even at THIS time of night)
HF
|
DVD, What would be the position in regard to being over the limit in the case of HGVs.
As you know lay-bys are full of drivers who have ran out of hours and have on board sleeping facilities.
They can brew up and have their sandwiches. Perhaps have a couple of alcoholic drinks and then get their head down for the night.
Obviously a Policeman is not going to be interferring with them but what exactly would their position be in law.
For instance they may have to leave their cab for some reason and perhaps get breathalysed when they had no intention to drive.
alvin
|
Alvin
Just seen your post of 3rd inst...
Obviously it would be up to the discretion of the PC.
The driver is in charge of his vehicle but what is the state of intoxication?. Observation and conduct would show whether or not well blathered in which case there would be a need for action.
The offence is being i/c OVER THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT - which could be established by blowing .
If only a smell of wine gum then a gentle warning of the possibilities if not B.T'd.
DVD
|
DD
Sounds like your mate's tale should be in the 'Myths' thread. I have heard variations of that story(without the lumping bit) many times.
I would wager what he told you is rubbish!
C
|
Cardew,
No myth about him losing his licence.
However, yes, I agree the "parking ticket" could have been a yarn, but only he knows the truth about that night and won't tell it a different way. The 'lads' ribbed him for quite a while afterwards. We all thought that he made up the "getting a parking ticket" to try getting off the DD. So did the judge.
|
Some flexibility from the ticket touts would be appreciated during the Christmas season. A couple of years ago I had more than expected in a pub in Richmond, Surrey. The car was in a council car park so I left it and got a taxi home. Got back to the car next morning at 8.07 to find a £30 ticket - you were supposed to pay and display after 8.00.
What with the taxi ride each way it turned out to be a very expensive night out – still not as expensive as loosing my licence.
Cheers
|
|
DVD, You are obviously too ex job, something that strikes me as very strange is an 18 month ban for drunk in charge.... no way, I bet he drove it?
|
Must admit that I've always tended to go for the drive, park up & cab home method without ever considering the chances of being deemed to be still in charge of the vehicle while sat in the restaurant with a bottle of good red inside me. Bit scary that, I couldn't hazard a guess how many times that I would have failed that one.
Recently, though, I have taken to the designated driver method mainly due to the fact that on the last three occasions I have tried to get a cab after midnight the shortest wait has been 1 1/2 hours. (I wonder how many people were tempted by the keys in their pocket after an hour or so?).
SWMBO tends not to take kindly to hanging around the streets for that length of time trying to get a cab dressed in her best glad-rags, which tend not to be of the winter-woolly variety, so to save GBH of the ears we tend to share the driving.
Cockle
|
|
Can we cease the acroynims please, or at least get them right-"She Who Must Be Obeyed" is SWHBO not SHMBO - either is lazy IYKWIM........
|
She Who Must Be Obeyed" is SWHBO not SHMBO
Er, no it isn't. It's SWMBO. You've got a "H" where there should be an "M"
|
In Oz (yep, I'm from there), they have random breath testing - i.e. you'll be pulled over anywhere, any time.
Whether it's the right way to go or not, it's interesting for each person to consider whether it would change their personal habits.
|
Law in Oz sounds pretty good to me.|
HF
|
|
|
I'm definitely not saying your facts are wrong but i can tell you for certain of one rta after 2300hrs where there was no drunk driver involved - how? I was in it.
I was NOT the driver, my driving test was 3 weeks later but my friend and i had gone to see another friend on Christmas night 2000. She had not been drinking, i know this because she had been with me all day and i would not get into a car with someome who has had more than 1 drink. Anyway, we were coming home at about 11.30pm and as she spotted Burger King decided to go in (on reflection it probably wasn't even open but that's irrelevant). She WAS over-confident (having passed her test 10 days previous), she spotted BK too late, consequently didn't slow enough to take the corner and ended up smashing into a lamp-post, writing off the car (and the lamp-post) in the process. Luckily we both walked out of the crash with minor injuries and bad bruises but she was rightly breathalysed and it was confirmed there was no alcohol at all in her system.
And yes, we were both young.
Please don't shout at me, I'm not trying to decry your very valid message although i know it might sound like it, I'm simply putting a different point of view forward and showing that there are always exceptions to the rule.
|
Figures on the DETR website show that the majority of all crashes which cause death or otherwise are caused by sober drivers who would pass a breath test. These are not picked up by the annual roadblocks we have in Halton at Xmas or by Scameras.
as ever
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
A belated reply...
Where do I get the info from re offenders ?
Well- 3 places.
First my partner is a police officer and has been custody sergeant many times . Obviously DUI come in and are tested at the station. In all her time she has never seen one where the result was marginal , and the great majority were way over - clearly it's unusual for those who do it to aim to stay in the limit at just miscalculate a bit .
second, I sometimes work as a taxi driver and have picked up people from pubs and restaurants who were doing the right thing, but while waiting for them have seen people emerge who could hardly walk strait yet gotinto their vehicles and drove.
And finally- just spent a week on the IOW and read two editions of the local paper . There were 6 cases of DUI reported, and in all of them the driver was at least 50% over the limit.
|
Hi,
My dad got a caught last year, and is soon to be tested so that he can have his licence back. But no-one can tell him what the limits are for this test (ie what readings his tests have to result in, in order for him to pass). He is particularly worried about the liver test. Of course he has been drinking since he was banned - he goes to the pub, to parties, has drinks with the wife - but not to excess. He doesn't know at what point he should stop/cut down on drinking in order to pass...
Can anyone help?
|
|
|
Just reading DVDs posts on DUI etc.
My house key has always been on the same key ring as my car key. My car is often parked out on the road at night.
So, if I am seen by a Police Officer going into my car to retrieve something (coat, phone etc) after settling down for the evening and having 2 to 3 beers and am apprehended. Then I have to prove that I was not going to drive/ DUI etc if brethalised?
Also, if I come back from the pub, PC sees me walking towards my house, sees I've got my car keys on the same key ring, asks me where my car is, brethalises me and then I have to answer to a charge of DUI - right?
Sorry but this is pathetic. Fine if I got into the car and attempted to start it and was OTL, but simply having the keys on me when I am out on foot (a little worse for wear maybe) doing nobody any harm, to be charged with DUI is completely unfare.
Surely society has to accept that unless there is hard evidence of a DUI/DD offence being or about to be comitted, ie witness offender enter driver's side, sit down and shut door etc, then individuals should be given the benefit of the doubt.
In addition, if anyone is in the habit of sleeping in their car after a few beers, the back seat may be a good place - puts them out of the driving position, should they get a tap on the window. I heard a story many years ago where someone was done for DD because they got in their car and went to sleep. His keys were in his pocket.
****Signature? - Ideas on a postcard please anyone!****
Hugo
|
Hugo,
Technically yes. However there is a defence in law that is the likelyhood of driving. HAd a cracking case a few years ago. A very drunk driver was seen by some kids getting into his van. They ran to the local nick and told the Bobby on duty. He went looking but lo and behold the van had gone. They went to his house and were invited in by his SWMBO (legal point there) he was upstaris in bed fast asleep (in all his clothes including shoes) he was nicked. The youngsters made statements and the matter went to Court and he got conviicted (whoops another lost cause) it was his second offence with very high readings and he was disqualified for 10 years with a medical. Indefensible really.
|
Picking up on 'indefensible' I was astounded to read on Friday of the case where a 24 year old man ran from the scene of a crash (he was the driver) leaving his 5 month old baby boy crying in the passenger footwell of the car.
A police officer had spotted him driving erratically and had followed the vehicle. The driver panicked (according to the report) and crash, fleeing the scene on foot. He was later found asleep in his garden shed, and tests found that he was more than twice over the legal limit.
The court was told that he'd drunk 7 pints of strong lager at a cricket club party before deciding to drive home - he got four month in prison and a driving ban of three years.
The report doesn't mention how the baby was, so presumably (hopefully) he was ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
