Do I Call Work And Ask To Go In...
Jobs & Education0 min ago
Drink-Driving: Thousands Caught Over The Limit Twice
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think that there may be different groups. Some will be fractionally over having misjudged and got caught a second time. Silly but understandable. Those way over have an attitude problem, especially when caught three, four, or more times. They ought not qualify for a licence, at least until proven that they have controlled their alcohol dependence.
That, I think is part of the problem.
Because we are far too ready to excuse drunk drivers, we have a culture where being caught breaking the law is seen more as a case of hard luck than deliberate criminal behaviour.
No-one deliberately runs over a complete stranger, but lack of intent to harm does not translate into lack of harm itself - and that is the reason why no-one should drink and drive at all, ever.
Because we are far too ready to excuse drunk drivers, we have a culture where being caught breaking the law is seen more as a case of hard luck than deliberate criminal behaviour.
No-one deliberately runs over a complete stranger, but lack of intent to harm does not translate into lack of harm itself - and that is the reason why no-one should drink and drive at all, ever.
Two problems really, one is that the limit is far too high so drivers correctly think they can drink something but the amount is different for everyone, thus no one really knows what they can drink until they are breathalysed and passed having had some. As a less than svelte chap I have personally passed on 5 pints over 6 hours many years ago. Now i never drink and drive. The limit should be so low as to just allow for trace amounts eg 20mg rather than 80. secondly repeat offenders should be banned for life.
Again I agree ummmm - sadly, history and cultural attitudes are against us on this one.
People see not being able to drink and drive as a 'punishment'. I suggest they grow up and stop pretending they are six years old - if you are old enough to drive a car, you are old enough to be responsible about avoiding the risks of killing people doing it.
People see not being able to drink and drive as a 'punishment'. I suggest they grow up and stop pretending they are six years old - if you are old enough to drive a car, you are old enough to be responsible about avoiding the risks of killing people doing it.
“Those types of drink drivers probably weren't doing it intentionally.”
“Intent” has nothing to do with it, ummmm. The offence is one of strict liability. If you’re over the limit you’re convicted and that’s that. Furthermore, following conviction (except in one or two very exceptional and rarely seen circumstances) a minimum 12 month ban must be imposed. Magistrates have no discretion over whether to impose a ban or its minimum length. There is no facility for the driver to argue “exceptional hardship” as is available with a “totting up” ban.
As far as repeat offenders go, the minimum disqualification period for a second or subsequent offence within ten years is three years. It is therefore difficult (though not impossible) to rack up six D/D offences (which must involve a minimum of sixteen years disqualification unless any two of them are more than ten years apart). But if those are the stats they must be accepted. Quite whether a driver with such a list of convictions would find somebody to insure him is a different matter. But if you are going to drink and driver serially then driving without insurance is scarcely likely to trouble you.
Legislation provides for the DVLA to medically assess “high risk” drivers before their licence is reinstated. These are drivers who commit a single offence where they are more than 2.5 times over the limit or where a second or subsequent offence has been committed within ten years. The agency has the power to refuse to reinstate the licence of such drivers whom it believes still present a risk. I’m not too sure what form this assessment takes but I have to say that if it allows a driver to commit six excess alcohol offences it does not inspire me with much confidence.
“Intent” has nothing to do with it, ummmm. The offence is one of strict liability. If you’re over the limit you’re convicted and that’s that. Furthermore, following conviction (except in one or two very exceptional and rarely seen circumstances) a minimum 12 month ban must be imposed. Magistrates have no discretion over whether to impose a ban or its minimum length. There is no facility for the driver to argue “exceptional hardship” as is available with a “totting up” ban.
As far as repeat offenders go, the minimum disqualification period for a second or subsequent offence within ten years is three years. It is therefore difficult (though not impossible) to rack up six D/D offences (which must involve a minimum of sixteen years disqualification unless any two of them are more than ten years apart). But if those are the stats they must be accepted. Quite whether a driver with such a list of convictions would find somebody to insure him is a different matter. But if you are going to drink and driver serially then driving without insurance is scarcely likely to trouble you.
Legislation provides for the DVLA to medically assess “high risk” drivers before their licence is reinstated. These are drivers who commit a single offence where they are more than 2.5 times over the limit or where a second or subsequent offence has been committed within ten years. The agency has the power to refuse to reinstate the licence of such drivers whom it believes still present a risk. I’m not too sure what form this assessment takes but I have to say that if it allows a driver to commit six excess alcohol offences it does not inspire me with much confidence.
No scum scoops for you then Balders?
I'm with TTT on this one. The only way to stop this madness is harsher sentences. I would go further and jail people for quite lengthy periods if DD whilst banned or on a 3rd or more in 10 years.
My daughter drove down from Basingstoke having worked Christmas day. She said it was plainly obvious there were quite a few drunks. One rode on the rumble strip for about a mile! She kept well back from all of them, except the one that was doing 30mph. Of course she saw no Rozzers.
I'm with TTT on this one. The only way to stop this madness is harsher sentences. I would go further and jail people for quite lengthy periods if DD whilst banned or on a 3rd or more in 10 years.
My daughter drove down from Basingstoke having worked Christmas day. She said it was plainly obvious there were quite a few drunks. One rode on the rumble strip for about a mile! She kept well back from all of them, except the one that was doing 30mph. Of course she saw no Rozzers.
Rozzers? On Christmas Day?
And thereby hangs another aspect of this scandalous tale. As with mobile phone use at the wheel, the rate of detection is in all probability exceedingly low. Unless your driving is demonstrably poor or you are involved in a collision you do not stand much chance of being apprehended if you are over the limit. Police forces across the country make a great play of the number of breath tests they had performed each Christmas. But they fail to emphasise that this short-term relatively unintelligent blitz that the rate of detection using this method is rarely much above six or seven percent (i.e around 6% of those tested prove positive).
A far more intelligent and targeted approach is required. Most people who frequent pubs know which of their fellow regulars will be driving home over the limit. It should not be too difficult for the police to glean this information and act on it in the same way they gather intelligence for other crimes. After all, they don’t randomly check people’s homes for stolen goods. They use intelligence to establish who is at it. So it should be for the hard core of drink-drivers. It should not depend solely on luck or an accident that these dangerous serial criminals are apprehended.
And thereby hangs another aspect of this scandalous tale. As with mobile phone use at the wheel, the rate of detection is in all probability exceedingly low. Unless your driving is demonstrably poor or you are involved in a collision you do not stand much chance of being apprehended if you are over the limit. Police forces across the country make a great play of the number of breath tests they had performed each Christmas. But they fail to emphasise that this short-term relatively unintelligent blitz that the rate of detection using this method is rarely much above six or seven percent (i.e around 6% of those tested prove positive).
A far more intelligent and targeted approach is required. Most people who frequent pubs know which of their fellow regulars will be driving home over the limit. It should not be too difficult for the police to glean this information and act on it in the same way they gather intelligence for other crimes. After all, they don’t randomly check people’s homes for stolen goods. They use intelligence to establish who is at it. So it should be for the hard core of drink-drivers. It should not depend solely on luck or an accident that these dangerous serial criminals are apprehended.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
How it Works7 mins ago
Oh Dear What Could The Matter Be?
News11 mins ago
Insurance13 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
Film, Media & TV17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.