Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Drink Driving At Christmas.
182 Answers
http://
It appears that our culture of accepting arrest for drink-driving as an occupational hazard is not disappearing as quickly as we might hope.
My views on drink driving are very simple - zero tolerance, lifetime ban.
Any thoughts?
It appears that our culture of accepting arrest for drink-driving as an occupational hazard is not disappearing as quickly as we might hope.
My views on drink driving are very simple - zero tolerance, lifetime ban.
Any thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. 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.
jack - //And yet another thread descends into a nitpick-fest with andy-hughes having to 'justify' himself against a band of posters who are becoming utterly predictable and exceedingly boring in their persistent needling.
Time to grow-up, I think chaps. //
Thanks as always for your support - much appreciated.
Time to grow-up, I think chaps. //
Thanks as always for your support - much appreciated.
andy-hughes
Admittedly you have confessed that you gave the wrong impression of yourself, so why couldn't you have just left it at that, without the need to add:
/// If it makes you feel better to make the errors my responsibility - then fine, happy to do so. ///
After all you have already admitted that the errors were your responsibility, by the simple fact that it was you yourself that laid them down.
Shall we now leave it at that and move on?
Admittedly you have confessed that you gave the wrong impression of yourself, so why couldn't you have just left it at that, without the need to add:
/// If it makes you feel better to make the errors my responsibility - then fine, happy to do so. ///
After all you have already admitted that the errors were your responsibility, by the simple fact that it was you yourself that laid them down.
Shall we now leave it at that and move on?
AOG - //Admittedly you have confessed that you gave the wrong impression of yourself, so why couldn't you have just left it at that, without the need to add:
/// If it makes you feel better to make the errors my responsibility - then fine, happy to do so. ///
After all you have already admitted that the errors were your responsibility, by the simple fact that it was you yourself that laid them down.
Shall we now leave it at that and move on? //
Obviously being right matters far more to you than it does to me so yes, you are right and I am wrong.
Let's take that as read for ever, and then you won't need to clutter up the thread pointing it out on such a regular basis.
Now we can move on.
/// If it makes you feel better to make the errors my responsibility - then fine, happy to do so. ///
After all you have already admitted that the errors were your responsibility, by the simple fact that it was you yourself that laid them down.
Shall we now leave it at that and move on? //
Obviously being right matters far more to you than it does to me so yes, you are right and I am wrong.
Let's take that as read for ever, and then you won't need to clutter up the thread pointing it out on such a regular basis.
Now we can move on.
naomi24
/// I've not seen him say it's not. ///
Okay I say it "Drink driving is not acceptable now"
Happy now?
There are plenty of things that took place long ago, that were acceptable years ago but are certainly not tolerated now, just as there are many things that take place today, that could not possibly have been foreseen all those years ago.
I don't know how old you are Naomi, quite young in comparison to me I would imagine, so you have not got the years of life experiences that I have gained.
But as the saying goes, "you can't put an old head on young shoulders", you will hopefully grow up in time.
/// I've not seen him say it's not. ///
Okay I say it "Drink driving is not acceptable now"
Happy now?
There are plenty of things that took place long ago, that were acceptable years ago but are certainly not tolerated now, just as there are many things that take place today, that could not possibly have been foreseen all those years ago.
I don't know how old you are Naomi, quite young in comparison to me I would imagine, so you have not got the years of life experiences that I have gained.
But as the saying goes, "you can't put an old head on young shoulders", you will hopefully grow up in time.
andy-hughes
/// Obviously being right matters far more to you than it does to me ///
Obviously not, since wasn't it you who first challenged me, for making a correct assumption of you from what you previously put?
/// Let's take that as read for ever, and then you won't need to clutter up the thread pointing it out on such a regular basis. ///
So you don't wish others to correct you, when you are in the wrong, is that what you are saying?
/// Obviously being right matters far more to you than it does to me ///
Obviously not, since wasn't it you who first challenged me, for making a correct assumption of you from what you previously put?
/// Let's take that as read for ever, and then you won't need to clutter up the thread pointing it out on such a regular basis. ///
So you don't wish others to correct you, when you are in the wrong, is that what you are saying?
AOG - //andy-hughes
/// Obviously being right matters far more to you than it does to me ///
Obviously not, since wasn't it you who first challenged me, for making a correct assumption of you from what you previously put?
/// Let's take that as read for ever, and then you won't need to clutter up the thread pointing it out on such a regular basis. ///
So you don't wish others to correct you, when you are in the wrong, is that what you are saying? //
I am losing the will to live here - whatever you want to do, you just carry right on doing it - you do anyway, so why bother asking me?
I am going no further in this futile pointless nit-picking scenario that you have created once again.
You are right, for ever and ever, and I am wrong for ever and ever, and honestly, do you really think anyone else apart from you cares?
Now, I am moving on, you can do as you wish.
/// Obviously being right matters far more to you than it does to me ///
Obviously not, since wasn't it you who first challenged me, for making a correct assumption of you from what you previously put?
/// Let's take that as read for ever, and then you won't need to clutter up the thread pointing it out on such a regular basis. ///
So you don't wish others to correct you, when you are in the wrong, is that what you are saying? //
I am losing the will to live here - whatever you want to do, you just carry right on doing it - you do anyway, so why bother asking me?
I am going no further in this futile pointless nit-picking scenario that you have created once again.
You are right, for ever and ever, and I am wrong for ever and ever, and honestly, do you really think anyone else apart from you cares?
Now, I am moving on, you can do as you wish.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
TTT - //andy, are you aware that in the absence of alcohol the body makes its own? So 0 is not feasible, all motorists would have some in their bodies. Do you accept a trace amount as a limit so say 10mg rather than 80? //
Apologies for the delay - I did post a response last night, but it didn't go through.
With regard to the body's alcohol production - I have been bretahlysed after a road accident (not my fault) and the reading was zero, so whatever alcohol my body may be producing did not register.
I can't believe that I am unique in my internal alcohol production being below the standard breath test measuring standards.
So no - I would not accept a base level on that basis.
If a motorist has extenuating circumstances, then they can offer evidence, and if it's genuine, no charge will be brought - I am sure that system is in place now anway.
Apologies for the delay - I did post a response last night, but it didn't go through.
With regard to the body's alcohol production - I have been bretahlysed after a road accident (not my fault) and the reading was zero, so whatever alcohol my body may be producing did not register.
I can't believe that I am unique in my internal alcohol production being below the standard breath test measuring standards.
So no - I would not accept a base level on that basis.
If a motorist has extenuating circumstances, then they can offer evidence, and if it's genuine, no charge will be brought - I am sure that system is in place now anway.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
TTT - //ok you don't mean zero, you mean below the amount that the breathalyser can detect. That's fair enough but if they take a blood test it will have micrograms in it. //
There may be micrograms in a blood test, but if the motorist doesn't fail the breathalyser, he won't be taking the blood test, so it won't matter.
There may be micrograms in a blood test, but if the motorist doesn't fail the breathalyser, he won't be taking the blood test, so it won't matter.
Chaps, there's been a shocking outbreak of //s in this thread. Cease and desist! Be creative with your language!
Back to the point raised by Andy: I can't see there being anything other than a Scottish-style zero tolerance (hey - see what i did there?) in the future of the UK as a whole, because that's the way so many other harmful thingies have gone.
But a lifetime ban.....you don't get life, as such, for murder in many cases, so how would a lifetime ban be fair in comparison?
Also, someone banned for life may well become an economic burden by not being able to work,
It's pointless raising tales of the good old times when we drank till dawn then drove to Edinburgh for tiffin because so much has changed and there was so little on the roads, going at much slower speeds. These people were drunk drivers - they just got away with it. Like so much else now, you can't get away with it so easily. And shouldn't.
Back to the point raised by Andy: I can't see there being anything other than a Scottish-style zero tolerance (hey - see what i did there?) in the future of the UK as a whole, because that's the way so many other harmful thingies have gone.
But a lifetime ban.....you don't get life, as such, for murder in many cases, so how would a lifetime ban be fair in comparison?
Also, someone banned for life may well become an economic burden by not being able to work,
It's pointless raising tales of the good old times when we drank till dawn then drove to Edinburgh for tiffin because so much has changed and there was so little on the roads, going at much slower speeds. These people were drunk drivers - they just got away with it. Like so much else now, you can't get away with it so easily. And shouldn't.
“…and I am advocating taking the privilege away from people who cannot be trusted with it.”
Absolutely agree, Andy. Except for the “forever” bit.
Almost every aspect of punishment under the UK’s criminal justice system is tempered with a degree of rehabilitation. Offenders are punished for their transgressions but when they have served their sentence they are encouraged to resume their life as before. This even applies to murderers (barring the very few most serious offenders who receive “whole life” tariffs).
To apply a lifetime driving ban for a single transgression would flout this principle. Driving is indeed a privilege and to withdraw it for life would be wholly disproportionate to the crime.
“If a motorist has extenuating circumstances, then they can offer evidence, and if it's genuine, no charge will be brought - I am sure that system is in place now anway.”
No that system is not in place, Andy (at least not quite in the way you put it). The law in this respect is a little harsher than you believe. Driving with excess alcohol is an “absolute” offence. That is, you are either under the limit or over it. If you are over it you are guilty, whatever the circumstances. There is no defence to the charge (apart from technicalities where deficiencies in the process adopted to take the measurements make the charge invalid). People who do have extenuating circumstances can, as I described earlier, argue “Special Reasons” not to be disqualified or have their licence endorsed. But the conviction is recorded. These circumstances have to be where the offender was not aware, or could not reasonably be expected to believe that he had excess alcohol in his system. Spiked drinks or a medical condition which produces alcohol are two of the very limited circumstances I have encountered. They must be supported by robust evidence and it is not an easy matter with which to succeed.
Absolutely agree, Andy. Except for the “forever” bit.
Almost every aspect of punishment under the UK’s criminal justice system is tempered with a degree of rehabilitation. Offenders are punished for their transgressions but when they have served their sentence they are encouraged to resume their life as before. This even applies to murderers (barring the very few most serious offenders who receive “whole life” tariffs).
To apply a lifetime driving ban for a single transgression would flout this principle. Driving is indeed a privilege and to withdraw it for life would be wholly disproportionate to the crime.
“If a motorist has extenuating circumstances, then they can offer evidence, and if it's genuine, no charge will be brought - I am sure that system is in place now anway.”
No that system is not in place, Andy (at least not quite in the way you put it). The law in this respect is a little harsher than you believe. Driving with excess alcohol is an “absolute” offence. That is, you are either under the limit or over it. If you are over it you are guilty, whatever the circumstances. There is no defence to the charge (apart from technicalities where deficiencies in the process adopted to take the measurements make the charge invalid). People who do have extenuating circumstances can, as I described earlier, argue “Special Reasons” not to be disqualified or have their licence endorsed. But the conviction is recorded. These circumstances have to be where the offender was not aware, or could not reasonably be expected to believe that he had excess alcohol in his system. Spiked drinks or a medical condition which produces alcohol are two of the very limited circumstances I have encountered. They must be supported by robust evidence and it is not an easy matter with which to succeed.
