New proposals for drink drivers

[T.C.]

Under new proposals, the most dangerous drink drivers will have to undergo a medical before they are allowed back on the road.

Will be interesting to see how many pass, but will it also lead to an increase in the number of people driving whilst disqualified?

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/280 ... ium=twitte

[kff30]

speaking as a retired firefighter, i have been at the sharp end of drink driving my worse experience involving 4 teenage kids who sadly all lost their lives. i would say any thing that helps get drink drivers off the road is a good thing, the problem is as you say keeping them off the road.

personally i think any one caught drink driving should serve a mandatory prison sentence, first offence 3 or 4 days and if you get caught again then back to prison for double the sentence and so on.

there is no excuse at all for being over the limit and driving a car on public roads, the drink drive adverts claim "drinking and driving wrecks life's" and it does the scary thing is no matter how good a driver you are or how safe you are there is nothing you can do to protect your self from a drink driver, that is why i believe the punishment should be so severe, after all a drink driver loosing a few days of their life spent in prison might be enough to stop them from killing you or some one you love

rant over

sorry but when you have seen what i have seen you form a very strong opinion on drink driving

[Dalemac]

Alcohol inebriates people so their judgement and decision making is worse (amongst other things).

If someone decides to drive while drunk, do they care whether they have a licence, insurance, mot, tax etc?

The courts seem to not want to put people in prisons these days (unless they are a celebrity who sexually offended someone 20,30,40 years ago).

Is there an actual solution to the problem? I can't see one.

Also - medical exams, for an already stretched NHS? Seems the drunks get more access to health care than the rest of us...

[fatboy]

Im sure the intention is good but when implimentation is left to DVLA,expect poor results.
I had my license revoked by DVLA, on medical grounds, 5 months after passing the HGV medical.
The reason for this was that a year before my medical, I voluntarily undertook a home detox for alcohol. I'd recently split with mrs FB, it was a nasty, vicous split,so I hit the lager, numbed the pain but left me with other problems,not being able to sleep without being bladdered ect.I did what I thought was the right thing.
Took 2 years and 2 medicals to get my license back, with restrictions on weight (no more lorry driving)
I have never been arrested for drink driving or had an insurance claim made against me in over 30 years.
While all this was going on, a mate of a mate got arrested for drink driving, her license 3 weeks old. She was so pissed she was taken away in an ambulance
She got her license back 12 months later no problems

[blinkey501]

speaking as a retired firefighter, i have been at the sharp end of drink driving my worse experience involving 4 teenage kids who sadly all lost their lives. i would say any thing that helps get drink drivers off the road is a good thing, the problem is as you say keeping them off the road.

personally i think any one caught drink driving should serve a mandatory prison sentence, first offence 3 or 4 days and if you get caught again then back to prison for double the sentence and so on.

there is no excuse at all for being over the limit and driving a car on public roads, the drink drive adverts claim "drinking and driving wrecks life's" and it does the scary thing is no matter how good a driver you are or how safe you are there is nothing you can do to protect your self from a drink driver, that is why i believe the punishment should be so severe, after all a drink driver loosing a few days of their life spent in prison might be enough to stop them from killing you or some one you love

rant over

sorry but when you have seen what i have seen you form a very strong opinion on drink driving

The first and last time I saw Julian. A retained firefighter friend of mine cry was after an RTC involving kids. The memorial is still at the side of the road now.

[lazarus]

Will be interesting to see how many pass, but will it also lead to an increase in the number of people driving whilst disqualified?

Yes but thats no reason for not doing it. I cant see that driving whilst both drunk and disqualified is a great deal worse than driving whilst drunk but with a licence.

[fatboy]

A disqualified driver will not have insurance, then again, the insurers of any drunk driver may not honour the policy because the driver chose to drive knowingly unfit to drive.
For some time now, the view has been that if you are more than twice over the limit, you can be veiwed as alcohol dependant.
My previous post regarding the lass that was so pissed, the law called an ambulance would indicate inconsistencies in how DVLA deal with drunk drivers.
Surely, any driver that fails a breath test by a fair margin is high risk

[bert]

From a personal point of view I wouldn't have a problem with the Drunk Driver having their car impounded until the trial is finished & then crushed if found guilty.
By that I mean with everything still inside, child seats, phones, other personal effects.
The guilty party MUST suffer the potential of the loss they might have caused - caused my THEIR decision to drive.

[Gio]

From a personal point of view I wouldn't have a problem with the Drunk Driver having their car impounded until the trial is finished & then crushed if found guilty.
By that I mean with everything still inside, child seats, phones, other personal effects.
The guilty party MUST suffer the potential of the loss they might have caused - caused my THEIR decision to drive.

Well they do it to motorcycles in Surrey, so why not indeed.

[lazarus]

A disqualified driver will not have insurance, then again, the insurers of any drunk driver may not honour the policy because the driver chose to drive knowingly unfit to drive.

The motor insurance bureau covers uninsured drivers thrid party claims. I dont believe that the drunken drivers insurance compoany would not pay up mon a third party claim but TC would know better.

The problem with car cruishing is that the drunken driver might not be the owner. Why should the HP company or lease company lose out?

[D-Rider]

A disqualified driver will not have insurance, then again, the insurers of any drunk driver may not honour the policy because the driver chose to drive knowingly unfit to drive.

The motor insurance bureau covers uninsured drivers thrid party claims. I dont believe that the drunken drivers insurance compoany would not pay up mon a third party claim but TC would know better.

The problem with car cruishing is that the drunken driver might not be the owner. Why should the HP company or lease company lose out?

Yes I had much the same thoughts.

I'm always a bit uneasy when these things are discussed in isolation - a bit like the enforcement approach to driving issues being mainly targeted at speed as it's an easy target.

Being just a tad over the pretty severe driving limits we have is not that dangerous compared with many other factors (and I say this as someone who almost never drinks).
Texting while driving is about as bad as it gets but also driving while tired can be much, much worse than driving when a bit over the limit - and who of us hasn't driven when we are just so dog tired?

[Gio]

and who of us hasn't driven when we are just so dog tired?

Yup I tend to go to sleep like 90% of the other road users, who are permanently in that state, IMO its safest that way. (on 4 wheels that is, can't fall off then)

[lazarus]

Being just a tad over the pretty severe driving limits we have is not that dangerous compared with many other factors (and I say this as someone who almost never drinks).
Texting while driving is about as bad as it gets but also driving while tired can be much, much worse than driving when a bit over the limit - and who of us hasn't driven when we are just so dog tired?

I think that is undoubtedly true but its also the excuse that my drinking pals make for having a couple of pints before setting off home. But then its not an either / or situation is it? Banning someone for being over the booze limit doesnt mean you cant ban someone for texting.

Problem with booze is two fold. Firstly you cant really have a system where the penalty depends on alcohol levers since different levels affect people differently. So the idea of a severe penalty really is to stop boozing and driving altogether - not a bad idea in my opinion. The second issue is that different people have different levels of drinking to get to the booze limit. IMO is would be better to lower the limit to make it absolutely clear that there is no drinking and driving.

[D-Rider]

I'll order the taxis now for the drive home from the next ridersite weekend .... Alad won't need one as his bike is usually transported home for him .....

[Aladinsaneuk]

You taking a dinghy then ?