Safe Speed Forums

Anyone see today's article in the Times about conviction rates for drink driving causing concern, as it's "not a national priority" and traffic policing is "focussing on offences that can be detected remotely"?

There is a version on the site at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 34,00.html , but it's not as full as the one in the dead tree version.

Does not surprise me in the least. RoSPA's survey of 2000 people found too many take the chance and drive after one too many drinks. Some do not even know the limit, and it is nop use saying x number of pints as we are each different in metabolism as well.

Best policy is not to think of driving if you have had more than one drink or if you feel any doubts.

Here? Regular campaign of the month feature - and as we are seen and seen to be carrying out random checks - we pickup on those who have and find relatively encouraging signs of abstenance overall here. But some still do and we find weddings and family functions seem to be the ones which do catch unawares.

Aimed at our browsers as I think I "know" the contributors here" virtually well ";)

Please be careful at these dos and try not to get carried away.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Been breath tested once in the last 16 years. That was for a broken tail light bulb over Christmas week.

I drive through the city centre late at night at least twice a week. Hardly ever see police that are not camped outside a night club.

I don't drink anyway so no problem, but i wouldn't mind seeing a few more police out there at closing time.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

The article refers obliquely to analysis of Home Office figures showing wide variations in the numbers of breath tests carried out by different police forces. See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4581661.stm


Although this is meant as a criticism of Hertfordshire, surely if they got more positive tests in absolute terms even though carrying out far fewer tests in total, it suggests they are adopting an intelligent, targeted approach to enforcement.

Any police force can waste resources carrying out enormous numbers of tests on drivers who are very unlikely to turn out to be offenders, and then claim it as evidence they are addressing the problem.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

We test on tip off and on observation of the driving - or if we know the person has history in this patch. No way do we waste time harassing the innocent - and we can tell. Experience tells us wheher we should tug or not. But I cannot speak for areas which have downsized a little - of course.... I would like to think and believe they follow same procedures, of course,.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Same with us, IG - resources allowing

For the uninitiated, it's amazing how differently drivers drive after even a pint - and with practised observation you can spot them a mile off...

Did six months in Aus where they have roadside trailer stops and test every passing car - not much use as everyone knows the back roads!!

Here's another questionable police tactic being adopted to combat drink-driving:

Police 'lovers' aim to nab drink-drivers


A rather manpower-intensive exercise, I would have thought.

Chief Insp Tim Harris said: "The tell-tale signs will be if someone is slurring their speech, staggering or smelling of alcohol."

You don't say, Tim

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

B*gger! I'm in trouble then.. I suffer from Meniere's Syndrome.. Sometimes I stagger going into the pub!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I wonder what the profile of drunk drivers now is compared to the driving population? Is there an 80/20 rule at play here where 80% of them come from 20% of the driving population and are there easier ways to focus on the hard core than random observation?

For example what % of offenders have had an earlier conviction for DD? If that was high than mandatory alcolocks maybe best for them.

First of all I must say that I absolutly abhor drink-driving, but it just concerns me a little bit that they are arresting people before they even get into the car. I personally know somebody who was banned for driving for 6 months when he went to get some cigs out of his car, on his drive during his party. He was unquestionably drunk, but had no intentions whatsoever to drive. Sure he should have got someone else to do it, but it's an easy mistake to make and how many people would instinctivly ask someone else?

If we are talking of regular offenders as opposed to a very occasional indiscretion at a function, I would say it is at least 95/5, which suggests that focused, intelligence-based enforcement is the best approach.


There are two separate offences - "driving or attempting to drive", which carries a mandatory ban, and "being drunk in charge", which doesn't, but carries 10 penalty points and optional disqualification.

If there is no evidence of attempting to drive it does seem unfair that the former charge is brought - and, in cases such as the one you describe, the penalties for the latter one seem unreasonably high. Also if it's on his own drive it shouldn't qualify as a "road or other public place" - perhaps your friend should have got a better solicitor.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I must declare that I am very, very anti drinking and driving.

Indeed, I think that the mandatory penalty for DD should include 1 day per point in excess of the permitted legal maximum. (ie 4 points over means 4 days in the clink, 28 points over means 4 weeks NO remission as well as the other penalties)

That said, if someone comes out of a pub and gets into their car to 'sleep-off' their innebriation, they really should be left alone. Perhaps the law should make notes and let them know that they've been seen BUT NOT nick the person in charge until and unless they try to drive the car off... And I would not include starting the engine to keep warm on a snowy night within that, unless it could irrefutably be shown they were about to drive off.

Again, the way the law is enforced actually encourages someone who knows they've probably had one or two too many to take the risk and drive home (thinking that they might not get caught), whereas being found asleep on the back seat of their car at say 4am could lead them into getting banned - total lunacy!

Or why don't we have a law that subjects drivers to very severe penalties if they are above a blood-alcohol level that has been scientifically established to represent a significantly increased accident risk? Oops, that is what we have at present

Our drink-driving law is fine: any problem lies in its enforcement (or lack of) by individual police forces.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I repeat, I am very anti drinking and driving. This, and deliberately driving without insurance are the 2 most serious offences anyone can commit on our roads.

That said, I repeat my view above but perhaps in a different way with a real-life possible example of how what can happen:

Good old 'Johnny' goes to the pub intending to stay on the wagon (he shares the driving with others usually). The pub is 20 miles away from home in 'the countryside' no busses, etc. Today, it's his turn to drive, he has taken some there, others have been dropped off. So the social drinking begins, 'Johnny' drinks coke.

One of the other drinkers makes a mistake about who's driving and buys 'Johnny' a drink when it's his round. And what with one thing or another, Johnny ends up having 3 beers. At closing time, 'Johnny' suspects he is over the limit but could probably drive home safely. But 'Johnny' is a responsible sort of chap, so once the others have taken other forms of transpert (like cabs) and made phone calls to get other people to give them lifts, 'Johnny' is effectively left at the pub with his 6 week old people carrier.

'Johnny' doesn't fancy leaving the car and going home by taxi in case someone nicks it AND he has the added aggro of having to come back to collect it tomorrow (another taxi ride and more time). I repeat, 'Johnny' has NO INTENTION of driving home but intends to protect his vehicle and not die of hypothermia by sleeping in it.

Question: When the police come along and nick him for being 'drunk in charge' at 3 in the morning because they noticed him asleep in the back of the car, would they be bringing a prosecution in the public's interest?

I repeat, I think those who drive drunk should spend one day inside for each point over the limit in addition to all today's bans, etc (without exception unless there are some extremely serious mittigating circumstances). I personally, however, would leave 'Johnny' alone. His act of sleeping off the drinking session is ultimately an act of a responsible adult.

What do others think?

The solution here is for the car to be disabled and the disbling part be given to the landlord. If the vehicle can be locked and unlocked from the inside without the key, the key will do it nicely - let yourself into the people carrier and give keys to landlord until the morning.

We're not allowed to keep warm on a cold night then? Aren't we throwing the baby out with the bathwater here?

(In this case the bath water is drunk driving, and the baby is the freedom to behave sensibly and responsibly without fear of mindless enforcement.)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Very serious, certainly. But there are a range of worse offences.

I think dangerous driving is worse, for example.

Hell, we could even use a car as a murder weapon - that'd be worse - much worse.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Could this not be interpreted thus:
1. You are not as likely to be breath tested in Hertforshire as you are in Derbyshire so you are more likely to take a chance.
2. You are more likely to be breath tested in Derbyshire than in Hertfordshire so are less likely to take a chance.
3. The higher the likelyhood of being tested for drink driving will reduce the numbers of those tested positive in any given boundary.

An example of deterence at work rather than a waste and Derbyshire can be said to be using the intelligence led policing method.

Sounds to me as if a neighbour had complained about the party for BiB to be there just as he went to fetch his cigs he left in the car. Were they in the pocket by the driver's seat? Was he sat in the driver's seat at the time?

S5(2) of the RTA 1988 provides a defence for a person charged with an offence under s5 (1) (b) (in charge of vehicle whilst under the influence of something (drink, drgs, glue/gas sniffing (yup - had those too ) - privided there was no likelihood of driving whilst unfit. Prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a bloke with the keys in his hand could have been intending to drive the car out of the driveway - but only after the accused has presented his argument. To stand any chanvce of success - the accused must demonstrate from the evidence an arguable case that there was no likelihood of him driving whilst unfit to do so. The fact he got a six month ban as opposed to a 12 month one seems to show magistrates appeared to take some of his argument into consideration.

Seems harsh - but thre are so many who drive whilst intoxicated, drive whilst banned and intoxicated, and re-offend after a ban expires as well. These people need help in real terms - but our position is very clear - we have to make to try to identify them and get them off the road and out of danger to selves and others.

Ironically - these are the ones who stay within a speed limit as well - and a argument against a speed limiter in cars as there is every reason they will over-rely and be way too slow to react as a result. There was even a casein the USA where the alcohol doo-dah caused an accident: they have to blow into it every so often on a journey. Alcohlics will be a bit "fly" and will either get a pal to blow into it or refrain from a drink long nough to blow into and start the car. There is no guarantee they will not swig beer whilst actually driving - hence the periodic check. Unfortunately, guy had a choice between blowing into the gaadget whilst on the freeway or risking the car cutting out on him - which would have caused an accident. So he blew into it, took his eyes off the road and turned the wheel during the hard blow. He killed himself and one other by doing this. Has caused a bit of a re-think in the State concerened. Read this ages ago whilst on holiday in the US a few months back.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Hadn't thought of that - but I would be VERY wary of running an engine during the night while parked up and over tyhe limit. CO, noise, ... and the risk of a DIC pull.