Either it needs to say report someone after you have failed to stop them driving, or it needs to give a 3rd option which is stopping them driving.
|
Either it needs to say....
Amended.
I'll have to let you have access to the poll site, so that you can make mistakes each week instead of me ;o)
|
|
voted no but i would stop them even if it needed violence . ...cheers...keo
|
Despite my stance against drink driving, I don't think I could be depended upon to shop absolutely anyone.
If the person was close to me I hope I would do anything within my power (from removal/destruction of key to restraining him/her to persuasive arguement if need be) to prevent them from doing so.
I know someone who admits to being shopped - quite rightly in his opinion, though he resented the individual's particular motives (score to settle I suspect).
Fortunately for him, and others;
1) The police stopped and brethalised one of his colleagues
2) He got home without incident.
3) This close call shocked him into seeking help with his drink problem and he no longer drinks and drives, and I believe no longer drinks either.
H
|
|
|
|
Dave,
I don't normally comment on polls.
I can't answer this one. I think it's the comment in brackets.
I would report someone for drink driving. So "Yes"
I would probably not report a close relative (I'd use other persuasion methods). So "No"
So, what should I answer?
How about:
Always
Under most circumstances
Under some circumstances
Never
I know these polls are just a bit of fun, so perhaps I should get a life.
I'll get my coat,
V
|
I think the original question was the best - without the 'after trying to stop them' bit. You either stopped them or didn't -
Would you report them if they drove.
Martin
|
The premise of the question is that you have failed to stop them.
If it were a close relative then I would feel able and willing to go to great lengths to stop them; removal of the keys, physical restraint, blocking their car in etc etc. If after all that they were still intent on taking no notice and driving while drunk then, with great reluctance, I would report them with the primary motive of stopping them before they killed themselves.
For a loose acquaintance I could probably not go to those lengths. But I would feel less reluctance to report them.
|
Would you change your decision to not report him if you knew (100% certain) that they would cause an accident and kill somebody ?
If yes, what % chance is nccessary to motivate you ?
If no, do you consider you should be proesecuted for being part of the problem ?
|
Mark,
I don't disagree with you.
But I would challenge your implication that it's a black & white decision.
The demonisation of drink-drivers is a relatively recent phenomenon. I can remember in the 80s going out for office lunchtime booze sessions where not an eye-lid was batted at anyone drinking 4 pints (plus) before driving back to a hazardous environment.
There are degrees of drink-driving; starting at a single glass of wine at a restaurant meal. What about someone who has drunk 3 or 4 or 5 pints of beer before driving regularly for many years without incident? It's not like every drink-driver is crawling to their car with the ignition keys in their mouth. And what about many people who drink heavily, rest for a period of time, then drive?
Also, would you take someone's keys away if they drove in the rain with bald (ish) tyres? If so, what about if it was drizzling slightly and they had just two baldish tyres?
What about if you thought they needed new spectacles?
My point is that your decision is not the yes/no decision that the poll implies. Rather, there is a continuously variable response based on such factors as our attitude to risk, our perception as to how much a given amount of alcohol increases the risks of an undesirable event like a fatal RTA, to what extent the drink-driver is showing alcohol-related impairment.
|
In turn I wouldn't disagree with you, however I think there is a sizable amount of people who think such matters are sombody else's problem.
Its not far off black and white and it most certainly is not a shoulder shrugging exercise.
And it probably is a percentage shot. If I knew someone was 100% not going to hurt anybody, then who cares if they drive ner perhaps get nicked. If I knew someone was 100% going to kill someone, then I'd shop them no matter what.
Clearly there is a line in between the two where my actions are driven by my (perhaps inaccurate) estimate of the risk.
Someone who answers "yes" to the question about stopping drink driving may or may not stop a drink driver when push came to shove, but is showing a "better" approach to the subject. It is difficult to see how stopping someone drink driving can be a bad thing under any circumstance.
Someone who answers "no", is pretty much saying that they would not face the issue. It is difficult to see how not stopping a drink driver can be a good thing under any circumstances, although it may well be the easier route.
I can't see that the fact I used to drink and drive is justification for allowing someone else to do it now.
Aside from avoiding personal difficult, when would it ever be a better thing to let a drink driver go out and drive his car ?
|
|
|
|
The results of this weeks poll are:-
Poll 24. Would you report someone for drink driving after you have failed to stop them? (even it was a relative)
Yes = 61
No = 58
If you want any results from earlier polls, then mail me at mailto:dave_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
|
