It seems the law hasnt done anything to alter peoples' view that they have a god-given right to talk, or even text, while driving.
Over the last few months I have seen - an artic with fully-laden trailer negotiate a mini-roundabout in the middle of a small village, with driver on the phone- numerous lorries change lane on the motorways while on a call- bus drivers doing hand-held call with dozens of passengers on board- mothers ( presumably) in MPVs and 44s calling while their children are on board.
I dont think the calculation re fine vs cost of a hands-free affects peoples' judgement on this. Just like most drivers caught DUI are several times over the existing limit , so reducing the limit wouldn't change that behaviour- they ignore the limit anyway.
This is all to do with something deep- call it values if you like. Seems to me that over some years we have moved to a "me-first" culture and a lot of people live without any consideration for the impact of their actions on others . There is an argument that this got rolling under Thatcher and that Blair realised that if he challenged it he wouldn't be elected ; tho I suspect there's more to it than that.
There's a pub near me popular with the local "country sports" crowd. We like the pub, but generally avoid talking to most of the customers as we think we'd get into arguments .Last weekend we sat having a drink listening to a conversation at the bar. A guy who we know is in there every night from about 530 until at least 8 on his way home, and drinks about 2 pints of lager an hour, was pontificating about "yobs" and how ASBOs are useless. They needed "short sharp shock" , because you have to have deterrents! We know that this guy drives home every night from this pub ,about 5 miles.
And yes, we have reported him to Crimestoppers- over a year ago.
|
|
Really? He has about 5 pints and then drives home? Shouldn't the landlord be having words with this numpty along the lines of getting a minicab and then coming back for his car in the morning?
|
He couldn't speak to him like that, who does he think he is?
It's a human right to be able to drive drunk, and no-one should be allowed to impose on it.
|
I am still trying to get my head round the idea that you can like a pub and hate all the regulars.
They guy does have a right to drink as many pints as he likes and while not causing aggro in the pub the landlord has the right to serve him.
The guy also has the human right to choose to drive home in whatever state he likes just as the forces and law and order have the authority to bang him up for doing so (were they there to catch him doing so) and the rest of society have the right to vilify him if he does so
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
the rest of society have the right to vilify himif he does so ------------------------------
Or to mind its own damn business unless he's obviously lethal.
|
|
Lud, he *is* obviously lethal!! If the OP doesn't want to ring the police directly, then if they want to pass me the details then I'll do it for them.
|
He sounds a tiny bit unsympathetic from the OP's description, but there's nothing about his driving after a few pints. Some people are hardly affected at all, while others are barely compos after a small sherry.
I don't want to get into this gruelling drink/drive argument again though. I am aware that my libertarian approach to the issue is not shared by the majority. I am aware too that the individual and the amount of drink consumed are not the only variables, so that a normally safe drunk driver can suddenly turn out to be less safe if he/she is ill, upset or otherwise in an odd state. I note in my own case that age doesn't help, so I am much more cautious on this matter than I used to be.
I have never been done for dd, although I have been breathalysed four or five times over the years.
|
Since so many of you are on this "holier than thou" trip, what about being totally honest and admitting how often you exceed a speed limit. I'll start by admitting that I exceed the speed limit each and every time I drive. Not always by much and not constantly for each stretch of road but always nevertheless. And I judge this by mentally deducting 7% from my speedo reading to allow for the fact that (according to a parked police speed-indicating trailer I passed recently) my speedo reads 7% fast. But I don't expect my passenger to say anything, and I certainly don't expect them to report me to the police. Live and let live is my motto. Anyone who says they have never exceeded a speed limit is a fibber!
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
The only time I conciously exceed the speed limit is on the motorway and even then only to an indicated 80. At other times I drive within the limit and will set cruise control where it is safe to do so to enable me to achieve this. I visited the office at 7am this morning and the roads were empty. I apologise to the BMW driver, but the 30 limit applies for 24 hours a day and getting up my tailpipes won't disconnect my cruise control. I managed to stick to the limits on my test, why should it be any different 20 years later?
|
At other times I drive within the limit and will set cruise control where it is safe to do so to enable me to achieve this.
I'd be very surprised if your cruise control is that precise in it's control. And I doubt whether it's calibration is any more accurate than your speedo.
--
L\'escargot.
|
>>And I doubt whether it's calibration is any more accurate than your speedo.
In which case he'd be upto 10% below the speed limit but categorically not over it.
But aren't you getting just a little silly about this subject ?
|
But aren't you getting just a little silly about this subject ?
Sticks and stones, No FM2R, sticks and stones ......
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
Not meant to be, I just thought it was taking the idea a little far - I can't say I would be bothered about 1mph over the speed limit, I would be bothered about 50mph over the limit. I probably wouldn't be bothered by a 1min calm telephone conversation I would be bothered with an intense phone argument. - don't see the relevance or the connection.
|
|
I make every every effort to stick to 30 and 40 limits, often to the fury of some behind me. Yes, on a fairly free motorway, I tend to stick to an actual 77 (inidcated about 82). That's illegal, but it's not putting anyone in danger IMHO.
Drink driving *is* putting everyone in danger. Always. I would shop anyone for doing it without hesitation, and would expect the same to be done to me. I don't play russian roulette with other peoples lives and don't expect them to do so with mine.
|
|
Go as fast as you want if you can get away with it. Drink as much as you like if you can get away with it. Take full responsibility for any resulting damage or injury, and bear in mind at all times that this is what you will have to do. It's a self-regulating system. Incompetents, psychopaths and those who don't understand the constraints soon filter themselves out.
|
You'll take full responsibility for your actions? Brilliant, I'm sure that will be a great comfort to anyone you injure or kill through your attitude.
I've argued with you before Lud, I'm not going to carry on now, there's no point, I don't think our outlooks are reconcilable.
|
Perhaps not Gordon M, but note: 'Bear in mind at all times that this is what you will have to do'.
This has a powerful restraining effect: anyone who bears the possible consequences in mind is unlikely to be much more reckless or drunk than you are yourself. That said, a rigid either/or approach is essentially inelegant and gauche. People should be free if they know what they are doing. I don't expect everyone to agree though.
|
Go as fast as you want if you can get away with it. Drink as much as you like if you can get away with it. Take full responsibility for any resulting damage or injury, and bear in mind at all times that this is what you will have to do.
It'll reassure me immensely to hear that the speeding drunk who runs into me accepts full responsibility for his actions.
Incompetents, psychopaths and those who don't understand the constraints soon filter themselves out.
Unfortunately, they tend to filter out a few others along the way.
|
Unfortunately Lud, people en masse seem incapable of taking responsibility for themselves. It's never their fault, and they will never accept that. To be honest, I dont fly into a rage whenever I see someone being moronic, firstly because I am frequently moronic myself without intending to be, and secondly what difference would it make?
If, however, I was in a car with someone being an idiot I would point it out to them, because if the worst happened I would have to live with myself for not doing anything, just as I encourage my friends to point out when I am being stupid, and stop me before I make it worse.
|
Oh dear. I said I didn't want to get into this argument again. Evidently I have brought it on myself.
NW and GM: I don't think people should drive recklessly. I don't think they should drive when significantly impaired by drink. That was what I meant when I said they should bear in mind the possible consequences of their own actions.
Some do these things, however. One can only hope they don't filter out too many others along the way.
|
PW, you have a good attitude (and agreeably self-deprecating).
One reason why people are reluctant to take responsibility for their own actions is that they are encouraged to believe that there is a right and wrong way to do everything, laid down in the regulations. Driving by numbers so to speak. Anyone with half a brain knows that this is not really so.
|
NW and GM: I don't think people should drive recklessly. I don't think they should drive when significantly impaired by drink. That was what I meant when I said they should bear in mind the possible consequences of their own actions.
Lud, I'm quite sure that the possible consequences of our actions mean that you're no more likely to drive drunk than I am. Trouble is, even some of my friends have no concept of abstract consequences. One in particular springs to mind ? he was going to go for a drive after drinking solidly for about 6 hours, thinking he wouldn?t be caught and it would be fun; he changed his mind when confronted with the rather more specific consequence of my phoning the police with his car details and rough location.
Greenhey's original post referred to someone that regularly has 5 pints, then drives home at 8 in the evening. To my mind that's indefensible. On the other hand, if he drove a mile up a farm track at midnight, then you're right, who does it harm?
My point really is that there has to be a limit decided and then imposed by 'society? when there is significant potential for avoidable harm to others. Look at it this way ? my views on drinking before cycling mirror almost exactly yours on drinking and driving. I wouldn?t drive after two pints, but I will happily cycle. It?s still illegal (actually, is that true?) but I don?t think I?ll get caught; much more importantly, I think I would only pose a risk to myself, not to others. That?s a risk I feel qualified to take, as it only affects me. And if it does backfire, well, as you say, evolution in action!
|
We dont have prohibition.
That is there is no law that says you can not drink. There is no law thats says you can not drink more than a certain amount, nor is there a mechanism in place to prevent you. Thats what a free society and personal responsibility is all about. Like snaily who said eveyone has broken the speed limit, everyone has gotten drunk at some time,
With no prohibition* all you can do is put laws in place about the consequences. The consequence of driving drunk (or whatever limit is chosen) is that you get caught and banned. If you kill someone you go to jail for murder. Its really very simple. Unless you want every aspect of what you can do and when controlled by the state.
We have laws but we have no consequences. I can drink and drive with virtual impunity. The chances of me getting caught are so very very remote. The only time I am likely to get caught is if i crash or kill someone. This fits nicely into the current and growing trend of law enforcement. The blame culture. We dont care who does what, what laws are broken as long as we can pin something on someone when something really bad happens. Whats the point in the law? with no consequences for breaking the laws it might just as well non existant.
So the man *is* fully responsible for his actions. He will be caught and punished for any bad outcomes of his behaviour (like killing someone) but not for ignoring the laws of the land.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
Very interesting analysis TVM. Mostly spot on. But the police do sometimes just fish for over-the-limit drivers. Plenty get pulled, sometimes with dire consequences, without having done anything to cause it. Just being in the wrong place at the wrong time can get people into trouble. That doesn't refute anything you say though.
|
They gave up fishing round out way years ago Lud. There is no traffpol any more. Just a pool of resources sent from incident to incident, be that burglary rape or an RTA. They dont have time to sit and fish any more
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
