I'm with ifithelps. Kill somebody whilst doing 35 in a 30 zone and you'll probably end up being detained at HM's pleasure.
It's the same reason why I don't drink drive. I don't think drink driving is particularly shocking. I've certainly driven a vehicle when completely paralytic - walking would have been a struggle - but taking care not to get above 10mph I'm sure I'm safer than sometimes when stone cold sober. I'm not particularly fussed if I were to lose my licence - it would be vaguely annoying, but I can afford the fine, and I don't use a car that much.
However, drink drive and kill somebody, and you'll go to jail.
|
Even at 10 mph when completely paralytic, you are an utter danger to others. One slip of the foot plus extremely poor reaction times and you'll have someone dead.
I do wish we could swear on this forum, there are simply no polite words to describe what I think of your attitude.
|
|
|
However drink drive and kill somebody and you'll go to jail.
While it may be morally reprehensible for someone to only be bothered about killing somebody because they may go to jail, at least the end result is the same, that people don't drink and drive, or excessively speed, because of fear for their own liberty rather than the impact on others.
For a lot of people there is no point trying to appeal to their good nature, you have to appeal to their self interest.
Whatever works...
|
That's a good point, SS. Sad, ain't it?
I did notice that Mapmaker says he doesn't drink and drive, but has done so in the past to the extent of being "paralytic", however his implication is that he thinks he'd be safe when paralytic, at 10mph. I think that's so far wrong it's off the scale.
|
Funny how these discussions always degenerate into a morass of moralism and displaced indignation. The issue really is safe driving. Being sober and going slowly do not guarantee safe driving. It is palpably true that some slow, sober drivers are lethal while others may be perfectly safe although brisk and verging on the paralytic.
To say this is not to condone drunken or reckless driving. Those are to be avoided of course. But what is to be done about the many who imagine they are safe drivers merely because they aren't drunk and obey speed limits? Seems to me that statistically they are the real problem.
|
Indignation is hardly displaced when the person expressing the indignation has suffered the consequences, several times over, of losing a loved one/friend to a drink driver.
Both sets of drivers are the problem, Lud. Indignation about the one does not preclude condemnation of the other.
|
hardly displaced when the person expressing the indignation has suffered the consequences, several times over, of losing a loved one
Point taken Alanovich, not always displaced. Sorry.
|
No worries, Lud.
Seeing as it's your neighbourhood and that's what this topic is supposed to be about, will we be seeing a Chrysler PT Cruiser belting around our screens, taking no prisoners and screaming at mimsers in "Notting Hill" soon? :-)
|
|
|
|
others may be perfectly safe although brisk and verging on the paralytic.
Nonsense. How can you be safe when verging on being paralytic?
I know you like to ruffle a few feathers with the odd bit of bluntness and going against the masses Lud, but seriously!
But what is to be done about the many who imagine they are safe drivers merely >>because they aren't drunk and obey speed limits? Seems to me that statistically they >>are the real problem.
Two errors of logic here - perhaps intentional for the purpose of feather ruffling :)
Firstly, just because somebody says that drunk drivers are dangerous (which they obviously are), they are not then saying that sober drivers are perfectly safe.
Secondly, sober drivers who drive within the speed limits are obviously going to form the bulk of drivers involved in accidents, because they form the vast bulk of drivers.
The real issue is, how much more likely is a driver to be involved in a accident, or of the outcome of that accident being serious, if drunk/speeding.
The research does speak for itself, you are far more likely to kill somebody at 40 than 30, and you are more likely to crash if drunk.
|
just because somebody says that drunk drivers are dangerous (which they obviously are), they are not then saying that sober drivers are perfectly safe.
What third parties say or think is beside the point. The point I was making is that many drivers who are in fact dangerous imagine themselves to be safe merely because they are law-abiding.
I don't agree with you that drivers who have been drinking are always necessarily dangerous. Some are of course, but others aren't. Other road users are at far greater risk from incompetent drivers than they are from drunk or reckless ones. It's a question of numbers.
|
The point I was making is that many drivers who are in fact dangerous imagine themselves to be safe merely because they are law-abiding.
I'm sure you're right, of course it doesn't make the non law-abiding ones any safer. It also doesn't mean that the ones who are deluded in thinking that they are safe, are incorrect when they saw that people who drive drunk or at excessive speed are dangerous.
I don't agree with you that drivers who have been drinking are always necessarily dangerous. Some are of course but others aren't.
A matter of degree, of course, but people are impaired by a small amount of alcohol, and impairment makes them more dangerous. Now, what you orginally said was that a driver could be paralytic and not be dangerous, that is just not true. They could be paralytic and lucky, but they are still dangerous.
>>Other road users are at far greater risk from incompetent drivers than they are from >>drunk or reckless ones. It's a question of numbers.
If you mean that incompetence is a greater cause of accidents than drunkeness and recklessness, you may well be right, but again that is because there are far more incompetent drivers than drunk or reckless ones - it doesn't make drunkeness or recklessness any safer, or any more acceptable.
If you think that we would be better off getting drunk driving, excessive speeding AND incompetent driving off the roads, I absolutely agree.
The problem is detection and enforcement. You can point a speed gun at a speeder, make a drunk driver blow into a breathalyser, but what do you do to catch or deter the incompetent ones?
|
Alanovitch
I take it that you have lost a loved one/friend to a drunk driver, several times over, hence your desire to swear at me? It wasn't me, guv'nor, on any of those many occasions. (Nor did I damage any of Rattle's head gaskets.)
I would - and probably shall - happily drink drive, paralytic, again. It's a matter of choosing ones time and place.
I am not certain that the law is moral, correct or proportionate in sending killer-drunk -drivers to jail, but not killer-non-drunk-drivers.
Edited by Mapmaker on 11/02/2010 at 18:43
|
I would - and probably shall - happily drink drive paralytic again. It's a matter of choosing ones time and place.
If you do, I sincerely hope that nobody gets hurt or killed, but that if anybody does get hurt or killed it isn't the other person.
I am not certain that the law is moral correct or proportionate in sending killer-drunk -drivers to jail but not killer-non-drunk-drivers.
It depends upon how culpable you are I guess. Being paralytic heavily swings the assumption of blame towards you, but only a couple of weeks ago I saw a case where a drunk driver was acquitted because the pedestrian walked out in front of them (so although they were well over the limit, it didn't actually contribute to the death).
|
I would - and probably shall - happily drink drive paralytic again. It's a matter of choosing ones time and place.
Perhaps it would help if you gave an example of the sort of time/place where you might do this?
|
I would - and probably shall - happily drink drive paralytic again. It's a matter of choosing ones time and place.
Well please post it here before you choose to - I have a feeling I will be catching a train that day!
|
I take it that you have lost a loved one/friend to a drunk driver several times over
A cousin, my best friend's father, my sister's fiancee. The oaf who killed my own father on the roads wasn't drunk, however. I hope that is several enough for you to justify the italicised implication that I'm exaggerating or lying.
I would - and probably shall - happily drink drive paralytic again. It's a matter of choosing ones time and place.
If that time and place involves a public road at any time, then you are an irresponsible oaf and I hope never to meet you on the roads.
I am not certain that the law is moral, correct or proportionate in sending killer-drunk -drivers to jail, but not killer-non-drunk-drivers.
I couldn't care less what you think of the law, but I do care that you're prepared to risk everyone else's life and limb by driving whilst paralytic.
Edited by Alanovich on 12/02/2010 at 09:28
|
Alanovich>>If that time and place involves a public road at any time, then you are an irresponsible
>>oaf and I hope never to meet you on the roads.
I can only agree 100% with this statement. Farm tracks late at night taken slowly are fine.
There was clearly a part of "It's the same reason why I don't drink drive. drink drive and kill somebody, and you'll go to jail." that you didn't manage to read and imagined I'd be doing it on a UK public road!
|
'Ah yes sir, that's all very well, but suppose a CHILD or even a calf or lamb or fluffy rabbit suddenly ran out in front of you? What then, eh? Eh?'
A tiresome police officer can fantasize the 'sudden appearance of a child' even in the middle of an industrial wasteland without a dwelling for hundreds of yards and no pedestrian life whatsoever. I know this from personal experience.
|
If police officers are going to start going onto private land to breathalyse us at 1 in the morning then there is no hope for us.
|
police officers
... or their avatars Mm, or their avatars...
|
...If police officers are going to start going onto private land to breathalyse us at 1 in the morning then there is no hope for us....
Mapmaker,
It's still an offence to drive drunk if the private land is private land to which the public have access.
If the farm track has a nice big gate where it meets the public highway, and the nice big gate is closed, and preferably locked, all well and good.
I've seen this argued in court when the drunk driver has been in a pub car park when breathalysed.
No gate? Sorry son, that drink drive conviction stands.
|
It's still an offence to drive drunk if the private land is private land to which the public have access.
That seems to be an impossible contradiction. Surely there is either private land where a member of the public could not go without trespassing - or there is land to which the public have access, and therefore it would not be private.
What is an example of "private land to which the public have access?"
|
>>What is an example of "private land to which the public have access?"
A public footpath across private land - such as a farm.
Clk Sec
|
>>What is an example of "private land to which the public have access?"A public footpath across private land - such as a farm. Clk Sec
Not being a rural type, I didn't think of such things
|
>>Not being a rural type, I didn't think of such things
OOh arr, me deary-oh.
|
What is an example of "private land to which the public have access?"
Supermarket car park?
|
"Farm tracks late at night taken slowly are fine."
Quite likely that you might mow down a burglar...?
|
>>It's still an offence to drive drunk if the private land is private land to which the public have access.
Yes indeed, thank you very much though, others may not be aware.
Edited by Mapmaker on 17/02/2010 at 09:34
|
>> There was clearly a part of "It's the same reason why I don't drink drive.drink drive and kill somebody and you'll go to jail." that you didn't manage to read and imagined I'd be doing it on a UK public road!
Oh well done. Post two completely contradictory statements and leave it to the reader to infer your intention to do it on private land with no access by the public possible. You are clever.
|
|
Our council have put up 20mph signs at the end of the road I live in. These are placed about a couple of metres in front of the 30mph signs which have not been removed (yet). Which speed limit applies?
|
...What is an example of "private land to which the public have access?...
Don't think trespass, for this purpose it's anywhere where a member of the public could go unhindered.
The drunk driver in the pub car park claimed he was only moving his car within the confines of the car park.
The policeman who breathalysed him said he did so in the car park to prevent the driver taking to the road where he would have posed a greater danger.
The judge found the driver guilty partly because the public could have had access to the car park as there was no gate.
It mattered not that the pub was shut, or that the car park was owned by the owners of the pub.
|
|
I think a lot of people are not aware that the RTA's apply in car parks with public access, supermarkets, shopping sheds etc.
|
Which speed limit applies?
>>
Not relevant any more, the 30 signs have gone, I expect a rash of speed bumps to appear soon. :((((
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
