The Price of life
 

It was a terrible tragedy that SEVEN people are killed in a road accident, that the strong beliefs are that, the accident was caused by a drink driver, my condolences to the families, we have to all remember that when you get behind the wheel of any vehicle, you are behind a killing machine, in the wrong hands, you only need to look away from the windscreen, for a split second, and bang, my wife was nearly killed in a road accident last year, so the fear is there, but if it was drink driving, then the laws, must be toughened up, that if you are out drinking, leave the keys at the pub, pubs should have somewhere, where you can place the keys, or leave the car at home and catch a cab, there was an news item on Sky, that they spoke to someone, who helps in these situations, where each year 3.000 people are killed a year due to drink drivers, so something has to be done, to prevent this. if you are caught drink driving, then it must be an instant prison sentence, and banned for say ten years, from driving.

Re: The Price of life
 

Not quite accurate - 3000 people are killed or seriously injured (vague) in 'drink drive' collissions. That means someone involved in that accident had had a drink - that doesnt mean they were over the limit nor the cause of the accident.

You dont get prison sentence for most violent crimes or serious theft these days. Would be a poor state of affairs if a drink driver got a mandatory custodial sentence, with that in mind

Re: The Price of life
 

Thank you 'Whistled' for getting a fact right, and l apologise if l got it wrong, but my belief is, that some people, will try there luck, with driving, with too much booze inside the, but that ' luck' could end up causing an accident, l feel that the courts must get tough on this matter, l live near the 316 in Middlesex, and the amount of accidents l have seen, where the driver has been arrested for drink driving, after blowing into the box, life is the most precious gift there is, and we must do all we can to look after it, if you drive, knowing full well, you are unfit through drink, then you should get the most severe punishment going, remember is a death, worth the price of a pint, l don't think so.

Re: The Price of life
 

not that i am condoning dd but he had a previous conviction for dd, they don't know he had been drinking in this instance.

Re: The Price of life
 

I agree in principal but a good portion of those people arrested for drink driving or in that 3000 are the morning after... They had no idea they were over the limit, I wouldnt like to see them getting a custodial sentence.

Re: The Price of life
 

in my mind if you are prepared to spend a lot of money over the counter buying booze you should also be prepared to spend a few quid on a taxi,also you could enjoy your bevvy with peace of mind knowing that your not driving.

Re: The Price of life
 

Well said. :tu:

Defending the indefensible?
 

Well according to a radio report I heard this morning the driver of the Peugeot had 3 previous bans from drink driving, the 2nd of which should have resulted in a custodial sentence apparently but didn't :confused: Quiite why that didn't happen then or after the 3rd ban isn't yet clear. Whilst being interviewed, the Lawyer - Nick "Mr Fixit" Freeman - was explaining how this tragedy was in no way relevant to the cases he defends in which he seeks to ensure his clients (who are being prosecuted for offences such as drink/dangerous driving) are acquitted due to procedural errors made by the authorities. Based on the available information, he argued that in this case the man in question didn't appear to have been punished in accordance with normal procedure and had he been he may well have learned his lesson some time ago and changed his habits. I can see his point except for the fact that every time he gets someone off on what may be a relatively minor technicality, that person may well not learn the lesson they would have had they felt the full weight of the law at that point and go on to repeat the sort of behaviour that in this case resulted in so many deaths.

---------- Post added at 08:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 ----------

Surely anyone who's old enough to drink and drive a car must know that alcohol stays in the system for some so if they drink the night before there's a real risk of them still being over the limit the next morning. As they say, ignorance isn't a defence.....

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

I think you're getting him mixed up with Jimmy Saville.

In any case "Mr Loophole" is right, he goes after procedure faults rather than getting off a charge someone is clearly guilty of.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

It was put to him today that he defends those who have been guilty of offences and all too often secures their acquittal due to technicalities, often irregularities in the paperwork etc. All he would say was that his job was to ensure the correct procedures were followed at no point did he say he ever refused to defend someone he knew to be guilty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5279672.stm

Quote "He also admits that he defends people on drink-driving charges even when they are undeniably over the legal limit of alcohol."

Re: The Price of life
 

Speaking as someone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver albeit many years ago it is one more instance where drinking seems to merit different standards. As far as i am concerned it's the responsibility of a driver not to be over the limit and if in doubt don't drive. If you get in a car over the limit and kill or seriously injure someone to me the punishment and the treatment should be no different then for someone that use's a gun or a knife.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

Pity he can't be done for Attempting to pervert the course of justice. He's hiding behind the procedure side of things when it's clear he's just in it for the money.

I do have some sympathy for people caught the following morning but for the ones that go out, get tanked up and drive home deserve all they get.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

Yes I too think there needs to be a distinction made in law in the same way that is done in the case of manslaughter and murder.

As regards the likes of Mr Freeman, where a procedural error is significant then I think there should be some form of defence possible but when it comes down to what might amount to a minor clerical error on a form I think a much tougher stance should be applied.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

A tougher stance against the person responsible for filling in the form, of course. With so much at stake, you would think they would be a bit more careful.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

Well that is of course true but simple mistakes happen all the time and it's hard to justify someone getting off a serious charge just because of one.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

:rolleyes:

Never made a spelling or typing mistake in your life then.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

It happens. Full stop. Therefore, the form filler should be extremely careful.

If I lost a friend to a drunk driver who was later released because someone forgot to fill in a field on a form, I would be angry at two people.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

All the time. But my mistakes don't let criminals off the hook.


Even worse; this sort of thing should never happen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4547216.stm

Re: The Price of life
 

Sadly we don't live in a world where the police have all the resources they need and those doing the increasingly onerous administrative tasks are under pressure to get the job done and move onto the next one. Reconciling this reality with the need for extreme diligence is a very difficult balancing act. I would be angry at both people too but one made a genuine simple mistake filling out a form and the other presumably made a conscious decision to drive a car having been drinking.

Re: The Price of life
 

The drink drive limit should be Zero then everybody knows where they stand and temptation is reduced.

2 Pints for a 6'5" 17st man may be fine, whereas the same for someone of a smaller stature may not.

Also I'm sure people will goout with good intentions to only have 1 to 2 drinks, but they have those two drinks and think to themselves, I'm alright, It'll be ok to have just one more - and so it begins. I've done it myself.

Zero limit is required and also a few more police instead of cameras, I don't know of any cameras that successfully breathalised anyone??

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

Have you ever seen the drink drive form? Or had to fill one in when a drunk, aggressive, potentially violent and desparate person is in a small room with you? It's not the easiest thing in the world.

Plus there are all manner of other technicalities un-related to the form that people can use to get off charges.

What being unable to obtain consent from someone unconscious or him getting off on a technicality.

Re: The Price of life
 

I think we should have zero tolerance for all drunken behaviour and not just driving while under the influence.It really should stop being the 'excuse' for every misdemeanor.If you commit a crime whilst sober you get dealt with completely differently to someone who was drunk at the time of committing the same offence.In other words if you are in control and in your right senses and you break the law you get treated much more harshly but claim you cannot remember anything because you were totally newted you get a different reaction.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

Are you suggesting the procedures for dealing with drunk drivers need to be changed? So let's do it! Tell us what needs to be done.

I thought taking a blood sample without permission was assault.

Re: Defending the indefensible?
 

It's fairly simple. The legal limit is 35. If someone fails the roadside test they should be taken back to the Police Station, put on the intoximeter and then if they provide two samples and the lowest is over 35 they get charged.

Forget about whether the officers had hats on, if they used the exact wording when informing the driver he is under arrest etc. All that should be needed is a warning that a sample is needed, explain refusal is an offence and thats it.

If the driver was in the car and blew over 35 he should be getting used to taxis for 12 months, end of story.

Re: The Price of life
 

I don't see why people have a problem understanding this......you have a drink you don't drive....... problem solved!

Re: The Price of life
 

Unfortunately the law says differently which just adds to the confusion and some will always push at any limits.:rolleyes:

Re: The Price of life
 

Sadly that is true and that is when there are stories in the news of innocent people dieing :(

Re: The Price of life
 

Alcohol in general in the UK is treated differently as most people enjoy a drink and it is not hard for them to imagine being in a sticky situation. I agree with Incog limit should be zero then there is no confusion but it won't happen as far too many people like to drive down the local and have a pint. Only chance we have of a major law change is if a drunk driver kills someone close to an important figure then watch how fast the wheels will move.