[Closed] Drink driver to lose his car?

Either I'm not making my point very well or I'm on a hiding to nothing

Seriously you would 'drink drive' to take your kid to hospital?

Car Camping trip, middle of nowhere, no phone reception. Me and my son have had a few nips from the hip flask. He has an accident that needs urgent medical attention and my first aid only goes so far. Hospital and/or civilisation is too far to walk in the limited time and only option is to drive. I might be under the limit, I might not. Would I drive? Of course I would. Sit there and let him die just because I was worried about being convicted of drink driving? Of course not.

Ok, it's an extreme example but surely now we can agree that in this circumstance the drink driver is not "as bad" as someone who intentionally, regularly and for no good reason drives to the pub and back and gets legless. If you can't see that then frankly I'm astounded and will gracefully accept your opinion.

Either I'm not making my point very well or I'm on a hiding to nothing

At least you're not a casual racist

For what it is worth and my two penneths worth, and before anyone passes judgement on me, 10 years ago this April I received the phone call to be told my parents had been in a road accident. Brief details, Parents on a motorbike, dad driving/riding and mum pillion, A5 near Hockliffe, on way back from a meeting of fellow mature riders, lady coming the other way in a car, 3 times over the limit, hits kerb and spins her car looses control spinning her car across the road and hitting my parents, Dad declared dead on arrival at hospital, (I had to formally identify the body) Mum in intensive car with a variety of ailments/broken bone/collapsed lung. I wont go into the following details but having to explain to my mother what happened when see awoke in hospital and the drugs had worn off several days later will stay with me forever, as will the whole experience to be honest.
Lady arrested at scene, breathalised and found to be three times over the limit, (Sunday afternoon in the pub anyone?) It went to court and the punishment was 18months in jail, and a 2 year driving ban.
As for us, well my mum had to give up work due to her injuries, and we will not even begin on the mental impact that it had upon her and the rest of us.

Just wanted to give you guys and real world example of the after effects of what happens potential when someone decides to drink and drive, as for the punishment for the offence, what would you think is enough?

I agree that at times it can be too leniant, and those who feel it is neccessary to laugh or poke fun at this then really i hope you have the balls to do it to my face if we ever meet, no wait I am not a violent person, I just hope that you never have to go through it with your loved ones as trust me it does change your whole perspective of things.

David

Eh? (to aracer)

David, my condolences. It is a serious matter indeed.

TJ, Oz have some of the most strict traffic rules I've ever come across and literally the worst driving standards I've ever had to deal with anywhere. I read an article whilst I was there in a Aussie motorcycle mag about their woeful driving standards, which was pretty much my experience. I've seriously never seen such poor driving anywhere else in the world.

Agreed. I've just spent two weks in Aus and it was the most appalling driving I've seen. They're obsessed with speed, but at the cost of actually driving properly.

Thank you David.

[quote=b r].....And would probably only be legal where the driver fully 'owned' the vehicle - which is difficult to prove/decide, as only the 'keeper' is recorded.

What complete tosh. Its not difficult at all to prove/decide who owns a car 😯

Please take off the tin foil hat, and step away from the internet.

If you bought your car, you own it (unless its on finance in some cases)

The whole idea that you sign away ownership when you register your car and you are only the "Registered Keeper" is a full on myth.

Can you quote one incident, ever, where this has happened? In fact quote any incident where a drunk cyclist has killed anyone other than himself.

Dunno, but that's the law here, chum.

Here, drink-riding is seen by most to be in exactly the same boat as drink-driving; with all the pious rhetoric from non-pub-cyclists as STWers have shown on here for the past two pages. It's seen that way for the reason given in my example. It's not what happens to the selfish drunk rider, it's how their actions might affect others.

How often these scenarios play out is anyone's guess, but it's the law, and despite several campaigns against it, it seems to be staying, for precisely those reasons.

EDIT: Here's a near miss that could have been a lot worse: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/68693-drunk-cyclist-survives-rail-plunge

Agreed. I've just spent two weks in Aus and it was the most appalling driving I've seen. They're obsessed with speed, but at the cost of actually driving properly.

Dashboard mounted indoor Barbie mate?

[i]Car Camping trip, middle of nowhere, no phone reception.[/i]

Don't have a drink of alcohol then. Just a thought.

Totally disproportionate. £23k fine for drink driving on top of a ban and another fine. Stupid law.

not at all just for instance a person hit and killed my partner on her bike, i would turn up on that persons door step with a saw off
and would simply blow them away as they open the door.. the fine would mean nothing to them.

They're obsessed with speed, but at the cost of actually driving properly.

Not really most don't even drive that fast, they just don't know how to drive, full stop.

not at all just for instance a person hit and killed my partner on her bike, i would turn up on that persons door step with a saw off
and would simply blow them away as the open the door.. the fine would mean nothing to them.

And up steps another:

[img] [/img]

stilltortoise - there is a defence of necessity to drink driving which can be invoked in extreme circumstances.

However in your first example you would have been drink driving without it being necessary so rightfully you would get eh same punishment as anyone else.

zokes - not a keyboard warrior but a rambo fantsist gun nut 🙂

And up steps another:

not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you're loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag.

zokes - not a keyboard warrior but a rambo fantsist gun nut

im a farm boy, its part of the sceen

TJ like a sad id rather die in a ditch than be a patient of youres ...

Don't have a drink of alcohol then. Just a thought.

I'm sure that's what I'd be thinking in retrospect, but most/many of us drink and most of us at some stage or other do so beyond safe driving limits knowing we do not need to drive. I hope I never get put in that sort of situation whereby I have no choice but to take to my car over the limit. As many have pointed out that should be never.

Back on topic, all I've ever tried to say here is that the circumstances leading to a drink driving incident should not be ignored, in the same way the actual degree over the limit is relevant.

ron jeremy/David although in no way directly related, your sad post reminded me of a poster in a different forum and his experience/what he caused from the otherside.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=629763&nmt=Prison%20Diary

Reading this slowed my driving right down. Made me think of others.

Reading this/the above link may make speeding drivers reflect on their speed and ability. It slowed me.

Here's a near miss that could have been a lot worse

Interesting example, given it wasn't on the road, hence he couldn't be prosecuted for cycling whilst drunk.

100

[i]not at all just for instance a person hit and killed my partner on her bike, i would turn up on that persons door step with a saw off
and would simply blow them away as they open the door.. the fine would mean nothing to them. [/i]

Bet you wouldn't do that in real life though. I'm sure many people think they would do that in that situation but very few do as their morals stop them.

[i]not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you're loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag.[/i]

All I can do is laugh.

[i]the circumstances leading to a drink driving incident should not be ignored[/i]

If you're in a situation where you may by the smallest chance have to drive then don't have a drink, its not that difficult.

stilltortoise - there is a defence of necessity to drink driving which can be invoked in extreme circumstances.

However in your first example you would have been drink driving without it being necessary so rightfully you would get eh same punishment as anyone else.

I'll say it again using different words. Using my example - let's say I was 10% over the limit and caused no accident - I do not think it is right that I should be punished to the same extent as someone 3x over the limit who actually killed someone as a result of their drunk driving. this is your black and white standpoint that I've often struggled to comprehend.

So, we're agreed then...

Drink driving is banned except in either of these two scenarios:

1) Child hurt in Skippy the Bush Kangaroo style abandoned mineshaft style survivalist shocker.

2) Phone call from Angelina Jolie informing you that she can't resist her fetish for middle aged cake munching dandy horse straddlers one minute more, and that she's waiting outside your place wearing nothing but an extra tight yellow jersey and a strategically placed honey sandwich.

Job done.

Bet you wouldn't do that in real life though. I'm sure many people think they would do that in that situation but very few do as their morals stop them.

I hope to think i would do it, dont have any moral problems with it as im not a very nice person. Also i have already seen much violence my life.

If you're in a situation where you may by the smallest chance have to drive then don't have a drink

On another note, if I'm looking after my toddler son for the evening I won't drink as A) I don't want him smelling booze on me and B) I want to be able to follow everything/talk at the hospital if needed.

Let alone driving.

Well its a simple black and white situation. were you over the limit? then you have the punishment for being over the limit. there is a range of punishments available but you are still guilty of drink driving and should be punished as such

the circumstances leading to a drink driving incident should not be ignored,

Nope - not at all valid. Why you did it is of no relevance, what you did is

Not really most don't even drive that fast, they just don't know how to drive, full stop.

Sorry, I should have explained myself better. They seem obsessed with adhering to the speed limit (60-70kph on some of the Sydney urban motorways), due to the double demerits over the festive period, yet I felt in much more danger than I do on UK motorways.

Lots of drifting around in lanes and (off the motorway, obviously) only casual adherence to the red lights. People were following through on red a looooong time after it went on - the amber isn't used in the same way as the UK.

Despite the 'speed kills, slow down' messages you see everywhere, the road death stats are almost twice as high as the UK.

simple solution to this problem, ban cars!!!!

there is a range of punishments available

So you do agree with me then that my fictitious scenarios should be punished differently, which is what I said above? This was never about have-you-or-have-you-not broken the law. As I also said above, I believe there should be no allowed measure of alcohol. The law should be that you drink OR drive.

Why you did it is of no relevance

I'm no legal beagle but I simply don't/can't believe this to be true, but I'm not going to waste any more of your (collective) time inventing hypothetical scenarios.

Far too much arguing on STW lately. Guys chill out 🙂

just read my last post. It sounds angrier than it was intended. Sorry 😳

Here, drink-riding is seen by most to be in exactly the same boat as drink-driving; with all the pious rhetoric from non-pub-cyclists as STWers have shown on here for the past two pages. It's seen that way for the reason given in my example. It's not what happens to the selfish drunk rider, it's how their actions might affect others

So the Australian law is based on scaremongering using scenarios that don't happen.

Something like the helmet law then. Based on the belief that cycling is far more dangerous than it is.

I struggle with long sentences but I like the shame car idea.

It should have CAUTION - I MAY BE PISSED written on the side and should have flashing multi coloured neon lights all over it. And a loudspeaker playing beep beep beep 'warning, drunk driver alert' like the reversing alarms on lorries.

hora - Member
Far too much arguing on STW lately. Guys chill out

completely agree, I wanted to tell my story to try and show a real world scenario, and the effects that this can have upon people.

If you choose to drink and drive fine that is your choice, but the results can and will affect many innocent people and that is the point I was hoping to make.

not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you're loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag.

classy. 🙄

Ron Jeremy , so very well said, and true,all drink drivers should be made to attend the next RTC, and the hospital, and talk to the families, then see their car crushed, on prime time tv.

not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you're loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag

I think that i am qualified to answer this, and for a while i could of agreed with this statement, but trust me on this one

[i]"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.."[/i]

Oz have some of the most strict traffic rules...woeful driving standards...I've seriously never seen such poor driving anywhere else in the world.

If Australia is the place in the world you've seen the worst driving standards, I suspect you are not widely travelled at all. Consult the deaths/km etc statistics for a more objective global view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Drunk driver to lose his car... fine with me.

He should also lose a considerable period of his freedom 👿

not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you're loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag.

[i]What complete tosh. Its not difficult at all to prove/decide who owns a car

Please take off the tin foil hat, and step away from the internet.

If you bought your car, you own it (unless its on finance in some cases)[/i]

And the evidence to support this?

And the evidence to support this?

maybe i'll start one up. call it something like Vehicle Licencing Agency or if i keep a record of drivers too maybe the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency.

It's a bit long though, maybe it could be shortened?

Right, I missed that the guy has fessed up to drink driving. In that case he's admitted a crime and should take the punishment.. Like someone said before it started getting all hypothetical a coupla pages ago are we gonna start differentiating between someone with a £500 car and a £23k one? I don't think so.
David, fair play to you for sharing your story, hope nobody has to go through an experience like you've had to but I know that won't be the case. To me it puts all the hypothetical scenarios into context. Although I don't know you and can't begin to understand what you went through I'm sorry for your loss.

Oh aye, just read on BBC that Audrey Baxter of the same named soup co has been done for drink driving after taking her partner to hospital by car after drinking and being over the limit.. Seems about right to me.

I'm sure that's what I'd be thinking in retrospect, but most/many of us drink and most of us at some stage or other do so beyond safe driving limits knowing we do not need to drive. I hope I never get put in that sort of situation whereby I have no choice but to take to my car over the limit. As many have pointed out that should be never.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-16425064

well... at least we now know what would happen if you did. 🙂

EDIT Doh! too slow

[quote=b r]....And the evidence to support this?

Seriously ?

After I replied, I actually thought you may have been joking? But clearly you weren't.

The same as everything else I own.

I bought it, so I own it. I have an invoice to prove I bought it.

The "registered keeper" can be the same person as the "owner" (as in my case)

Or (as in the case of my brother) the "owner" is the Company he works for.
And he is the "registered keeper"
.
.
.
When I get my insurance there is a section on the form that asks

"who is the owner of the vehicle"
And
"who is the registered keeper of the vehicle"

If the tin foil hat myth is true, anyone who puts down anything other than "no idea" as the owner, has voided their insurance by giving false information.

They should be fined (alot) and banned (for a long time) but they have to still insure and tax their car which they are not allowed to sell for the duration of their ban. Then at the end of their ban the car should be crushed in front of them and they should have to pay for the crushing and the disposal of the car.

Another aspect to consider is surely the drunk driver should be made liable for ALL damage caused if in a crash. Presently, the insurance companies pay for this, with the exception of the drink drivers car. Its incidents like this that push up insurance premiums.

Perhaps this is another incentive to reduce drunk drivers?

The best incentive would be to make it much more likely that you are caught which means random breath tests / roadblocks testing everyone / much tougher enforcement - its the risk of getting aught not he level of punishment that acts as deterrent by and large

[i]Seriously ?

After I replied, I actually thought you may have been joking? But clearly you weren't.

The same as everything else I own.

I bought it, so I own it. I have an invoice to prove I bought it.

The "registered keeper" can be the same person as the "owner" (as in my case)

Or (as in the case of my brother) the "owner" is the Company he works for.
And he is the "registered keeper"
.
.
.
When I get my insurance there is a section on the form that asks

"who is the owner of the vehicle"
And
"who is the registered keeper of the vehicle"

If the tin foil hat myth is true, anyone who puts down anything other than "no idea" as the owner, has voided their insurance by giving false information.[/i]

Who said anything about your documentation, I was saying that there is NO government database of car owners, only keepers. Its not difficult to understand.

[i]Surely the Brits have a centralised register for financial interests in serially-numbered collateral like vehicles? No?[/i]

Nope.

And also remember if the deterrent is too great then a DD is less likely to stop and could cause greater damage plus if you ban someone for life its most likely they'll just carry on driving in unlicensed/uninsured vehicles.

Not agreeing with anything and I've never driven over the limit, just pointing out what will happen.

Perhaps cars should be fitted with breathalysers, like Nationa express coaches, where the driver has to breathe into a tube, before the vehicle will start, this was brought in after they had a few major accidents with drunk drivers, driving their coaches.

The best incentive would be to make it much more likely that you are caught which means random breath tests / roadblocks testing everyone / much tougher enforcement - its the risk of getting aught not he level of punishment that acts as deterrent by and large

Just an addition with regard to the insurance side of things, when it all happened her insurance became null and void and an organisation called The Motor Insurance Bureau stepped in, they settled the claim without arguement and payed up, we were told that they would seek full reinbursement from the lady concerned in as much as baliffs and seizing of property, not sure if this is still the case, but this is what happened for us. Oh and because it isnt contested it didn't take as long as long as you'd of thought.

Interesting example, given it wasn't on the road, hence he couldn't be prosecuted for cycling whilst drunk.

On the contrary, in Oz (which is the country I'm talking about applying DUI laws to bikes), he'd not only be prosecuted for DUI, but also for using a vehicle in an unauthorized area (i.e. not a road). They'd probably throw trespass on the railway at him for good measure.

As I said, to a lot of people over here, drink-cycling is seen as just as bad as drink driving, for the reasons I outlined previously.

not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you're loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag.

With illiterate homophobic gun-wielding simpletons like you around, I'm sure the world is a much better place... 🙄

Zokes - its amazing how things changes - when I was in aus 30 years ago distances in the bush would be measured in cartons - as in a slab of beer and the bush roads were lined with stubbies and cans - drink driving was commonplace and accepted you just drank a can and chucked the empty out of the window and grabbed another when you got thirsty

On the contrary, in Oz (which is the country I'm talking about applying DUI laws to bikes)

Except the incident was in the UK, not Oz. Off you go, find an example either in Oz, or on the road in the UK.

Off you go, find an example either in Oz, or on the road in the UK.

Why? I was highlighting a perhaps bizarre law here, and the perception of the non-cycling community of it. That perception being exactly the same as the majority have shown towards DUI in cars up there ^^^

Regardless of whether it has a basis in terms of how often these incidents occur, are you honestly telling me that the hypothetical situation I outlined couldn't happen? And if it could happen, perhaps laws put in place to try to prevent such an eventuality aren't such a bad thing; and are regarded as such by the non-cycling, or cycling and non-drinking community?

Alternatively, maybe it never happens because there are strict laws against it, and they act as an effective deterrent? 🙄

Also, are you saying that the drunk rider who nearly caused a train to derail shouldn't be charged with more that a 30 quid fine for being drunk in charge of a bike? Or should there be stricter laws to act as a deterrent?

TandemJeremy - Member

Zokes - its amazing how things changes - when I was in aus 30 years ago distances in the bush would be measured in cartons - as in a slab of beer and the bush roads were lined with stubbies and cans - drink driving was commonplace and accepted you just drank a can and chucked the empty out of the window and grabbed another when you got thirsty

I think all the change has demonstrated is that it wasn't the drink that was the major factor in the appalling driving in this country!!!

probably wading in a bit late, but if the law allows the car to be seized and/or crushed, the worth of the car is irrelevant surely, you can't say "oh well, it's a nice car, we'll let you off with that, but the guy with the shit box Micra loses his"

easy answer just ban alcohol. what good does it do anyway?

this will be alot cheaper then tj's idea of a roadblock every 20 feet 🙄 which considering the police havent got the resources to investigate burglary is the stupidest thing ive seen him write

Surely the Brits have a centralised register for financial interests in serially-numbered collateral like vehicles? No?

Nope.

Yeah, I know. I'm teasing you lot (in a niche way, I admit).

Alternatively, maybe it never happens because there are strict laws against it, and they act as an effective deterrent?

You could try and find out whether such hypotheticals ever happen over here where there is no strict law against it (and no, that train clip doesn't count).

The punishment should be exactly what is handed out by the court. If they decide someone should be hit with a £23k fine then they should hit them with that, they could then sell the car if needed to pay it.

Including the car in the punishment just doesn't work. You then get completely variable fines based on if it's their car, how much the car is worth and how much value it is to them.

And crushing a car that could be nearly new, come on, that is an absolute waste of resources. What suddenly makes that car scrap metal? It's the driver's fault, not the car.

In no way do I think the punishment is enough at the moment, especially for second time bans. One chance is enough, people can make a mistake, think they are ok or make a really bad decision but after doing that once they shouldn't get a second chance to have their licence back. Also agree that the first time punishment needs more financial impact but that has to come down to judging cases individually - ie means testing to make it hurt across the board.

That's a problem with the courts and the fines/bans they hand out, not something that can be sorted by scrapping perfectly servicable motors.

Prison and then a means tested financial penalty? As I said earlier what sort of punishment do you think is sufficient, I can honestly say that originally I was upset about the punishment handed down to her, now I tend not to worry about it, just the knowledge that she has to spend the rest of her life carrying around the knowledge of what she did with her.

You could try and find out whether such hypotheticals ever happen over here where there is no strict law against it

Why? If you're not capable of seeing how a drunk cyclist swerving could cause an accident for a driver, I think it's probably you who needs to spend the time thinking.

(and no, that train clip doesn't count).

On the contrary, it is good evidence that there should be stricter penalties for cycling under the influence, whether you're on the road or not.

To use your 'logic', perhaps there's no need for penalties for breaking the speed limit in a car? I mean, most people do it at some point, but as a percentage of actual infringements (or even those who are caught), the numbers of deaths actually caused are minimal.

Bring back the stocks, stick them in there for a week, bet they don't do it again