What do you think should be implemented to deter and curtail drinking and driving? (Poll)

Convicted Driver Insurance

DrunkDrivingAdvice

Administrator
What do you think should be implemented to deter and curtail drinking and driving? (Poll)

Drink driving is a huge problem and the devastation it can cause in peoples lives is incalculable. Some people just have a blatant disregard for the law and other road users, whilst other people may be honest law abiding citizens that genuinely beleived they were under the drink drive limit. What do you think should be implemented to deter and curtail drinking and driving?

  • Alcohol information included as part of driving test (units, how long it stays in system for etc)?
  • Harsher sentences for first time offenders?
  • In car breathylzers/Ignition Interlocks?
  • Mandatory prison sentences?
  • Lifetime ban for repeat offenders?
  • A zero drink drive limit?
Perhaps you have another possible solution?​
 

roy25

New member
Hello, Please excuse my new member mistakes but i am totally in agreement with the moderator in all things.I was convicted of drink-driving in 2005 and have only applied for return of my licence in march 2010 as i wanted to make sure that my previous habits of drinking were no longer a problem.I would suggest an annual test for HRO offenders and would further suggest that anyone who has a problem with this also has a problem with alcohol.
 

naughtynick

Member
if the police just did random stops or just sat outside pubs in their cars whilst they do nothing waiting for a shout/job that would do it.
 

cjmh2004

Member
stopping young drivers driving cars over 1398cc. Know a boy who just bought a 2.2 litre civic and got shafted doing 53 in a 30 zone (his fault) but way too many daft drivers out there with big powerful boy racer cars trying to act smart and then wonder why they get stopped more than the rest of us - i dont know any stats on this but would be interesting if they were collated
 
Convicted Driver Insurance

pragmatic

New member
The technology to retro fit immobiliser linked breathalyzers to all vehicles is cheaply available and should be implemented by law therefore taking the decision to drive while over the legal limit away from the 90,000 a year convicted in the UK. Any one found driving over the legal limit through ignoring the technology should be banned from driving for life, however this method would seriously dent the revenue made from fines and rehabilitation courses so will probably not be popular with the authorities.

discuss?
 

walkingjay

Member
Our drinking culture is the problem here. When a person drinks a ridiculous amount they will soon push any deterant to the back of their mind. It is not normal to go out and drink to the point where we are no longer fit to make sensible decisions. Breathalyzer immobilizers would be very effective, but would it be fair to force all the millions of law abiding citizens to pay for them installed on their cars just incase they decided to ignore the law? We do need to change the way we drink over here, we're supposed to be in a recession yet bars are still full of people blitzing £100 / night on booze. Getting banned was the kick up the backside I needed.
 

habanero

Active member
The problem is the culture we have.
I live in an area where unemployment is high, yet there are 3 pubs and 2 working mens clubs all within a matter of a few feet of each other. In the (small) town centre there are also 2 working mens clubs, 1 nightclub plus 8-9 other pubs and now a new Weatherspoons pub is opening in what was a former cinema building and right next door to, yes you guessed it, an existing old and popular/busy pub. Every "corner" shop, of which there are loads, is also an off-licence. Even if every person in this town was employed full time, I fail to see how the number of pubs could possibly be working a profit, let alone how they're always so full when people are out of work.
It's a crazy situation. But we are in a culture where drink is not only acceptable but is promoted and glorified, yet when things turn sour and someone dies of a drinking related disease, commits a drink fueled crime etc the blame is always the person and not the culture we are all helping to promote by being a part of it.
 
Convicted Driver Insurance

JPFMP

New member
stopping young drivers driving cars over 1398cc. Know a boy who just bought a 2.2 litre civic and got shafted doing 53 in a 30 zone (his fault) but way too many daft drivers out there with big powerful boy racer cars trying to act smart and then wonder why they get stopped more than the rest of us - i dont know any stats on this but would be interesting if they were collated
That may have worked a few years back

But look the Polo GTi, it is only a 1.4 but has 180bhp and a simple £300 remap can take this to around 220bhp
It needs to be power output not engine size

I believe the only option in regards to drink driving is to implement a zero tolerance, that way there is no confusion over I've only had one beer and there are no excuses!
 

simples

Member
Zero drink limit, it's the only and cheapest way to do it. That way you'll think about what your drinking on a Sunday afternoon
 

RoughShift

Well-known member
Hi,

I disagree with harsher penalties for 1st time offenders as many of us have made these mistakes while young & dumb, we are all very different people in our 30s compared to our late teens/early 20s when we were invincible & immune from the law lol But maybe a mandatory driving & theory test re-sit, along with the medical for any1 caught drunk driving (no matter 1st time or 2nd/3rd). As a HRO I’m going through application now that includes the medical etc & it really does hammer it home how precious your licence is, & you wouldn’t wanna have to go thru all that again.

Maybe lifetime bans.. but only for people who show total disrespect for the laws of the road & have been banned a silly number of times. I think even people who have had 4-5bans deserve a very final chance to prove to the courts that they can change their behaviour for good. And it should be made extremely clear to them that one more serious road traffic offence & they are done for good. Wonder what the record is in the UK for the most driving bans? I’d think if you had more than 4 or 5 it’d be best to call it a day.

I think the best solution you listed was a “zero”
limit for alcohol, that way there can be no confusion & no half assed excuses about being unawares what was allowed. If your behind the wheel then you don’t drink! Not a sip.. & if you follow that then you will have no problems (I’m certainly going to follow this rule if I’m successful in my application) This could go along with some kind of breathalyser in-car, although I’m only really in favour of that when they can say the tech behind it is 99% reliable. I’v always heard never to fully trust these breathalyers you can buy, that only the big F off one they have the cop shops give them proper readings. If they can’t be trusted fully then why even bother.

So Yeh, so I think mandatory driving/theory test re-sits & medical instead of prison/financial penalties would deter more people. People are shocked I don’t need to resit my test after being caught drug driving, but I remind them, it’s not my driving ability being questioned, it’s my judgment of when I could drive they are wanting to correct, &
TBH rightly so (For e.g chancing it while under influence)That why dangerous driving nearly always involves a re-sit, as you have shown some dodgy or risky driving while sober & need to prove your ability again

Your licence is hard to get.. but real easy to
lose. I for one will never jeopardise it again
 

bignik

Member
Hi, I sincerely think, In car breathylzers/Ignition Interlocks because I believe the percentage of drunk drivers are sole occupants of the car and be it a fall out with the wife or whatever well basically one simply cannot drive. As well as a persons ability to drive being affected I think any sense of rational thinking is also out the window.

Should the driver have passengers and knowingly allowed that person to drink they too should be punished because they shouldn't have allowed driver to drive. Some may argue but what if they were sober and not aware the driver had been drinking well you don't need to be a policeman to smell alcohol. It should perhaps not be as serious a charge as for the driver. But covers all aspects, the genuine one offs, the day afters and the deliberate alcoholics.

At where the piece of equipment and how accurate it would be well different story.

Zero Tolerance mm too dangerous regarding readings for example mouth wash, look up mouth wash and I believe some are as high as 26% ABV, yep your supposed to spit it out but who knows there does have to be some tolerance.

Scottish drivers will know the effect with the change of the law here to I think 22mg/100 in comparison to 35 south of the border, thats basically a half pint or just over 1 unit of alcohol and we treat that here as basically zero tolerance and does make sense.

A good hard slap on the face to bring driver to rational thinking before he drives will do it

Those here there or around the limit have honestly been able to control and decide where to draw the line, people in the 100mg bracket I say went for a drink knowing they were going to drive their car later, and well if one is honest with their self deserve what's coming.

Sadly many have been involved in fatal RTA or serious accidents so that has to be addressed, and that can only be done by education and support by health professionals. Some think oh I haven't been stopped before I will be fine. Technology and equipment in Traffic Cars are very up to date, cameras etc etc everyone should try and give up that idea of being beyond the law.

I have a conviction and I'm ashamed, it destroyed my life, whilst I feel OK I did it, I put my hands up, a no nonsense court appearance I think today what if .... that pedestrian stepped of the pavement, totally their fault and me wrong place wrong time feeling driving was ok , well I wouldn't be able to forgive myself. Prevention is certainly the answer.
 
Convicted Driver Insurance

rufus

Well-known member
banning fining locking people up is reactive and doesnt stop people driving - I prefer the proactive approach and having something in cars that stop you from driving, like a breathalyser
 

CrossFox

Member
The biggest problem with the current drink-drive legislation is the massive inconsistency of it. I have been in the licensed trade for over 25 years and the current system works a bit like this - The same person can go into the same pub and drink 3 pints of normal strength lager over a 2 hour period, he can do this every day for a month, he can get breathalysed every day on the way home and pass, yet 1 day he fails and becomes another drink driver. He has no idea why he failed and no way to defend himself.
It makes no difference if you just fail, you failed and that's all that matters. Yet this is considered a fair system.
 

AlanT73

Well-known member
A lifetime ban for the very first offence would be the ultimate deterrent. At the moment, unless you've been living under a stone for the last 50 years, everyone knows that they will be banned for a relatively short period. Disruption to personal life etc. etc. but within a period of a few months to a few years, you will be back on the road. It's worth taking a chance. The thought of never geting behind the wheel again would deter almost everyone. Think of the analogy of the compulsory removal of driver seatbelts and the compulsory installation of an 8 inch steel spike in the centre of the steering wheel. The accident rate would drop to c. 0 overnight as the temptation to drive like an idiot would effectively disappear.
 

CrossFox

Member
A lifetime ban for the very first offence would be the ultimate deterrent. At the moment, unless you've been living under a stone for the last 50 years, everyone knows that they will be banned for a relatively short period. Disruption to personal life etc. etc. but within a period of a few months to a few years, you will be back on the road. It's worth taking a chance. The thought of never geting behind the wheel again would deter almost everyone. Think of the analogy of the compulsory removal of driver seatbelts and the compulsory installation of an 8 inch steel spike in the centre of the steering wheel. The accident rate would drop to c. 0 overnight as the temptation to drive like an idiot would effectively disappear.
Wow, why not just shoot them on sight.

Those that regularly disregard the drink drive laws should be treated very severely. However, those caught once should be treated fairly. For every driver caught for the first time, there are 10 that don't get caught. There should be a sliding scale of punishments relative to the offence. Somebody caught with a reading of e.g. 70 at 3.30pm near a school should never have the same punishment as somebody with a reading of 40 at 11.30pm, but they do. An automatic 12 month ban, increased insurance premiums for 10 years, the possibility of losing your job, these are all the norm. In fact, those caught once are more than probably a damn sight less likely to do it again, the punishment for a second offence is severe.

The number of accidents attributed to drink driving are inflated. You could be sat in your car, outside your house deciding whether to drive or not and some muppet runs into the back of you, you get breathalyzed and just fail ( maybe a bit too much last night ). You hadn't even driven anywhere. The accident would have happened regardless but it is now a drink drive accident and you get prosecuted. Not fair but legal.

Please don't misrepresent what I am saying, drink driving needs to stop. The government spends millions trying to stop people drink driving yet refuse to take duty off low alcohol lagers, not a guaranteed strategy but it would certainly help. Installing ACCURATE breathalysers in pubs would help, see my post above regarding this. Getting caught is a lottery, most first time offenders consider themselves unlucky, especially those caught 'the morning after'.

Treating everyone caught drink driving like a pariah is ridiculous, everyone makes bad decisions. I accept that accident numbers will reduce but accidents will still happen. If you are caught walking around with a knife in your pocket, you are treated far less seriously than somebody walking around with a machete in full view. Sadly, too many consider all drink drivers as a menace to society, regardless of the circumstances.

As the old saying goes 'let those without sin cast the first stone', are you totally without sin ?
 

AlanT73

Well-known member
Wow, why not just shoot them on sight.

Those that regularly disregard the drink drive laws should be treated very severely. However, those caught once should be treated fairly. For every driver caught for the first time, there are 10 that don't get caught. There should be a sliding scale of punishments relative to the offence. Somebody caught with a reading of e.g. 70 at 3.30pm near a school should never have the same punishment as somebody with a reading of 40 at 11.30pm, but they do. An automatic 12 month ban, increased insurance premiums for 10 years, the possibility of losing your job, these are all the norm. In fact, those caught once are more than probably a damn sight less likely to do it again, the punishment for a second offence is severe.

The number of accidents attributed to drink driving are inflated. You could be sat in your car, outside your house deciding whether to drive or not and some muppet runs into the back of you, you get breathalyzed and just fail ( maybe a bit too much last night ). You hadn't even driven anywhere. The accident would have happened regardless but it is now a drink drive accident and you get prosecuted. Not fair but legal.

Please don't misrepresent what I am saying, drink driving needs to stop. The government spends millions trying to stop people drink driving yet refuse to take duty off low alcohol lagers, not a guaranteed strategy but it would certainly help. Installing ACCURATE breathalysers in pubs would help, see my post above regarding this. Getting caught is a lottery, most first time offenders consider themselves unlucky, especially those caught 'the morning after'.

Treating everyone caught drink driving like a pariah is ridiculous, everyone makes bad decisions. I accept that accident numbers will reduce but accidents will still happen. If you are caught walking around with a knife in your pocket, you are treated far less seriously than somebody walking around with a machete in full view. Sadly, too many consider all drink drivers as a menace to society, regardless of the circumstances.

As the old saying goes 'let those without sin cast the first stone', are you totally without sin ?
To address your last point first. When it comes to drink driving, absolutely I am without sin.

There is already a sliding scale of punishment. From being just above a relatively high limit in the UK (with 14% tolerance above that limit) incurring a minimum 12 month ban right up to imprisonment for being many times over and for repeat offenders.

Your idea of punishment based upon time and location sounds fine in principle but is widely open to interpretation and the only winners would be drink drive solicitors eager to pull in the punters with the offer of a chance of getting off subject to paying a princely sum. Win or lose for the charged drink driver, the solicitor always wins.

I'd be interested to know where you get your stat's from around the inflation of drink drive accident figures. Surely, the decision to drive or not is made before you pick up your keys in your house, not when you are sat outside in the driver's seat. At that stage you are going to drive. If someone runs into the back of you and you are arrested for being over the limit maybe it's a blessing because you didn't get the chance to drive off and pile into some innocent unfortunate and either kill them or put them in a wheelchair for the rest of their lives.

I'm sure that those who consider themselves 'unlucky' to be caught the morning after are not as unlucky as those whose kid gets mown down on their way to school by someone incapable of making a simple units calculation. To allow for metabolic uncertainty, just add 25% to the time you 'think' you are at 0. It's not rocket science. If you are in any way unsure. Get the bus or walk.

You accept that accident numbers will reduce if the law comes down hard on all offenders. Isn't it worth saving lives for the sake of inconveniencing poor decision makers with a ban?
 
Convicted Driver Insurance
Top