Trevor Sinclair

[Chippy_boy]

Drink driving offences should result in a custodial sentence. I'd lock every last one of the utter ****s up. And yes I know it will never happen, Just my view.

My view is that the above opinion is utterly ridiculous.

The limit is 80 mg per litre of blood I think. What about a 30 year old experinced driver who has slightly misjudged things with a glass of wine that we a big larger than they'd figured. Say they have 90 mg and at that level is perhaps a far better driver than everyone over the age of 75 who can drive quite legally.

Sure if someone is pissed out of their head, that's a different matter. But saying drink driving should result in a custodial sentence is just stupid. How about custodial sentences for speeding, which can be more dangerous than what I described? Or going through a red light, that's *just* changed from amber? Where do you stop with this draconian nonsense? We'd have half the population in jail.

 

[tshirtman]

Try telling that to the families of victims of drunk drivers...
My driving instructor always said a car is also a weapon deadly in the wrong hands..

if you injure someone while driving that's a different offence than drink driving. I did say non violent offences, that includes injuring someone through negligence.

 

[tshirtman]

You are Ray Wilkins and I collect my fiver

??? strange

 

[UUJblue]

My view is that the above opinion is utterly ridiculous.

The limit is 80 mg per litre of blood I think. What about a 30 year old experinced driver who has slightly misjudged things with a glass of wine that we a big larger than they'd figured. Say they have 90 mg and at that level is perhaps a far better driver than everyone over the age of 75 who can drive quite legally.

Sure if someone is pissed out of their head, that's a different matter. But saying drink driving should result in a custodial sentence is just stupid. How about custodial sentences for speeding, which can be more dangerous than what I described? Or going through a red light, that's *just* changed from amber? Where do you stop with this draconian nonsense? We'd have half the population in jail.

I think there is more to this than a large glass of wine and being slightly over the limit. Plus those limits are there for a reason to show that either above or below them your senses and reactions are impaired. Plus there is racially aggravated public order, an assault of the police, criminal damage & more. Sounds like a bad night out. It is all a lethal mix.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I think there is more to this than a large glass of wine and being slightly over the limit. Plus those limits are there for a reason to show that either above or below them your senses and reactions are impaired. Plus there is racially aggravated public order, an assault of the police, criminal damage & more. Sounds like a bad night out. It is all a lethal mix.

Don't disagree with any of that. I'm simply responding to the (imo) daft suggestion that drink drivers should all be sent to prison immediately.

Yes, your reactions are impaired, but I'd rather be driven by Lewis Hamilton after two pints than my stone-cold-sober 82 year old mother who is a menace on the roads and yet perfectly legal.

 

[UUJblue]

Don't disagree with any of that. I'm simply responding to the (imo) daft suggestion that drink drivers should all be sent to prison immediately.

Yes, your reactions are impaired, but I'd rather be driven by Lewis Hamilton after two pints than my stone-cold-sober 82 year old mother who is a menace on the roads and yet perfectly legal.

yeah i get your point..i guess its science versus the law. I know we are away off topic but we have all had 2/3 pints and felt fine but in the eyes of the law - we are impaired.

I guess were does that threshold lay for each person for example a 6.6ft 20 stone man or 5ft wee girl. On one hand you could say there is room for argument depending on the nature of your driving, speed, passengers, conditions, location but on the other there is no room for error and your vehicle is now a weapon when "drunk". I have heard of people being over the limit after eating chocolate liquors!

I feel for trevor, seemed so genuine and a big blue but i think i read here, someone say he has previous and has played the race card. Assulting a police officer is a big NO NO and thats probably where they will get him. I guess we wont know.

 

[blue oli]

My view is that the above opinion is utterly ridiculous.

The limit is 80 mg per litre of blood I think. What about a 30 year old experinced driver who has slightly misjudged things with a glass of wine that we a big larger than they'd figured. Say they have 90 mg and at that level is perhaps a far better driver than everyone over the age of 75 who can drive quite legally.

Sure if someone is pissed out of their head, that's a different matter. But saying drink driving should result in a custodial sentence is just stupid. How about custodial sentences for speeding, which can be more dangerous than what I described? Or going through a red light, that's *just* changed from amber? Where do you stop with this draconian nonsense? We'd have half the population in jail.

We should cut the draconian nonsense and have a zero tolerance policy for drink driving. If it’s hard to work out for some then make it easy - you drink anything and drive you lose your license simple really

 

[worsleyweb]

We should cut the draconian nonsense and have a zero tolerance policy for drink driving. If it’s hard to work out for some then make it easy - you drink anything and drive you lose your license simple really

What about if you have a Christmas pudding soaked in Brandy? Or had a drink 12 hours ago? Has to be a line. 80mg is not a lot and the correct line in my opinion for what it is worth.

 

[Indaparkside]

I think they should bring in a no drink atall and drive policy then this issue wouldn't be discussed, if you can afford a few pints get a taxi or don't go out

 

[Chippy_boy]

What about if you have a Christmas pudding soaked in Brandy? Or had a drink 12 hours ago? Has to be a line. 80mg is not a lot and the correct line in my opinion for what it is worth.

Although there's lots of pressure to reduce it to 50mg, last time I looked the RAC and the AA were against such a move. The evidence (last time I looked) was that the numbers of people involved in accidents and breathalized who had between 50 and 80 mg in them, were trivially small. i.e. most accidents are caused by people who are over 80 mg (in which case, lowering the limit would have no effect - they are over anyway) or under 50 mg, i.e. had no been drinking and therefore the lower limit wouldn't catch them either.

No-one is a perfect driver, and I am sure a couple of pints does impair your ability a bit. But fiddling with the sat nav or the radio in built up traffic probably impairs it just as much if not more.