tinyurl.com/3y3bzwy
Very dignified comments from the driver's mother, who in an instant has lost a son and been widowed.
The child's parents want a change in the law, although it's hard to see how that will prevent a drunk who is determined to get behind the wheel and drive in excess of 100mph.
|
>> The child's parents want a change in the law, although it's hard to see how
>> that will prevent a drunk who is determined to get behind the wheel and drive
>> in excess of 100mph.
It cant. It wont stop those who want to drop the level even further from using this in the argument tho.
If they got drunk in a pub tho, the landlord should be done for causing death as well.
|
Not so sure about that, Z... You could have enough to put you over the limit but not be drunk - should the landlord be done for that as well?
No, I think its the individual's responsibility, not the landlords'... after all, what happens if he assures the landlord that he'll get a taxi and then goes out and drives... how is the landlord supposed to stop him?
I don't know what the answer is to this issue - perhaps some sort of electronic lock on the car that prevents you driving if over the limit - but no doubt people will find a way round it, especially the persistant offenders... Sad story though.
|
hobby, I don't know the UK law, maybe one of our learned friends can assist...
here, it is illegal to sell booze to somebody who IN THE BARTENDER'S OPINION, has had too much to drink.
With the quoted figures, those two must have been absolutely - and obviously - plastered.
Further, we have TWO charges for this SFAIK: driving with blood alcohol content higher than 0.5mg/100ml... and Drunken Driving.
the latter is obviously for the staggering, slurring types, and has far stricter penalties.
|
...in the bartender's opinion...
In the UK it is against the terms of the liquor licence to serve anyone who is already intoxicated.
Of course, we don't know where this clown was when he took his drink - he could have been in the house.
|
Thnx iffy.
This always amazes me. Guys who line up a load of drinks at closing time. Obviously when they order them, they aren't intoxicated. But damn right they will be when they've necked that lot.
Whose responsibility then?
|
|
I suspect, from watching films of drunks on Friday and Saturday nights in towns and cities across the UK that this piece of law is not really enforced, by the landlords or the police... and over here the growing issue is young women, not men, having too much!
Last edited by: hobby on Thu 28 Oct 10 at 10:22
|
Corrected fro proper terms:
'driving over the limit' and ' driving under the influence'.
|
>> Corrected fro proper terms:
>> 'driving over the limit' and ' driving under the influence'.
Here in the UK it is possible to be convicted of the latter but not be "over the limit".
|
Sheesh.
Looking at those figures: 325 and 313mg/100? My God!
That is a frightening amount of alcohol intake. They'd have been incapable of standing upright, IMHO.
And yes, i speak from experience.
|
|
Talking about standing upright - I remember seeing one of those police docs a while back which showed some Polish(?) woman who was arrested and found to be 5 times over... she could still walk and talk, though obviously well past it... everyone's tolerence is different...
|
|
I wonder how they know the car was doing 106 mph? Even if you were in the car, speedometer errors would prevent you from knowing the speed that precisely.
|
If the practice of recreational drinking of alcohol were "invented" today it would be immediately outlawed by any civilised society in the same way as any other mind altering drug. It is only historical social acceptance of it and indeed the revenue it produces which allows it to remain in a separate category.
Who would you rather be driven home by, a driver who had had 10 cigarettes that day but no alcohol or a driver who had had ten drinks but no cigarettes ? Not really a difficult question is it but we banned public smoking because it was easier and it won votes.
No, I don't want alcohol banned before anyone assumes that. But I do want to see a much stricter control on its abuse.
Drinkers can be fun, drunks are repulsive.
|
Humph,
I don't want to divert the thread but public smoking is still legal. Two of my colleagues puffing away in the street under the office window as I type. Forcing others, particulalry employees who have no choice, to share smoke in a confined space deserved to be banned and pubs, for example, are much better places for it.
|
Totally agree as it happens, just pointing out that the far bigger problem of alcohol and its effects on society are conveniently ignored in favour of easier targets in the pursuit of votes. Not against clean air at all but would far rather have seen legislation to contain binge drinking being given the greater and more urgent priority. Ask anyone who works in the licensed trade about the verbal, physical and even sexual abuse they and their colleagues suffer on a more or less daily basis from their customers.
Alcohol abuse led to the case under discussion. That of course is an extreme example but excess drinking causes many different problems and discomfort to the innocent on a daily basis but it is accepted in a way no other social drug taking is.
And no, I'm not an extremist, I don't want public consumption of alcohol to be banned but I do feel it should be given as much attention and subject to as much control as smoking. I'd love to feel that it was safe to walk through our town centres at night without having to run the gauntlet of loud, boorish, vomiting and violent drunks.
|
No argument there Humph.
Bridge Street in Northampton is lined with pubs/clubs. It's now closed to traffic overnight Fri/Sat & Sat/Sun because of the risks to drunks (& fights when they nearly get run down).
The basement of this building, on a main thoroughfare in legal London, is let to a club doing oriental karaoke. Mercifully I never work saturdays but the building manager does sometimes. Broken bottles, men slumped, staggering urinating and/or soiled all around the street. City & Westminster Councils then have to clear up the mess.
|
Both smoking and drinking are heavily taxed, and both cause long term illness and short term problems. There are laws in place which could curb binge drinking but it needs better enforcement.
As regards the percieved more lenient approach to alchohol abuse rather than nicotene abuse (debatable, I'd have thought) perhaps its because the industry that surrounds the sale of alchohol is much bigger than that surrounding smoking, therefore a more lenient approach is taken... The loss of tax income and jobs would be far worse if alchohol was banned than a ban on ciggies.
I do think more should be done to prevent abuse of either, but I don't think hitting the landlords is the right answer, or more tax on booze sold in pubs and clubs.
|
"perhaps its because the industry that surrounds the sale of alchohol is much bigger than that surrounding smoking, therefore a more lenient approach is taken"
It was not always thus. Tax revenue from tobacco used to closely match that from alcohol. The cost to the national health service for smoking related diseases far outweighed that attributed to alcohol however, hence powers that be could trumpet and preen about the health of the nation while jingling the pound in the exchequers pocket. Also in latter years tobacco smuggling was rife, killing the taxmans take,
The revenue from alcohol however, far outweighs any medical costs.
|
Humph
Re your 10.38 post this morning "If the practice of recreational drinking of alcohol were "invented" today it would be immediately outlawed by any civilised society"
So too, surely would the practice of chopping up pieces of leafage, wrapping it in paper, setting fire to it and putting it in your mouth (with apologies to Bob Newheart).
|
|
Quite agree. Totally stupid thing to do when you think about it. As are boiled sweets, pork scratchings and Angel Delight at another level I suppose.
|
>> I wonder how they know the car was doing 106 mph? Even if you were
>> in the car, speedometer errors would prevent you from knowing the speed that precisely.
>>
Sensing and Diagnostic Module (SDM). Type of simple black box.
Last edited by: gmac on Thu 28 Oct 10 at 10:43
|
>> Sensing and Diagnostic Module (SDM). Type of simple black box.
>>
Next time I get my car serviced I'll ask the Service Manager whether my car is fitted with such a device.
|
>> Next time I get my car serviced I'll ask the Service Manager whether my car
>> is fitted with such a device.
>>
If you've got airbags then yes. Ford started using SDMs in '97.
Last edited by: gmac on Thu 28 Oct 10 at 16:06
|
>> If you've got airbags then yes. Ford started using SDMs in '97.
>>
It's a 2003 Focus and has airbags. Looks like I'll have to mind my Ps and Qs in future!
Last edited by: L'escargot on Fri 29 Oct 10 at 07:52
|
|
Calculated from various bits of data including tyre marks etc....usually says something as "no less than" just before the figure - it's an exact science (apparently)
|
I understand that it's possible to calculate speed fairly accurately after the event, knowing the weight of the vehicles, any marks left prior to the impact (the Toyota's mirror clipping the wall, for instance), the damage sustained, the distance the wreckage lies from the site of impact and so on. Where I've seen an estimated speed given before, it's usually an odd number of mph but a round figure in km/h - in this case 106mph equates to 170km/h.
This terrible incident occurred just around the corner from my work, and was not the first crash at that location in similar circumstances. I drove through the crash site, with my 10-year-old daughter in the car with me, less than 24 hours before it happened. There but for the grace...
RIP Samantha.
|
>> I wonder how they know the car was doing 106 mph? Even if you were
>> in the car, speedometer errors would prevent you from knowing the speed that precisely.
>>
You''ll be surprised at what all those little black boxes in your car record. Very useful for nullifying warranty claims. Manufacturers are not very forthcoming in talking about them, but if you know where to look....!
|
It is legal to serve people in the UK who are intoxicated. I thought the law said that person must not be drunk. It does work too, if I staggered to the bar in a club and asked for another pint while throwing up I would get chucked out.
However I think there is a lot of scope for opinion and if I wanted to know I could buy a lot more alchohol than I do on a saturday night. I stop because drinking any more would be foolish.
|
...but if you know where to look...
Hello mlc - wasn't you getting arrested in the other thread, was it? :)
|
I think the law was as I remember from the majistrates court . It is illegal to serve someone who is drunk,a known prostitute and an officer of the law in uniform.You were asked this when you applied for a drinks licence if you were not able to repeat it to the bench no licence.
But now it is operated by councils and things a little different just about anybody can get a licence.
|
|
I would like to see them police it at weekends in any city another piece of political waffle to keep the DM readers happy.
|
|
That's a hysterically silly article. The law already exists. All a "landlord" has to do is say "You've had enough, I'm not serving you" (or "your" friends should they buy more for "you"), "Go home". If that doesn't work, there's always "Please leave". It's a flexible system, too - if the landlord knows the customer, and is happy for him to continue to drink/sleep in the fireplace, then great!
|
TBH I'm with "Mr Wetherspoon" on this, if we are to get better control of binge drinking then encouraging drinking in Pubs is better than booze bought at supermarkets (for a lot less!) and consumed on the streets or at home before going out...
I do pity the landlords sometimes... they get people coming in who have obviously been on the booze somewhere else (usually at home) which cuts into their profits, if they have any, and thats before you spot the characters who buy coca colas and thend add vodka from that bottle in their bag... and how are they supposed to tell if the drinker is going to be driving later? If its a "local" type pub (the best in my view) then the chances are the landlord knows his customers and will try to prevent it, but in a club?!
There must be an answer, for the sake of any other innocent victims, but selling of cheap booze so people can get tanked up before going out can't help... and then there's the pityful sentences given out to drink drivers, especially ones who repeat offend.
|
Drink-driver kills himself, his dad and a child - Zero
