Grumpy Dad:
Wouldn’t a free course be seen as a get out of jail free card, if a system were to be put in place it should include a fine and be accompanied by a 3 strike rule otherwise there’s no deterrent.
But as professional drivers we are given more stringent punishments, fatalities caused by undue care and attention can be labelled manslaughter, so shouldn’t knowingly getting behind a wheel whilst under the influence regardless of level be given a firmer punishment.
Even though you quoted something else I assume you were actually responding to me?
The fact that they blew below the limit is the ‘get out of jail free’ card, in other words blowing below 35 they’ve not actually broken the law (as it stands at the moment) so they can’t really be penalised.
Being made to do a re-education course though should and no doubt would be considered enough of an inconvenience and pain in the arse to at least make them think twice about drinking if driving again, and hopefully they’d learn something in the process too, and add to that a nod to the insurance company then it becomes a whole lot more of a ball ache.
Unless they actually change the law regarding the limit (or even zero tolerance it) I’m not sure what else they can do if you’re below a prosecutable limit, In my given examples I’ve not set out to re-write the legal limits I’ve only offered what I feel are fitting punishments/deterrents to those that are already laid out.
I suppose I could go further into it, for example (based on the assumption that this is a traffic stop and that there’s no accident or 3rd party involvement or injuries)…
NP = Non professional, P = Professional (anyone that has passed a higher category than an A or B or is employed (at the time of the stop) in a paid professional capacity, i.e. a full or part time employed van driver, taxi driver, motorcycle courier or travelling sales rep)
NP - 20 to 35mg = Discretionary re-education, Insurance company informed and marked for 12 months.
P - 10 to 35mg = Compulsory re-education, employer and/or DVSA + personal car insurance company informed and marked for 12 months.
NP - 35 to 70mg = Comp week re-education 12 month ban, resit cat B (and A if on licence), permanent mark on insurance record.
P - 35 to 70mg = Comp week re-education 12 month ban, resit cat B, C, (C1) D, + E (and A if on licence), permanent mark on insurance record.
NP & P - 70mg and above = Jail time (scaleable depending on severity of excess), lifetime licence revoked (no retest option for any category)
Once 3rd party damage or injury enters into the equation then obviously punishments should become much more severe i.e. fines and jail terms.
Just my ideas on it anyway, still plenty of scope there for fine tuning, feel free to add to it if you wish
As professional drivers wouldn’t a better approach be to lower each of your examples to those of NP, say by 5, this would be a better deterrent
why discriminate and crucify a professional driver? we dont get any leeway elsewhere.we drive 10 times more miles per year than joe public but still get banned after the same 12 points that they do.what happens when a hgv driver is working in a factory and gets done,does he get crucified as he holds a licence for a job hes not employed in at the time of the offence?
those who drink and drive do so,and will always do so,same as mobile phones.the only ones who suffer is the borderline unlucky ones that get caught.
i see my mate every week drinking and driving,a few barrack buster tubes of strongbow and a couple of doobys,then he drives off down the road off his ■■■■.he has already been banned twice,and basically dont give a toss…each to their own.
nick2008:
I reckon it should also be an offence to carry any alcohol in the cab of any vehicle much like places in the USA.
Why ? nothing wrong with having a couple of tinnies when you get parked up for the night
Because that’s the answer to everything with these guys, blanket bans and penalise the law abiding for the minority of irresponsible d/heads.
It’s like when the gun laws tightened up after Dunblane, the law abiding gun club guys adhered to it, the criminals did not.
So did shootings and armed robbery figures drop?
Did they ■■■■.
So you and me are parked up one night and in between us is some ■■■■ head, you and me have a bottle of Bud with the meal we have just cooked, ■■■■■■■■ has a bottle of Vodka.
Then next week matey’s blanket ban comes in, so me and you (who were doing nothing wrong anyway) as law abiders, have a glass of Coke instead…■■■■■■■■ still has his bottle of Vodka.
I wish some would think things through before coming out with bloody stupid ideas, trouble is some of this blanket ban sh on absolutely every bloody thing, view is often shared by the powers that be.
nick2008:
I reckon it should also be an offence to carry any alcohol in the cab of any vehicle much like places in the USA.
Why ? nothing wrong with having a couple of tinnies when you get parked up for the night
Because that’s the answer to everything with these guys, blanket bans and penalise the law abiding for the minority of irresponsible d/heads.
It’s like when the gun laws tightened up after Dunblane, the law abiding gun club guys adhered to it, the criminals did not.
So did shootings and armed robbery figures drop?
Did they [zb].
So you and me are parked up one night and in between us is some ■■■■ head, you and me have a bottle of Bud with the meal we have just cooked, ■■■■■■■■ has a bottle of Vodka.
Then next week matey’s blanket ban comes in, so me and you (who were doing nothing wrong anyway) as law abiders, have a glass of Coke instead…■■■■■■■■ still has his bottle of Vodka.
I wish some would think things through before coming out with bloody stupid ideas, trouble is some of this blanket ban sh on absolutely every bloody thing, view is often shared by the powers that be.
Blanket bans are archaic forms of punishment, harsher deterrents are needed so those who enjoy a bottle or two with an evening meal and know their limits can continue to enjoy, while the knobhead who drinks himself into a stupor on screech flavoured AL39 ( cheap vodka ) risks losing everything.
nick2008:
I reckon it should also be an offence to carry any alcohol in the cab of any vehicle much like places in the USA.
Why ? nothing wrong with having a couple of tinnies when you get parked up for the night
Because that’s the answer to everything with these guys, blanket bans and penalise the law abiding for the minority of irresponsible d/heads.
It’s like when the gun laws tightened up after Dunblane, the law abiding gun club guys adhered to it, the criminals did not.
So did shootings and armed robbery figures drop?
Did they [zb].
So you and me are parked up one night and in between us is some ■■■■ head, you and me have a bottle of Bud with the meal we have just cooked, ■■■■■■■■ has a bottle of Vodka.
Then next week matey’s blanket ban comes in, so me and you (who were doing nothing wrong anyway) as law abiders, have a glass of Coke instead…■■■■■■■■ still has his bottle of Vodka.
I wish some would think things through before coming out with bloody stupid ideas, trouble is some of this blanket ban sh on absolutely every bloody thing, view is often shared by the powers that be.
The only alternative I can think of is to encourage people to report drivers who abuse alcohol more. Come to think of it, why not? We’re expected to report people for everything else now.
Being labelled as the “Company Grass” isn’t an achievement most drivers want to accomplish, how often do you see another driver on the phone, texting, watching a film and do nothing yet the resources are there for anyone wishing to report non compliance of company rules, the Highway Code and the law in general.
The days of reporting Stobart drivers to Eddie for not wearing a tie are far behind us.
Grumpy Dad:
Being labelled as the “Company Grass” isn’t an achievement most drivers want to accomplish, how often do you see another driver on the phone, texting, watching a film and do nothing yet the resources are there for anyone wishing to report non compliance of company rules, the Highway Code and the law in general.
The days of reporting Stobart drivers to Eddie for not wearing a tie are far behind us.
Hypothetical situation. If the only way to allow sensible drivers to continue keeping alcohol in their cabs was to report those who abuse it, do you think they would given the alternative was a blanket ban?
Grumpy Dad:
Being labelled as the “Company Grass” isn’t an achievement most drivers want to accomplish, how often do you see another driver on the phone, texting, watching a film and do nothing yet the resources are there for anyone wishing to report non compliance of company rules, the Highway Code and the law in general.
The days of reporting Stobart drivers to Eddie for not wearing a tie are far behind us.
Hypothetical situation. If the only way to allow sensible drivers to continue keeping alcohol in their cabs was to report those who abuse it, do you think they would given the alternative was a blanket ban?
I think a blanket ban is a pathetic way to deal with a situation that for a minority of drivers has got out of hand, and banning booze in cabs wouldn’t stop them, if they wanted they’d go to the nearest bargain booze and sit in a park.
Harsher penalties are what’s needed, they need to loose their income, if they are over the limit deal with them appropriately.
there’s nothing wrong with having a few sociable drinks with a couple of drivers, that’s the way it’s been done for decades.
Grumpy Dad:
Being labelled as the “Company Grass” isn’t an achievement most drivers want to accomplish, how often do you see another driver on the phone, texting, watching a film and do nothing yet the resources are there for anyone wishing to report non compliance of company rules, the Highway Code and the law in general.
The days of reporting Stobart drivers to Eddie for not wearing a tie are far behind us.
Hypothetical situation. If the only way to allow sensible drivers to continue keeping alcohol in their cabs was to report those who abuse it, do you think they would given the alternative was a blanket ban?
I think a blanket ban is a pathetic way to deal with a situation that for a minority of drivers has got out of hand, and banning booze in cabs wouldn’t stop them, if they wanted they’d go to the nearest bargain booze and sit in a park.
Harsher penalties are what’s needed, they need to loose their income, if they are over the limit deal with them appropriately.
there’s nothing wrong with having a few sociable drinks with a couple of drivers, that’s the way it’s been done for decades.
Despite my feelings on drunk drivers (did I ever tell you one crashed into me?), I agree with you. The minority always spoil it for the majority. But how do you find those responsible in order to dish out those harsher penalties? Wait for them to crash or encourage other drivers to report them?
Captain Caveman 76:
Hypothetical situation. If the only way to allow sensible drivers to continue keeping alcohol in their cabs was to report those who abuse it, do you think they would given the alternative was a blanket ban?
Grumpy Dad:
But as professional drivers we are given more stringent punishments, fatalities caused by undue care and attention can be labelled manslaughter, so shouldn’t knowingly getting behind a wheel whilst under the influence regardless of level be given a firmer punishment.
Why do you keep inventing your own meanings for established words? “Undue care and attention” means exactly the opposite of what you appear to think it means.
Grumpy Dad:
But as professional drivers we are given more stringent punishments, fatalities caused by undue care and attention can be labelled manslaughter, so shouldn’t knowingly getting behind a wheel whilst under the influence regardless of level be given a firmer punishment.
Why do you keep inventing your own meanings for established words? “Undue care and attention” means exactly the opposite of what you appear to think it means.
Ok so the actual charge is without due care and attention, not that undue would be a wrong word to use as it’s meaning is :- improper, unjustified, unsuitable
No, it means “Unwarranted or inappropriate because excessive or disproportionate. (Oxford English Dictionary)” - in simpler terms “Being too careful” or “being over-cautious”. The meaning you are attributing to it is “not being careful enough”, which is a different thing altogether.
I could mention the incorrect use of the apostrophe, but I’ll let that one go as hardly anyone else here appears to give a toss about that, and it doesn’t really have any impact on the meaning of what is written.
