Reply to: Reduction in Drink Drive Limit

[Sysman]

I think it's time for a zero tolerance policy to law breaking in general. People (including me, if I'm honest) need to stop being of the opinion that the laws they obey are a matter of personal choice. We also need a more effective process for adapting the laws of the land to the collective will and punishments that deter people.

The tendency up to now has been to increased the penalties for those convicted. Again looking at other countries, the first offence doesn't have a minimum ban of a year. Coupled with random testing I would argue that the first offence should have a ban of no more than a few weeks. Don't wreck someone's life for being a point or two above the limit. Persistent offenders would see increasingly long bans of course.

[Sysman]

Basically they looked at traffic accidents where someone died, checked how many had alcohol levels between 51mg and 80mg and decided all these accidents were alcohol related and from there tried to figure out how many would lower their consumption to obey the new laws.

Correct math, wrong logic

The other twist there is that once someone involved in an accident is convicted of drink driving, they are assumed to have caused the accident. Not necessarily true in all cases.

[Sysman]

It's the random testing that's going to be the killer - not the fact that people may be over the limit but the fact that coppers are going to be stopping people on a whim...

Snooker? Anyone?

Don't get a red car.

I was in Holland in the early 1980s and random testing was allowed. The main difference for me was that they had affordable and plentiful taxis, because everyone used them. I got used to leaving the car in the town centre and cycling back to retrieve it the next morning.

[doodab]

I don't think anyone would object to that late in the evening.

Except pissed people trying to drive home.

[MarillionFan]

Where I am now, the Police set up road-blocks and breath-test everyone driving through them.

There is no singling anybody out and I don't see how anyone could object to that approach.

They do that in plenty of countries. I don't think anyone would object to that late in the evening.

But the UK police are so fixed on statistics it would never take off as the percentage of arrests would be low.

[Gonzo]

Well I am all up for that. What is stopping them implementing that? Human rights?

Where I am now, the Police set up road-blocks and breath-test everyone driving through them.

There is no singling anybody out and I don't see how anyone could object to that approach.

[doodab]

Yeah.

We need this guy.

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/1s...judgedredd.jpg

Or him:

[doodab]

Whomever repped me as a "liberal bedwetter", let me ask you this.

Do you believe that

a) Society should have no laws
b) Society should have laws but they should be considered mere guidelines and people should be free to break them as they see fit without significant punishment
c) Society should have *some* laws and the punishment for breaking them should be sufficient to act as a deterrent

I am advocating c, as it seems to me that laws that no one is minded to obey are somewhat pointless. As you profess to consider this position invalid, I would be interested to hear your justification for whichever of the alternatives you are advocating.

[gricerboy]

throw them in gaol.

Thy idea dost have a certain logick

[doodab]

Who decides on the basis for society what is acceptable as a law? For example, smoking is bad, therefore outlaw within pub, anyone who doesn't like smoking is therefore a law abiding citizen everyone else feels harangued against.

You don't like kids hanging around your street. Enforce a law that all groups over 3 are illegal. Punish them if they break the law.
You don't like cannabis. Make it a hanging offence! Therefore nobody will do it. RIGHT!

Laws are designed to ensure there is a boundary around society. Make too many laws and you strangle it. You then land up with a cotton wool society full of dull camomile drinking 'law abiding' liberal bedwetters living in somebodies idea of a Shangri La CBBC episode while everyone else is a criminal.

Outlaw pishing the bed Doodab and then you'd be a law breaker as well.

Society ought to decide. That is the point of democracy, non?

I'm not suggesting creating more laws, i'm suggesting we adjust the statute book to correspond to consenus opinion of what constitutes justice and enforce the rules we set ourself. If you want to live in a lawless society move to somalia.

Ps you might find the belief that one ought to have personal choice and repsonsibility is what makes a liberal liberal. It's modern use as a derogatory term is largely due to right wing american media. Sorry to point thiss out, but your as liberal as they come.

[MarillionFan]

But this doesn't seem to be the outcome we are seeing does it?



Yes, you can always argue it's a question of conscience but it ought to be a choice between obeying the law or accepting the punishment, not a choice between obeying the law or ignoring it without consequence.

I'm not suggesting we implement sharia law or anything like it, I'm simply suggesting that the laws we have are enforced in such a way as to deter people from flouting them willy nilly. The end result will be greater freedom for the law abiding citizen because they can live safe in the knowledge that most people are obeying rules that are designed to benefit everyone.

Who decides on the basis for society what is acceptable as a law? For example, smoking is bad, therefore outlaw within pub, anyone who doesn't like smoking is therefore a law abiding citizen everyone else feels harangued against.

You don't like kids hanging around your street. Enforce a law that all groups over 3 are illegal. Punish them if they break the law.

You don't like cannabis. Make it a hanging offence! Therefore nobody will do it. RIGHT!

Laws are designed to ensure there is a boundary around society. Make too many laws and you strangle it. You then land up with a cotton wool society full of dull camomile drinking 'law abiding' liberal bedwetters living in somebodies idea of a Shangri La CBBC episode while everyone else is a criminal.

Outlaw pishing the bed Doodab and then you'd be a law breaker as well.

[doodab]

They are designed to ensure that society functions cohesively as a whole and that punishments fit the crime.

But this doesn't seem to be the outcome we are seeing does it?

Obeying laws are a matter of personal choice

Yes, you can always argue it's a question of conscience but it ought to be a choice between obeying the law or accepting the punishment, not a choice between obeying the law or ignoring it without consequence.

I'm not suggesting we implement sharia law or anything like it, I'm simply suggesting that the laws we have are enforced in such a way as to deter people from flouting them willy nilly. The end result will be greater freedom for the law abiding citizen because they can live safe in the knowledge that most people are obeying rules that are designed to benefit everyone.

[MarillionFan]

I think it's time for a zero tolerance policy to law breaking in general. People (including me, if I'm honest) need to stop being of the opinion that the laws they obey are a matter of personal choice. We also need a more effective process for adapting the laws of the land to the collective will and punishments that deter people.

Obeying laws are a matter of personal choice. They are designed to ensure that society functions cohesively as a whole and that punishments fit the crime.

If you want punishments to deter people and a zero tolerance then move towards Sharia law.

[doodab]

I think it's time for a zero tolerance policy to law breaking in general. People (including me, if I'm honest) need to stop being of the opinion that the laws they obey are a matter of personal choice. We also need a more effective process for adapting the laws of the land to the collective will and punishments that deter people.

[swamp]

It's depressing that something as simple a Drink Driving is the victim of politics. It's very simple: enforce the law as it is. Stop and breath test people (randomly) and catch people who are drunk. If people actually fear being caught then they will not drink and drive.

There are also some important questions that are being ignored:

* Where does the problem lie? Who kills/maims the most people? Properly drunk drivers or ones just over the limit?
* Is being 'hungover' (the next morning) less or more dangerous than being 'slightly tipsy' (assuming same alcohol blood level)?
* How many and what proportion of guilty drivers who killed/maimed were between 50 and 80mg/l alcohol limit?

It also seems obvious to me that if someone has no insurance, tax, or a valid MOT certificate for their car, then they are probably not going to give a flyer about having a few pints before getting behind the wheel. Use random stop and search. Impound their vehicles and throw them in gaol.