Drink driving - now up in court

Tozer

OK, I'm not going to go into the rants of "throw away the key", "ban her for life", and all of the rest. I strongly disagree with what she has done but don't think any of our rantings are going to make an iota of difference to either drink drivers or what happens to them when they are caught.

To OP, she should find herself a decent solicitor so that a mitigation plea can be made on her behalf. And before people jump on this with more ranting, it is not to get her off or to find 'loopholes', it is to ensure that she is properly represented and has a fair hearing....a cornerstone of our society I think.

beer_tins

celyn90 wrote: »

The limit is unlikely ever to be reduced to nothing because some medical conditions (I believe) can lead to there being traces of alcohol on the breath so would give a positive result even if the person had not consumed any alcohol.

bestpud wrote: »

Surely a blood test and/or evidence of illness or medication being taken would soon sort that out?

It's not that simple. Our bodies also produce alcohol naturally (endogenous ethanol production). Everyone has a small amount of alcohol in their body, even if they have never had an alcoholic drink. Some people naturally produce more than others, partially depending on what they have eaten. Breathalysers pick this up.

I think a sensible solution is to lower the limit to say 0.2g/l. This would mean everyone knows they cannot drive after drinking even one drink, but the police don't need to deal with cases where very low amounts of alcohol are in the body. If anyone is still concerned, this level of alcohol does not affect ability to drive.


As for the OP's friend, yes it was a very stupid thing to do and she needs to be punished so she learns not to do it again. However, I do feel that a lifetime ban for a single offence is overly harsh. Everyone makes stupid mistakes in their youth, I know I did. Sometimes these mistakes do put you and others in danger. It's a part of growing up. People need to learn for their mistakes and I'm glad she will learn from hers without anyone having been hurt by her actions.

Mark7799

Dippychick wrote: »

Well if 17yr olds aren't responsible enough to REALISE that drinking EVEN 2 Bottles of Stella would class them as a drink driver - then they shouldn't be driving in the first place.

Drink driving is inexcusable. Like I said... about killing children when drunk.

I wonder if that same 17 yr old killed YOUR child - would that be OK? You would forgive and forget feeling sorry for the poor 17yr old because he had only had 2 Stella?

I realise this isn't going to make me popular but I'm going to side with redrabbit on this one. In the case quoted by redrabbit (and the OP's case) no-one WAS killed or injured. IMHO I Believe there should be variances in the punishments given out - the nutter who ploughs into a bus queue should expect a life time ban, the OP's friend to get a 3 year ban and an extended test before they are allowed back on the road. The government have now created the law of causing death by dangerous driving and hopefully it is implemented properly.

On a side issue, if someone is sent to prison and given a driving ban, do these run consecutively or concurrently?

Errata

A solicitor to mitigate? The only mitigating circumstances might be a abnormally low IQ.

MORPH3US

The thing is Mark7799, the only difference between the OP's friend drink driving and a drunk driver who ploughs into a bus queue full of people is LUCK, or bad luck to be more precise....

At the end of the day they are both in control of a car whilst over the limit, they could both have a crash, its just bad luck if one happens to crash into a load of people and one into a tree....

Mark7799

MORPH3US wrote: »

The thing is Mark7799, the only difference between the OP's friend drink driving and a drunk driver who ploughs into a bus queue full of people is LUCK, or bad luck to be more precise....

At the end of the day they are both in control of a car whilst over the limit, they could both have a crash, its just bad luck if one happens to crash into a load of people and one into a tree....

Accept your comment but I feel there shouldn't be too much placed on the 'what ifs'. It could by the same basis be argued that someone doing 35mph in a 30mph zone should be banned for life as if a small child had run out into the road they could have been killed which is why I am suggesting varying punishments for offences on the basis of what actually happened, not what MIGHT have. (sorry - taking the thread O/T)

yellow44

Mark7799 wrote: »

On a side issue, if someone is sent to prison and given a driving ban, do these run consecutively or concurrently?

They serve the ban concurrently i.e. whilst in prison - silly but true.

Mark7799

yellow44 wrote: »

They serve the ban concurrently i.e. whilst in prison - silly but true.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

Dave_liverpool

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

She does have a licence - a provisional one. That will be revoked, so she cannot drive at all; cannot have any lessons; and cannot take her test. It's as if she's 15 again and she'll have to wait until the ban is up, then reapply for a provisional licence and only then, learn to drive.

I did state a FULL licience

and I laugh at her going back to 15, yes back to being a child! Perhaps with all the circumstance relating to this case

1. Drink driving
2. Not in poccession of a FULL driving licence
3. Not having an accompanying drive with FULL licience

She will have the book thrown at her. This needs the full weight of the Law against her getting back into a car and driving for a long time.
All 3 charges claim no responsability for others safety never mind her own.

We don't need drivers like this to be given a 2nd chance any time soon.

journ

She could have killed someone she was the one who got into the car knowing it was wrong , god knows what she will be like with a full licence
I hope she is never behind a wheel again.