Upsetting! and should be on our tv's every night!

[nev]

If this makes one person think
... 'Second thoughts, I'll get a taxi.'

its worth putting a downer on everyone for a short while.
Merry Christmas :ho2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... b69J_bMoYk

 

[Chippyjoe]

Agree 100% with that. Some really graphic details there.
But as long as there is drink,cars and twats who drive them while under the influence its going to happen.

Hopefully someone will be more sensible after watching that.

 

[thomvic]

A shortened version of this should be played on a continuous loop wherever alcohol is sold. Health warnings have to be displayed on tobacco packaging so why not at alcohol points of sale? I'm no angel - I admit I've driven when well over the limit many times and fortunately got away with it. Never again though - older is wiser.
It's pretty easy to say no to the the first drink, much harder to say no to the second, very difficult to say no to the third and damned near impossible to say no to the rest. Moral - take the easy option every time.

Richard

 

[henton49er]

Having spent all 40+ years of my working life in the transportation industry, including a period of accident analysis, road safety design etc, there are two things I do not do, as I am only too aware of the potential consequences. I do not generally drive above the speed limits and I never drink and drive. There are too many idiots on the road to lose even a small fraction of ones response times by drinking.

:ho2 and safe Christmas driving to all forum members!!

 

[DIY Stew]

A work colleague (notice I didn't say friend) was stopped by police and had forgotten he had drank 2 bottles of wine, obviously he was over the drink drive limit, when he went to court he admitted to the judge he had a drink problem and attended a drink drive course.
Apparently if you admit to having a drink problem your ban is reduced by 3 months, so instead of a 12 month ban he got a 9 month ban (this was several years ago so the law may have changed now)
He hates it when I see him drinking as I remind him he is an alcoholic because he admitted to having a drink problem, his reply is always the same ie everyone does that to get a reduced ban, to which I always reply, "that's is exactly the type of excuse you alcoholics use"
I have in the past 'shopped' drink drivers to the police and will continue to do so.
I am a retired fireman and have had to pick up the pieces after a RTC far too many times, I mean literally 'pick up the pieces', not a nice thing to do.
Drink and drive and lose your licence for life, kill someone while under the influence and you should be prosecuted with murder.
Nuff said.

Stew

 

[Lons]

I never drink and drive - not even a half shandy and because I drive everywhere that means no drink. For those who miss the taste, there are now some pretty decent alcohol free beers and wines available. For those who must drink then there is no excuse for not using lifts or taxis.

My wife and my daughter have both worked on A&E and my daughter is currently an HDU nurse in a major city hospital so they've had to deal with the fallout and had to comfort the relatives when the patient dies.

That video should be compulsory viewing in high schools, pubs and next to the huge cheap alcohol displays in supermarkets. uncomfortable viewing and a few upset people are worth the cost if it saves a few lives.

I enjoy an occasional beer or a whiskey but ther'e a time and place.

Bob

 

[mailee]

That video should definitely be shown on TV all through the festive period. I never drink and drive and never will. A motor vehicle is a lethal weapon in the wrong hands.

 

[riclepp]

I agree with Stew. I was an NHS Paramedic for 11 years in London and Essex. I did the first RTA fatality on the A120 on the very first day of the new melinum (or however you spell it). The driver was dead on scene with his brain on the tarmac with multiple fractures in various locations, detached trachea and heart (there was a combined impact speed of 110 mph). This was all due to alcohol. I believe there should be a 0 tolerance in regards to drink driving and it should be a very heavy fine and permenant ban for life from driving. I have seen too many die because of stupid, arrogant, self centered drink drivers and the best part it is never their fault. And it upsets me to think about the mess and detroyed lifes it leaves behind.

I agree the advert should be shown on TV and more so at Christmas and New Year.

My two penny worth.

 

[Kalimna]

Not meaning this to be confrontational, but what *exactly* do people mean by not 'drinking and driving'? It sounds a sensible enough thing to say, but when you examine the statement, then the *only* logical conclusion is that only teetotallers should drive. Period. And a simillar argument can be made against the 'alcohol limit should be zero' approach - a small amount of alcohol (say what is left in your blood the morning after a bottle of wine, or 4-5 pints) will be less of a distraction than having the radio on (imagine taking your eyes off the road to adjust the volume), or lighting a cigarette. And this is to say nothing of the differing effects different levels of alcohol have on different people. A single glass of wine may make some folk appear tipsy, whereas for someone used to alcohol, the same effect may not be noticeable till way after a full bottle.
I would like to make it clear that I am in no way condoning driving whilst over the limit/influenced by alcohol, but I think this is a particularly emotive topic that has certain buzz phrases bandied around without actually thinking about what they mean.
The roads would certainly be safer if there was a total ban on alcohol, but then again they would be absolutely safe if there were no cars either....

Cheers,
Adam

p.s. and I have seen at first hand the effects on the road alcohol can cause.

 

[riclepp]

Cars don't do anything unless there is a person behind the wheel and operating it. Therefore a driver should take the responsibility that if they are going to dring then they should not drink any alcohol before/during driving. Zero means 0.00 mmol of alcohol per decalitre of blood in otherwords no alcohol in the blood. It is a little shaky when some mouthwash and foods contain alcohol, so again it is down to the driver to be aware and take the necessary action. If they consume alcohol then drive, then the full weight of the legal system should be brought to bear upon them and no boo hoo stories.

cheers

 

[nev]

... A single glass of wine may make some folk appear tipsy, whereas for someone used to alcohol, the same effect may not be noticeable till way after a full bottle.
...
Cheers,
Adam

p.s. and I have seen at first hand the effects on the road alcohol can cause.

I agree. 100 %
Thats exactly why it should be zero alcohol if you're getting behind the wheel.
We know alcohol impairs us (thats why we drink it! ccasion5: ) and our ability to drive safely, how much is as you say down to the individual. but if there is a 1% or 100% impairment in cognitive behaviour you should not be hurling a ton of metal around.
There is no valid common sense argument against it.
If someone wants to get drunk, then maim or kill themselves, thats their choice, go for it! Its the innocent bystanders, relatives and cleanup services they should think of, not themselves!
Anyone that drinks and drives is a selfish :tool: that the world can do without,

 

[Kalimna]

Nev, I think what I am trying to say is (and, again, please dont take this as an argument for driving whilst under the influence) that there are several things that may impair a drivers' judgment (car stereo, tiredness, stress level, smoking, having a conversation, noisy children in the back) and having some alcohol in your blood is actually OK in that context. I dont mean over the legal limit, but I do mean that having a zero alcohol limit is not sensible. And the only way to ensure a zero alcohol level is to never, ever, drink alcohol if you are going to drive.
If you have one glass of wine (or a beer etc), how long afterwards would you say that you are safe to drive? Assuming 2 units per 'drink' and an average unit clearance of 1 hour, do you mean after 2 hours? Or do you mean after 12 hours? Or perhaps even 24 hours? Due to the way various substances are eliminated from the body, it is likely that 24 hours after a single 'drink' that there is still some alcohol detectable - would this mean you are an unsafe driver? Absolutely not.
I really dont want to get drawn into a prolonged discussion in this emotive topic, but the very reason it is emotive can sometimes reduce the amount of common sense applied. Using your argument then anybody with noisy children, a switched on car stereo, is tired (a significant cause of accidents and essentially impossible to quantify how 'tired' someone is, indeed how tired you are yourself), has had a bad day at work etc, well they shouldnt be driving either as they will have >1% cognitive impairment.
Nobody in their right mind would advocate driving above the legal limit, but to have an absolutely zero limit would, I think, not be sensible. At least until it becomes mandatory to self-check blood alcohol levels whenever drinking occurs.

Thanks,
Adam

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I think tinkering at the bottom end of the scale achieves very little - it's not the people that have a couple of pints or a large glass of wine that really cause the problem. The people that down a bottle of whisky in the lunchtime, or mummy that necks a couple of bottles of chardonnay before picking the kids up from school - they aren't bothered whether a mouthwash might put them over the limit in the morning.

 

[henton49er]

The issue of "drink driving" is quite complex in that, as others have said, zero alcohol on the blood is what should be the acceptable limit. However, unless alcohol is banned altogether (unlikely, thank goodness) questions will always remain along the lines of "how many can I have before I would fail a test?", "how long after I stop drinking am I safe to drive?" etc etc. :duno: :duno:

The alcohol in the blood limit is set at a purely arbitrary level, such that those who have had a few drinks one evening can probably drive the next morning, based upon average weights of people, average metabolic rates of conversion of alcohol in the body and research on the effects of alcohol on driver reaction times. It can only ever be an arbitrary limit as we are all different.

In terms of there being other distractions from driving, alcohol (and other drugs) are in the system and the driver (unless he is well over the limit) may not realise that his/her driving might be impaired. Other distractions (such as conversations, tuning the radio, kids in the back etc) are external to the driver and therefore the driver is more aware of them than he/she is of drug related impairment. (Don't get me started on those morons who use their mobile phones while driving, either [-X [-X ).

If you go out for an evenings fun and want to drive home, don't drink (and vice versa). If you want to "have a skin full", don't plan on driving the next morning either. Simples!!

:ho2 :ho2

 

[nev]

Adam,
I see where you're coming from, and fundamentally agree with what you say. I just think that removing 1 (optional) possible impairment is better than taking a chance, however small. I can see the possible issues of residual alcohol content registering if one were drinking the previous day and driving the next etc. but its those that use the 'I only had two pints, and the law says thats ok...!' argument that I'd like to prevent getting behind the wheel and driving straight to the scene of the accident!
I guess this is one of those arguments that will go on and on until, as you say, mandatory self checking comes into force, which will probably never happen. #-o

 

[Waka]

Like a lot of motoring offences the punishment does not fit the crime.

Irrespective of whether the alcohol level is zero or set as it is, anyone caught driving over the legal limit should have their transport confiscated and crushed, they should also be banned for life. We should not have to put up with these mindless morons.

Rant over.

 

[Kalimna]

Nev - agree, I think we are both of the same mind here. Am I correct in thinking that it is illegal in ?France to not have a breathalyser in your car? I think that people who do drink and own a driving licence should have an electronic breathalyser at home, if for no other reason than to show them just how long alcohol can remain in the system after 2 pints etc.
I also think that the law should be changed slightly to stop people avoiding a driving ban/penalties if they have a clever lawyer who spots a minor technical fault in the polices' checking of a driver. I know of someone (secondhand info) who managed such a thing after being caught at something like 120mph. Owns a childrens nursery too - makes you think really.

Cheers,
Adam

 

[doctor Bob]

Like a lot of motoring offences the punishment does not fit the crime.

Irrespective of whether the alcohol level is zero or set as it is, anyone caught driving over the legal limit should have their transport confiscated and crushed, they should also be banned for life. We should not have to put up with these mindless morons.

Rant over.

Surely people should be allowed to reform, people do stupid things when young yet some become fabulous citizens in later life.
I'm very involved with this and know first hand a leopard can change it's spots admittedly a lot can't but surely the reformed ones deserve a second chance. Make punishments harder by all means but not one strike and your out.

 

[riclepp]

Hmmmm, the yorkshire ripper, jeremy bamber springs to mind here. How many appeals and it wasnt him who killed thirteen women or bamber that blasted his family with a shot gun!!

People know the rules, therefore if they break them, bring down the full weight of the law on them.

 

[RogerBoyle]

Like a lot of motoring offences the punishment does not fit the crime.

Irrespective of whether the alcohol level is zero or set as it is, anyone caught driving over the legal limit should have their transport confiscated and crushed, they should also be banned for life. We should not have to put up with these mindless morons.

Rant over.

Surely people should be allowed to reform, people do stupid things when young yet some become fabulous citizens in later life.
I'm very involved with this and know first hand a leopard can change it's spots admittedly a lot can't but surely the reformed ones deserve a second chance. Make punishments harder by all means but not one strike and your out.

How do you differentiate between the ones that have reformed and the ones that haven’t to award them the second chance ???