UK: Drink driving - thousands caught over the limit twice

[nontabury]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Are you saying your son and his colleagues ignore the 8 hour 'bottle to throttle' recommendation of the ICAO and national bodies such as the CAA; let alone the 12 hour rule most airlines have, and in so doing risk not only their careers but the lives of their passengers?

 

Please tell me which airline they work for so I can make sure I never fly with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Shame on you 7x7 for being unaware that the Grouse kid is the senior pilot at Yorkshire Airlines.

 

[7by7]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

So if you drink a bottle of Grouse you believe you would be fit exactly 8 or 12 hours later? Don't be ridiculous. We're talking about exercising responsibility. Sorry you don't understand the point.

 

Now you are being silly.

 

I posted earlier about the time it takes after one has stopped drinking before one's blood alcohol level has reduced enough to be safe to drive and how one of the factors involved is the number of units of alcohol consumed, i.e. the number of drinks and the strength of the drink. Obviously, due to the lower limits, this time will be longer before it is safe to fly.

 

There is a maximum legal blood alcohol level for commercial pilots. In the UK it is 20 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, compared to the drink-drive limit of 80mg (50 in Scotland) per 100ml. Most airlines are much stricter than this; having a zero tolerance policy; i.e. no alcohol in the blood at all.

 

There are laws in the UK against driving whilst under the influence of drugs; including driving under the influence of legal over the counter or prescription medicines which can affect one's ability; Drugs and driving: the law

 

Driving whilst sick, even a cold, can affect your ability and whilst there are no specific laws in the UK, except for certain conditions e.g. epilepsy, if your driving ability is affected doing so could cause you to be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.

 

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

I do not need civil or religious laws to behave responsibly thank you.

 

You keep banging on about responsibility. Your attitude is totally irresponsible and many who share it have killed and seriously maimed innocent people. It is only luck which has stopped you from doing the same.

 

Hopefully that luck will never run out; but the odds are it will!

[Grouse]

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Now you are being silly.

 

I posted earlier about the time it takes after one has stopped drinking before one's blood alcohol level has reduced enough to be safe to drive and how one of the factors involved is the number of units of alcohol consumed, i.e. the number of drinks and the strength of the drink. Obviously, due to the lower limits, this time will be longer before it is safe to fly.

 

There is a maximum legal blood alcohol level for commercial pilots. In the UK it is 20 mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, compared to the drink-drive limit of 80mg (50 in Scotland) per 100ml. Most airlines are much stricter than this; having a zero tolerance policy; i.e. no alcohol in the blood at all.

 

There are laws in the UK against driving whilst under the influence of drugs; including driving under the influence of legal over the counter or prescription medicines which can affect one's ability; Drugs and driving: the law

 

Driving whilst sick, even a cold, can affect your ability and whilst there are no specific laws in the UK, except for certain conditions e.g. epilepsy, if your driving ability is affected doing so could cause you to be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention.

 

 

You keep banging on about responsibility. Your attitude is totally irresponsible and many who share it have killed and seriously maimed innocent people. It is only luck which has stopped you from doing the same.

 

Hopefully that luck will never run out; but the odds are it will!

 

You misunderstand the point.

 

My thinking is that if you put arbitrary regs in place you tend to diminish personal responsibility.

 

Much better to rely upon personal responsibility. As you know, there is no easy test or rule of thumb regarding drug abuse or sickness. In practice, airlines have several levels of redundancy (standby shifts) and there is a no blame culture if someone feels unable to fly for what ever reason. Certainly, if someone does something wrong then the punishment should indeed be severe.

 

Now do please stop preaching. I promise not to expose anyone to risk (unlike so many of the f***wits you see speeding throughout Thailand in vehicles that would never pass a test) ?

[7by7]

 

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Now do please stop preaching. I promise not to expose anyone to risk

 

The only way you can keep that promise is to start acting responsibly and stop drink driving!

 

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

(unlike so many of the f***wits you see speeding throughout Thailand in vehicles that would never pass a test) ?

 Aren't they taking personal responsibility?

 

Driving tests are, using your argument, taking that personal responsibility away from the driver!

 

Using your argument, the driver alone should be responsible for judging whether or not they are capable of driving, not some arbitrary law which requires them to prove they are to some government appointed official!

 

The same for vehicle safety tests such as the MOT in the UK. Why can't the driver take the responsibility of deciding whether or not his vehicle is safe to drive, why must he be told so by a government approved mechanic?

 

You and I agree on some issues, but I can see that we will never agree on this one.

 

I can only hope that you do not find out the hard way how wrong you are.

[Grouse]

37 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

The only way you can keep that promise is to start acting responsibly and stop drink driving!

 

 Aren't they taking personal responsibility?

 

Driving tests are, using your argument, taking that personal responsibility away from the driver!

 

Using your argument, the driver alone should be responsible for judging whether or not they are capable of driving, not some arbitrary law which requires them to prove they are to some government appointed official!

 

The same for vehicle safety tests such as the MOT in the UK. Why can't the driver take the responsibility of deciding whether or not his vehicle is safe to drive, why must he be told so by a government approved mechanic?

 

You and I agree on some issues, but I can see that we will never agree on this one.

 

I can only hope that you do not find out the hard way how wrong you are.

 

One has to provide the tools of rational thought, knowledge

 

The man in the street probably can't tell if a ball joint is failing

 

You have to be taught to drive

 

Reckless driving shows a lack of personal responsibility 

 

I decide whether I am incapable and take a taxi. AND here's another thing, responsible society would make alternative transport options a possibility. Before the '70s anyone who had a couple of pints in a country pub was a criminal?

 

All down to personal responsibility ?

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

One has to provide the tools of rational thought, knowledge

 

The man in the street probably can't tell if a ball joint is failing

 

You have to be taught to drive

 

Reckless driving shows a lack of personal responsibility 

 

Driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs is reckless and irresponsible. Unless incapable of standing or walking, the average person cannot tell that their driving abilities have been dangerously impaired.

 

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

I decide whether I am incapable and take a taxi. AND here's another thing, responsible society would make alternative transport options a possibility. Before the '70s anyone who had a couple of pints in a country pub was a criminal?

 

All down to personal responsibility ?

 

The first drink driving law was introduced in 1872. From Drink Driving .org

Quote

1872 Licensing Act

In 1872 it became an offence to be drunk while in charge of carriages, horses, cattle and steam engines!! The penalty for which was a fine not exceeding 40 shillings OR at the discretion of the court, imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one month.......

1925 Criminal Justice Act

In 1925 it became an offence to be found drunk in charge of ANY mechanically propelled vehicle on any highway or other public place. The penalty for which was a fine not exceeding 50 pounds and/or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 4 months as well as a disqualification from holding a driving licence for a minimum period of 12 months.

1930 Road Traffic Act

In 1930 it became an offence to drive, attempt to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or any other public place while being "under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle". No legal drink driving limit was set until 1967.

 

The Road Safety Act of 1967 introduced the first maximum legal blood alcohol (drink driving) limit in the UK. The limit was set at a maximum BAC (blood alcohol concentration) of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood or the equivalent 107 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine. It became an offence to drive, attempt to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration that exceeded the maximum prescribed legal limit.

 

So yes, ever since 1925 your drunk motorist driving away from a country pub would be committing a criminal offence.

 

The 1967 law, with it's set limits based upon extensive research, was introduced simply because drivers like you thought that they were safe to drive when they were not. The dramatic fall in accidents, injuries and deaths caused by drink driving since then, despite the tenfold increase in the amount of road traffic,  proves that such legislation and limits have worked and saved lives.

 

I have a confession to make.

 

When I was younger I believed as you do. Didn't drink a lot; I'd limit myself to three pints; usually. But there was always the temptation that one more wouldn't hurt. The more I had, the harder that temptation was to ignore.

 

Fortunately I never killed or injured anyone; but I did once go into a bend too fast and run off the road into a tree. I only suffered minor injuries, some bruising, and escaped punishment as I was close to home and there were no witnesses. So  I walked home and reported it from there, telling the police I'd had a brandy to calm my nerves once I had got home.

 

A friend of mine believed the same, three pints and I'll be ok; but he was not so fortunate. He did kill a child. Put yourself in his shoes, and then talk about personal responsibility!

 

 

[Grouse]

No question that drunk driving is immoral and totally unacceptable.

[Eneukman]

On 1/1/2017 at 2:11 PM, Grouse said:

I'm one of the last of the beer monsters!

 

I do NOT accept that a particular concentration of ethanol in the blood EQUATES to incapacity.

 

Clearly, if one feels incapable then one has a moral responsibility not to drive. The RULES we put in place take away all personal responsibility.

 

I have always consumed whatever I feel personally responsible with. I have never had an accident nor have I ever been stopped. I am 62 and can remember when Barbara Castle introduced the breathalyser in the early '70s

 

For me, drunkenness in public is now much more of a problem generally, particularly with younger Brits. I'm not driving, THEREFORE I have a divine right to be a public nuisance And an embarrassment 

 

A friend, a former driving instructor used to cancel a lesson if he felt his pupil's ability to drive was impaired due to alcohol. He himself lost his licence after being stopped late one morning and found to be over the limit. You claim that you do not drive when you feel incapable but all the evidence shows that you are unsafe to drive long before you feel that way yourself. I sincerely hopw that if you ever have an accident whilst over the limit that the only person hurt is yourself.

 

Alan

[Alan Deer]

alcohol doesn't just impair you physically - e.g. reaction times - it impairs youmentally so you become incapable of deciding whether or not you can drive.

[7by7]

23 hours ago, Grouse said:

No question that drunk driving is immoral and totally unacceptable.

 

Agree totally.

 

So why do you do it?

 

You may say that you do not drive when drunk; but ALL the medical evidence shows that even a small amount of alcohol in the blood effects one's ability to drive safely, and one's ability to judge whether or not that ability has been effected.

 

Be responsible; do not drink and drive.

[7by7]

9 hours ago, Eneukman said:

 

A friend, a former driving instructor used to cancel a lesson if he felt his pupil's ability to drive was impaired due to alcohol.

 

When I was an ADI I twice cancelled lessons because I could smell alcohol on the pupils breath.

 

Once was an evening lesson when the pupil had been drinking at lunchtime, the other a morning lesson when the pupil had been drinking the night before.

 

What they, like most people, didn't realise is that had I allowed a learner to drive whilst unfit, then as the supervising driver I would also have been prosecuted had we been stopped for any reason. (BTW, if the learner is ok but the supervising driver isn't, then the supervising driver is guilty of being in charge of a vehicle whilst unfit through drink or drugs.)

 

In both cases the pupil disputed the lesson cancellation, and that I would still charge them for the lesson, claiming that they were ok to drive; so I made them an offer.

 

I said I would call the police, explain the situation and ask that they be breathalysed. If they passed, then all future lessons until they passed their test would be free.

 

But as attempting to drive whilst under the influence of drink or drugs was an offence, if they failed then they would be charged, be subject to a fine and be disqualified for up to a year.

 

Neither pupil took me up on this offer.

Edited January 3, 2017 by 7by7

[Grouse]

24 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Agree totally.

 

So why do you do it?

 

You may say that you do not drive when drunk; but ALL the medical evidence shows that even a small amount of alcohol in the blood effects one's ability to drive safely, and one's ability to judge whether or not that ability has been effected.

 

Be responsible; do not drink and drive.

 

I do not drive drunk. Never have.

 

Many things affect driving. Music, conversation, handsfree telephone, lack of sleep, stress, smoking, narcotics, illness.

 

just be responsible ?

[7by7]

You just don't get it; driving with any alcohol in your blood is not being responsible.

 

You may not consider yourself to be drunk; but your driving ability is still seriously impaired.

 

Yes, other factors do also affect one's ability to drive safely; but we are discussing drink driving here. Using those other factors as an excuse or justification for drink driving is a desperate ploy.

 

But I can see that no argument, no amount of fact is going to convince you to change your ways and stop drink driving.

 

As I've said before; I used to believe as you do, and discovered how wrong that belief is the hard way. I can only hope that you change your mind before the same happens to you. You've been lucky so far; one day that luck will run out.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

You just don't get it; driving with any alcohol in your blood is not being responsible.

 

You may not consider yourself to be drunk; but your driving ability is still seriously impaired.

 

Yes, other factors do also affect one's ability to drive safely; but we are discussing drink driving here. Using those other factors as an excuse or justification for drink driving is a desperate ploy.

 

But I can see that no argument, no amount of fact is going to convince you to change your ways and stop drink driving.

 

As I've said before; I used to believe as you do, and discovered how wrong that belief is the hard way. I can only hope that you change your mind before the same happens to you. You've been lucky so far; one day that luck will run out.

 

You see, now you're going to extremes.

 

You now say NO alcohol is the only acceptable level.

 

I'm sorry to hear your stories and understand the grief.

 

I will continue to behave responsibly.

 

Tell you what, I'll get hold of a high quality breathalyser.

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a cold beer....

[7by7]

29 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

You see, now you're going to extremes.

 

You now say NO alcohol is the only acceptable level.

 Not just now, I've been saying it for years.

 

From my second post in this topic.

On ‎31‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 0:14 PM, 7by7 said:

I drive for a living and believe that the only safe limit is zero so do not drink at all if I am going to be driving

 

[Scott]

It's called trolling and it's not worth responding to.   Let the police and courts point it out.   It's fairly obvious that some members are above the law.   They fit well into the Thai mindset.  

[Alan Deer]

Has anyone compared the death figures of UK over the holiday period with those of Thailand?

[billd766]

On 31/12/2016 at 10:06 AM, Eneukman said:

How can someone be stopped for driving whilst over the limit 6 times in a five year period? They should have been banned for life long before they even got that far. 

 

The answer is simple:

 

Second offence within, say, a 10 year period automatic minimum ban of 5 years. Third offence within a 30 year period, banned for life. Driving over the limit whilst banned - automatic life ban from driving with an automatic prison sentence if caught driving again at any time in the future regardless of whether or not they were over the limit.

 

Also, there should be an automatic prison sentence if anyone is injured if the person at fault was over the limit.

 

Alan

 

 

 

 

Just because they are banned it does not stop them driving. You can't fix stupid.

On 01/01/2017 at 7:57 PM, 7by7 said:

 

Totally disagree.

 

You may not feel drunk and feel perfectly competent, but even a small amount of alcohol effects your awareness, concentration, coordination, judgement and your reaction time. It makes you feel more confident about your abilities.

 

You may think that you are capable of driving safely after drinking; but you are not. The fact that you have never had an accident after drinking is down to one thing and one thing only; luck.

 

If, for example, a child were to run out into the road in front of you after you had been drinking then the effects of even a small amount of alcohol on the factors listed above could make all the difference between stopping in time or killing the child.

 

The law was put in place to save lives; and together with a concerted education campaign it has been successful in so doing.

 

In 1979 there were 6352 deaths on the UK's roads; 1640 , 25%, caused by drink driving. By 2012 this had dropped to 1754 in total, with 230, 13%, caused by drink driving; despite a tenfold increase in the amount of traffic on the roads. (source Dept of Transport page 8)

 

One only has to look at Thailand to see the difference tough drink driving laws, and the enforcement of those laws, can make.: Casualties up on last year after 2 days

 

I am certain that the drunk drivers in those figures believed, as you do, that they were capable of driving because they didn't feel drunk.

 

The only safe limit is zero.

 

Answer me this, would you be happy in an airplane knowing the pilot and co pilot had had a few beers before getting into the cockpit?

 

I wouldn't!

 

 

@7by7 You do realise that you are responding the TVF resident expert and guru of everything British, and that everything will be twisted and blamed  on Brexit?

 

I put him on my ignore list months ago and the only time I see a post of his is when somebody replies to him.

[Grouse]

Billd766 it would do you good to listen to opposing opinions; you might just learn something. (I won't hold my breath)

 

7by7 was making rational, well consider comments.

 

This issue is nothing to do with Brexit. 

 

I suggest you keep your rudeness to yourself. I enjoy rational debate on TVF, something that you seem incapable off.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Grouse

[Eneukman]

19 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Just because they are banned it does not stop them driving. You can't fix stupid.

 

 

 

So my question should really have been, why hasn't this individual been banned from driving for life and spent some time in prison with the promise of more time in prison if caught driving again - regardless of how much he / she has had to drink?

 

Alan

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Eneukman said:

 

So my question should really have been, why hasn't this individual been banned from driving for life and spent some time in prison with the promise of more time in prison if caught driving again - regardless of how much he / she has had to drink?

 

Alan

 

It really doesn't matter HOW long you ban them from driving because unless they are locked up they will find a way to drive, licence or no licence, insurance of no insurance.

 

AFAIK all the DLT offices are computerised but I am not sure if they are linked to a central database. I know that all the  amphurs who issue ID cards are computerised but again I am not sure if they are linked to a central database.

 

Thais can fairly easily get a new ID card and change their name so there is little to stop a banned driver getting a new ID card and a new licence in a new name.