This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
On Jeremy Vines show today they had a bit about reporting drink/drunk drivers to the police.
A few people had reported members of their own family which has resulted in jail time, big fines and divorce.
A couple of years, I started a thread on here after I reported a friend who was paralytic and thought nothing of getting in her car and driving. She had done this a couple of times and had it in her head it was ok as she was fine driving drunk. I told her that of course I didnt agree with this and would no qualms reporting her which I eventually did and then got loads of abuse. Obviously, we are not friends any more which doesn't bother me.
After I posted this, good old UKC reaction, some people disagreed with me and seemed to think I should just keep my nose out and let her get on with whatever she wanted to do and forget about any moral obligation.
So then, after today's show, who would happily pick the phone up and report someone. I have no qualms in doing this at all and before anyone asks, any of my or my wifes family members wouldn't be that stupid to do it so I would never be in that situation.
Let's see if someone disagrees and how they think they could justify not doing it bearing in mind the potential consequences and not adopting the "well nothing happened" attitude
A few people had reported members of their own family which has resulted in jail time, big fines and divorce.
A couple of years, I started a thread on here after I reported a friend who was paralytic and thought nothing of getting in her car and driving. She had done this a couple of times and had it in her head it was ok as she was fine driving drunk. I told her that of course I didnt agree with this and would no qualms reporting her which I eventually did and then got loads of abuse. Obviously, we are not friends any more which doesn't bother me.
After I posted this, good old UKC reaction, some people disagreed with me and seemed to think I should just keep my nose out and let her get on with whatever she wanted to do and forget about any moral obligation.
So then, after today's show, who would happily pick the phone up and report someone. I have no qualms in doing this at all and before anyone asks, any of my or my wifes family members wouldn't be that stupid to do it so I would never be in that situation.
Let's see if someone disagrees and how they think they could justify not doing it bearing in mind the potential consequences and not adopting the "well nothing happened" attitude
In reply to Denni:
I think that as long as you've tried to stop them from doing so, they've only themselves to blame if they go ahead with it and get reported. That said, I would not 'happily' do this, it would be a last resort.
I think that as long as you've tried to stop them from doing so, they've only themselves to blame if they go ahead with it and get reported. That said, I would not 'happily' do this, it would be a last resort.
In reply to Denni:
If it was a friend, I think I'd try and take the keys off them or disable the car so they couldn't drive it, rather than report them to the police and get them arrested / charged / lose their licence / prison sentence. I'd hate to hear that a friend had had an rti due to drunken driving and I'd done nothing to stop it, but I wouldn't want to get a friend in trouble with the law either.
If it was a friend, I think I'd try and take the keys off them or disable the car so they couldn't drive it, rather than report them to the police and get them arrested / charged / lose their licence / prison sentence. I'd hate to hear that a friend had had an rti due to drunken driving and I'd done nothing to stop it, but I wouldn't want to get a friend in trouble with the law either.
In reply to Denni:
Once or twice of taking their keys off them is fine. But if they are habitually drunk and do it them I'd have no compulsion about reporting them. I'd also hope that anyone with a brain cell would also do the same. The consequence of not doing it is that they may well end up taking a life.
Well that's my opinion.
Pretty sad one on the prog today. Guy reports someone in their family, and he gets his license taken away. Then he dies as a result of drinking too much alchahol before he gets his license back. By the way, when he reported him the police found him to be three and a half times over the limit.
Once or twice of taking their keys off them is fine. But if they are habitually drunk and do it them I'd have no compulsion about reporting them. I'd also hope that anyone with a brain cell would also do the same. The consequence of not doing it is that they may well end up taking a life.
Well that's my opinion.
Pretty sad one on the prog today. Guy reports someone in their family, and he gets his license taken away. Then he dies as a result of drinking too much alchahol before he gets his license back. By the way, when he reported him the police found him to be three and a half times over the limit.
In reply to Denni:
If it proved necessary, I'd phone the polis, but only after attempting to wrestle their keys off them. The "it's none of my business" argument is a bit silly in my opinion, I would see it as an over-application of libertarianism.
If it proved necessary, I'd phone the polis, but only after attempting to wrestle their keys off them. The "it's none of my business" argument is a bit silly in my opinion, I would see it as an over-application of libertarianism.
In reply to Denni:
Ah, the opportunity for moral superiority is so hard to resist
Come to the DR and you can take your pick of almost anyone driving at night (maybe day as well!)
Not sure the police will give a toss though...
Ah, the opportunity for moral superiority is so hard to resist
Come to the DR and you can take your pick of almost anyone driving at night (maybe day as well!)
Not sure the police will give a toss though...
In reply to teflonpete:
My sentiment too, it seems ever so treacherous to shop a friend without trying to stop them first
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> If it was a friend, I think I'd try and take the keys off them or disable the car so they couldn't drive it, rather than report them to the police and get them arrested / charged / lose their licence / prison sentence. I'd hate to hear that a friend had had an rti due to drunken driving and I'd done nothing to stop it, but I wouldn't want to get a friend in trouble with the law either.
>
> If it was a friend, I think I'd try and take the keys off them or disable the car so they couldn't drive it, rather than report them to the police and get them arrested / charged / lose their licence / prison sentence. I'd hate to hear that a friend had had an rti due to drunken driving and I'd done nothing to stop it, but I wouldn't want to get a friend in trouble with the law either.
My sentiment too, it seems ever so treacherous to shop a friend without trying to stop them first
In reply to kieran b:
Moral superiority? Not really although I suspect you mean it as a joke.
Not sure the police give a toss? Course they do.
> (In reply to Denni)
> Ah, the opportunity for moral superiority is so hard to resist
>
> Come to the DR and you can take your pick of almost anyone driving at night (maybe day as well!)
> Not sure the police will give a toss though...
> Ah, the opportunity for moral superiority is so hard to resist
>
> Come to the DR and you can take your pick of almost anyone driving at night (maybe day as well!)
> Not sure the police will give a toss though...
Moral superiority? Not really although I suspect you mean it as a joke.
Not sure the police give a toss? Course they do.
In reply to Denni:
and have probably had a few drinks themselves...
After living here for a few years and quite used to driving home after a couple, i have to watch it when back in the 'west'....wouldnt want one of my friends reporting me
and have probably had a few drinks themselves...
After living here for a few years and quite used to driving home after a couple, i have to watch it when back in the 'west'....wouldnt want one of my friends reporting me
In reply to Denni:
One night I was following a cat which was going very slowly and weaving all over the road narrowly missing hitting oncoming traffic, so my passenger rang the police there and then. They took the call very seriously and got us to give a running commentory, including the car's registration number. When it turned off our intended route we asked if they wanted us to continue following and reporting it's location, but they thanked us and said no need, as they now had the address, the driver was nearly home and they had dispatched a patrol car which would be sitting outside the driver's house to "greet and welcome" him home!
One night I was following a cat which was going very slowly and weaving all over the road narrowly missing hitting oncoming traffic, so my passenger rang the police there and then. They took the call very seriously and got us to give a running commentory, including the car's registration number. When it turned off our intended route we asked if they wanted us to continue following and reporting it's location, but they thanked us and said no need, as they now had the address, the driver was nearly home and they had dispatched a patrol car which would be sitting outside the driver's house to "greet and welcome" him home!
In reply to Trangia:
you should have run it over, saved everyone the bother...
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> One night I was following a cat which was going very slowly and weaving all over the road narrowly missing hitting oncoming traffic, so my passenger rang the police there and then.
>
> One night I was following a cat which was going very slowly and weaving all over the road narrowly missing hitting oncoming traffic, so my passenger rang the police there and then.
you should have run it over, saved everyone the bother...
In reply to Trangia: Bit of a waste of police resources... would the RSPCA not be more appropriate?
sorry...
sorry...
In reply to Steve John B:
Probably feline pretty regretful about it now.
<dull *whump* of a dead horse being flogged>
Probably feline pretty regretful about it now.
<dull *whump* of a dead horse being flogged>
In reply :
I make a simple typo, which lets face it, anyone could make and the thread deteriorates into nothing but catty remarks aimed at me.......
I make a simple typo, which lets face it, anyone could make and the thread deteriorates into nothing but catty remarks aimed at me.......
In reply to Trangia:
stop being a pussy and take it like a man (if you were a mouse, i'm sure the cat would have been following you)
stop being a pussy and take it like a man (if you were a mouse, i'm sure the cat would have been following you)
In reply to Trangia:
Nonsense! I reckon that you did it on purrpuss.
>
> I make a simple typo, which lets face it, anyone could make ...
> I make a simple typo, which lets face it, anyone could make ...
Nonsense! I reckon that you did it on purrpuss.
In reply to Denni: This really hits a nerve with me, my dad went to the pub every lunch time and had at least 3 double whiskys and then drove half a mile back to the workshop, at 3pm he was back in the pub for a few more before driving a mile home.
We had many many words about it but he was adamant that he was fine to drive and to be fair had been driving like this for 40 years with a perfect driving record.
I picked up the phone to report him a few times but failed to do it, the eruption that would follow something like that would have put us out of buisiness costing both of us and our employees our livelihoods.
The other side of the coin is that I could not live with my self had he injured or killed someone.
In the end I did not have to do anything as he passed away a few years ago, apparently drinking that much is very bad for your health.
We had many many words about it but he was adamant that he was fine to drive and to be fair had been driving like this for 40 years with a perfect driving record.
I picked up the phone to report him a few times but failed to do it, the eruption that would follow something like that would have put us out of buisiness costing both of us and our employees our livelihoods.
The other side of the coin is that I could not live with my self had he injured or killed someone.
In the end I did not have to do anything as he passed away a few years ago, apparently drinking that much is very bad for your health.
In reply to Dax H:
That's sad mate - but look on the bright side. My cousin was killed on his motorbike by an "after work" drink driver.
E
That's sad mate - but look on the bright side. My cousin was killed on his motorbike by an "after work" drink driver.
E
In reply to Denni:
When Num Num drives home paralytic he makes it a strict rule never to exceed 5 miles an hour and he always follows the white line down the middle of the road. Folks just need to use a bit of common sense.
When Num Num drives home paralytic he makes it a strict rule never to exceed 5 miles an hour and he always follows the white line down the middle of the road. Folks just need to use a bit of common sense.
In reply to Enty:
That's bloody awful Enty. Party season and all that, I'll bet there will be loads of them.
In one of our small village locals, I know there are 2 couples who watch and report anyone doing it and then apply for the crimestopper rewards and then split it between a charity that helps alcoholics and a charity for victims of drink drive.
It is up to a £1000 reward each time and last year over Dec and Jan they made nearly £12000 casing our 3 local pubs. The people caught were not local, but people who use it as a commuter route which is very busy.
That's bloody awful Enty. Party season and all that, I'll bet there will be loads of them.
In one of our small village locals, I know there are 2 couples who watch and report anyone doing it and then apply for the crimestopper rewards and then split it between a charity that helps alcoholics and a charity for victims of drink drive.
It is up to a £1000 reward each time and last year over Dec and Jan they made nearly £12000 casing our 3 local pubs. The people caught were not local, but people who use it as a commuter route which is very busy.
In reply to teflonpete:
^^^^ This.
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> If it was a friend, I think I'd try and take the keys off them or disable the car so they couldn't drive it, rather than report them to the police and get them arrested / charged / lose their licence / prison sentence. I'd hate to hear that a friend had had an rti due to drunken driving and I'd done nothing to stop it, but I wouldn't want to get a friend in trouble with the law either.
>
> If it was a friend, I think I'd try and take the keys off them or disable the car so they couldn't drive it, rather than report them to the police and get them arrested / charged / lose their licence / prison sentence. I'd hate to hear that a friend had had an rti due to drunken driving and I'd done nothing to stop it, but I wouldn't want to get a friend in trouble with the law either.
^^^^ This.
In reply to Denni:
Something I feel quite strongly about, friend or not I'd have no problem reporting anybody. I've had to put far too many people in bodybags as a result of pissed knobheads thinking they were ok to drive.
Something I feel quite strongly about, friend or not I'd have no problem reporting anybody. I've had to put far too many people in bodybags as a result of pissed knobheads thinking they were ok to drive.
In reply to Mooncat:
I worked in our very rural local for a few years around 15 years ago. The customers were far more inclined to drink to excess and drive, then than now.
One particular "character" drank 8 - 10 pints on a regular basis and drove home ( around 3 miles ) for about 20 years.
Never had an accident and rarely even saw another car ( this was normally between 12 and 1 am.)
It so happened that the tenant couple who ran the pub left in acrimonious circumstances and within a week there was a police car waiting as he left the pub.
They had been more than happy to take his money and let him drive home for years but shopped him as soon as he lost his usefulness for them.
He got a fine, a one year ban and now drives to the pub in his van with a bike in the back. Has 8 - 10 pints and cycles home!
I worked in our very rural local for a few years around 15 years ago. The customers were far more inclined to drink to excess and drive, then than now.
One particular "character" drank 8 - 10 pints on a regular basis and drove home ( around 3 miles ) for about 20 years.
Never had an accident and rarely even saw another car ( this was normally between 12 and 1 am.)
It so happened that the tenant couple who ran the pub left in acrimonious circumstances and within a week there was a police car waiting as he left the pub.
They had been more than happy to take his money and let him drive home for years but shopped him as soon as he lost his usefulness for them.
He got a fine, a one year ban and now drives to the pub in his van with a bike in the back. Has 8 - 10 pints and cycles home!
In reply to Denni: I'm with you on this one! What would you do if a friend or any person for that matter got p155ed, took one of their guns out of their gun cabinet and went shooting? A car in the hands of a inebriated driver is no less of a weapon.
In reply to Denni:
Having already reported someone who was once my best friend to social services so that she lost custody of her children (including my godson, who I'd always sworn to protect, so actually not a hard decision), reporting someone for drink driving would be easy. I see the consequences at work, and if you don't want to get reported, don't drink drive. Easy.
Having already reported someone who was once my best friend to social services so that she lost custody of her children (including my godson, who I'd always sworn to protect, so actually not a hard decision), reporting someone for drink driving would be easy. I see the consequences at work, and if you don't want to get reported, don't drink drive. Easy.
In reply to Denni:
Just be careful everyone as this year there is a campaign to get folks in the morning so if you had a skinful the night before make sure you leave the car or sleep it off.
You have all been warned.
Just be careful everyone as this year there is a campaign to get folks in the morning so if you had a skinful the night before make sure you leave the car or sleep it off.
You have all been warned.
In reply to Denni:
Drink driving is like a murderer waiting to find a victim. You should have no hesitation reporting them, if they ignore your advise not to drive / take a taxi etc.
You will be saving the life of not just your friend but also their victims.
Drink driving is like a murderer waiting to find a victim. You should have no hesitation reporting them, if they ignore your advise not to drive / take a taxi etc.
You will be saving the life of not just your friend but also their victims.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Not just this year, all too easy to be over the limit in the morning after a few drinks the night before.
Don't get caught, fellas, and more importantly don't kill anyone, ruin your career, end up inside getting bummed.
Not just this year, all too easy to be over the limit in the morning after a few drinks the night before.
Don't get caught, fellas, and more importantly don't kill anyone, ruin your career, end up inside getting bummed.
In reply to cuppatea:It's not just fellas.
A family friend got caught while just over the limit and banned for six months or a year, she was wearing fancy dress at the time.
She was lucky not to have worse happen after a lifetime of taking a chance with how much she'd drunk, as far as I gather.
A family friend got caught while just over the limit and banned for six months or a year, she was wearing fancy dress at the time.
She was lucky not to have worse happen after a lifetime of taking a chance with how much she'd drunk, as far as I gather.
In reply to cuppatea:
I think Num Num is cracking open the vodka as we speak in the vain hope to get locked up and bummed..
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> Don't get caught, fellas, and more importantly don't kill anyone, ruin your career, end up inside getting bummed.
> Don't get caught, fellas, and more importantly don't kill anyone, ruin your career, end up inside getting bummed.
I think Num Num is cracking open the vodka as we speak in the vain hope to get locked up and bummed..
In reply to Denni: No, I'd not shop a friend. Not unless it was very obviously self destructive behaviour and they were not responding to anything else, and it was clear that they were becoming worse. Even then....... I'd have to be bloody convinved that my action was a helo to them.
The way I see it, I would be potentially putting their job at risk for a maybe. Maybe they get hurt, or hurt someone. But it would be on them if they did.
I don't think under definition of 'friend' it says lose that person their livelihood.
The way I see it, I would be potentially putting their job at risk for a maybe. Maybe they get hurt, or hurt someone. But it would be on them if they did.
I don't think under definition of 'friend' it says lose that person their livelihood.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Sorry, Is that a serious answer? It would be on them if they did?
So say they killed someone and you didn't do something about it but you could have done you would have no problem with that because it is on their head?
Bollocks to their livelihood, drink driving kills and ruins peoples lives every year.
> (In reply to Denni) No, I'd not shop a friend. Not unless it was very obviously self destructive behaviour and they were not responding to anything else, and it was clear that they were becoming worse. Even then....... I'd have to be bloody convinved that my action was a helo to them.
>
> The way I see it, I would be potentially putting their job at risk for a maybe. Maybe they get hurt, or hurt someone. But it would be on them if they did.
>
> I don't think under definition of 'friend' it says lose that person their livelihood.
>
> The way I see it, I would be potentially putting their job at risk for a maybe. Maybe they get hurt, or hurt someone. But it would be on them if they did.
>
> I don't think under definition of 'friend' it says lose that person their livelihood.
Sorry, Is that a serious answer? It would be on them if they did?
So say they killed someone and you didn't do something about it but you could have done you would have no problem with that because it is on their head?
Bollocks to their livelihood, drink driving kills and ruins peoples lives every year.
In reply to Denni:
After a drunk driver crashed into my house I'd have no problem. This numpty even had the nerve to claim off his insurance for HIS damages. Thankfully this all changed once I'd informed them he had been convicted. I believe he was last seen being chased through the courts by his insurance company who were looking to recover their loses what a shame!
> who would happily pick the phone up and report someone.
After a drunk driver crashed into my house I'd have no problem. This numpty even had the nerve to claim off his insurance for HIS damages. Thankfully this all changed once I'd informed them he had been convicted. I believe he was last seen being chased through the courts by his insurance company who were looking to recover their loses what a shame!
In reply to Denni:
Oh well. People have to die SOME way.
Unless it's me at the wheel, it isn't me who killed them.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
>
> Sorry, Is that a serious answer? It would be on them if they did?
> So say they killed someone and you didn't do something about it but you could have done you would have no problem with that because it is on their head?
>
> Bollocks to their livelihood, drink driving kills and ruins peoples lives every year.
> [...]
>
>
> Sorry, Is that a serious answer? It would be on them if they did?
> So say they killed someone and you didn't do something about it but you could have done you would have no problem with that because it is on their head?
>
> Bollocks to their livelihood, drink driving kills and ruins peoples lives every year.
Oh well. People have to die SOME way.
Unless it's me at the wheel, it isn't me who killed them.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
So you have no moral obligation to possibly save someones life and you would have a clear conscience?
So you have no moral obligation to possibly save someones life and you would have a clear conscience?
In reply to Denni:
I did not say I had no moral obligation.
I effectively said that my loyalty to a friend is more important to me (up to a certain point) than my moral obligation to a stranger.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> So you have no moral obligation to possibly save someones life and you would have a clear conscience?
>
> So you have no moral obligation to possibly save someones life and you would have a clear conscience?
I did not say I had no moral obligation.
I effectively said that my loyalty to a friend is more important to me (up to a certain point) than my moral obligation to a stranger.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
So your mate is absolutely steaming and you are being a loyal friend by letting them take their and possibly someone elses lives into their hands?
So they kill a child but it doesn't matter because they are a total stranger and you have to die some way?
> (In reply to Denni)
> [...]
>
> I did not say I had no moral obligation.
> I effectively said that my loyalty to a friend is more important to me (up to a certain point) than my moral obligation to a stranger.
> [...]
>
> I did not say I had no moral obligation.
> I effectively said that my loyalty to a friend is more important to me (up to a certain point) than my moral obligation to a stranger.
So your mate is absolutely steaming and you are being a loyal friend by letting them take their and possibly someone elses lives into their hands?
So they kill a child but it doesn't matter because they are a total stranger and you have to die some way?
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Very strange.. say that friend crashes and killed a friend or your kid..
You're just being deliberately controversial... taking an opposing side for the sake of it. Poor.
> (In reply to Denni)
> [...]
>
> I did not say I had no moral obligation.
> I effectively said that my loyalty to a friend is more important to me (up to a certain point) than my moral obligation to a stranger.
> [...]
>
> I did not say I had no moral obligation.
> I effectively said that my loyalty to a friend is more important to me (up to a certain point) than my moral obligation to a stranger.
Very strange.. say that friend crashes and killed a friend or your kid..
You're just being deliberately controversial... taking an opposing side for the sake of it. Poor.
In reply to Denni:
Well not quite. If it was a mate, I'm hardly going to want them to kill themselves, so I'd make them stay at mine. I do not know many people who would do that anyway. And no one so beligerant and stupid that they'd fight me to get their keys back.
Of course I'd feel bad about it. I'm human. but people do die. You make your choices in life and to me, loyalty is very important.
I did say in my post that I might shop them if it were repeat behaviour which was destructive, but other than that...... no, can't see I would.
We do all have to die.
I personally think we have set on a course of trying to make everything in life safe without consideration for what 'life' is.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
>
> So your mate is absolutely steaming and you are being a loyal friend by letting them take their and possibly someone elses lives into their hands?
>
> [...]
>
>
> So your mate is absolutely steaming and you are being a loyal friend by letting them take their and possibly someone elses lives into their hands?
>
Well not quite. If it was a mate, I'm hardly going to want them to kill themselves, so I'd make them stay at mine. I do not know many people who would do that anyway. And no one so beligerant and stupid that they'd fight me to get their keys back.
> So they kill a child but it doesn't matter because they are a total stranger and you have to die some way?
Of course I'd feel bad about it. I'm human. but people do die. You make your choices in life and to me, loyalty is very important.
I did say in my post that I might shop them if it were repeat behaviour which was destructive, but other than that...... no, can't see I would.
We do all have to die.
I personally think we have set on a course of trying to make everything in life safe without consideration for what 'life' is.
In reply to IainRUK:
No. I mean it. I would find it very hard to betray a friend.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Very strange.. say that friend crashes and killed a friend or your kid..
>
> You're just being deliberately controversial... taking an opposing side for the sake of it. Poor.
> [...]
>
> Very strange.. say that friend crashes and killed a friend or your kid..
>
> You're just being deliberately controversial... taking an opposing side for the sake of it. Poor.
No. I mean it. I would find it very hard to betray a friend.
In reply to Wonko The Sane: Of course you would, we all would, but if they are stumbling and struggling to put the key in the door...
In reply to IainRUK:
I'd take the keys off them.
But no, I couldn't bring myself to shop someone I cared for.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) Of course you would, we all would, but if they are stumbling and struggling to put the key in the door...
I'd take the keys off them.
But no, I couldn't bring myself to shop someone I cared for.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I don't understand your thinking on any of this and I hope you or anyone else come to think of it, is ever put in this situation.
I don't understand your thinking on any of this and I hope you or anyone else come to think of it, is ever put in this situation.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I understand where you are coming from.. I'd find it hard, but I'd rather that than look at a guy who lost his kid to that person..
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> I'd take the keys off them.
> But no, I couldn't bring myself to shop someone I cared for.
> [...]
>
> I'd take the keys off them.
> But no, I couldn't bring myself to shop someone I cared for.
I understand where you are coming from.. I'd find it hard, but I'd rather that than look at a guy who lost his kid to that person..
In reply to IainRUK:
I'm always suspicious of those 'think of the children' arguments.
In reality....... what's the chances that is actually going to happen?
Most people I know who are drunk, don't get that way at 4pm. More usually at closing time when there really are very few kids around.
when you start adding up the liklihood they are going to go out there and run a kid over, you're almost in winning the lottery from buying one ticket territory.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> I understand where you are coming from.. I'd find it hard, but I'd rather that than look at a guy who lost his kid to that person..
> [...]
>
> I understand where you are coming from.. I'd find it hard, but I'd rather that than look at a guy who lost his kid to that person..
I'm always suspicious of those 'think of the children' arguments.
In reality....... what's the chances that is actually going to happen?
Most people I know who are drunk, don't get that way at 4pm. More usually at closing time when there really are very few kids around.
when you start adding up the liklihood they are going to go out there and run a kid over, you're almost in winning the lottery from buying one ticket territory.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I do see your point.. TBH I drove shattered this weekend and used the same reasoning.. Who would be out.. but I know I shouldn't have, but my thoughts were drive slow and you'll be OK..
Its strange how we dismiss tired driving yet its just as bad.. selby?
Feinnes Crashed his car two years ago driving after a night run, hurt a guy badly, had that been a footballer, drunk, would it be so quickly forgotten?
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> I'm always suspicious of those 'think of the children' arguments.
>
> In reality....... what's the chances that is actually going to happen?
> Most people I know who are drunk, don't get that way at 4pm. More usually at closing time when there really are very few kids around.
>
> when you start adding up the liklihood they are going to go out there and run a kid over, you're almost in winning the lottery from buying one ticket territory.
> [...]
>
> I'm always suspicious of those 'think of the children' arguments.
>
> In reality....... what's the chances that is actually going to happen?
> Most people I know who are drunk, don't get that way at 4pm. More usually at closing time when there really are very few kids around.
>
> when you start adding up the liklihood they are going to go out there and run a kid over, you're almost in winning the lottery from buying one ticket territory.
I do see your point.. TBH I drove shattered this weekend and used the same reasoning.. Who would be out.. but I know I shouldn't have, but my thoughts were drive slow and you'll be OK..
Its strange how we dismiss tired driving yet its just as bad.. selby?
Feinnes Crashed his car two years ago driving after a night run, hurt a guy badly, had that been a footballer, drunk, would it be so quickly forgotten?
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I have a slight problem with the drink driving kills thing. It can, and its bl**dy stupid, but there are plenty of people in the world who drive so dangerously that they don't need to have a drink to kill people.
So why is dangerous driving without a drink not as demonised as dangerous driving with a drink? To a point - we've all seen the car adverts - dangerous driving - or at least driving at a speed wholly inappropriate to the conditions - without a drink is almost encouraged.
Just a comment on society's attitudes, I'm not sure I really have a point really, just musing.
I have a slight problem with the drink driving kills thing. It can, and its bl**dy stupid, but there are plenty of people in the world who drive so dangerously that they don't need to have a drink to kill people.
So why is dangerous driving without a drink not as demonised as dangerous driving with a drink? To a point - we've all seen the car adverts - dangerous driving - or at least driving at a speed wholly inappropriate to the conditions - without a drink is almost encouraged.
Just a comment on society's attitudes, I'm not sure I really have a point really, just musing.
In reply to IainRUK: Exactly. We ALL conveniently 'forget' the things we do. Some are worse than others of course...
But my original point was that calling the police on a friend who has made a silly mistake WILL impact their life badly, weighed against a tiny risk that their behaviour may have much larger implications for someone else.
So no, I'd not call the police.
Unless, as I said, it was repeat, destructive behaviour and it was obviously in their interest.
But my original point was that calling the police on a friend who has made a silly mistake WILL impact their life badly, weighed against a tiny risk that their behaviour may have much larger implications for someone else.
So no, I'd not call the police.
Unless, as I said, it was repeat, destructive behaviour and it was obviously in their interest.
In reply to IainRUK:
Interesting point on that made at the time was if the guy was tired because he had stayed up late with a sick child, as opposed to shagging his mistress (IIRC), would the whole thing have been quite so much of a media circus?
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
>
> Its strange how we dismiss tired driving yet its just as bad.. selby?
>
> [...]
>
>
> Its strange how we dismiss tired driving yet its just as bad.. selby?
>
Interesting point on that made at the time was if the guy was tired because he had stayed up late with a sick child, as opposed to shagging his mistress (IIRC), would the whole thing have been quite so much of a media circus?
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
The reason that it would be repeated, destructive behaviour is that no one had the balls to do something about it the first time. Doing something about it in the first place, is obviously in their interest.
> Unless, as I said, it was repeat, destructive behaviour and it was obviously in their interest.
The reason that it would be repeated, destructive behaviour is that no one had the balls to do something about it the first time. Doing something about it in the first place, is obviously in their interest.
In reply to Denni:
That's bollocks. Sometimes, someone just does something silly.
See my other posts.
(1) It's bloody unlikely
(2) The 'think of the children' argument is almost as bad as godwin's law
(3) As Jon says, what about a guy who is a really good driver, but drunk vs a really shite driver (of which there are plenty) who isn't?
In short, I don't agree with you.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> [...]
>
>
> The reason that it would be repeated, destructive behaviour is that no one had the balls to do something about it the first time. Doing something about it in the first place, is obviously in their interest.
>
> [...]
>
>
> The reason that it would be repeated, destructive behaviour is that no one had the balls to do something about it the first time. Doing something about it in the first place, is obviously in their interest.
That's bollocks. Sometimes, someone just does something silly.
See my other posts.
(1) It's bloody unlikely
(2) The 'think of the children' argument is almost as bad as godwin's law
(3) As Jon says, what about a guy who is a really good driver, but drunk vs a really shite driver (of which there are plenty) who isn't?
In short, I don't agree with you.
In reply to John_Hat:
Wasn't he online dating? There was some twist..
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> Interesting point on that made at the time was if the guy was tired because he had stayed up late with a sick child, as opposed to shagging his mistress (IIRC), would the whole thing have been quite so much of a media circus?
> [...]
>
> Interesting point on that made at the time was if the guy was tired because he had stayed up late with a sick child, as opposed to shagging his mistress (IIRC), would the whole thing have been quite so much of a media circus?
Wasn't he online dating? There was some twist..
In reply to Denni:
Why are you so pushy about this?
Not to mention so black and white about it.
they have to do it exactly 3.7 times. Ok?
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> So how many times does your mate have to do it before you intervene?
>
> So how many times does your mate have to do it before you intervene?
Why are you so pushy about this?
Not to mention so black and white about it.
they have to do it exactly 3.7 times. Ok?
In reply to John_Hat:
I very much agree with your post. i don't ever drink drive, largely because of the stigma associated with it, however i have in the past driven when extremely tired and occasionally when i'm in a rush i drive too fast. I'm convinced that i'd be a safer drive after 4 pints and reducing my speed by 10mph then i would be after 0 pints and increasing my speed 10 mph. Like you said many people see nothing wrong with speeding and have nothing but anger for speed cameras and police with radar guns.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> I have a slight problem with the drink driving kills thing. It can, and its bl**dy stupid, but there are plenty of people in the world who drive so dangerously that they don't need to have a drink to kill people.
>
> So why is dangerous driving without a drink not as demonised as dangerous driving with a drink? To a point - we've all seen the car adverts - dangerous driving - or at least driving at a speed wholly inappropriate to the conditions - without a drink is almost encouraged.
>
> I have a slight problem with the drink driving kills thing. It can, and its bl**dy stupid, but there are plenty of people in the world who drive so dangerously that they don't need to have a drink to kill people.
>
> So why is dangerous driving without a drink not as demonised as dangerous driving with a drink? To a point - we've all seen the car adverts - dangerous driving - or at least driving at a speed wholly inappropriate to the conditions - without a drink is almost encouraged.
I very much agree with your post. i don't ever drink drive, largely because of the stigma associated with it, however i have in the past driven when extremely tired and occasionally when i'm in a rush i drive too fast. I'm convinced that i'd be a safer drive after 4 pints and reducing my speed by 10mph then i would be after 0 pints and increasing my speed 10 mph. Like you said many people see nothing wrong with speeding and have nothing but anger for speed cameras and police with radar guns.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Not being pushy, I just don't understand how you could not immediately stop someone from doing something stupid that could have terrible consequences just because they haven't reached your caveat of being destructive to themselves.
Not being pushy, I just don't understand how you could not immediately stop someone from doing something stupid that could have terrible consequences just because they haven't reached your caveat of being destructive to themselves.
In reply to Denni:
Ok then, look at it another way. Say it wasn't your friend or someone you knew but you saw someone in the pub who could hardly stand from the alcohol and they were about to get into their car and drive off. Would you do something about it then or just turn a blind eye because it doesn't affect you?
Ok then, look at it another way. Say it wasn't your friend or someone you knew but you saw someone in the pub who could hardly stand from the alcohol and they were about to get into their car and drive off. Would you do something about it then or just turn a blind eye because it doesn't affect you?
In reply to Denni:
And I don't understand that you'd shop your friends straight off, no questions. The difference is, I'm not trying to pin you down about it because you're allowed to be the way you are.
As you say...... COULD have terrible consequences. And as I ssaid, the liklihood is actually pretty small.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> Not being pushy, I just don't understand how you could not immediately stop someone from doing something stupid that could have terrible consequences just because they haven't reached your caveat of being destructive to themselves.
>
> Not being pushy, I just don't understand how you could not immediately stop someone from doing something stupid that could have terrible consequences just because they haven't reached your caveat of being destructive to themselves.
And I don't understand that you'd shop your friends straight off, no questions. The difference is, I'm not trying to pin you down about it because you're allowed to be the way you are.
As you say...... COULD have terrible consequences. And as I ssaid, the liklihood is actually pretty small.
In reply to Denni:
I'm quite happy to stand in front of someone and tell them i'll report them if they get in the car. Only had to do it once, friend of a friend, they didn't think i was serious at first (14 years ago so was not quite as frowned upon as now), they soon realised how serious i was and walked home instead.
I'm quite happy to stand in front of someone and tell them i'll report them if they get in the car. Only had to do it once, friend of a friend, they didn't think i was serious at first (14 years ago so was not quite as frowned upon as now), they soon realised how serious i was and walked home instead.
In reply to Wonko The Sane: I don't think anyone has said they'd report them with no warning. Surely in most instances it would be phrased as 'if you get behind the wheel i will report you'
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Maybe I have laboured the point because I find it such a ridiculous standpoint but you are entitled to your opinion.
Maybe I have laboured the point because I find it such a ridiculous standpoint but you are entitled to your opinion.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
The argument is not about literally killing a child, although that would be terrible, but about destroying a family. There may be few 'children' roaming the streets when your friends are out and about driving their cars under the influence, but other road users involved in RTIs caused by drink drivers will have husbands and wives at home, and probably children.
Pete
The argument is not about literally killing a child, although that would be terrible, but about destroying a family. There may be few 'children' roaming the streets when your friends are out and about driving their cars under the influence, but other road users involved in RTIs caused by drink drivers will have husbands and wives at home, and probably children.
Pete
In reply to Pete Ford: Then perhaps, people ought not to use the 'what if it's a child' argument in order to escalate the emotional blackmail of the question.
I am fully aware it isn't about killing kids. It was me who pointed it out that it's statistically unlikely.
Please read the other things I wrote. I think my stance is pretty straightforward and doesn't require more explanation.
I am fully aware it isn't about killing kids. It was me who pointed it out that it's statistically unlikely.
Please read the other things I wrote. I think my stance is pretty straightforward and doesn't require more explanation.
In reply to
The Selby crash was due to the driver being tired after "sexting" all night iirc
The Selby crash was due to the driver being tired after "sexting" all night iirc
In reply to Wonko The Sane:Even if you remove the what about the children argument, it's still 'somebody', even if it's just your mate and not other people, who is at risk of being killed.
I do get where you're coming from with the loyalty thing, though I don't agree with how you'd act upon it, i'd take the keys from them and not call the police, i'd feel disloyal not to.
I do get where you're coming from with the loyalty thing, though I don't agree with how you'd act upon it, i'd take the keys from them and not call the police, i'd feel disloyal not to.
In reply to cuppatea:I've always thought the driver involved should never drive again, with how he caused a huge amount of damage in people's lives through being stupid enough to drive after being awake all night. It's very unfair on the boy (at the time) who lost his dad who was driving the train.
I'm not sure I see how Wonko could be happy to leave a mate to drive off a bit the worse for ware.
I'm not sure I see how Wonko could be happy to leave a mate to drive off a bit the worse for ware.
In reply to Denni:
I'm afraid I'm with WtS on this even though I fully expect a dressing down from the might of UKC. If I'm truly honest I would find it very hard to report a friend for drink driving. But then I have never been in the position where this has been necessary. Maybe if I saw them lurching to their car, my sense of moral outrage would take over and I would report them.
I'm afraid I'm with WtS on this even though I fully expect a dressing down from the might of UKC. If I'm truly honest I would find it very hard to report a friend for drink driving. But then I have never been in the position where this has been necessary. Maybe if I saw them lurching to their car, my sense of moral outrage would take over and I would report them.
In reply to Pete Ford: This is very much the reason why I was brought up with a very strong anti drink driving stance.
Christmas (or possibly New Year) 1966, my grandmother was in a car on the way back from a party. As the car was crossing a junction another vehicle, driven by an intoxicated driver came through red lights and hit their car. She was put into a comma. Eight months later she died having never recovered.
I really struggle to imagine what this might have felt like to my 15yr old father.
Christmas (or possibly New Year) 1966, my grandmother was in a car on the way back from a party. As the car was crossing a junction another vehicle, driven by an intoxicated driver came through red lights and hit their car. She was put into a comma. Eight months later she died having never recovered.
I really struggle to imagine what this might have felt like to my 15yr old father.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Good point - this thread is throwing up some inconsistancies verging on hyprocrocy - people have been killed and injured by drivers using cell phones, and many many more by sheer dangerous driving. Tailgating, agressive overtaking, inappropriate speeding, and generally taking risks. How many passengers report their drivers for such behaviour?
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> Presumably you would also shop your mate for using a phone while driving.
>
> Presumably you would also shop your mate for using a phone while driving.
Good point - this thread is throwing up some inconsistancies verging on hyprocrocy - people have been killed and injured by drivers using cell phones, and many many more by sheer dangerous driving. Tailgating, agressive overtaking, inappropriate speeding, and generally taking risks. How many passengers report their drivers for such behaviour?
In reply to Denni: I think any decent person would do everything in their power to stop a friend driving when blind drunk before even considering shopping them. In fact I would physically stop a friend; I would not shop them, ever. Same end result, except you remain a good friend.
To the OP she couldn’t have been a good friend if you simply said don’t drive or I’ll call the police, did you make no further effort either verbally, or physically removing her car keys until she was, in your opinion fit to drive?
I grew up in a country pub, lived there until I was 19 so maybe my opinion is bias. Although, my best friend was killed by a drunk driver (also a friend) when we were 16... so maybe I have a balanced view on this matter. There was a lot of drink driving, in fact it was the norm, not that I condone it and do frown upon it.
To the OP she couldn’t have been a good friend if you simply said don’t drive or I’ll call the police, did you make no further effort either verbally, or physically removing her car keys until she was, in your opinion fit to drive?
I grew up in a country pub, lived there until I was 19 so maybe my opinion is bias. Although, my best friend was killed by a drunk driver (also a friend) when we were 16... so maybe I have a balanced view on this matter. There was a lot of drink driving, in fact it was the norm, not that I condone it and do frown upon it.
In reply to Timmd:
How many people on here will be doing big trips to Scotland this winter, snatching a couple of hours kip in the back seat, spending the day freezing on the hill then driving back to London in another big 9hr push? Plenty I'm sure. The only difference is the guy that ended up on the tracks at Selby was unlucky. He could have run into a hedge, been beeped for weaving or hit the rumble strips at the side of the motorway instead by pure bad luck he ended up in front of an express train. Why should he be held to higher standards than everyone else that had an accident that day or the day after or every day since? Theirs, yours, mine could be just as bad when it happens but thankfully it probably won't, we'll probably get lucky and end up with a wheel in a ditch or a cracked bumper.
jk
> I've always thought the driver involved should never drive again, with how he caused a huge amount of damage in people's lives through being stupid enough to drive after being awake all night. It's very unfair on the boy (at the time) who lost his dad who was driving the train.
How many people on here will be doing big trips to Scotland this winter, snatching a couple of hours kip in the back seat, spending the day freezing on the hill then driving back to London in another big 9hr push? Plenty I'm sure. The only difference is the guy that ended up on the tracks at Selby was unlucky. He could have run into a hedge, been beeped for weaving or hit the rumble strips at the side of the motorway instead by pure bad luck he ended up in front of an express train. Why should he be held to higher standards than everyone else that had an accident that day or the day after or every day since? Theirs, yours, mine could be just as bad when it happens but thankfully it probably won't, we'll probably get lucky and end up with a wheel in a ditch or a cracked bumper.
jk
In reply to jkarran: Quite.
If a friend is about to drive drunk and you say I'll shop you and the police will have you pulled over a mile down the road they may grumble but only a nut case would drive. If your friend is not a nut case then you may assume his judgment is impaired and hide their keys, that's what a friend should do.
Regarding sleep, a bit different but same level of concern. I only learned to drive a few years ago no and prior to that I considered it my duty to stay awake and keep the driver company and keep an eye on them as payment for long lifts to the hills. It's much nicer and more likely someone will stop for a break when they have company and they're doing it for their passanger who needs a wee, a coffee or a leg stretch.
Cheers
Toby
If a friend is about to drive drunk and you say I'll shop you and the police will have you pulled over a mile down the road they may grumble but only a nut case would drive. If your friend is not a nut case then you may assume his judgment is impaired and hide their keys, that's what a friend should do.
Regarding sleep, a bit different but same level of concern. I only learned to drive a few years ago no and prior to that I considered it my duty to stay awake and keep the driver company and keep an eye on them as payment for long lifts to the hills. It's much nicer and more likely someone will stop for a break when they have company and they're doing it for their passanger who needs a wee, a coffee or a leg stretch.
Cheers
Toby
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
If it was a friend, the first plan of action would be to take the keys. Failing that the betrayal would be in not doing something about it, and if that meant informing the Police, then so be it.
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> No. I mean it. I would find it very hard to betray a friend.
> [...]
>
> No. I mean it. I would find it very hard to betray a friend.
If it was a friend, the first plan of action would be to take the keys. Failing that the betrayal would be in not doing something about it, and if that meant informing the Police, then so be it.
In reply to Denni:
It also depends how drunk they are. People can handle different levels. Being once young and stupid I got in a car with a friend who had drunk 4 pints. He got pulled over and breathalysed....and passed! Not really sure what happened, he was obviously a little pissed and the police could see it, so wanted to book him for something so spent 20 mins going through every possibly check of the vehicle. In the end all they got him for was a cracked indicator lens.
There's no black and white answer to drink driving. Because it's a scale, if someone wants to drive after 2 pints, they're probably a bit over the limit but it's not the end of the world. If a saw a friend staggering to their car, i'd stop and take their keys off them.
It also depends how drunk they are. People can handle different levels. Being once young and stupid I got in a car with a friend who had drunk 4 pints. He got pulled over and breathalysed....and passed! Not really sure what happened, he was obviously a little pissed and the police could see it, so wanted to book him for something so spent 20 mins going through every possibly check of the vehicle. In the end all they got him for was a cracked indicator lens.
There's no black and white answer to drink driving. Because it's a scale, if someone wants to drive after 2 pints, they're probably a bit over the limit but it's not the end of the world. If a saw a friend staggering to their car, i'd stop and take their keys off them.
The unit scale does not work. There are too many other factors at play. I have in the past at times while not had the car had a single pint on an empty stomach and felt in no way fit to drive. Some research even shows that blood alcohol level is not a truly accurate way to define incapacity, as the amount of alcohol in the system is not always directly related to the effect the alcohol is having on the brain receptors.
I would never risk it, because you might feel fine when you get in the car, only for the alcohol to gain a greater effect during the journey itself. You know that way you can be sober in the pub, then after coming outside and going to the kebab shop you start to feel the effects.
There are other forms of incapacity which are also dangerous. What about driving while under the influence of flu/cold? Many people get in their cars while ill or sick, possibly loaded up on OTC medications and have reaction times and concentration times similar to someone who is drunk.
I would never risk it, because you might feel fine when you get in the car, only for the alcohol to gain a greater effect during the journey itself. You know that way you can be sober in the pub, then after coming outside and going to the kebab shop you start to feel the effects.
There are other forms of incapacity which are also dangerous. What about driving while under the influence of flu/cold? Many people get in their cars while ill or sick, possibly loaded up on OTC medications and have reaction times and concentration times similar to someone who is drunk.
In reply to Ava Adore:
That's why i'd take the keys, i'd struggle as well.
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> I'm afraid I'm with WtS on this even though I fully expect a dressing down from the might of UKC. If I'm truly honest I would find it very hard to report a friend for drink driving. But then I have never been in the position where this has been necessary. Maybe if I saw them lurching to their car, my sense of moral outrage would take over and I would report them.
>
> I'm afraid I'm with WtS on this even though I fully expect a dressing down from the might of UKC. If I'm truly honest I would find it very hard to report a friend for drink driving. But then I have never been in the position where this has been necessary. Maybe if I saw them lurching to their car, my sense of moral outrage would take over and I would report them.
That's why i'd take the keys, i'd struggle as well.
In reply to jkarran:
It's something I wouldn't do though, i'd not trust myself to drive safely on so little sleep. I wouldn't feel confident cycling in traffic on that much sleep from not being alert enough, so I wouldn't drive.
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> [...]
>
> How many people on here will be doing big trips to Scotland this winter, snatching a couple of hours kip in the back seat, spending the day freezing on the hill then driving back to London in another big 9hr push? Plenty I'm sure. The only difference is the guy that ended up on the tracks at Selby was unlucky. He could have run into a hedge, been beeped for weaving or hit the rumble strips at the side of the motorway instead by pure bad luck he ended up in front of an express train. Why should he be held to higher standards than everyone else that had an accident that day or the day after or every day since? Theirs, yours, mine could be just as bad when it happens but thankfully it probably won't, we'll probably get lucky and end up with a wheel in a ditch or a cracked bumper.
>
> jk
>
> [...]
>
> How many people on here will be doing big trips to Scotland this winter, snatching a couple of hours kip in the back seat, spending the day freezing on the hill then driving back to London in another big 9hr push? Plenty I'm sure. The only difference is the guy that ended up on the tracks at Selby was unlucky. He could have run into a hedge, been beeped for weaving or hit the rumble strips at the side of the motorway instead by pure bad luck he ended up in front of an express train. Why should he be held to higher standards than everyone else that had an accident that day or the day after or every day since? Theirs, yours, mine could be just as bad when it happens but thankfully it probably won't, we'll probably get lucky and end up with a wheel in a ditch or a cracked bumper.
>
> jk
It's something I wouldn't do though, i'd not trust myself to drive safely on so little sleep. I wouldn't feel confident cycling in traffic on that much sleep from not being alert enough, so I wouldn't drive.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Totally different.
When I'm in a car and the driver picks the phone up I usually say something like " Can you just stop and let me out if you're going to be making calls"
The embarrassment is usually enough to make them wait.
If my mate used the phone in his car last night and survived I'm going to do the same as I would to a mate who had a drink and drove last night and also survived - nothing.
E
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> Presumably you would also shop your mate for using a phone while driving.
>
> Presumably you would also shop your mate for using a phone while driving.
Totally different.
When I'm in a car and the driver picks the phone up I usually say something like " Can you just stop and let me out if you're going to be making calls"
The embarrassment is usually enough to make them wait.
If my mate used the phone in his car last night and survived I'm going to do the same as I would to a mate who had a drink and drove last night and also survived - nothing.
E
In reply to Denni:
The attitude 'if they hit someone its not my problem' stinks. RTC in Devon last month, report of a car driving the wrong way down a dual carriage way, unfortunately before officers got there, another report came in of a head on crash. The driver of the vehicle going the wrong was was well over the limit, the driver and the passenger of the other vehicle both recieved life changing injuries. How would you feel if someone crashed into you, giving you injuries that meant you could no longer climb/cycle/run or whatever else you enjoy and someone could have prvented it but took the attitude 'not my problem'
Or the drink driver who rolled his car down a bank killing himself and 2 others in the car, if you knew the driver there is a good chance the others in the car would also be friends. Is it then your problem?
Or the case of a drink driver a few months back who got into the cab of a truck and dragged a young man several hundred yards down the road, killing him, before he even realised he had hit a moped. The friend who let the driver use his truck also appeared in court.
The attitude 'if they hit someone its not my problem' stinks. RTC in Devon last month, report of a car driving the wrong way down a dual carriage way, unfortunately before officers got there, another report came in of a head on crash. The driver of the vehicle going the wrong was was well over the limit, the driver and the passenger of the other vehicle both recieved life changing injuries. How would you feel if someone crashed into you, giving you injuries that meant you could no longer climb/cycle/run or whatever else you enjoy and someone could have prvented it but took the attitude 'not my problem'
Or the drink driver who rolled his car down a bank killing himself and 2 others in the car, if you knew the driver there is a good chance the others in the car would also be friends. Is it then your problem?
Or the case of a drink driver a few months back who got into the cab of a truck and dragged a young man several hundred yards down the road, killing him, before he even realised he had hit a moped. The friend who let the driver use his truck also appeared in court.
In reply to Enty:
No, it's not totally different. Both can result in fatalities and both are illegal. Unfortunately the roads are still full of people who think using a phone on the move is a lesser crime because the penalty is less.
No, it's not totally different. Both can result in fatalities and both are illegal. Unfortunately the roads are still full of people who think using a phone on the move is a lesser crime because the penalty is less.
In reply to Denni:
There was a case about three years ago where both the driver and passenger were drunk, and they were both jailed for killing a teenage couple. The passenger was jailed because they knowingly let the driver drive under the influence.
There was a case about three years ago where both the driver and passenger were drunk, and they were both jailed for killing a teenage couple. The passenger was jailed because they knowingly let the driver drive under the influence.
In reply to Fredt:
On the other hand, you can kill someone whilst drunk driving and be found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/23/policeman-cleared-crash-death
> There was a case about three years ago where both the driver and passenger were drunk, and they were both jailed for killing a teenage couple. The passenger was jailed because they knowingly let the driver drive under the influence.
On the other hand, you can kill someone whilst drunk driving and be found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/23/policeman-cleared-crash-death
In reply to Denni:
Num Num heard that 1 in 5 accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Mrs. Num Num says it's shocking that drunk drivers have an eighty percent better accident record than sober ones.
Num Num heard that 1 in 5 accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Mrs. Num Num says it's shocking that drunk drivers have an eighty percent better accident record than sober ones.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...