# Drink Drivers Named



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 19, 2015)

Avon and Somerset police are naming and shaming Drink Drivers caught over Xmas 

Good or bad thing ? 

Will it make a difference ?

http://www.applefm.co.uk/local-news/first-drinkdrug-drivers-of-december-named-by-police/2015/12/18


----------



## Norrin Radd (Dec 19, 2015)

if they are banged to rights over the limit then yes .


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 19, 2015)

They always have been, in the pages of your local paper, along with the shoplifters and those that couldn't be asked to purchase a TV licence...


----------



## louise_a (Dec 19, 2015)

I don't have a problem with it although they probably shouldn't be named until they have been convicted.


----------



## Joff (Dec 19, 2015)

Never knew this, and I live there!


----------



## brendy (Dec 19, 2015)

Assuming that most of the convicted actually care, that is.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 19, 2015)

louise_a said:



			I don't have a problem with it although they probably shouldn't be named until they have been convicted.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this - on the basis of innocent until proven guilty! But that's not the way things work in this country! Policy (and it is only policy, so isn't compulsory) is to provide non-identifiable only until charged - when the individual can be named.

Obviously, this force has decided to alter their policy in an attempt to reduce offending over this period.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 19, 2015)

Not convinced. Some will make an error of judgement and be mortified to have done so, others will see it more as a badge of honour to be named


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 19, 2015)

Quite right to name and shame them. Doesn't matter if they are convicted or not, fact remains they have exceeded the limit and failed a breath test. If they get off it's only because of a fancy lawyer or a technicality.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 19, 2015)

But isn't this an example of selective moralising? Why not do the same to bankers who defraud, rich people who offshore their money, CEOs who cheat their employees, politicians who lie. OK, the last one would include them all, so serve little purpose.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 19, 2015)

Ethan said:



			But isn't this an example of selective moralising? Why not do the same to bankers who defraud, rich people who offshore their money, CEOs who cheat their employees, politicians who lie. OK, the last one would include them all, so serve little purpose.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe because a number of people over the years have been killed by drink drivers - even more so at Xmas


----------



## Ethan (Dec 19, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Maybe because a number of people over the years have been killed by drink drivers - even more so at Xmas
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that, but there has been a massive cultural change and the number of convictions and deaths is dramatically down. If this is really about trying to discourage drink driving (and there is no evidence that it will do so) then what about people killed by careless drivers, those driving too fast or have badly maintained cars? 

Seems like name and shame is one of those popular tabloid exercises akin to the old stocks and pillories. 

No apologist for drink drivers myself, I hardly drink and never before driving, but it is the selective aspect that bothers me.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 19, 2015)

Not sure what purpose it really serves. Does it act as a deterrent


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 19, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Yes, I know that, but there has been a massive cultural change and the number of convictions and deaths is dramatically down. If this is really about trying to discourage drink driving (and there is no evidence that it will do so) then what about people killed by careless drivers, those driving too fast or have badly maintained cars? 

Seems like name and shame is one of those popular tabloid exercises akin to the old stocks and pillories. 

No apologist for drink drivers myself, I hardly drink and never before driving, but it is the selective aspect that bothers me.
		
Click to expand...

Then hopefully these messages help keep driving the number of incidents down in regards drink driving - 

The government etc can send out messages or replicate for other issues - no problems with that


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 19, 2015)

I think it serves little purpose. They receive their punishment with the ban, potential loss of job and increased insurance premiums. Why should the punishment include public humiliation? Surely as a society we're better than that?

Those that deliberately flaunt the law couldn't give a toss anyway, and may well drive whilst banned. Others make an error of judgement, and some get caught out the following morning.

Our local newspaper has a section on "Court Reports," and has published them for donkey's years... never agreed with it.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I think it serves little purpose. They receive their punishment with the ban, potential loss of job and increased insurance premiums. Why should the punishment include public humiliation? Surely as a society we're better than that?

Those that deliberately flaunt the law couldn't give a toss anyway, and may well drive whilst banned. Others make an error of judgement, and some get caught out the following morning.

Our local newspaper has a section on "Court Reports," and has published them for donkey's years... never agreed with it.
		
Click to expand...

I agree. Can't see it serving any purpose and won't have any affect on DD deaths in my opinion


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I think it serves little purpose. They receive their punishment with the ban, potential loss of job and increased insurance premiums. Why should the punishment include public humiliation? Surely as a society we're better than that?

Those that deliberately flaunt the law couldn't give a toss anyway, and may well drive whilst banned. Others make an error of judgement, and some get caught out the following morning.

Our local newspaper has a section on "Court Reports," and has published them for donkey's years... never agreed with it.
		
Click to expand...

What if you see someone driving whilst banned and you wouldn't have known if you hadn't seen their name in the media?


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 19, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Quite right to name and shame them. Doesn't matter if they are convicted or not, fact remains they have exceeded the limit and failed a breath test. If they get off it's only because of a fancy lawyer or a technicality.
		
Click to expand...

Failing a breath test/exceeding the limit isn't a crime - until it is proven that it is one!

It's also not an offence until the 2nd test proves positive (after which they are charged), but the suspect is still arrested! Would you have all those arrested but released because the 2nd test proves negative named as well?

The 'wait until charged' policy works - and, imo, is really what you are indicating! And is it 'fair' that they should be treated differently (more harshly) to suspects of other crimes?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 20, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Failing a breath test/exceeding the limit isn't a crime - until it is proven that it is one!

It's also not an offence until the 2nd test proves positive (after which they are charged), but the suspect is still arrested! Would you have all those arrested but released because the 2nd test proves negative named as well?

The 'wait until charged' policy works - and, imo, is really what you are indicating! And is it 'fair' that they should be treated differently (more harshly) to suspects of other crimes?
		
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think the police are going to name people that aren't charged and convicted?


----------



## Smiffy (Dec 20, 2015)

drive4show said:



			What if you see someone driving whilst banned and you wouldn't have known if you hadn't seen their name in the media?
		
Click to expand...


Spot on.
I'd report them in an instant.


----------



## brendy (Dec 20, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I agree. Can't see it serving any purpose and won't have any affect on DD deaths in my opinion
		
Click to expand...

Now there's a statement backed up with fact. 
You simply can't say that as even if one person goes on to change their habit or leave the car at home that one time because a relative/friend/colleague got detected and banned, then it's a potential life saver, maybe even their own.


----------



## brendy (Dec 20, 2015)

Smiffy said:



			Spot on.
I'd report them in an instant.
		
Click to expand...

Bingo, every time.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 20, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Avon and Somerset police are naming and shaming Drink Drivers caught over Xmas 

Good or bad thing ? 

Will it make a difference ?

http://www.applefm.co.uk/local-news/first-drinkdrug-drivers-of-december-named-by-police/2015/12/18

Click to expand...

Good thing and a picture of them so there's no doubt who it is, and I'd extend it all crimes, why shouldn't we be aware of who these people are.


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 20, 2015)

Ethan said:



			But isn't this an example of selective moralising? Why not do the same to bankers who defraud, rich people who offshore their money, CEOs who cheat their employees, politicians who lie. OK, the last one would include them all, so serve little purpose.
		
Click to expand...




Ethan said:



			Yes, I know that, but there has been a massive cultural change and the number of convictions and deaths is dramatically down. If this is really about trying to discourage drink driving (and there is no evidence that it will do so) then what about people killed by careless drivers, those driving too fast or have badly maintained cars? 

Seems like name and shame is one of those popular tabloid exercises akin to the old stocks and pillories. 

No apologist for drink drivers myself, I hardly drink and never before driving, but it is the selective aspect that bothers me.
		
Click to expand...

Gota agree with  all this .. cant be selective on reporting like that


----------



## freddielong (Dec 20, 2015)

Different people respond to different types and methods of punishment, maybe public shaming could be used effectively alongside other forms of punishment.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 20, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Do you seriously think the police are going to name people that aren't charged *and convicted?*

Click to expand...

Er. Yes! 

Though that's already their policy, which doesn't specify the crime involved!


----------



## Smiffy (Dec 20, 2015)

No different to being put in the stocks years ago.
I think it worked then.
And I reckon we ought to bring back ducking stools for witches.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 20, 2015)

freddielong said:



			Different people respond to different types and methods of punishment, maybe public shaming could be used effectively alongside other forms of punishment.
		
Click to expand...

So you mean that in addition to the fine, ban, huge rise in insurance and possible loss of employment if the ban forces it, as well as the existing reporting in the local paper, some form of additional naming and shaming will make people in the pub think that maybe they shouldn't have that other pint? Really? I rather doubt that. 

The police should be vigilant and unforgiving about drunk driving but it is only one of a number of ways in which people get injured or killed in the road. It has taken on a special sort of moral indignation, though. Someone who drives a 3 series BMW a bit too fast in winter without winter tyres is probably as great a risk as someone with a pint or two in them.


----------



## freddielong (Dec 20, 2015)

Ethan said:



			So you mean that in addition to the fine, ban, huge rise in insurance and possible loss of employment if the ban forces it, as well as the existing reporting in the local paper, some form of additional naming and shaming will make people in the pub think that maybe they shouldn't have that 6 pint? Really? I rather doubt that.
		
Click to expand...

Whether you doubt it or not I think some people would respond more to being shamed in front of their peers.
And the ban and fine (possible prison sentence ) are the punishment, the other two you mentioned are not guaranteed and are merely possible consequences.


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 20, 2015)

If the police were just as 'willing' to put their hands up admitting when they get it wrong I'd have a bit more respect for them...


----------



## Ethan (Dec 20, 2015)

freddielong said:



			Whether you doubt it or not I think some people would respond more to being shamed in front of their peers.
And the ban and fine (possible prison sentence ) are the punishment, the other two you mentioned are not guaranteed and are merely possible consequences.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the argument for this naming and shaming appears to be a mix of deference and punishment. The former is not proven to occur and the latter is selecting out something because it is easily measured and has a binary outcome. Unfortunately, it lets off the hook all the other people who take equal risks and cause just as many accidents. The police use weaselly language when they say that the number of accidents in which speed or alcohol was involved, to persuade people that the accidents were caused by speed or drink. They are not necessarily cases though, sometimes just bystander phenomena, but easy to attach blame.

The other day, I was driving on an urban road and saw a people carrier coming towards me wandering over the centre line. It was a mother turned round into the back shouting at the kids. Now, if she had caused an accident, it would have just been an unfortunate accident, it happens, not a case of dangerous driving through inattention. You won't see the police naming and shaming parents who crash in similar circumstances. The reason is that drink driving has a special place in moral disapproval and loathing.


----------



## bobmac (Dec 20, 2015)

Any initiative to reduce the number of deaths on the roads is to be applauded in my opinion.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 20, 2015)

bobmac said:



			Any initiative to reduce the number of deaths on the roads is to be applauded in my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Really? Does this initiative reduce deaths. 

And would you be OK if every town and city had a ring of steel with roadblocks for compulsory breath and drug testing for every driver every night? That would almost certainly reduce deaths. It might cause horrendous queues but a small price to pay. You did say any initiative is to be applauded.

The problem with breath testing is that a breath equivalent of 79mg is fine, off you go , sir. But 80 is you're nicked, you irresponsible idiot. There is no difference between the two except that there is a limit and it is binary outcome. In reality 79mg is a risky driving level. Will those people be named and shamed too?

This is also a Government which has refused to reduce to 50mg, in line with much of Europe, so any big words about public safety are hypocritical lies. They care more about the drinks industry lobby. Drink driving is a public safety issue, for sure, but focussing on that to the exclusion of other things is brainless Daily Mail level public policy.


----------



## Three (Dec 20, 2015)

There are a lot of random police stops and breath tests here, especially in the mornings after holidays when most people are drinking in the evening.    The legal alcohol level for driving is about half a pint, barely above zero. 

Does it make me not drink at all if I'm going to drive? Does it make me either not drink in the evening or drink considerably less if I'm driving the next morning? 
A big fat YES on both counts, there's no excuse, anything that gets into people's head to make them consider not drink-driving is a good thing.    
Let's hope this initiative stops at least a few.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 20, 2015)

Three said:



			There are a lot of random police stops and breath tests here, especially in the mornings after holidays when most people are drinking in the evening.    The legal alcohol level for driving is about half a pint, barely above zero. 

Does it make me not drink at all if I'm going to drive? Does it make me either not drink in the evening or drink considerably less if I'm driving the next morning? 
A big fat YES on both counts, there's no excuse, anything that gets into people's head to make them consider not drink-driving is a good thing.    
Let's hope this initiative stops at least a few.
		
Click to expand...

But this initiative is not about lots of breath checks, it is about naming and shaming after, in addition to the usual penalties.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 20, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Really? Does this initiative reduce deaths. 

And would you be OK if every town and city had a ring of steel with roadblocks for compulsory breath and drug testing for every driver every night? That would almost certainly reduce deaths. It might cause horrendous queues but a small price to pay. You did say any initiative is to be applauded.

The problem with breath testing is that a breath equivalent of 79mg is fine, off you go , sir. But 80 is you're nicked, you irresponsible idiot. There is no difference between the two except that there is a limit and it is binary outcome. In reality 79mg is a risky driving level. Will those people be named and shamed too?

This is also a Government which has refused to reduce to 50mg, in line with much of Europe, so any big words about public safety are hypocritical lies. They care more about the drinks industry lobby. Drink driving is a public safety issue, for sure, but focussing on that to the exclusion of other things is brainless Daily Mail level public policy.
		
Click to expand...

If naming and shaming helps stop one person drink driving and possibly stops one person from being a danger and being killed then it's done the job 

I really can't see what the problem is with the initive ? What's the negative ?


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 20, 2015)

I have no issues with the police being given greater powers to conduct more testing...

But under no circumstances should they be the arbiters of who gets 'named and shamed'....


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 20, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If naming and shaming helps stop one person drink driving and possibly stops one person from being a danger and being killed then it's done the job 

I really can't see what the problem is with the initive ? What's the negative ?
		
Click to expand...

The negative is its too much like bullying. 

Personally, I'd like to see lockouts in vehicles. You have to breath into the lockout before it will let you start the car if you breath over the limit it locks you out for 2 hours. I'd like to see a limit like Scotland's, and I'd like to see random testing all year.


----------



## Ethan (Dec 20, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			The negative is its too much like bullying. 

Personally, I'd like to see lockouts in vehicles. You have to breath into the lockout before it will let you start the car if you breath over the limit it locks you out for 2 hours. I'd like to see a limit like Scotland's, and I'd like to see random testing all year.
		
Click to expand...

That is more like it.

I am not a fan of naming and shaming. Unless you do it for everything of equal risk to the population.

If you care about road deaths, then reducing the limit to 50 is the first step, and in car breathalysers and lots of random or systematic testing would be a big step too.

It is really easy to say 'If it prevented one death ....'. But you never know if it does and if there was a 20 minute queue to get out of the town centre every Saturday evening, some of them would have a different opinion.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 20, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			The negative is its too much like bullying. 

Personally, I'd like to see lockouts in vehicles. You have to breath into the lockout before it will let you start the car if you breath over the limit it locks you out for 2 hours. I'd like to see a limit like Scotland's, and I'd like to see random testing all year.
		
Click to expand...

Bullying ? They have broken the law and endangered lives 

Agree on the limit the same as Scotland and they do random checks now anyway ?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 20, 2015)

bladeplayer said:



			Gota agree with  all this .. cant be selective on reporting like that
		
Click to expand...

Indeed - and so quite a number of members of golf clubs are going to be getting reported to the police by their mates for getting into their car after having two pints of Stella, San Miguel, Peroni or Staropramen


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 20, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Indeed - and so quite a number of members of golf clubs are going to be getting reported to the police by their mates for getting into their car after having two pints of Stella, San Miguel, Peroni or Staropramen
		
Click to expand...

Sounds a good thing to me - don't you think ?


----------



## Ethan (Dec 20, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Bullying ? They have broken the law and endangered lives 

Agree on the limit the same as Scotland and they do random checks now anyway ?
		
Click to expand...

The issue is the selectivity. 

Presumably you also name and shame people who drive on tyres below the legal limit, with poor brakes, while using a mobile, reaching for the cigarette lighter, wearing headphones, who drive too slow and cause large build up of traffic behind them, who jump red lights (including cyclists) etc etc.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 20, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sounds a good thing to me - don't you think ?
		
Click to expand...

It does 'sound' a good thing. - but it won't happen.  I suspect many of those who support this 'name and shame' policy would maybe just have a wee word in their mates ear if they saw him going to get into his car after two pint.  But would they report him to the police?  Imagine being the one to bring down shame on the head of your mate and his family when you report him for driving over the limit after two pints. 

All who will be 'named and shamed' will be someones friend; someones son or daughter; someones parent; someones spouse.  Where drink is involved families and friends suffer - they don't need wider public humiliation and pain than they might already be suffering.  This policy serves no purpose other than to be 'seen to be doing something' when the issue is a greater cultural and social one that is not going to be solved in this way.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 20, 2015)

Ethan said:



			The issue is the selectivity. 

Presumably you also name and shame people who drive on tyres below the legal limit, with poor brakes, while using a mobile, reaching for the cigarette lighter, wearing headphones, who drive too slow and cause large build up of traffic behind them, who jump red lights (including cyclists) etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

But naming drink drivers is good though yes ?

Yes other offences could and should be named but does that mean this isn't good thing ?


----------



## Norrin Radd (Dec 20, 2015)

i personally dont advocate drink and drive of any sort ,there really should be a zero tolerance against DD .it could be your family member ending up being the victim .


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 20, 2015)

Maybe we should name and shame all those who get infractions on this forum

Just sayin


----------



## freddielong (Dec 20, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If naming and shaming helps stop one person drink driving and possibly stops one person from being a danger and being killed then it's done the job 

I really can't see what the problem is with the initive ? What's the negative ?
		
Click to expand...

I am with you, if it makes 1 person who may have killed someone stop and not drive then it's only a good thing surely.

Finding it really difficult to understand how anyone can see it as a bad thing.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 20, 2015)

I don't believe in "naming and shaming" anyone for any offence who hasn't been convicted. These people being named by this police force have only been charged, not convicted and so IMO this is wrong.


----------



## Norrin Radd (Dec 20, 2015)

having just read the link in the op nowhere does it mention selectivity ,it just names those that have been caught over the limit ,be it for drink or drugs. 
like the old addage .
if you cant do the time ,dont do the crime .
and drinking whilst under the influence in this country is a crime .
live with it.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 20, 2015)

Non thread, just read the local papers, it's all in there.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 20, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Bullying ? They have broken the law and endangered lives 

Agree on the limit the same as Scotland and they do random checks now anyway ?
		
Click to expand...

But you're bringing emotion into the punishment. And you're also bringing in the potential for a lynch mob mentality. Public humiliation is not considered, thoughtful justice. I'm not looking for a soft option, and wouldn't mind a 2yr ban being the starting point. I wouldn't mind the trebling of insurance premiums, or whatever, and I'd like to see a 2yr prison sentence for a second offence, rising if involved in an accident.

Ok, let's look at what putting their name in the papers does. Do you know what any of your local offenders looks like? No. Their friends do, and that's it. ~It embarrasses them amongst their friends and colleagues. How many times do you drive past friends without recognising them? And imagine how hard it would be to narrow it down to a D&D driver and then have the balls to report them.

Name and shame achieves very little other than embarrassment amongst their friends and family. But lockouts, lower limits and harsher penalties would achieve more. If you are genuine about improving the stats, its proper harsher penalties that are needed not a name in the paper.


----------



## Fish (Dec 20, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Maybe we should name and shame all those who get infractions on this forum

Just sayin
		
Click to expand...

You picking on me &#128540;


----------



## Norrin Radd (Dec 20, 2015)

thats some person who wants to shame his family and friends .they are just thinking they can get away with it ,and sod the consequences should they get caught.
they have no thought for family and friends cos if they did they wouldnt have had any drink in the first place.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 20, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Maybe we should name and shame all those who get infractions on this forum

Just sayin
		
Click to expand...




Fish said:



			You picking on me &#128540;
		
Click to expand...

Oh no, us mods are very even handed

there are a few of you


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 20, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Oh no, us mods are very even handed

there are a few of you  

Click to expand...

I'm up for displaying infractions so long as list which mods are ott&#128515;


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 20, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			I'm up for displaying infractions so long as list which mods are ott&#128515;
		
Click to expand...


None of us are OTT, we hate you all with total equality   


But enough of that, back to the thread....................


----------



## Ethan (Dec 20, 2015)

The poacher said:



			having just read the link in the op nowhere does it mention selectivity ,it just names those that have been caught over the limit ,be it for drink or drugs. 
like the old addage .
if you cant do the time ,dont do the crime .
and drinking whilst under the influence in this country is a crime .
live with it.
		
Click to expand...

You really don't understand. 

The point is that this is selecting drink drivers and ignoring everyone else who poses an equal or grater hazard on the road.

As for the old addage (sic), they will be convicted and get a fine and a ban. That is the 'time' you speak of. The question is whether name and same helps or is fair when drivers who have dodgy brakes or no brake lights don't get named and shamed. It is a question about (a) shaming as a form of punishment and (b) being even handed.


----------



## Norrin Radd (Dec 20, 2015)

Ethan i dont think trying to put a fault with the machine in the same context as the fault with the driver is a comparrison that works in my eyes .
you brake lights out ,well a lot of cars dont have a sensor in the cab saying a light is out ,so when do you know it blown ,only when you are told ,hopefully by a third party other than the law .and as for brakes ,well you drive the car day in and day out ,you wouldnt really notice the reduction of performance if the reduction was a gradual affair ,if it was sudden you would do something about it pretty quickly im sure ,as you wouldnt want to put your own life in jepordy ,would you .i know i wouldnt ,especially if i was sober at the time.
 i couldnt say that for sure if i was ott with booze.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Dec 20, 2015)

Don't get it. Who exactly needs to know before you feel ashamed of doing something wrong? I'd say I'd be embarrassed that my family, friends, my work colleagues, my mates at the golf club would know. Point being that all these people would get to know anyway. Putting my name on a long list of other people for folk who couldn't give a toss what I did or didn't do wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. Waste of time and a publicity stunt. Good headlines for the police and their annual campaign but no real point other than that.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 20, 2015)

brendy said:



			Now there's a statement backed up with fact. 
You simply can't say that as even if one person goes on to change their habit or leave the car at home that one time because a relative/friend/colleague got detected and banned, then it's a potential life saver, maybe even their own.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry I disagree. In the moment where there's temptation, I believe that no-one thinks "hang on a mo, I won't have that. I might get nicked and shown up in the local rag". Simply doesn't happen and so in my opinion the chances of causing a DD remain the same


----------



## brendy (Dec 20, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Sorry I disagree. In the moment where there's temptation, I believe that no-one thinks "hang on a mo, I won't have that. I might get nicked and shown up in the local rag". Simply doesn't happen and so in my opinion the chances of causing a DD remain the same
		
Click to expand...

Wind the clock back a little Homer, the decision may be made before leaving the house instead. Phone a mate, get the wife to drop you down, phone a taxi etc ie made while there us still clarity.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 20, 2015)

brendy said:



			Wind the clock back a little Homer, the decision may be made before leaving the house instead. Phone a mate, get the wife to drop you down, phone a taxi etc ie made while there us still clarity.
		
Click to expand...

In that instance I'd agree. However, my argument (or counter -point as I'm not trying to argue) would be while the intents are honest and good and getting  lift/cab is good, what happens if a driver then takes advantage and has a few. Great getting home but what ensures they are safe to then drive the day after


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 20, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Bullying ? They have broken the law
...
		
Click to expand...

Not until they have been convicted!


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 20, 2015)

Ethan said:



			The issue is the selectivity. 

Presumably you also name and shame people who drive on tyres below the legal limit, with poor brakes, while using a mobile, reaching for the cigarette lighter, wearing headphones, who drive too slow and cause large build up of traffic behind them, who jump red lights (including cyclists) etc etc.
		
Click to expand...

A further issue with the selectivity in publishing this is that there is absolutely no further detail about the circumstances of the fail; which one of these blew 81 mg and who blew 281 mg; who had their drink the previous evening when they weren't driving and was tested the following morning and found to be over, who was caught the same night; who had no intention of driving and was called out to something, who simply didn't give a monkey's and drove fully aware that they were well over?  To blanketly tar everyone with the same brush for having failed a breath test without regard to the circumstances is bordering on scandalous in my opinion.  Let the local rag report on them once they've been convicted and report the surrounding circumstances, and then judge people on the whole story.


----------



## Norrin Radd (Dec 20, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			A further issue with the selectivity in publishing this is that there is absolutely no further detail about the circumstances of the fail; which one of these blew 81 mg and who blew 281 mg; who had their drink the previous evening when they weren't driving and was tested the following morning and found to be over, who was caught the same night; who had no intention of driving and was called out to something, who simply didn't give a monkey's and drove fully aware that they were well over?  To blanketly tar everyone with the same brush for having failed a breath test without regard to the circumstances is bordering on scandalous in my opinion.  Let the local rag report on them once they've been convicted and report the surrounding circumstances, and then judge people on the whole story.
		
Click to expand...



where do you draw the line then?
 the ball is over the line and its a goal or the ball didnt cross the line and it isnt a goal .dosent matter how far the ball was over the line ,it might have ripped the net off it went in so hard ,or it might have been just over the line with a trickle .
the end result is 1 goal . 
 no difference imho you fail you get done simple as.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 20, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Maybe we should name and shame all those who get infractions on this forum

Just sayin
		
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me as long as you don't forget to mention mine  :thup:


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 20, 2015)

The poacher said:



			where do you draw the line then?
 the ball is over the line and its a goal or the ball didnt cross the line and it isnt a goal .dosent matter how far the ball was over the line ,it might have ripped the net off it went in so hard ,or it might have been just over the line with a trickle .
the end result is 1 goal . 
 no difference imho you fail you get done simple as.
		
Click to expand...

So the person who blows 81 the morning after after he's rear-ended by the sober but careless bloke behind, having not been anywhere near the car the night before, gets named & shamed before conviction, the person who drives past the local primary school at 8.50am at 54mph in a 30mph limit gets a fixed penalty ticket and retains their anonymity.

As I understand it the idea of this naming & shaming is to create a safer road environment.  There's obviously one of these two scenarios which is blatantly more dangerous than the other one.  There's also one that isn't being named and shamed.  Unfortunately it is the same one, which drives a coach & horses through the claim that it is being done for road safety purposes.  It is a cheap publicity stunt, no more, no less.

If in your humble opinion it makes no difference how you fail then you clearly have no understanding of the process of justice.  Quite ironic considering the signature comment about common senseâ€¦â€¦..


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 20, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			Don't get it. Who exactly needs to know before you feel ashamed of doing something wrong? I'd say I'd be embarrassed that my family, friends, my work colleagues, my mates at the golf club would know. Point being that all these people would get to know anyway. Putting my name on a long list of other people for folk who couldn't give a toss what I did or didn't do wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. Waste of time and a publicity stunt. Good headlines for the police and their annual campaign but no real point other than that.
		
Click to expand...

I refer back to my point about named drivers continuing to drive (many of them do). If they do so they are automatically driving without insurance. In the early 90's, my car got written off when it was hit by an uninsured driver. It cost me a lot of money in excess premiums over the years and I never got a penny of it back! If I saw a 'named and shamed' driver continuing to drive I would have no hesitation in picking up the phone to the rozzers.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 20, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Sounds good to me as long as you don't forget to mention mine  :thup:
		
Click to expand...

We won't , but thinking of introducing a new infraction offence of "boasting about ones infractions", 


Anyway, 
Back to the thread ...............


----------



## ger147 (Dec 20, 2015)

drive4show said:



			I refer back to my point about named drivers continuing to drive (many of them do). If they do so they are automatically driving without insurance. In the early 90's, my car got written off when it was hit by an uninsured driver. It cost me a lot of money in excess premiums over the years and I never got a penny of it back! If I saw a 'named and shamed' driver continuing to drive I would have no hesitation in picking up the phone to the rozzers.
		
Click to expand...

Do you get banned from driving before your case comes to court?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 20, 2015)

ger147 said:



			Do you get banned from driving before your case comes to court?
		
Click to expand...

Not that I'm aware of.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 20, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Not that I'm aware of.
		
Click to expand...

The named and shamed drivers in the link posted in the OP have been charged but not tried or convicted so they're perfectly entitled to continue driving until their case comes to court and they have the trial they are entitled to.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 20, 2015)

ger147 said:



			The named and shamed drivers in the link posted in the OP have been charged but not tried or convicted so they're perfectly entitled to continue driving until their case comes to court and they have the trial they are entitled to.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't post the link, best you take up that point with him? But if that is the case, they will have been charged because they have driven whilst over the limit anyway.


----------



## Norrin Radd (Dec 20, 2015)

so the link in the op says charged drivers ,meaning not yet convicted ,
how many people do you personally know that have been charged with DD ,have ever got away with it?
   i have known a few people who have been charged and not gotten away with it ,never known one to be told dont do it again .


----------



## ger147 (Dec 20, 2015)

drive4show said:



			I didn't post the link, best you take up that point with him? But if that is the case, they will have been charged because they have driven whilst over the limit anyway.
		
Click to expand...

So who are the named and shamed drivers you were referring to earlier that you would contact the Police about?

The Police aren't publishing lists of drivers convicted and banned, the whole thread was about naming and shaming drivers who have been charged but not yet tried or convicted?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 20, 2015)

The poacher said:



			so the link in the op says charged drivers ,meaning not yet convicted ,
how many people do you personally know that have been charged with DD ,have ever got away with it?
   i have known a few people who have been charged and not gotten away with it ,never known one to be told dont do it again .
		
Click to expand...

Exactly  :thup:


----------



## ger147 (Dec 20, 2015)

The poacher said:



			so the link in the op says charged drivers ,meaning not yet convicted ,
how many people do you personally know that have been charged with DD ,have ever got away with it?
   i have known a few people who have been charged and not gotten away with it ,never known one to be told dont do it again .
		
Click to expand...

One.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 20, 2015)

ger147 said:



			One.
		
Click to expand...

Why wasn't he charged?


----------



## ger147 (Dec 20, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Why wasn't he charged?
		
Click to expand...

She was charged but not tried, the case was dropped by the Procurator Fiscal.


----------



## Norrin Radd (Dec 20, 2015)

ger147 said:



			One.
		
Click to expand...

 do tell Gerry.as i have never known anyone personally get away with it.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 20, 2015)

The poacher said:



			do tell Gerry.as i have never known anyone personally get away with it.
		
Click to expand...

A family member was caught, failed a breath test and charged but the fiscal dropped the case. I don't know all the details about why the case was dropped, only that it was. And I know she was deffo charged as it was me who picked her up from the Police station.


----------



## Norrin Radd (Dec 20, 2015)

ger147 said:



			A family member was caught, failed a breath test and charged but the fiscal dropped the case. I don't know all the details about why the case was dropped, only that it was. And I know she was deffo charged as it was me who picked her up from the Police station.
		
Click to expand...

fair enough my man .
 merry christmas.:thup:


----------



## ger147 (Dec 20, 2015)

The poacher said:



			fair enough my man .
 merry christmas.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

And just for the record, I had no sympathy for her as according to her story she knew she'd had a drink. But really don't know what happened or why it was dropped.

My objection to publishing the names is simply the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. If the Polis want to publish names once convicted, I have no issue with that. IMO it won't make a blind bit of difference but if it doesn't cost anything then they can knock themselves out with their lists. But folks should get their fair trial first before going on a list.

A very merry Christmas to you too Bill.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 20, 2015)

I also wonder as to the veracity of the bail enquiries undertaken before the names were released, as this is only the charging stage.  It wouldn't be the first time that the name and details given were somebody else's but it isn't found out until they fail to appear at court.  However in the intervening period, the wrong person has been named & shamed.

For the avoidance of doubt I've absolutely no problem with naming and shaming them AFTER they have been convicted and sentenced, but not before.  However that should apply to ALL motoring offences which involve potential danger or loss to others, not just drink driving.  

Personally I don't think that naming & shaming will make a blind bit of difference to the way people will behave but if Avon & Somerset do then either do the job properly and name all the offenders or don't do it at all.  To select one group over and above others is not in my opinion acceptable.


----------



## richart (Dec 20, 2015)

Is being named and shamed going to stop anyone from drink driving ? You could drive under the influence, kill someone and go to prison. Surely if you can drive knowing that, you are not suddenly going to stop just because your name is going to be in the local paper.


----------



## Imurg (Dec 21, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			Personally I don't think that naming & shaming will make a blind bit of difference to the way people will behave but if Avon & Somerset do then either do the job properly and name all the offenders or don't do it at all.  To select one group over and above others is not in my opinion acceptable.
		
Click to expand...

+1
Arguably, driving whilst using a mobile device poses as much, if not more, risk to Joe Public than DD does.
I will see 40-50 driving with their phone fastened to their ears.
Although there's no way of knowing, I bet I won't pass 40-50 people who are driving over the limit..
If naming and shaming is going to happen then ALL offences that include a risk to you or me need to be publicised.
DD, drugs, speeding, mobiles, care and attention, dangerous etc etc...
They'd need to produce a whole newspaper for them all....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 21, 2015)

So is the general consensus 

It's a good thing but need to see it expanded across a number of other dangerous motoring offences as well ?


----------



## Norrin Radd (Dec 21, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So is the general consensus 

It's a good thing but need to see it expanded across a number of other dangerous motoring offences as well ?
		
Click to expand...

it looks that way Phil.


----------



## Imurg (Dec 21, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So is the general consensus 

It's a good thing but need to see it expanded across a number of other dangerous motoring offences as well ?
		
Click to expand...

If they're convicted - yes, why not
It happens in many local newspapers anyway.
If the object is to humiliate the offender then it should be done completely across the board..any offence.
But I'm not convinced it would have enough effect to warrant it.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Dec 21, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So is the general consensus 

It's a good thing but need to see it expanded across a number of other dangerous motoring offences as well ?
		
Click to expand...

Seems that is so. Despite it all being a waste of time. Hey ho.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 21, 2015)

ger147 said:



			A family member was caught, failed a breath test and charged but the fiscal dropped the case. I don't know all the details about why the case was dropped, only that it was. And I know she was deffo charged as it was me who picked her up from the Police station.
		
Click to expand...

So basically, this person drove whilst over the limit, possibly (probably?) knowingly but somehow managed to get out of it. Do you think they should have been named?


----------



## ger147 (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



			So basically, this person drove whilst over the limit, possibly (probably?) knowingly but somehow managed to get out of it. Do you think they should have been named?
		
Click to expand...

I have already stated several times above that I don't think anyone should be named and shamed until they have been tried and convicted.

You are of course free to disagree but I believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty and "naming and shaming" before a trial and conviction flouts this basic tenent of our society IMO.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 21, 2015)

ger147 said:



			I have already stated several times above that I don't think anyone should be named and shamed until they have been tried and convicted.

You are of course free to disagree but I believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty and "naming and shaming" before a trial and conviction flouts this basic tenent of our society IMO.
		
Click to expand...

That's fair enough but it could be construed that you don't think they have done anything wrong because they weren't charged. Just saying.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



			That's fair enough but it could be construed that you don't think they have done anything wrong because they weren't charged. Just saying.
		
Click to expand...

They WERE charged as I stated above. You would have to take it up with the Procurator Fiscal, they dropped the case.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 21, 2015)

ger147 said:



			I have already stated several times above that I don't think anyone should be named and shamed until they have been tried and convicted.

You are of course free to disagree but I believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty and "naming and shaming" before a trial and conviction flouts this basic tenent of our society IMO.
		
Click to expand...

We are not always in alignment  but I agree 100% with you on this @ger147.  

I also find it disappointing the fact that the proponents of this don't actually seem to understand the effect that this sort of 'naming and shaming' could have on family - and that those who have a drink problem are often in total denial of the impact that their actions on those close to them.  And if you drink and drive and break the law - well you have a drink problem of one degree or another.  Even if guilty do you then also punish the family further through public humiliation?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 21, 2015)

ger147 said:



			They WERE charged as I stated above. You would have to take it up with the Procurator Fiscal, they dropped the case.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I fully appreciate that but the fact remains they have broken the law in the first case, maybe it was their lucky day. Perhaps let off on a technicality, maybe the rozzer had his belt on upside down or something.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 21, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I also find it disappointing the fact that the proponents of this don't actually seem to understand the effect that this sort of 'naming and shaming' could have on family - and that those who have a drink problem are often in total denial of the impact that their actions on those close to them.  And if you drink and drive and break the law - well you have a drink problem of one degree or another.  Even if guilty do you then also punish the family further through public humiliation?
		
Click to expand...

I agree with your point that the family may be punished to some degree but maybe if the driver thought about that BEFORE having 'one for the road' the situation wouldn't arise in the first place. 

Have you ever been the victim of an irresponsible driver? I have, cost me a LOT of money!


----------



## Kellfire (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



			So basically, this person drove whilst over the limit, possibly (probably?) knowingly but somehow managed to get out of it. Do you think they should have been named?
		
Click to expand...


Failing the breath test does not mean they were guilty of a drink driving offence. It means that there is sufficient evidence to arrest the person to take a more accurate sample (blood or urine) to ascertain the true level of alcohol in their system.

The case could be dropped for different reasons eg. incorrect procedures involving the taking of the samples (time of sampling for example), incorrect procedure behind the arrest.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 21, 2015)

Kellfire said:



			Failing the breath test does not mean they were guilty of a drink driving offence. It means that there is sufficient evidence to arrest the person to take a more accurate sample (blood or urine) to ascertain the true level of alcohol in their system.

The case could be dropped for different reasons eg. incorrect procedures involving the taking of the samples (time of sampling for example), incorrect procedure behind the arrest.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I appreciate all that but it doesn't detract from the fact that they have driven whilst over the limit (or very close to it) in the first place or they wouldn't have got as far as a blood test etc.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 21, 2015)

Kellfire said:



			Failing the breath test does not mean they were guilty of a drink driving offence. It means that there is sufficient evidence to arrest the person to take a more accurate sample (blood or urine) to ascertain the true level of alcohol in their system.

The case could be dropped for different reasons eg. incorrect procedures involving the taking of the samples (time of sampling for example), incorrect procedure behind the arrest.
		
Click to expand...

If you refer back to the link in the OP, then you will see that it's only after the person has been charged (following a positive 2nd sample/Blood test) that they become candidates for the list.

It is already general Police policy to release names to the Press where a person is charged - something I have significant (innocent until proven guilty) qualms about, but not so much in this case (where a conviction is almost guaranteed). 

There are also other offences where publishing names of accused actually prompts other victims, who would otherwise remain silent, to come forth/provide evidence! Of course, there are dangers in this policy also! The show-biz sex cases have thrown up examples of both!


----------



## Kellfire (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Yes I appreciate all that but it doesn't detract from the fact that they have driven whilst over the limit (or very close to it) in the first place or they wouldn't have got as far as a blood test etc.
		
Click to expand...

You could fail a breath test because of recently using mouthwash. 

And there is no legal issue with being "very close to it" either.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 21, 2015)

Kellfire said:



			You could fail a breath test because of recently using mouthwash. 

And there is no legal issue with being "very close to it" either.
		
Click to expand...

The list is people who have actually been charged so will have failed the second blood test also


----------



## Kellfire (Dec 21, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The list is people who have actually been charged so will have failed the second blood test also
		
Click to expand...

I'm not commenting on the names being published - just addressing the posts I've quoted.


----------



## richart (Dec 21, 2015)

What about the families of people named ? Can just imagine what will happen to kids at school if one of their parents is named.:mmm: 

To me it is no deterrent, so can't see the point.


----------



## Rooter (Dec 21, 2015)

Wow why not just shoot anyone that's failed a breath test. Like has been posted already, failing a breath test at the side of the road does not always mean the driver is drunk. I am not condoning drink driving at all, but i actually will admit to driving the next day and wondering whether i would pass or fail and if you lot are honest, i reckon i am not alone.

Having been banned from driving in the past, i can tell you its a life changing experience. I was not drink driving, however you are still looked on as some kind of outcast. You also find out who your mates are when you need them! Did my name go in the paper? I don't know.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 21, 2015)

richart said:



			What about the families of people named ? Can just imagine what will happen to kids at school if one of their parents is named.:mmm: 

To me it is no deterrent, so can't see the point.
		
Click to expand...

What you have quoted above is a pretty bluddy mahoosive incentive not to drink and drive IMHO.


----------



## Rooter (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



			What you have quoted above is a pretty bluddy mahoosive incentive not to drink and drive IMHO.
		
Click to expand...

To intentionally drink and drive yes, i agree. To drive to work the next day and be 1mg over the limit i think the punishment handed out by the courts would be enough. But like has been said, where and how do you draw the line?!


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 21, 2015)

Rooter said:



			I am not condoning drink driving at all, but i actually will admit to driving the next day and wondering whether i would pass or fail and if you lot are honest
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I've had a couple of times in the past year where I have got up after a seriously heavy night out and gone out to the car to go and pick up food for a cooked breakfast. Both times I've been sat in the car on the drive with the engine on a realised I wasn't fit to drive so turned it off and went back into the house. I'm sure there are other times when I've been close to or over the limit the following morning.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 21, 2015)

Does anyone know how the breathalyser works. I can understand if I've had a pint in the pub and then get stopped that I will have alcohol on my breath. But how is it still on my breath the following morning if I've had a kebab with chilli sauce on the way home, cleaned my teeth, slept, got up and had breakfast and then cleaned my teeth again?


----------



## Rooter (Dec 21, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Does anyone know how the breathalyser works. I can understand if I've had a pint in the pub and then get stopped that I will have alcohol on my breath. But how is it still on my breath the following morning if I've had a kebab with chilli sauce on the way home, cleaned my teeth, slept, got up and had breakfast and then cleaned my teeth again?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly why if you set it off, you go to the station and get tested again. I know someone who used to be a serial drink driver, he reckoned that if you get stopped you get a 2p coin, stick it in your mouth, get it to the back of your throat and hyperventilate. No idea if it works (he says he has used it numerous times), what its supposed to do etc etc. But he has a squeaky clean licence and probably does not deserve one...


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 21, 2015)

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_breathalyzer_penny.htm


----------



## richart (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



			What you have quoted above is a pretty bluddy mahoosive incentive not to drink and drive IMHO.
		
Click to expand...

 But so is the fact you could kill someone and go to prison. That does not stop drink driving so why would having your name in the paper ?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 21, 2015)

Rooter said:



			Exactly why if you set it off, you go to the station and get tested again. I know someone who used to be a serial drink driver, he reckoned that if you get stopped you get a 2p coin, stick it in your mouth, get it to the back of your throat and hyperventilate. No idea if it works (he says he has used it numerous times), what its supposed to do etc etc. But he has a squeaky clean licence and probably does not deserve one...
		
Click to expand...

Isn't it another more accurate breathalyser at the Police station? I know they can do a blood or urine test but on all the TV programmes they show them being breathalysed again at the station. Was wondering about the mechanics of still having alcohol on your breath the next day. 

P.S. I've also heard about the 2p story. No idea if it's true or if it works.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 21, 2015)

The 2p thing is an urban myth. 2p coins do not have some magical property to suck up the alcohol from anyone's blood stream. And at worst you could end up choking to death.


----------



## upsidedown (Dec 21, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Does anyone know how the breathalyser works. I can understand if I've had a pint in the pub and then get stopped that I will have alcohol on my breath. But how is it still on my breath the following morning if I've had a kebab with chilli sauce on the way home, cleaned my teeth, slept, got up and had breakfast and then cleaned my teeth again?
		
Click to expand...

http://www.flask.com/how-do-breathalyzers-work/#.VnguBhWLTIU

When you consume alcohol, youâ€™re consuming a substance scientifically categorized as being volatile. Volatility doesnâ€™t mean the liquor is going to explode, although the moonshine you got from your old pal Grumpy may; it means that the alcohol separates from the rest of the beverage through evaporation. Furthermore, alcohol is not digested.

The properties of alcohol dictate that it is absorbed by the bloodstream quickly and carried throughout the body. As blood passes through the lungs some of the alcohol covers the various surfaces of the lungs and is expelled during the breathing process.

The breathalyzer estimates how much alcohol is in the blood by measuring how much is on the breath. That measurement is thought to be fairly accurate unless, of course, your breath is bad enough to peel paint even without alcohol in your system.


----------



## Rooter (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_breathalyzer_penny.htm

Click to expand...

LOL like i said, had no idea if it was BS or not! Proves it is!! LOL


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 21, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			Seems that is so. Despite it all being a waste of time. Hey ho. 

Click to expand...

I would say that the general consensus between Imurg and I appears to be that it is a complete and utter waste of time as these pillocks will act like pillocks regardless of whether they are named & shamed; however if you are going to name and shame pillocks for driving that endangers others, name and shame all of them regardless of the offence, don't be selective about it.

And that is nothing like saying naming and shaming them is a good thing, but it suits someone's argument to put that spin on it.


----------



## richart (Dec 21, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			I would say that the general consensus between Imurg and I appears to be that it is a complete and utter waste of time as these pillocks will act like pillocks regardless of whether they are named & shamed; however if you are going to name and shame pillocks for driving that endangers others, name and shame all of them regardless of the offence, don't be selective about it.

And that is nothing like saying naming and shaming them is a good thing, but it suits someone's argument to put that spin on it. 

Click to expand...

Totally agree Richard. If losing your licence, having an accident, possibly killing someone, going to prison is not a deterrent, how is having your name in the paper ? 

Only decent longer term deterrent as far as I am concerned is more random breath tests. Drink drivers think they will get away with it so they continue. They are obviously not worried abouut the consequences of their actions. Catch more of them and get them off the road. Whether this is possible is another matter.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 21, 2015)

richart said:



			But so is the fact you could kill someone and go to prison. That does not stop drink driving so why would having your name in the paper ?

Click to expand...

The police chief said in on the radio that if it stops one person driving over the limit then that's one person that won't be a danger to everyone else - his thinking was that in a society where public and private image is seen as important to a lot of people that shaming them "might" make them just think twice - it's costing the police nothing and it could have no effect at all - but it could save one person's life


----------



## Fish (Dec 21, 2015)

If they feel the need to do this then roll it out for no tax or insurance as well, they are both choices made by the person getting behind the wheel and can just as easily be fatal as someone who's been drinking, the same for all the foreign vehicles being driven around unregistered to UK residents, the list could on, so this is just a seasonal publicity stunt IMO which I have no issue with as long as it's not selective.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



			I agree with your point that the family may be punished to some degree but maybe if the driver thought about that BEFORE having 'one for the road' the situation wouldn't arise in the first place. 

Have you ever been the victim of an irresponsible driver? I have, cost me a LOT of money!
		
Click to expand...

Drivers who drink over the limit are selfish or deluded or both.  The fact that they drive when over the limit shows a disregard for their loved ones (as well as other road users and pedestrians) - that does nor mean that their loved ones have a similar disregard for the driver.  Punish the driver - why punish the family through public humiliation? They will be punished enough.   And no I haven't.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 21, 2015)

richart said:



			Totally agree Richard. If losing your licence, having an accident, possibly killing someone, going to prison is not a deterrent, how is having your name in the paper ? 

Only decent longer term deterrent as far as I am concerned is more random breath tests. Drink drivers think they will get away with it so they continue. They are obviously not worried abouut the consequences of their actions. Catch more of them and get them off the road. Whether this is possible is another matter.
		
Click to expand...

Under the current legislation the power pretty much exists to carry out random breath tests.  The issue with random breath tests is that Traffic Patrol officers who used to do the vast majority of them are being phased out in favour of Gatso cameras which to the best of my knowledge can't yet undertake breath tests.  The only thing that will cut down the number of drink drivers is the perception that you'll get caught, and all the time proper Traffic Patrols are being cut down then that perception is going the wrong way.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 21, 2015)

Had a look at Facebook pages for Beds Police and the local rags and seen that they are releasing details and information in regards various people who have been charged of various offences from driving through to rape and ABH. 

Also then release details of people who have been convicted.

It looks like the local police in this area aren't being selective and release details as they get charged


----------



## richart (Dec 21, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The police chief said in on the radio that if it stops one person driving over the limit then that's one person that won't be a danger to everyone else - his thinking was that in a society where public and private image is seen as important to a lot of people that shaming them "might" make them just think twice - it's costing the police nothing and it could have no effect at all - but it could save one person's life
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			Had a look at Facebook pages for Beds Police and the local rags and seen that they are releasing details and information in regards various people who have been charged of various offences from driving through to rape and ABH. 

Also then release details of people who have been convicted.

It looks like the local police in this area aren't being selective and release details as they get charged
		
Click to expand...

 Flip side is that by naming criminals especially rapists, you are potentially going to get vigilante's. If one innocent family member of a criminal gets attacked is it worth the risk ?  If a person is convicted and sentenced that is justice to me. End of. Details in the press from drink drivers to murderers have no deterrent value as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 21, 2015)

richart said:



			Flip side is that by naming criminals especially rapists, you are potentially going to get vigilante's. If one innocent family member of a criminal gets attacked is it worth the risk ?  If a person is convicted and sentenced that is justice to me. End of. Details in the press from drink drivers to murderers have no deterrent value as far as I am concerned.
		
Click to expand...

Yep can certainly see that and understand it's happened with someone in the Dunstable area who was attacked after being convicted of sex offences against a child. 

Do the public have a right to know that someone like that is in their area ? Or should they be able to hide ?


----------



## richart (Dec 21, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yep can certainly see that and understand it's happened with someone in the Dunstable area who was attacked after being convicted of sex offences against a child. 

Do the public have a right to know that someone like that is in their area ? Or should they be able to hide ?
		
Click to expand...

 I was thinking more about the family of, as the criminal would be behind bars when the press release would be made.

The right to know is a different matter, and would only be relevant when the criminal was released ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 21, 2015)

richart said:



			I was thinking more about the family of, as the criminal would be behind bars when the press release would be made.

The right to know is a different matter, and would only be relevant when the criminal was released ?
		
Click to expand...

Ah right - never heard of a family member being attacked because of something someone else has been convicted off but can see someone doing something to effect the whole family


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 21, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ah right - never heard of a family member being attacked because of something someone else has been convicted off but can see someone doing something to effect the whole family
		
Click to expand...

There have been cases were innocent men have been attacked and I think one was murdered a few years ago in a case of mistaken identity.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Yes I appreciate all that but it doesn't detract from the fact that they have driven whilst over the limit (or very close to it) in the first place or they wouldn't have got as far as a blood test etc.
		
Click to expand...

But what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Naming straight away isn't the way forward in my opinion


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 21, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Had a look at Facebook pages for Beds Police and the local rags and seen that they are releasing details and information in regards various people who have been charged of various offences from driving through to rape and ABH. 

Also then release details of people who have been convicted.

It looks like the local police in this area aren't being selective and release details as they get charged
		
Click to expand...

Not sure this is the way forward irrespective of the crime and is a dangerous game. We've seen trials halted before because of the media intrusion and even on a local level this would seem to be an unwise thing to be doing in my opinion


----------



## SammmeBee (Dec 21, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Not sure this is the way forward irrespective of the crime and is a dangerous game. We've seen trials halted before because of the media intrusion and even on a local level this would seem to be an unwise thing to be doing in my opinion
		
Click to expand...

You seem worried.......


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 21, 2015)

SammmeBee said:



			You seem worried.......
		
Click to expand...

Your jibes are getting boring. Nothing to hide but ta for the interest


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 21, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			But what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Naming straight away isn't the way forward in my opinion
		
Click to expand...

This is what I don't get about this discussion. If someone has failed a breath test, they have committed a crime. They are not innocent. If for some reason the police decide not to prosecute that is entirely up to them.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



			This is what I don't get about this discussion. If someone has failed a breath test, they have committed a crime. They are not innocent. If for some reason the police decide not to prosecute that is entirely up to them.
		
Click to expand...

Well technically yes but don't the points/fine only come into effect, and therefore the sentence passed at that point. Until that point, they haven't been convicted and there have been numerous stories of people getting off for a number of reasons and therefore technically still innocent. I don't agree with it but that's the law is it not?


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 21, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Well technically yes but don't the points/fine only come into effect, and therefore the sentence passed at that point. Until that point, they haven't been convicted and there have been numerous stories of people getting off for a number of reasons and therefore technically still innocent. I don't agree with it but that's the law is it not?
		
Click to expand...

Sadly yes, you are absolutely right. Murderers, rapists, burglars etc.....sure there can be doubt. But if the police pull someone out of a car and they fail a breath test, that is pretty clear cut.


----------



## Kellfire (Dec 21, 2015)

Failing a breath test isn't proof of commiting a crime, as stated earlier.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 21, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Sadly yes, you are absolutely right. Murderers, rapists, burglars etc.....sure there can be doubt. But if the police pull someone out of a car and they fail a breath test, that is pretty clear cut.
		
Click to expand...

You and I will have to differ. In your mind clearly a crime has been committed. I prefer to wait until the conviction is made. And to that end, publishing the name of those failing DD tests without being prosecuted yet is wrong, in my opinion of course.


----------



## SammmeBee (Dec 21, 2015)

Kellfire said:



			Failing a breath test isn't proof of commiting a crime, as stated earlier.
		
Click to expand...

No....just proof of having too much to drink......


----------



## Kellfire (Dec 21, 2015)

SammmeBee said:



			No....just proof of having too much to drink......
		
Click to expand...

Again, wrong. It's proof that the machine detects alcohol in your breath. That could be there without you swallowing a drop of alcohol.


----------



## Slab (Dec 22, 2015)

richart said:



			What about the families of people named ? Can just imagine what will happen to kids at school if one of their parents is named.:mmm: 

To me it is no deterrent, so can't see the point.
		
Click to expand...




drive4show said:



			What you have quoted above is a pretty bluddy mahoosive incentive not to drink and drive IMHO.
		
Click to expand...


Hold the phone!

d4s I'm assuming richart is highlighting the possibility that kids of a named drink driver may be subjected to anything from ridicule to reprisals. Are you suggesting that the incentive not to drink & drive is the likelihood of kids being targeted & punished for a parents actions via the playground justice system? 

If such action against the kids is probable or even likely then I think its a major reason not to publish the parents names


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 22, 2015)

Kellfire said:



			Again, wrong. It's proof that the machine detects alcohol in your breath. That could be there without you swallowing a drop of alcohol.
		
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how you can have enough alcohol on your breath to fail a test without having touched a drop?


----------



## Rooter (Dec 22, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Please explain to me how you can have enough alcohol on your breath to fail a test without having touched a drop?
		
Click to expand...

Low blood sugar
Mints
Mouthwash
Some medication
Sorbitol
Menthol
Cough sweets

Hence why if you fail a breath test, you are taken for a more accurate test (typically urine, blood or breath on a more complex machine)

Hence why the roadside test is called a preliminary test.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 22, 2015)

Rooter said:



			Low blood sugar
Mints
Mouthwash
Some medication
Sorbitol
Menthol
Cough sweets

Hence why if you fail a breath test, you are taken for a more accurate test (typically urine, blood or breath on a more complex machine)

Hence why the roadside test is called a preliminary test.
		
Click to expand...

Surely there won't be enough alcohol in what you mention to mean someone fails a breath test ?


----------



## Rooter (Dec 22, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Surely there won't be enough alcohol in what you mention to mean someone fails a breath test ?
		
Click to expand...

Well there won't be any alcohol, but they can give a false positive reading, hence no one is convicted just from the roadside test. But you and d4s would have them shot at the roadside.. I thought u did your research before getting into a debate Phil...


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 22, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Sadly yes, you are absolutely right. Murderers, rapists, burglars etc.....sure there can be doubt. But if the police pull someone out of a car and they fail a breath test, that is pretty clear cut.
		
Click to expand...

Its not pretty clear cut. That's why they get taken to the police station to blow into a second machine. The machine in the police station gets calibrated every 4 months. Why do they need calibrating? Because they drift? The handheld devices are less accurate, and also drift?

Last year I went into the workshop at head office and pinched a hand held device for later in the evening, when 6 of us were out for a meal. For 4 of us it worked perfectly, but for 2 it didn't. 1 repeatedly passed with a zero reading when he should have been banged to rights after 2 beers and 4 large G&T's. Another, on soft drinks, showed up as borderline.

There is an element of doubt with both machines, and the driver has the opportunity between getting charged and appearing in court to gather evidence to show he is innocent, e.g. a doctor's report showing he is on other medication.

Naming and shaming before conviction is wrong. And, as previously posted, I disagree with it full stop.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 22, 2015)

Rooter said:



			Well there won't be any alcohol, but they can give a false positive reading, hence no one is convicted just from the roadside test. But you and d4s would have them shot at the roadside.. I thought u did your research before getting into a debate Phil...
		
Click to expand...

Shot ? Nah no issues with them going into the police and carrying out a second test to ensure they are over the legal limit








Then shot :thup:


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 22, 2015)

Rooter said:



			Well there won't be any alcohol, but they can give a false positive reading, hence no one is convicted just from the roadside test. But you and d4s would have them shot at the roadside.. I thought u did your research before getting into a debate Phil...
		
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying anywhere in this debate that someone should be named and shamed for failing the first test. If they fail the more accurate and comprehensive test at the station then fair enough, they have committed a crime. What happens next is up to the justice system but they have still committed a crime. 

OJ Simpson is innocent!


----------



## dewsweeper (Dec 22, 2015)

Odd how some of you guys can turn what should be thread of interest to us all into a"willy waving " contest.
It is the usual people time and time again.
No one has knowledge to be 100% correct 100% of the time.
You would never know that from some of the egos bumping around on this forum.
Dewsweeper


----------



## Rooter (Dec 22, 2015)

drive4show said:



			But if the police pull someone out of a car and they fail a breath test, that is pretty clear cut.
		
Click to expand...




drive4show said:



			I don't recall saying anywhere in this debate that someone should be named and shamed for failing the first test. If they fail the more accurate and comprehensive test at the station then fair enough, they have committed a crime. !
		
Click to expand...

Oh my bad., read between the lines.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 22, 2015)

Rooter said:



			Oh my bad., read between the lines.
		
Click to expand...

That first quote doesn't say shoot them! Reading between the lines it says take them to the station, do the proper test then charge them or let them off. You are being very pedantic there Scooter!


----------



## Rooter (Dec 22, 2015)

drive4show said:



			That first quote doesn't say shoot them! Reading between the lines it says take them to the station, do the proper test then charge them or let them off. You are being very pedantic there Scooter!
		
Click to expand...

Shoot them was a tongue in cheek comment, however it was pretty clear that your opinion on someone failing a roadside test, was that they were guilty. That was the point I was making, it's not always as black and white as that.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 22, 2015)

Rooter said:



			Shoot them was a tongue in cheek comment, however it was pretty clear that your opinion on someone failing a roadside test, was that they were guilty. That was the point I was making, it's not always as black and white as that.
		
Click to expand...

And with the families of those with a drink problem already suffering (and often trying to keep the problem close to the family) a public naming and shaming really does just make their suffering and humiliation worse.  Yes of course the driver should consider this - but they either don't or don't really care - because that is what a drink dependency or even lack of awareness can do to you.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 22, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And with the families of those with a drink problem already suffering (and often trying to keep the problem close to the family) a public naming and shaming really does just make their suffering and humiliation worse.  Yes of course the driver should consider this - but they either don't or don't really care - because that is what a drink dependency or even lack of awareness can do to you.
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is about people with drink problems as I would believe most of them already don't drive 

This is more about people going out - having a couple too many and thinking it's fine to drive home IMO


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 22, 2015)

Rooter said:



			Shoot them was a tongue in cheek comment, however it was pretty clear that your opinion on someone failing a roadside test, was that they were guilty. That was the point I was making, it's not always as black and white as that.
		
Click to expand...

No. The point I was making (obviously not clearly enough) is that if they fail a test (after the correct procedure has been followed at the station) THEN I have no issue with naming them as at that point they have committed a crime. If they are not charged that is up to the legal system, doesn't change the fact they have broken the law.


----------



## Rooter (Dec 22, 2015)

drive4show said:



			Sadly yes, you are absolutely right. Murderers, rapists, burglars etc.....sure there can be doubt. But if the police pull someone out of a car and they fail a breath test, that is pretty clear cut.
		
Click to expand...




drive4show said:



			No. The point I was making (obviously not clearly enough) is that if they fail a test (after the correct procedure has been followed at the station) THEN I have no issue with naming them as at that point they have committed a crime. If they are not charged that is up to the legal system, doesn't change the fact they have broken the law.
		
Click to expand...

Bored now


----------



## Fish (Dec 22, 2015)

I would like to see a small badge/sign on a number plate that identifies a convicted drink driver, it could be blue for a first time offender who has been banned for 1 year (minimum) and red for a second time offender who would usually get a minimum of 2 years if caught within 11 years, the badge would be removed at the same time it comes off the licence, being 11years. 

This would make those that make a personal choice to take the risk of drink driving think a bit more as they become identifiable when out driving by police patrols.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 22, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



*I don't believe this is about people with drink problems as I would believe most of them already don't drive *

This is more about people going out - having a couple too many and thinking it's fine to drive home IMO
		
Click to expand...

Don't think you are right in *this*.  As a church member I get invited to AA meetings held in my church when AA has it's November public awareness month.  Over the years I have heard a lot of alcoholics tell that they were never stopped for drink driving - and regularly drove when well over the limit - with children in the car etc - and they are horrified that they did.  But an awareness of the threat of disqualification and/or jail and the impact that that would have on their loved ones made little or no difference to their behaviour. 

I heard just last week (Friday I think it was given talk around 'Mad Friday') that 1 in 6 of us have a significant drink problem.  There are a lot of people in denial - but sure as heck their family will know - and when in denial knocking back that 2nd or 3rd pint of Stella won't seem too much of an issue.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 22, 2015)

I've had issues with drink which ultimately ended up in a close call, lengthy stay in hospital, very ill and diabetes for life as a Brucie bonus. To be brutally honest, I knew I enjoyed drinking too much and it's why I never pursued getting my licence when I was a twenty something and living in London where transport was easy. I can physically move a car A to B but never to an examiners satisfaction. I should have taken advantage of the father in law being an instructor but was still enjoying too many beers per week. The one thing throughout that I was aware of, was drink driving. So somewhere down the line the message got home (probably helped by my old man wrapping a car into a bus stop plastered in the 70's when the rules were less stringent). 

I still think and agree with SilH that those that have issues with drink simply don't register drink driving even with family in the car as an issue. It's basically them, booze and the world revolves around that


----------



## Kellfire (Dec 23, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I've had issues with drink which ultimately ended up in a close call, lengthy stay in hospital, very ill and diabetes for life as a Brucie bonus. To be brutally honest, I knew I enjoyed drinking too much and it's why I never pursued getting my licence when I was a twenty something and living in London where transport was easy. I can physically move a car A to B but never to an examiners satisfaction. I should have taken advantage of the father in law being an instructor but was still enjoying too many beers per week. The one thing throughout that I was aware of, was drink driving. So somewhere down the line the message got home (probably helped by my old man wrapping a car into a bus stop plastered in the 70's when the rules were less stringent). 

I still think and agree with SilH that those that have issues with drink simply don't register drink driving even with family in the car as an issue. It's basically them, booze and the world revolves around that
		
Click to expand...

Startling and admirable honesty.


----------

