Drink Drivers Named

[brendy]

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

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]

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

Bingo, every time.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[freddielong]

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

 

[Foxholer]

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

Er. Yes!

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

 

[Smiffy]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Ethan]

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

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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]

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 ?

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]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

Bullying ? They have broken the law and endangered lives

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