Drink Drivers Named

[Slab]

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.

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

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]

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

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

 

[Rooter]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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

 

[Rooter]

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

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]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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...

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]

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...

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]

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]

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

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. !

Oh my bad., read between the lines.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Oh my bad., read between the lines.

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]

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!

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]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Bored now

 

[Fish]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

Startling and admirable honesty.