The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is a drink driving killing murder? > Comments

Is a drink driving killing murder? : Comments

By William Spaul, published 27/4/2012

Drink driving is more than negligence - should it be criminalised?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
It is easier and a lot less expensive to drive your drink home than to tank up at your favourite watering hole and then drive home drunk!
A good man knows when he's had enough. We also know that the brains of folk under 26 or thereabouts haven't finished fully developing, and may be prevented from ever doing so by the too liberal use of alcohol! Perhaps the legal age limit should be raised to say 25?
Apart from delayed or prevented development, what are the downsides of the too liberal use of alcohol? Liver damage, early onset dementia, diabetes, antisocial behaviour, divorce, estranged families and poverty. Just to mention the most glaringly obvious.
As for imposing murder charges on drunk drivers who kill? What about arsonists who cold dead sober light fires; that in too many instances led to multiple and horrendous deaths? Besides, are there any other legal or illegal substances that reduce or eliminate normal inhibitions?
What about the doctor who has just completed a 24 hour shift, is fatigued and fighting sleep; and consequently, has less control than a completely smashed drunk?
I believe the legal level could be reduced to 0.03 as suggested, and perhaps drinkers over that limit could/should lose more than their licence? Perhaps if the car was also confiscated and sold at public auction to beef up a compensation fund for victims, who are not killed but damaged to the point, where they need 24/7 lifetime high care?
Our prisons are already overfill with drug addicts and the mentally unwell! Incarcerating drunk drivers who take lives, and the toll is very high, would leave a lot less room for those who deliberately and cold-bloodedly take life!
I'm inclined to agree with the author, but would propose permanent exile in a willing third world country, as another and perhaps more appropriate less expensive whole of life outcome? Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 28 April 2012 4:29:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< The art of driving is to never put yourself at risk of being booked for anything. >>

It’s a nice ideal, 579, but impractical.

This is particularly so with speeding. In just about all cases the cruising speed is right up there at the speed limit. So if you roll with the flow, you are perilously close to slipping over the bookable limit. If you exercise a bit of caution and keep your speed down five or eight kmh lower, you frequently get tailgated, riskily overtaken and shown contempt from other drivers.

It is more dangerous to travel a bit slower than the general cruising speed than it is to do the cruising speed, which is usually a bit over the official speed limit!

So you are perilously close to being in the bookable zone if you are just driving properly and safely!! In fact, technically you ARE in it!

This is a chronic problem, which becomes quite extreme in roadworks zones where just about no one observes the temporary slow speed limits for the whole slow zone or even anything close to them. Often if you dare to observe the speed limit, you are at strong odds with the traffic flow. You feel strongly pressured to not observe the speed signs and to just roll with the flow.

Then on the odd occasion that the police actually police roadworks zones, ALL those who are ‘speeding’ get nabbed and treated just the same.

If you drive a lot, you are going to get booked for speeding, even if you do your darnedest to observe the law!

There is much less prospect of ‘wrongly’ being nabbed for drink-driving. But there are circumstances where a person feels they have to drive while intoxicated, and that it is indeed better to do so than to not do it.

There can be reasons or mitigating circumstances in some instances. Sure, we have the courts to sort this stuff out. But I have about the same opinion of our justice system as I do for our policing regime.
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 29 April 2012 9:23:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Technology may help drunk or fatigued drivers. There are devices, which can be fitted to a drink drivers car; that have to be blown in to, to measure alcohol levels, which if too high can lock out the ignition. Another will keep you within the white lines and a safe distance from other road users.
One cannot however, legislate against stupidity.
One is reminded of a very well reported compensation case, where a woman having just purchased a very well known brand of motor home, activated the cruise control, then went into the back to make a sandwich. When the vehicle subsequently crashed and the woman suffered some serious injury, she was able to sue the Motor Home Manufacturer, for a sum much larger, than the replacement cost of said vehicle! Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 29 April 2012 12:10:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"a very well reported compensation case…" No, definitely not well reported. Widely reported certainly.

If you're referring to Mrs Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma – as amusing as it was – it is a total fabrication.

Unfortunately, many sites around the internet never seem to get around to updating errors.
Posted by WmTrevor, Sunday, 29 April 2012 12:30:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I saw the Motor Home story in print in a local newspaper! Newspaper publishers have a legal duty to validate the accuracy of that which they commit to print, no matter how hilarious!
Thus far, and many/many months after the publication, they have failed to correct or recant the article. However, not even a publication as revered and sacrosanct as say the bible can claim to accurately report the facts or pertinent statements/eye witness accounts?
Perhaps the Poster might be the one needing to validate his or her facts? Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 29 April 2012 1:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig. There is no such thing as cruising speed. What is at fault is the bookable speed is around 3 or 4 Km over. Because of this every body thinks their speedo is absolutely correct.
If the bookable speed was 60 in a 60 zone, u would be more likely to drive 5 k's below the speed limit.
The bookable limit for .05 is .049 .05 is bookable.
I have no sympathy for people being caught with speed cameras. The law is the law, and should be further refined.
Tailgaters are booked in vic.
Get the cereal offenders off the road never to return. Zero tolerance.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 29 April 2012 2:25:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy