Conference terri::cars_uk

    Parliament, European Parliament/EEC, Law and politics
    -----------------------------------------------------
    The Department of Transport has confirmed that new measures to combat
    drinking and driving, particularly by young drivers, are under
    discussion.  Ideas being considered include a total ban on drinking by
    new drivers for two years after they pass their tests. During that
    period they would have to use special "P" plates.  "R" plates, for
    restricted, might be introduced for motorists returning to the roads
    after being convicted of drinking and driving
 

    
    This presumably means that wine-gums,
                               Rum-n-raison fudge
                               Sherry Trifle
                          **** Low Alcohol drinks ****
                               Having a drink the day/2 days before driving
                               Cough Medicines,
                               etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc......
    
    Are all illegal to eat/drink if you plan to drive in this 2 year
    period.
    Also, the idea of having a "P" on the back of the car will no doubt
    lead to vastly increased journey times on the weekends during the
    evenings, for anyone who has one.
    ie;
    To a policeman:
     "P" roughly translated on a Friday/Saturday night 
         = "STOP THIS CAR" in big flashing lights 
    
    Carl.

    re: .35

    Yes, but so what ....

      Victimisation thats why.
    
    Carl
    

	I imagine that someone with a grudge against DD's could have
	  a great time rearranging bodywork....

>>    
    This presumably means that wine-gums,
                               Rum-n-raison fudge
                               Sherry Trifle
                          **** Low Alcohol drinks ****
                               Having a drink the day/2 days before driving
                               Cough Medicines,
                               etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc......
>>
if such things impair driving ability then they should be included (i'm thinking
about cough medicines etc that cause drowsiness etc)

>>	I imagine that someone with a grudge against DD's could have
	  a great time rearranging bodywork....
>>

just bodywork....   ;-)

could be a great deterrent against drinking & driving


...art

    
    The point is, having  0.00000001 grams of alcohol etc. in your
    breath would be illegal, even though the worsening of your driving ability
    would be negligible; yet operating radios, lighting cigarettes etc,
    while on the move, would be allowed, though *more* dangerous
    
    If there should be a lower limit then it should apply to *all*
    drivers. I suggest there should not be a zero limit, but allow a very small
    of alcohol in the blood, eg 1/25 pint of beer.
    
    Thats my 2p worth
    
    
      Chris

    > eg 1/25 pint of beer.
    >
    > Thats my 2p worth
    
    Please tell me the name of your pub!
    
    Jeff.

The only people ever really victimised as the result of drinking and driving
are the REAL victims, those who are maimed for life or the bereaved families
left behind.

Unfortunately, legislation has little effect on society's "traditions", so
the proposed rules will have little effect on reducing the numbers of drunks
climbing into cars after a lunchtime or evening at the pub, whether they're
new drivers or 20-years-behind-the-wheel know-it-alls.  Only when society as
a whole accepts that murdering people whilst driving whilst impaired through
alcohol (or drugs) is unacceptable and actually DO something about it will
things begin to change.  In the meantime, over 2000 people will be killed on
our roads this year as a direct result of alcohol-related offences, and perhaps
one driver will be convicted of manslaughter.

Brian

	The amount of people convicted of manslaughter resulting from
	car accidents is very small indeed.

	People who cause death through recklessness, stupidity, or drunkenness
	should all be prosecuted.

	However, our society doesn't look at any driving offence like this.

	By tackling it as a complete problem, rather than waving a drunkenness 
	banner, may get better results.

	Heather

    re: .42
    
>                         In the meantime, over 2000 people will be killed on
>   our roads this year as a direct result of alcohol-related offences, ...
    
    This is understandable (but not acceptable of course), but to think
    that the other 3000 people who are killed on the roads are killed by
    people who are sober! Says a lot for our overall standard of driving,
    doesn't it.

    
    Did anyone see REPORTAGE on telly last night? - there was a report on a
    new 'educational' program in California to deal with people who have
    been convicted of drinking and driving. They have to attend lectures,
    and also visit the city mortuary, and watch autopsies being done, not
    necessarily accident victims, but whatever happens to be there 'on the
    day'. They said that the number of people re-offending after having
    gone through this was very low (1 in 500? - but they didn't say how
    long the program had been running). The idea was to bring home to
    people what death is.
    
    (Interestingly the law had to be changed to prevent people who had been
    made to attend from sueing for trauma!)
    
    Elaine

    
    
    This sort of thing already happens in germany, (not the mortuary tho )
    If you have too many speeding convictions you get to go to a lecture,
    continue and you get psycho analysed to see if your fit enough to
    drive. 
    
    Garry. No actual experience yet !

They have a generally much better thought out attitude to who is allowed to
drive in Germany...

For example, if you can't pass your driving test in 2-3 (can't remember which) 
attempts, you are banned from ever holding a driving licence...

If you are convicted of any form of "criminal" driving offence, drinking, 
dangerous, etc.  you have to go through the process described in the previous 
reply.  This process doesn't mean that you automatically get your licence back, 
even eventually !

    
    Re .48 
    
    Or in CARS_UK! :^)
    
    Mark

    We had a canteen discussion today around insurance and drunk drivers
    and I wonder if any of you more enlightened people can solve a problem
    we came up against.
    
    If a drunk-driver (or drugged-driver) crashes into a parked car, will
    the drunk driver's insurance company pay out for the repairs to the
    other vehicle or has the drunk-driver broken the terms and conditions
    of his policy by driving whilst unfit ? If the latter is the case, who
    pays for the repairs to TPFT-insured only vehicles ?
    
    Kev....

    re .0
    
    I think the insurance company is not allowed to deny the legal minimum
    insurance, even if the terms and conditions of the policy have been
    broken.
    
    Andrew

    A lot depends on the wording of the Insurance policy.
    
    Some insurers will have a "get out" clause which will allow them to
    decline cover.  However, they will be obliged to cover the policyholder
    under the minimum RTA cover; ie. Injury to third parties.

If someone crashes into your car it is *that* persons responsibility.  If 
they have contravened a term of their insurance policy which nullifies 
their cover then it's *their* problem, not yours (*note 1).  Your claim 
is against the person responsible, not their insurance company.  Nothing 
focuses their attention more than receiving a summons issued against them 
personally; give them the hassle of chasing large, faceless insurance 
companies!

Mike

*note 1 - unless they can't afford to pay of course, in which case you
          may well get the judgement but the money might not be so
          forthcoming.

    I thought that for the last ten years or so the UK insurance companies
    have been operating a compensation scheme so that the unwitting victim
    gets compensation as if the perpetrator's insurance was still valid.
    
    The put the scheme in place after some high-profile cases in which the
    driver causing the accident was found to be a person of zero or minimal
    financial substance.
    
    The difficulty now is when the drunk/drugged driver tries to
    renew/replace his policy....

I heard something in the media that some Peer (can't remeber who) was 
campaigning for a mandatory 1 year jail sentence for drink drivers, 
increasing if a repear offender.

What does the panel think?

Craig.

    100% support the notion.  I also think the offender should *never* be
    allowed to drive in this country again.
    
    That would make people stop and think before having "just one" drink.
    
    Liz (who feels very strongly about this)

I also support the notion 100%.

The problem with banning people for life would be (IMHO) that a great many of 
them would simply drive illegally. Come accident time, no insurance and a 
horrible mess to sort out.

What about 1 yr jail, 3 year ban, then re-test and alcohol abuse counselling? 

Throw in massive insurance costs as well!

Craig.

    Why not hang them?
    
    What a load of hysterical tosh.
    
    Laurie.

    And, of course, you put the children into care, the wife/husband into
    debt, and the dog into the pound. After all, let them see the potential
    results of their <stupid> actions.
    
    Hanging ? Naah, too easy - make them SUFFER !!!!
    
    Alan

    
    I think we need a much more general indication of 'fitness to drive'.
    The 80mg/100ml is just a number.
    
    However when we assess wether people are fit to drive there would be
    lots who would fail.... 
    
    People who need glasses (25% don't meet the required standard)
    People who have glasses but won't wear them through vanity
    People who can't read 
    People who are too tired
    People who are stressed
    People suffering from PMT 
    People taking medication
    People taking drugs
    People who've been drinking
    ....
    
    The list is pretty much endless. Personally I'd prefer to have people
    on the road with 81mg/100ml than those that can't see.
    
    Lock up all the bastards, leave the roads clear for me.
    Richard.

I wonder, how many people know how much they need to drink to be over the 
limit?  How long does it take for the amount of alcohol consumed to be removed 
from the bloodstream?  The latter is particularly significant, as people can 
still be over the limit from drinking the previous night, or even over the 
weekend, and the fact that they may not be legal to drive the next morning or 
in a couple of days' time is certainly not adequately publicised.  Okay, 
common sense comes into effect to a certain degree, in that it's obvious that 
you can't drink a bottle of Scotch, have 3 hours sleep and then be totally 
sober, but something like drinking 4 or 5 pints of strong lager can leave 
someone clearly over the limit the next morning.  I really don't understand 
why this isn't made clearer to people; the anti drinking & driving campaigns 
seem to suggest that a person is only unfit to drive if they down half a dozen 
drinks in half an hour and immediately clamber into their car.  Why more 
emphasis to the slightly longer term effects isn't made is completely beyond 
me.

Chris.

    
    	East Germany had a policy many years ago of stopping drivers on
    their way to work in the morning.
    
    I think the limit should be reduced so that "just one" drink is one too
    many.
    If you do drink any alcohol - you can't be over the limit.
    
    		Tony B.

As I understand it, the problem with having a zero limit, is that people who 
are taking medicines such as cough medicine, can unintentionally be over the 
limit, since there is a small amount of alocohol in them.

I would imagine the same applies for other things that one might not know 
contains alcohol.

I do think though that the current limit needs to be reviews. Don't people 
reckon on being able to drink 1.5 - 2 pints (I know it differes according to 
metabolism etc..)

How about the equivalent of half a pint? I think that might deal with the 
medicine issue above ?

    
    	That's what I meant by zero - obviously a negliible amount to cover
    	medication etc.
    
    	Tony B.

1 years jail for a drink/driving offence? Is this realistic? I say confiscate
their car, fine them and ban them from driving. Otherwise, we will have jails
full of people who don't need to be there.

Dave.

and cemetaries full of people who don't need to be there except for the 
foolish behaviour of people who drink and drive.

Realistic? I think so. Once they here of John at the Golf Club and Peter from 
work going to the clink for a year with all that entails (loss of job 
(generally), criminal record, DD conviction on license for 11 years etc..) I 
am sure they would soon get the message.

An associate of my parents was caught about 3 years ago driving home on 
enight he followed a police car for a number of miles, when they pulled him. 
He got the ususal 12 months ban etc..

He then coming whinging to me about paying 400 quid for his car insurance.  
He soon ended the conversation when he realised he would get no sympathy from 
me.

Craig.

    re .66
    
    I dont think you can confiscate the cars, otherwise company cars
    drivers would not be treated the same as private drivers. A big fine
    and a ban should be enough for the first offence - with extra penalties
    for driving while disqualified if the disqualification was due to
    drink.
    
    Using insurance premiums as a way of making the fine heavier
    discriminates against private drivers - it has no effect on the company
    car driver.
    
    Andrew

    Why not penalise those who drink & crash more than those who are 
    merely over the limit ?
    
    I think the limit should stay as it is. We will be banned from having a
    life next. I have no doubt that a great deal of thought went into the
    setting of the limit so I see no point in tinkering with it. There must
    be bigger fish to fry, leave responsible people alone.
    
    Tony.

Good point, But i recall seeing some TV program last year that said that most 
accidents where a driver had been drinking the driver was just below/just 
on/just over the limit, rather than sozzled out of his brain.

Craig

re.70:

Most accidents are caused by sober people. Therefore, I'd expect the next
highest group to be around the limit, and the smallest group to be sozzled. This
is all due to the number of drivers in each catagory rather than the effect of
alcohol. If you you knew how many drivers in each catagory and the state of
everyone involved in an accident you could work out the impact of alcohol -
anyone know if this has been done?

Dave.

    
    If most accidents are caused by sober people and least by sozzled
    people the answers easy... ban driving sober everyone who drives should
    be sozzled! 8*)
    
    Richard Young
    

>>> I dont think you can confiscate the cars, otherwise company cars
>>> drivers would not be treated the same as private drivers.
    
    In Holland (I think) they DO confiscate the car, you get a fine and/or
    jail sentence, PLUS you owe Hertzplan a car.

At the legal limit, your chances of having an accident about double. 

You can metabolise about 1 unit of alcohol per hour. So 6 pints of beer = 
around 12 hours.

Dave 

    RE: .74
    
    The source of that fact is?
    
    Laurie.