the law is an ass...

[On the Huh]

Going by what the old bill members are saying, and they are the ones with first hand experience, the DUI is worse, but in your two cases, (as just an ordinary smuck), I'd say #2 is worse.

Comparing just two cases against one another is probably not a great idea, and DUI is generally worse than speeding.

Sorry about using DUI, DD just soundslike Direct Debit to me. Bloody Judge Judy in the mornings...

 

[boliston]

I think the "morning after the night before" comparison used here is a bit of a red herring as it gives the impression that it's somehow a "less serious" form of drink driving.

I'd say it's if anything a more reckless type of drink driving as there is more room for errors when working out if you are likely to be over the limit or not.

 

[Splog]

Its called personal experience.

So you don't have anything to back it up

 

[Dave *]

So you don't have anything to back it up

Other than 15 years attending to the carnage left by drink drivers, no, I'm totally ignorant....

I'm sure an expert like yourself can educate us all.

 

[Bristolian]

90mph over the limit I would expect a lot longer than 7 weeks off and possibly into reckless (or even dangerous) driving territory. Can those charges be bought based soley on GATSO evidence though?

I'm pretty certain that reckless or dangerous driving requires the judgement of a police officer. Speed cameras are just that ... speed cameras.

I attended a meeting once where a member of our local "safety camera partnership" - now thankfully disbanded - was forced to admit quite publicly that the cameras couldn't truly be considered to be "safety" as all they can do is measure speed.

------

On the separate subject of still being over the DD limit next morning and how would you know? £6 buys you two EU approved breathalisers that are good enough that France now requires all drivers to have one in their vehicle at all times.

 

[On the Huh]

So you don't have anything to back it up

Steve, do you have anything to backup to say he is wrong?

 

[gman]

133mph in a 40mph? That's not speeding, that's not giving a flying ****** about anyone else because whatever you hit will be dead. Nobody would stand a chance.

 

[Bernie174]

hey, lets get it back in context to my original post......

slightly over the morning after the night before v 3.5 times the speed limit on a single carriageway urban road / residential area...

It's difficult to compare though Lynton. We don't know the full circumstances of either.

Something that those using the expression drunk driving should note, is that the offence number 1 was convicted of was having a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. The offence is just that, it is not drunk or 'under influence'. Nor does it mean necessarily that there was poor driving as such involved.

Number 2, is clearly poor driving and poor judgment, and in the road the photograph Lynton supplied is clearly dangerous.

But the 2 offences are very different, even in general terms, never mind in specific.

 

[Splog]

Steve, do you have anything to backup to say he is wrong?

Where did I say he was wrong?

 

[onomatopoeia]

Can't help but wonder how many of us have been slightly over the morning after the night before (and got away with it) compared to the number of us doing 133 in a 40....:shrug:

I've done neither. If I'm driving in the morning, I'm careful about drinking the night before (and back 20 years ago when I was a student I have taken the bus rather than the car in to lectures the morning after a 'session').

 

[malo50]

I've done neither. If I'm driving in the morning, I'm careful about drinking the night before (and back 20 years ago when I was a student I have taken the bus rather than the car in to lectures the morning after a 'session').

Same here, Mark. If I've been drinking on a night time, the bike stays in the garage the next morning. Not willing to gamble with mine, or anybody else's life.

Regarding your boy speeding, just demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the law and other road users.

 

[cowasaki]

While I am anti drink driving, I do find it harsh that someone can be done the morning after without knowing. Not many people know when you are safe the morning after and guessing is not that accurate. Willing to bet that most of us have probably driven the morning after not 100% sure we are legal.

Then don't drive the next day or drink the day before OR drink less.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I really don't see what the fuss is about...
I would maybe take issue with the statement that speeding is a crime, and come to that I feel the same about drink driving, in some circumstances - a crime requires intent, and in some circumstances it's possible to exceed the speed limit accidentally, if that happens then it's still a punishable offence, but not a crime. And someone who is still over the blood alcohol limit on the morning after can again be over the limit accidentally, personally I would say that accidental offences should perhaps be treated less severely than deliberate ones.

But coming back to the original question...
Everyone should know that if they are caught driving with more than the prescribed alcohol limit, they should expect to be lose their licence and for their insurance premium to go through the roof. And everyone should know that the same thing will happen if they are caught driving at insane speeds. And sentencing guidelines are in the public domain, people should have a pretty good idea of what the consequences are likely to be, assuming that their bad driving doesn't cause even worse consequences.

As for whether the sentencing guidelines are correct, well that's a matter, indirectly, for the government.

Surely, what we really need is for more drunk drivers and speeding drivers to be caught and prevented from driving

 

[LCPete]

I had a long drive on the motorway yesterday and saw 3 occasions drivers driving dangerously, we need to get these idiots off the road
no excuse for drink driving deserves a ban
but think the second driver speeding over 100 in a 40 should have got a years ban as well

 

[gman]

133mph in a 40mph should be jail, it's just lunacy.

See what 70mph in a 30mph can do by looking up Antonio Boparan. Here's one link and there's many more. The more you read the worse it gets. I believe he was caught speeding again not long after this accident before he was sentenced. If he were doing 30mph and crashed do you reckon the outcome would have been the same?

 

[Bernie174]

Garry

I would maybe take issue with the statement that speeding is a crime, and come to that I feel the same about drink driving, in some circumstances - a crime requires intent, and in some circumstances it's possible to exceed the speed limit accidentally,

Odd that a policeman doing something which has an accidental consequence, is however a crime in your eyes, even when a jury find otherwise.

Anyway, dealing with specifics, in most cars there's a dial or indicator in front of the drivers eyes, and that has numbers on it. It's a very simple game this, you keep the needle on that dial, below the number in the big red circle at the side of the road, and you don't get a ticket. So in simple terms, if you are doing what you should be when driving and paying attention, then you don't commit the crime of speeding. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be driving.

If you aren't paying attention, or you decide to ignore the speed limit, which lets be totally honest here, we all do, and get caught then no ones to blame but you. Irrespective though, it's a criminal offence, whatever you regard it as.

Anyway, onto your sensible and valid point about detection. Unfortunately, HMG want to spend less on Policing, so that isn't going to happen. Even if that wasn't the case, the public want burglars locked up, muggers off the streets and drug dealers got rid of. Which is the most important? Unless you have plod on ever street corner, they can't do everything.

But the real inequality, which hasn't been mentioned is this. Nick an old ladies last £10, and if you're unlucky and get charged by the CPS, and you then get convicted, you are looking at a sentence of conditional discharge and other low level 'punishment's for the first 4 or 5 times you do it.
Commit a traffic offences and you almost certainly will be prosecuted (or issued with a FPN) which even for the first offence will result in a meaningful punishment, albeit a fine usually.
That is where the inequality needs to be dealt with, what people regard as 'proper' crime should be punished at first offence, not numerous convictions down the road.

 

[Lynton]

But the real inequality, which hasn't been mentioned is this. Nick an old ladies last £10, and if you're unlucky and get charged by the CPS, and you then get convicted, you are looking at a sentence of conditional discharge and other low level 'punishment's for the first 4 or 5 times you do it.
Commit a traffic offences and you almost certainly will be prosecuted (or issued with a FPN) which even for the first offence will result in a meaningful punishment, albeit a fine usually.
That is where the inequality needs to be dealt with, what people regard as 'proper' crime should be punished at first offence, not numerous convictions down the road.

Agree. I must admit I don't understand it when say a banned driver gets caught and the judge then bans him for driving (because they really worked last time) or gives him 6 penalty points on the license he doesn't have.

 

[cowasaki]

Agree. I must admit I don't understand it when say a banned driver gets caught and the judge then bans him for driving (because they really worked last time) or gives him 6 penalty points on the license he doesn't have.

A banned driver getting caught driving normally gets a longer ban but being caught again will often result in a custodial sentence. Getting points on a licence that doesn't exist is so that if and when the driver does get a licence then it will contain the offences.

The problem with sentencing is that prisons are too full and the advised sentences for magistrates and judges are totally inadequate. The police have nothing to do with sentencing or even deciding if most cases even get to court. They can decide on some minor offences (especially if admitted) but otherwise not. Fixed penalty notice amounts are decided by the government.

 

[dinners]

If you're caught with 3% beer or 8% wine then you shouldn't be drinking !

 

[Bambi72]

I lost a very good friend in a head on car accident at 45mph when I was much younger. It happened right outside another friends workshop and he had to wait 30 mins for the fire brigade to cut him out while he was screaming with two shattered legs and various other broken bones, only to die an hour later in hospital.
That's the **** people who drive drunk or do 133mph in a 40 need to sit thru.
Still makes me well up 20 years on....

But back to the OP hangover driving, everyone has done it, hopefully not at 133mph though.

 

[Dave *]

But back to the OP hangover driving, everyone has done it, hopefully not at 133mph though.

No, that is totally incorrect. Only idiots who don't care about consequences do it.
No one I know does it and if I found out about someone doing it I would report them without hesitation.

There is nothing different between having 5 pints and then getting into a car or having 10 pints sleeping 5 or 6 hours and then getting into a car. If anything, the morning after driver is the more dangerous in rush hour traffic with school children using the pavement and large crowds standing at bus stops.

Both deserve to lose their licence, and a large fine at the very least.

 

[boliston]

No, that is totally incorrect. Only idiots who don't care about consequences do it....

Totally agree that this "hangover driving" is particularly reckless due to so many unknown factors being taken into account, such as the fact the everyone's bodies metabolize alcohol at differing rates, so you might think you are down to the legal limit yet in reality still be some considerable way above it.

I'd also imagine that driving with a stonking hangover is not going to be ideal even without the effect of the alcohol that is still left in the bloodstream

 

[odd jim]

I lost a very good friend in a head on car accident at 45mph when I was much younger. It happened right outside another friends workshop and he had to wait 30 mins for the fire brigade to cut him out while he was screaming with two shattered legs and various other broken bones, only to die an hour later in hospital.
That's the **** people who drive drunk or do 133mph in a 40 need to sit thru.
Still makes me well up 20 years on....

But back to the OP hangover driving, everyone has done it, hopefully not at 133mph though.

Happy to say I've never done that, and I bet most responsible drivers haven't.

 

[Marc]

Happy to say I've never done that, and I bet most responsible drivers haven't.

Me neither and I'd take a dim view of any of my friends who did.

If I've had enough to drink to give me a hangover, I definitely wouldn't be driving the next morning. If I had to drive the next morning, I wouldn't have a skinful the night before. Simple really. :shrug:

 

[ghoti]

Happy to say I've never done that, and I bet most responsible drivers haven't.

+1

If I've been drinking even slightly heavily, I don't drive in the morning and if I know I'm going to have to drive the next day I simply don't drink (or drink very little).

If you drive the morning after a ****-up you're a moron and deserve to lose your license.

And I wouldn't rely on your own confidence about your ability to drive or your ability to handle your drink, either. Everyone who has killed or been killed while driving under the influence of alcohol was just as confident.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Garry



Odd that a policeman doing something which has an accidental consequence, is however a crime in your eyes, even when a jury find otherwise.

Anyway, dealing with specifics, in most cars there's a dial or indicator in front of the drivers eyes, and that has numbers on it. It's a very simple game this, you keep the needle on that dial, below the number in the big red circle at the side of the road, and you don't get a ticket. So in simple terms, if you are doing what you should be when driving and paying attention, then you don't commit the crime of speeding. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be driving.

If you aren't paying attention, or you decide to ignore the speed limit, which lets be totally honest here, we all do, and get caught then no ones to blame but you. Irrespective though, it's a criminal offence, whatever you regard it as.

Anyway, onto your sensible and valid point about detection. Unfortunately, HMG want to spend less on Policing, so that isn't going to happen. Even if that wasn't the case, the public want burglars locked up, muggers off the streets and drug dealers got rid of. Which is the most important? Unless you have plod on ever street corner, they can't do everything.

But the real inequality, which hasn't been mentioned is this. Nick an old ladies last £10, and if you're unlucky and get charged by the CPS, and you then get convicted, you are looking at a sentence of conditional discharge and other low level 'punishment's for the first 4 or 5 times you do it.
Commit a traffic offences and you almost certainly will be prosecuted (or issued with a FPN) which even for the first offence will result in a meaningful punishment, albeit a fine usually.
That is where the inequality needs to be dealt with, what people regard as 'proper' crime should be punished at first offence, not numerous convictions down the road.

I agree, except for your first paragraph.

I fully accept that budgets are being cut and so the rate of detection and punishment has to go down, and that this is a serious step in the wrong direction. My point is that it must be better to catch and punish offenders than to concern ourselves about the small details of the punishment imposed on the small % who actually get caught.

As for the punishments meted out to the low life, again I agree and it must be very frustrating for police officers to see this happen, time and time again. Again, it's partly due to lack of resources (prison space), partly to the fact that even Magistrates, who are supposed to be 'real' people seem to have no perception of the problems caused by the low life petty criminals and partly to the totally false assumption that the number of times that a criminal actually stands in the dock is in some way related to the number of crimes he has committed...