Drunk Driver kiils Cyclist

Wallace1492

Wonder how long he will get.....

Deepest sympathy for cylists friends and family.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-11229562

deptfordmarmoset

That's a tragic waste of a life. The grieving family's response was exceptionally dignified given their loss.

outofbreath2

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

That's a tragic waste of a life. The grieving family's response was exceptionally dignified given their loss.

+1

The family's response is amazing - I would have been far more knee jerk. Whereby I would want to jerk my knee right into his groin. But that wouldn't really help I suppose.
Much sympathy.

Gazzaputt

Wallace1492 wrote:

Wonder how long he will get.....

Not long enough.

Death by drunk driver should be a mandatory life sentence.

CiB

Gazzaputt wrote:

Death by drunk driver should be a mandatory life sentence.

Why? If he was p!ssed then he wasn't in control of his actions, which takes away the uncertainty of proving intent even more. If we take it to a logical conclusion the further over the limit a driver is, the lighter the punishment should be as the accused cannot be in a position to have made a sensible judgement on whether to drive or not.

Ok that's a bit extreme, but knee jerk reactions as above - ' mandatory life sentence' - are as useless as the 'string em up' brigade to other crimes. There has to be intent for extreme sentences, and there has to be balance too with punishments for various other and similar crimes being broadly on equal terms.

Clever Pun

Hopefully at the least banned from driving for considerably longer than any custodial sentence

Sympathy to the family

SimonAH

Gazzaputt wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Wonder how long he will get.....

Not long enough.

Death by drunk driver should be a mandatory life sentence.

No knee jerk reaction then...... I'm going to upset a few people now and say that there is drink driving and there is drunk driving. This particular case was undeniably drunk driving but (if memory serves) the death aspect comes under death by dangerous driving (just as if he'd been a speeding teenager) and the possible maximum sentence is fairly low, ~5 years I think? This IS too low - he could not have failed to be aware that he was impeded through drink and was doing the equivalent of running around a school playground with a running chainsaw with one eye shut.

However - away from drunk driving to drink driving. If you like a good shandy now and then and unless you are ABSOLUTELY conscientious then I pretty much guarantee that you've driven over the limit at some point. Probably pretty regularly.

We are all aware of drink driving, all condemn it and yet the conviction rate at the moment is the highest recorded, mainly because the rules are deliberately vague (and if I’m cynical, because it’s an almost incontestable conviction so it looks good against police targets).

Do you know how many pints of lager you can drink in a pub and remain under the limit? About two right? Wrong.

A nights sleep after four or five pints and you’re fine to drive? Maybe, but then again maybe not.

They are dropping the blood limit threshold shortly from 80 to 50. You are going to see the numbers absolutely soar. The police and the courts are rubbing their hands in glee – an effort free conviction fest is on the way!

You won’t do much about people like the killer that caused this thread to exist, but unless some real education around clear facts is incorporated into the driving test and made very clear and public to those already with licenses then the whole system remains dangerously flawed.









.

bails87

SimonAH wrote:

unless some real education around clear facts is incorporated into the driving test and made very clear and public to those already with licenses then the whole system remains dangerously flawed.
.

Yeah, if only there was some kind of campaing telling people to not drink and drive. I don't know how to do it though.

Perhaps a load of posters and TV and radio ads saying Don't Drink and Drive would work. If only someone actually did it.....

gaz545

While those who drink and drive are very much in the minority, it remains essential that we continue to drive home the message that such selfish behaviour can destroy lives.

So punish them!. People who get caught drink driving should lose their license and not be allowed to re-apply. They had the chance to act sensibly and clearly they can't so they shouldn't have the privalage of driving!

Soni

CiB wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Death by drunk driver should be a mandatory life sentence.

Why? If he was p!ssed then he wasn't in control of his actions, which takes away the uncertainty of proving intent even more. If we take it to a logical conclusion the further over the limit a driver is, the lighter the punishment should be as the accused cannot be in a position to have made a sensible judgement on whether to drive or not.

Ok that's a bit extreme, but knee jerk reactions as above - ' mandatory life sentence' - are as useless as the 'string em up' brigade to other crimes. There has to be intent for extreme sentences, and there has to be balance too with punishments for various other and similar crimes being broadly on equal terms.

Maybe you should volunteer your services as his defence lawyer.....

Maybe we should also let off those who murder pensioners for their last £5.00 in their handbags due to them being drug addicts and needing a quick fix, after all they aren't in control of themselves either are they, they are addicts after all and require a quick fix.....

There needs to be a deterrent, we need to make people accountable for their actions and maybe then people will think twice about getting themselves into a situation where they could possible drive after drinking.

When i go out for a drink, even if its only at a restaurant and only having a couple, i either leave the car at home and get a taxi, or i pass the keys over the table to my Mrs BEFORE i even take a sip out of my pint......

Such a shame another dies at the hands of an inconsiderate motorist.....

Soni

I can see the problem with reducing the legal limit, even though i'm not really a drinker, might have max 3-4 pints once a month, but even that, the following morning i could still be over the 'new' limit.....

This 'new' limit will render most people car-less for a couple of days after they've had a drink! Will be better for cyclists though without so many cars on the road, so there is a flip side to it....

cee

SimonAH wrote:

Do you know how many pints of lager you can drink in a pub and remain under the limit? About two right? Wrong.

A nights sleep after four or five pints and you’re fine to drive? Maybe, but then again maybe not.

They are dropping the blood limit threshold shortly from 80 to 50. You are going to see the numbers absolutely soar. The police and the courts are rubbing their hands in glee – an effort free conviction fest is on the way!
.

I always find that if I answer 0, then I will be fine to drive.

again its this limit thing....the blood alcohol limit is exactly that...the maximum...yet your question is all about staying on JUST the right side of the limit.

Consume no alcohol....and I guarantee, you will be under the limit.

Easy.

Or leave the car....and drink as much as you like.

Easy.

or is everyones life so bad that they simply MUST have that 1 beer instead of a soft drink before driving home?

For avoidance of doubt....I have zero tolerance of the consumption of any alcohol before driving. For this reason...I know I am always under the limit when I drive.

next morning.....you know what....if you know you are driving at 8 in the morning....WTF are you thinking skulling 5 pints the night before?

After 5 pints....I feel drunk. And feel hungover in the morning. driving in those circumstances is stupid!

toontra

Clever Pun wrote:

Hopefully at the least banned from driving for considerably longer than any custodial sentence

Sympathy to the family

A lengthy custodial sentence is the only sure way to keep people like this from killing again. A long driving ban often results in people breaking the ban and driving anyway, but without insurance. These people are more likely to hit-and-run.

Gazzaputt

CiB wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Death by drunk driver should be a mandatory life sentence.

Why? If he was p!ssed then he wasn't in control of his actions, which takes away the uncertainty of proving intent even more. If we take it to a logical conclusion the further over the limit a driver is, the lighter the punishment should be as the accused cannot be in a position to have made a sensible judgement on whether to drive or not.

Ok that's a bit extreme, but knee jerk reactions as above - ' mandatory life sentence' - are as useless as the 'string em up' brigade to other crimes. There has to be intent for extreme sentences, and there has to be balance too with punishments for various other and similar crimes being broadly on equal terms.

Why? Ever lost a family member through a drunk driver?

CiB

Gazzaputt wrote:

Why? Ever lost a family member through a drunk driver?

Nope, but when I was burgled and lost my hi-fi, CD collection and Walkman my fervent hope was that the scrote who felt able to help himself to my hard-earned gear would swing from the nearest lamp-post. So I don't believe that victims should have any say in sentencing, not one jot.

Re the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that DD sentencing should be in inverse ratio to the blood-achohol level, that was to point up the extremeness of the suggestion that killing under the influence should carry a life-ban. Sorry if you all misread it; sometimes I don't get the message over as intended.

Re having a zero limit; it's unworkable. And what problem are we trying to solve? Is there an epedemic of citizens being killed by drivers over the proposed new limit but under the current perfectly sensible limit? Or are we being steered down the path of absolute safety, nothing can happen that takes us outside of strictly controlled safe parameters, so safe as to be stupid. And how about punishments? The new limit is intended in part to bring us into line with Europe (why?Just why do we need to be in line?) But in those countries with a lower limit there is a reduced punishment; the 'crime' is lesser so offenders face a fine or a short ban. Not here though. Oh no - the new law will treat drivers with exactly the same punishment as now - a mandatory 12 month ban + the inevitable insurance costs. I'd hoped the new govt would have seen sense and binned this Labour idea, but sadly they seem to have gone for it. What a disappointment.

I refuse point blank to accept that having a couple of pints of ordinary beer over 1½ hours makes me incapable of driving, or that polishing off a bottle of wine after dinner means I can't drive for a day or so. The bother s that defending drinking and then driving is on a par with defending paedos. Well tough. I like a pint or two occasionally, there's no real option out here in Sticksville to get a taxi / cycle / go by PT [ha], so driving, drinking a sensible amount steadily and driving back is perfectly fine. I've been doing it for 30 years thanks. <Awaits flak>

Wallace1492

He probably will get too light a sentence...... There should probably be some custodial.
But, what should definately happen is that he is banned FOR LIFE from driving.

I do not doubt that he did not intend to cause harm, however, he has to be responsible for his actions and the outcome of them.

Banned for life for being the cause of serious accident, injury or death should be available and be enforced in many cases.

Far too many people driving that should not be.

W1

CiB wrote:

Re having a zero limit; it's unworkable. And what problem are we trying to solve? Is there an epedemic of citizens being killed by drivers over the proposed new limit but under the current perfectly sensible limit? Or are we being steered down the path of absolute safety, nothing can happen that takes us outside of strictly controlled safe parameters, so safe as to be stupid. And how about punishments? The new limit is intended in part to bring us into line with Europe (why?Just why do we need to be in line?) But in those countries with a lower limit there is a reduced punishment; the 'crime' is lesser so offenders face a fine or a short ban. Not here though. Oh no - the new law will treat drivers with exactly the same punishment as now - a mandatory 12 month ban + the inevitable insurance costs. I'd hoped the new govt would have seen sense and binned this Labour idea, but sadly they seem to have gone for it. What a disappointment.

I agree with this.

The problem is not that there are hoards of murdering drivers around who are under the current limit but over the proposed new limit.

The real problem is those who are two or three times the limit (as this driver was). I don't think they'll care too much whether the limit is 50 or 80.

Gazzaputt

CiB wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

Why? Ever lost a family member through a drunk driver?

Nope, but when I was burgled and lost my hi-fi, CD collection and Walkman my fervent hope was that the scrote who felt able to help himself to my hard-earned gear would swing from the nearest lamp-post. So I don't believe that victims should have any say in sentencing, not one jot.

Re the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that DD sentencing should be in inverse ratio to the blood-achohol level, that was to point up the extremeness of the suggestion that killing under the influence should carry a life-ban. Sorry if you all misread it; sometimes I don't get the message over as intended.

Re having a zero limit; it's unworkable. And what problem are we trying to solve? Is there an epedemic of citizens being killed by drivers over the proposed new limit but under the current perfectly sensible limit? Or are we being steered down the path of absolute safety, nothing can happen that takes us outside of strictly controlled safe parameters, so safe as to be stupid. And how about punishments? The new limit is intended in part to bring us into line with Europe (why?Just why do we need to be in line?) But in those countries with a lower limit there is a reduced punishment; the 'crime' is lesser so offenders face a fine or a short ban. Not here though. Oh no - the new law will treat drivers with exactly the same punishment as now - a mandatory 12 month ban + the inevitable insurance costs. I'd hoped the new govt would have seen sense and binned this Labour idea, but sadly they seem to have gone for it. What a disappointment.

I refuse point blank to accept that having a couple of pints of ordinary beer over 1½ hours makes me incapable of driving, or that polishing off a bottle of wine after dinner means I can't drive for a day or so. The bother s that defending drinking and then driving is on a par with defending paedos. Well tough. I like a pint or two occasionally, there's no real option out here in Sticksville to get a taxi / cycle / go by PT [ha], so driving, drinking a sensible amount steadily and driving back is perfectly fine. I've been doing it for 30 years thanks. <Awaits flak>

If you drink you shouldn't drive end of.

Your comments are ill advised. Until you loose someone you care about through somebody else's selfish recklessness then you won't understand I'm afraid.

W1

Wallace1492 wrote:

He probably will get too light a sentence...... There should probably be some custodial.
But, what should definitely happen is that he is banned FOR LIFE from driving.

I do not doubt that he did not intend to cause harm, however, he has to be responsible for his actions and the outcome of them.

Banned for life for being the cause of serious accident, injury or death should be available and be enforced in many cases.

Far too many people driving that should not be.

Do you really think that's workable though?

What you may find is that all you get are a lot more unlicenced (and therefore uninsured) drivers on the road.

There are very few crimes that carry a lifetime penalty. I'm not sure that banning someone for life for causing a serious injury (meaning what, exactly?) is proportionate.

Most "accidents" are just that - if it is deliberate then I would tend to agree with you. If it's just careless - well, we've all been careless ourselves (in cars, on bikes, on the street etc). Some peoples carelessness has serious consequences, most don't. Should there be such a distinct "life long" line drawn between the two?

cee

on the zero limit thing....

I think that the fact that there is a limit there....tells people that its fine to drink 2 pints (or the amount to take you to just before the limit...)....

Its not...its the maximum.

In exactly the same way as drivers think that 30 is the speed that should be driven at...again..its a maximum.

for me...the attitude doesn't match up somewhere....its the old speed limit thing all over.....

because the limit is there...everyone goes at that limit, even if the conditions are unsuitable for it....

Maybe its the british culture....people know what the limit is...and get as close to it as possible. A zero limit (or very much lower to allow for things like mouthwash etc...or the next morning after a couple of glasses of wine with dinner...etc...)

Interstingly...there was a documentary thing on telly a while back where a load of guys went on a night out, which they would regularly do and then drive the next day. even though none of them felt very good...and thought they would be over the limit...they were actually under it. Again...not ideal for driving....a task that requires concentration, awareness, reactions etc............

I would support a zero limit. I already enforce that on myself and on the drivers of any cars in which I am a passenger.

CiB

Gazzaputt wrote:

If you drink you shouldn't drive end of.

Your comments are ill advised. Until you loose someone you care about through somebody else's selfish recklessness then you won't understand I'm afraid.

Sorry no. Drinking a small amount of a period of time does not render someone incapable of driving. It does not make that driver any less able to drive than a whole stack of people who shouldn't be on the roads when they're at their most aware - stuff the stereotypes but we all know them, menaces who can't begin to judge their car's speed or size, who cause danger or holdups in equal measures through inappropriate speed, those who drive with a phone stuck to their ear, or a walkman plugged into the ears not the ICE, or just bumbling useless drivers who passed their test n years ago and stopped thinking about driving on that very day. Ban that lot first, don't pick on this easy easy but loopy message that half a shandy renders a person unfit for the road, as that'sjust cobblers.

You've now raised it twice so I'll bite. You obviously have lost someone. Was the perpertrator a drunk, was he way over the current limit, was he actually between the current and proposed limits? It matters. Drivers who are way over are already outside the law. What do we gain by criminalising more people for doing nothing worng?

cee

W1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

He probably will get too light a sentence...... There should probably be some custodial.
But, what should definitely happen is that he is banned FOR LIFE from driving.

I do not doubt that he did not intend to cause harm, however, he has to be responsible for his actions and the outcome of them.

Banned for life for being the cause of serious accident, injury or death should be available and be enforced in many cases.

Far too many people driving that should not be.

Do you really think that's workable though?

What you may find is that all you get are a lot more unlicenced (and therefore uninsured) drivers on the road.

There are very few crimes that carry a lifetime penalty. I'm not sure that banning someone for life for causing a serious injury (meaning what, exactly?) is proportionate.

Most "accidents" are just that - if it is deliberate then I would tend to agree with you. If it's just careless - well, we've all been careless ourselves (in cars, on bikes, on the street etc). Some peoples carelessness has serious consequences, most don't. Should there be such a distinct "life long" line drawn between the two?

is there no difference between someone being careless (i.e. proper careless...loss of concentration, drifts a lane etc....)....and someone actively choosing to be careless by consuming alcohol, then driving.....?

Wallace1492

W1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

He probably will get too light a sentence...... There should probably be some custodial.
But, what should definitely happen is that he is banned FOR LIFE from driving.

I do not doubt that he did not intend to cause harm, however, he has to be responsible for his actions and the outcome of them.

Banned for life for being the cause of serious accident, injury or death should be available and be enforced in many cases.

Far too many people driving that should not be.

Do you really think that's workable though?

What you may find is that all you get are a lot more unlicenced (and therefore uninsured) drivers on the road.

There are very few crimes that carry a lifetime penalty. I'm not sure that banning someone for life for causing a serious injury (meaning what, exactly?) is proportionate.

Most "accidents" are just that - if it is deliberate then I would tend to agree with you. If it's just careless - well, we've all been careless ourselves (in cars, on bikes, on the street etc). Some peoples carelessness has serious consequences, most don't. Should there be such a distinct "life long" line drawn between the two?

Most accidents are not "just that" they are the consequence of someone's deliberate actions. Whether that is not paying attention, running a light, not looking in a mirror, speeding, being drunk, or otherwise distracted.

If someone mistreats and animal - banned for life. Abuses their directorship of a company - banned for life. Cheats at sport - banned for life. All these seem to have lessor consequences than killing or maining while driving a car, so banning for life for me should be possible. I do not know at what level this should be set, but bans should be for much longer than they are.

If someone drives while banned - straight to jail.

It's time we made the roads safer.

W1

cee wrote:

W1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

He probably will get too light a sentence...... There should probably be some custodial.
But, what should definitely happen is that he is banned FOR LIFE from driving.

I do not doubt that he did not intend to cause harm, however, he has to be responsible for his actions and the outcome of them.

Banned for life for being the cause of serious accident, injury or death should be available and be enforced in many cases.

Far too many people driving that should not be.

Do you really think that's workable though?

What you may find is that all you get are a lot more unlicenced (and therefore uninsured) drivers on the road.

There are very few crimes that carry a lifetime penalty. I'm not sure that banning someone for life for causing a serious injury (meaning what, exactly?) is proportionate.

Most "accidents" are just that - if it is deliberate then I would tend to agree with you. If it's just careless - well, we've all been careless ourselves (in cars, on bikes, on the street etc). Some peoples carelessness has serious consequences, most don't. Should there be such a distinct "life long" line drawn between the two?

is there no difference between someone being careless (i.e. proper careless...loss of concentration, drifts a lane etc....)....and someone actively choosing to be careless by consuming alcohol, then driving.....?

Surely that (if anything) would be reckless rather than careless? You're not "careless" by having a drink - you are reckless by having a skinfull and then getting in the car.

Carelessness is without intent (you can't really intend not to care). Recklessness is about being actively dangerous. They are different mindsets and are treated differently in law (rightly, in my opinion).

As I say, I think it's not controversial to say that we've all been careless. It's much more controversial to say we've all been reckless....

W1

Wallace1492 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

He probably will get too light a sentence...... There should probably be some custodial.
But, what should definitely happen is that he is banned FOR LIFE from driving.

I do not doubt that he did not intend to cause harm, however, he has to be responsible for his actions and the outcome of them.

Banned for life for being the cause of serious accident, injury or death should be available and be enforced in many cases.

Far too many people driving that should not be.

Do you really think that's workable though?

What you may find is that all you get are a lot more unlicenced (and therefore uninsured) drivers on the road.

There are very few crimes that carry a lifetime penalty. I'm not sure that banning someone for life for causing a serious injury (meaning what, exactly?) is proportionate.

Most "accidents" are just that - if it is deliberate then I would tend to agree with you. If it's just careless - well, we've all been careless ourselves (in cars, on bikes, on the street etc). Some peoples carelessness has serious consequences, most don't. Should there be such a distinct "life long" line drawn between the two?

Most accidents are not "just that" they are the consequence of someone's deliberate actions. Whether that is not paying attention, running a light, not looking in a mirror, speeding, being drunk, or otherwise distracted.

If someone mistreats and animal - banned for life. Abuses their directorship of a company - banned for life. Cheats at sport - banned for life. All these seem to have lessor consequences than killing or maining while driving a car, so banning for life for me should be possible. I do not know at what level this should be set, but bans should be for much longer than they are.

If someone drives while banned - straight to jail.

It's time we made the roads safer.

"Not looking in a mirror" is not a deliberate action. It's an omission, if anything, but it's most likely not a deliberate one.

Just because someone causes an accident doesn't mean that they meant to. It's not likely to be deliberate - that would be a crazy suggestion.

Bearing in mind the reality of the roads - millions of people driving tons of metal at high speed with only limited controls - the roads are already incredibly safe. It's impossible to make them 100% accident free whilst having a realistically functioning motorised transport system.

No doubt someone will now bleat on about how all cars should be banned, forever.

zanes

Wallace1492 wrote:

Most accidents are not "just that" they are the consequence of someone's deliberate actions. Whether that is not paying attention, running a light, not looking in a mirror, speeding, being drunk, or otherwise distracted.

What's it like to be as perfect as you think you are and why can't you tell the difference between "mistake" and "deliberate action"?

Speaking outside the context of this thread, we all make mistakes. Sometimes they're mistakes that can't affect others, sometimes they can and every so often someone makes a mistake and they have catastrophic consequences. Applies to every "level" of mistake.

cee

W1

Sounds like we agree on a few points...and are maybe describing them differently...

yes...I would say chooing to drink alcohol and then driving is reckless.

the accident itself COULD be caused by a lack of care....caused by the reckless choice to consume alcohol before driving.

Thats what i think...other opinions are available.

Blue Meanie

I'm unlucky enough to live just 1 mile away from this tragic incident. And be cycling past only 30mins after. Quite horrific. And very near the start/end of the Kirkliston 10mile TT, local drivers (and the driver was local) are quite aware of a high bicycle presence on this dangerous road (kills at least 1 a year), unfortunately it was Gala Day, and spirits might have been running high.

The police erected a sign asking for witnesses and only 12hours later the sign was run over! Four long skid marks coming across the road and up the pavement into the crumpled sign.

There's been graffiti on the nearby walls for years "Whoosh - I love you", I've cycled this route for years, it's my commute route. I've even participated in the TT and always wondered who wrote the graffiti and why. Now I can barely look.

My thoughts to anyone affected by this unnecessary accident

wgwarburton

Wallace1492 wrote:

....It's time we made the roads safer.

To broaden the discussion...

How safe should they be?

Cheers,
W.

Wallace1492

zanes wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Most accidents are not "just that" they are the consequence of someone's deliberate actions. Whether that is not paying attention, running a light, not looking in a mirror, speeding, being drunk, or otherwise distracted.

What's it like to be as perfect as you think you are?

Speaking outside the context of this thread, we all make mistakes. Sometimes they're mistakes that can't affect others, sometimes they can and every so often someone makes a mistake and they have catastrophic consequences. Applies to every "level" of mistake.

I don't pretend to be perfect, no where near it. However, there are far too many reckless and careless divers on the road that maybe do not realise the consequences that an accident would cause. Yes, people do make mistakes, but knowing what could happen while driving tons of steel at high speed, I would like to mitigate any risk as much as possible. If that means more peopel should be banned from driving then so be it. Everyday I see people driving vehicles that should not have a license.

Wallace1492

WGWarburton wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

....It's time we made the roads safer.

To broaden the discussion...

How safe should they be?

Cheers,
W.

Hard one. There will always be an element of risk, but where possible we should mitigate it. getting bad drivers off the road, well for me, would be a start.

Driving is a privilidge, not a right. Too many on the road that don't drive properly due to various reasons - Overseas, qualified years ago, boy racers, etc etc.

Poor driving should be punished more, more short term bans. Maybe that will make drivers sit up anbd take notice. A mate of mine who was a terrible driver, so much so that no-one would get in a car with him. He accumulated 10 points and suddenly became a superb driver. Now that he has the points off he has returned to poor driving.