+1, Ally.
How is the job going?
things will be the same Ally, just hang in there. if you want to talk i am here. Trust me very son you will never believe it has ever happened to you.
my ban is up 16/7 if I pass medical, when that will be I don't know, no drinking for twelve weeks before 16/7 or before?
destroyed me to love, things will never be the same again, I am so bitter x
It would be interesting to hear why you are bitter ally. You were convicted of a criminal offence and were given appropriate punishment as defined under the law.
You didn't kill or injure anyone, but you could have and the punishment is meant just as much a deterrent to others as anything else. No drink driver goes on the road with the intention of causing death or injury but the loss of concentration and consequent slowing down of reactions means that a child running out in front of you 'could' have been hit. A traffic light changing to red 'could' have been missed and some innocent motorist or cyclist hit. They and their family would face years of bitterness, possibly forever and the drink driver has it on their conscience forever.
Drink drivers caught before they cause mayhem just suffer the inconvenience of loss of licence and a record on their licence for a few years when they get it back
and are happily on the road again. Bitterness? I'd say a feeling of extreme good fortune would be more appropriate.
Surely driving in a careless manor must be intentional.
--
Why should she share personal information with you?
You don't know the circumstances of how she was caught in the first place, or why she drove that day/night. I know people who have been reported for drink driving by partners and members of their family. The fall out afterwards can be ever lasting for some people, and far far worse than the punishment that comes in the form of the actual driving ban.
Often the punishment doesn't fit the crime when it comes to drink driving. Not when you consider that people who kill behind the wheel when drunk, often receive prison sentences of less than 36 months. They walk out of prison smiling. In contrast, someone slightly over the limit can be banned for 14/16 months, lose their job as a result, fail to meet their mortgage payments as a consequence, lose their property, split up with their partner. Damage done. Life in bits. It goes on and on. So you shouldn't be so quick to judge.
There is no consistency in the punishments handed out by magistrates. I find it odd that a person convicted of drink driving who has been involved in collision, is not considered to be a high risk offender; when somebody who fails to supply is. If you crash a vehicle whilst drunk, then you should be high risk. I suspect the system would not be able to cope with all the medicals if that logic was applied, and so for financial reasons it isn't. Fair? No. But hey, you just have to suck it up sometimes.
People convicted of drink driving are hammered, when repeat offenders of drunken violent crimes aren't. If you are convicted of a drunken assault and actual bodily harm; why are you not banned from drinking alcohol for 3/6 months and made to undergo a similar CDT test? Double standards.
The motorists always get hammered, always have, always will.
Hang in there Ally, it will only get better. You got through this, so you can get through anything. It didn't break you. That's the positive that you must take from all this.
Regards
M
I am fully aware of ally's circumstances as she has posted regularly since January of last yearActually, I am fully aware of ally's circumstances as she has posted regularly since January of last year. Like many she was caught many hours after a heavy drinking session.
Maybe she is bitter because like you she believes that the system has penalised her unfairly. On a forum such as this it is a perfectly reasonable question. If she chooses not to share her reasons that is her decision.
On the subject of the punishment fitting the crime, there are specific bands set that determine the length of the ban and these are rarely deviated from by the courts so you are wrong to state 'There is no consistency in the punishments handed out by magistrates'. Someone just over the limit will only receive a 12 month ban and this could be reduced to 9 months if they are offered the course. I'd say that was a pretty good deal when you consider that if they hadn't been caught they could have put someone in a wheel chair for the rest of their days or killed them.
I have every right to judge since my daughter was run over on a pedestrian crossing 5 years ago by a 'morning after' drink driver who was breath tested at 44. 'just over' by your reckoning (the traffic light had been red for 3 seconds when the car went over the crossing under heavy braking but was still doing 22 mph at the time of impact). A broken leg and arm and her friend left with concussion and severe facial bruising.
Not once in your post do you mention the victim. It is all about the poor drink driver and how unfair the system is to them. I draw my own conclusions from that.
The sentencing for drink driving is as much a deterrent to others as it is a punishment of the offender. Reducing sentences as you appear to suggest would send the message actually, it's OK to drink and drive as it's a minor offence.
It isn't.
If you understood the definition of the word 'careless' (you clearly do not), then it would be obvious that being careless is NOT intentional
Careless is defined as: "done with or acting with insufficient attention; negligent"
Negligence defined as: "failure to take proper care in doing something"
You are implying that negligence is always accidental and not intentional.
Surely driving when you have been drinking is negligent behaviour rather than intention to kill.