SillySausage123
Well Known Member
Hi,
I've recently made the silly mistake of having a drink or two and felt I was adequate to get home okay by car, well not according to the constructs of the law.
I 'only' blew 49, which I feel is relatively low. I completely agree with banning as a form of punishment and with an additional fine, but to tar everyone with the same brush and define everyone as a criminal is something which I really find difficult to take.
Had I blown +2x over I'd feel I've completely gone overboard (apologise to those that have), but to be simply 0.4 over the limit, as my first ever offence and still be considered a criminal is really painful, particularly with the impact it can have on our lives.
I think there should be a two level threshold, whereby first, the number of offences a person has committed (in a period?) Is taken into account, and two, the level at which you have blown also taken into account.
But, I guess the whole purpose is to act as a deterrent, but I'm sure we have a higher proportion of the population speeding during high levels of traffic than we do those who drink drive in the early hours of the morning, where traffic is relatively low to non existent...
Further to this, the difficulty would be that any politician who champions de-criminalising aspects of drink driving now, would be heading for political suicide...
What are other people's thoughts on this?
I've recently made the silly mistake of having a drink or two and felt I was adequate to get home okay by car, well not according to the constructs of the law.
I 'only' blew 49, which I feel is relatively low. I completely agree with banning as a form of punishment and with an additional fine, but to tar everyone with the same brush and define everyone as a criminal is something which I really find difficult to take.
Had I blown +2x over I'd feel I've completely gone overboard (apologise to those that have), but to be simply 0.4 over the limit, as my first ever offence and still be considered a criminal is really painful, particularly with the impact it can have on our lives.
I think there should be a two level threshold, whereby first, the number of offences a person has committed (in a period?) Is taken into account, and two, the level at which you have blown also taken into account.
But, I guess the whole purpose is to act as a deterrent, but I'm sure we have a higher proportion of the population speeding during high levels of traffic than we do those who drink drive in the early hours of the morning, where traffic is relatively low to non existent...
Further to this, the difficulty would be that any politician who champions de-criminalising aspects of drink driving now, would be heading for political suicide...
What are other people's thoughts on this?
Last edited: