Penalties should be reviewed.

Convicted Driver Insurance

LadyDriver

Member
I was stopped and breathalysed last December, reading was 55 at police station. Reason stopped was didn't indicate when I turned left (I was looking for a road in an unfamiliar area, saw the road sign and turned without indicating) and driver behind said he had to brake sharply. He was driving too close to me then. I had been ill, was concerned about a relationship with a threatening man, was working 7 days a week and 12 hours a day in own business which had given problems with equipment failure at very busy time of year and I'd had my car vandalised a couple of weeks before. I hadn't eaten more than a sandwich for two days as I was so busy. Drank 2/3 of a half bottle of Champagne on empty stomach. I'm not a regular drinker and rarely have alcohol in the house. I'd bought the Champagne for Christmas. I was on my way to see someone who knew the man I was concerned about to ask if she'd found him violent as I was worried for my safety.
I was not in an accident, didn't harm anyone or any property and I was driving within the speed limit. The Police Officer said in his statement I smelled strongly of mints when I got up to him. I hadn't eaten mints and never do, there were none in my car tho' the PO didn't check that. He also said he checked my car was secure before we left for the Station. He did not. I thought I'd locked it but when I went to get it the next morning it was unlocked. The fob key battery was low and it didn't always lock the car. I didn't have representation because after some research I realised in the absence of special reasons there was no way I could avoid a ban. I couldn't afford a solicitor but wasn't eligible for legal aid. I got a 12 month ban and £320 fine. I'm going on a rehab course.
I am single, have no family living nearby and live in a village where public transport is limited. I had to close my business and now claim benefits. I'm 55 and unable to find a job so far, especially without transport. I've never broken the law before, worked all my life, paid taxes and never drank more than one glass of wine if I went out, which was rarely due to work committments. As I was never before a drink drive offender and drink little in general the likelihood of me re-offending is minute. But magistrates' hands are tied.
Given that speeding and dangerous drivers kill more people than drink drivers every year but can claim exceptional hardship in some cases and avoid a ban, I feel the 12 month mandatory ban for drink drivers should be reviewed. Where is the sense in banning for so long someone in my situation, a first time offender with a clean record, and putting them out of work and on to benefits? A 3 month ban would probably have allowed me to keep my business and not become a further drain on the country's scarce resources. A drive to work permit for say 9 months after a 3 month ban would still be a penalty but taken account of my circumstances, previous clean record and very low risk of ever offending again. I'd have also been willing to fit an alcolock to my car. A ban is meant to make life difficult and thus teach us a lesson, which it does. The ridiculous thing is it hasn't affected my social life as friends are happy to drive me on evenings and week - ends when they're not at work, but it has put me out of a job, reduced the amount of tax the government receives (from personal tax and fuel tax) and put me onto benefits. In a situation like mine, what good has that done to society?
 
I kind of agree about the drive to work permit (like NZ), but the problem is the punishment needs to be a sufficient deterrent. You say that it hasn't effected your social ... well if it hadn't affected your work life then it wouldn't have affected you at all, would it?

Better solution ... don't drink and drive and you won't get banned. I learnt the hard way but have had license back long enough to reflect without bias.
 
i really don't think they should be , I blew 126 and crashed into someone, got 150 hrs community service and a 3 year ban, and feel lucky to get that, just glad that i didn't hit somebody or kill myself.. my actions too were 'totally out of character' etc... but upon reflection i obviously didn't have respect for my neighbours.. should a chap who fires a gun aver a crowd be let off lightly because he didn't hit anyone??
 
Thanks for your response. I still believe the mandatory 12 month ban should be reviewed and magistrates given the autonomy to decide whether a ban should apply and for how long if they choose to impose one.

The ban was introduced in 1925, a time when only the wealthy could afford a car and owners wouldn't have lost their livelihood as the result of a ban. The situation is very different now but the ban has been kept regardless of changes in society since then.

You say you crashed into someone, which presents a different scenario to mine.
I was driving at 30 miles per hour (and was aware that was the local speed limit) and didn't crash into anything or anyone nor harm me or anyone else. I've said why I was stopped so don't need to repeat that part. I had the potential to cause an accident and harm others, which I would not try to deny or ignore. I'm thankful I didn't harm anyone else. I don't suggest I shouldn't be punished but dispute how that should be applied.

I've researched the causes of road accidents that show in the 60's and 70's particularly drink drivers caused most accidents and deaths on the road. That is no longer the case. Those who now cause most accidents and deaths are speeding/dangerous/careless drivers. The Department for Transport website indicates that clearly as do other road safety websites.
Research also shows that most people don't consider speeding as a serious offence.

Yet due to the 'totting up' rule (introduced in 1962) those that speed and so on, will get points (assuming they haven't killed/injured anyone at their first offence) on their licence and continue driving until they reach 12 or more points. So a woman (recently in the news) who totted up points over a period of 3 years was allowed to continue driving until in the end she killed someone. The Prosecutor said it was proven she had a propensity for speeding and total disregard for other road users. But the points system had let her continue driving.

Under the totting up system the maximum ban is 6 months. But if the driver claims exceptional hardship (for which there is no legal definition by the way) the driver may avoid a ban altogether. That's not an option given to drink drivers despite the fact they now cause less than half the accidents/deaths on our roads.

I'm not suggesting driving bans should be abolished but that they should be graded to fit the circumstances of the crime and driver's record. If I'd been given a one month ban for example I'd have been able to keep my business going. If that had been coupled with, say, a 12 month suspended sentence where I'd have instantly gone to jail if I re-offended, that would have been sufficient to prevent a normally law abiding person like me (who drinks little and not regularly) from even thinking of breaking the law again.

A ban is effective as a deterrent because it has an immediate effect on one's life in many ways and serves a salutory lesson from day one. But I believe the length of ban should be tailored accordingly. Statistics show most drink drivers had no regard for the law in the first place and are those most likely to re - offend. In those cases the mandatory ban, or more, is appropriate.

Consider this, taken from website of the Judiciary of England and Wales as guidance on how to treat those convicted of serious violence or dishonesty: ‘restrict offenders’ liberty and make them face up to what they have done, but enable them to keep their jobs or homes’.

I'm 55 years old, worked all my life, paid my taxes, never broken the law before and had a clean driving licence for 30 years. I've never previously breached the drink drive law (and had no idea what the penalty was), don't speed, never use a mobile when driving and have always been a courteous, intelligent driver.
But if I'd beaten up my neighbour and caused him serious injury that affected his health or prevented him from working, or been seriously dishonest, such as some MPs have been (without penalty) I wouldn't have lost my business, my livelihood and home as I now have. I'd maybe have been under a curfew along with doing community service but I'd still have had a business, income and a home.


You feel your punishment fitted your crime and only you know why. To get a 3 year ban is a major thing. Maybe that's because you either have previous convictions for the same offence or for other serious traffic offences that in conjunction with the drink driving accident led to such a long ban. This leads back to the comments earlier on that those who have no regard for the law will re - offend, until they're stopped for a long time. That might not apply to you but there has to be a reason you were given such a long ban.

I don't feel my punishment fitted my crime. Should I have been put out of business and on the dole for what I did? If I was a drug dealing asylum seeker, a benefit fraudster, dodgy MP or seriously violent/dishonest person I'd probably still have a living and a home. I've effectively been put in prison for 12 months, a lot longer time than people who've done worse things than me would get. Is that justice?

And why aren't the government, and law makers penalising the majority of drivers who cause death and accidents in the way they do drink drivers? Why is road safety propoganda mainly about drink driving? Is that because if similar rules were applied to all drivers who flouted the law there'd be no drivers left on the roads?

Speeding/dangerous drivers know they are breaking the law as much as drink drivers. Drink drivers reactions are impaired by alcohol. Speeding drivers reactions are impaired too, albeit in a different way.

When I had my business I drove a round trip of 40 miles a day to work and back home. It's no exaggeration to say that each day my safety was compromised by dangerous, thoughtless and reckless drivers. I'm sure few would have failed a breath test though. Statistics also show that most drivers who caused an accident were not over the limit.

In answer to your question, should a chap who fires a gun over a crowd be let off lightly if he didn't hit anyone... his actions would have to be considered in view of the circumstances at the time, background information and so on. He might have had reason to do so and have a genuine case to plead.

I believe everyone should have the chance to defend themselves with no restrictions. Drink drivers are denied that opportunity. I'm not a human rights activist or anything of that ilk, but believe sentencing laws on drink driving should be reviewed and altered.

It's interesting, though I've only recently come to this site, that there have been no comments or thoughts similar to mine given here.

I don't condone drink driving but nor do I agree with propoganda that vilifies a minority while handily ignoring the true perpetrators of road crime.
 
absolutely not, thing is we can talk about our circumstances, and how a ban will inconvenience us, home, job, work etc , but to take charge of a 1 ton piece of metal that travels at even only 40 MPH is a real responsibility, even someone like me, with no previous convictions, a professional with not even a speeding ticket (who just tried to gain solace in a bottle regarding a fathers death) needs to really understand this and a 3-year ban - if not custodial sentence - is a pretty god way to do this, even if you dont hit any person, just another car, lightly , as I did, this causes massive stress for the recipient as well as teh potential for disaster that DD cause

i just want to take whats given and learn from it, I repeat my analogy, should someone randomly shooting bullets over the heads of school kids be let off with a fine? that's what we did, showing no respect for civil society..

get over it, you did the crime, now do the time
 
LadyDriver said:
It's interesting, though I've only recently come to this site, that there have been no comments or thoughts similar to mine given here.
Click to expand...

I was banned for 12 months last september with a low reading of 45, I was fined £190 & now have to pay £65 to renew my licence next month.

This law is typical of the stupidity & corruption within this government, I would've been happy with a 3 month ban or a 12 month curfew, say no driving after 4pm or to be allowed to use the car in emergencies as I have relatives who often need to be driven to hospitals for appointments. They ignored all my pleas and letters from relatives doctors and other references.

I have walked from police stations 5 or 6 times without any charges or fines for drugs, vandalism & theft. Drinking an extra 3/4 of a pint of 4% lager over their limit & driving a short distance while sticking to the 20mph speed limit is the most serious crime I've committed. No sane person would agree that it is, only the lawmakers think so.
 
"I've never previously breached the drink drive law (and had no idea what the penalty was), don't speed, never use a mobile when driving and have always been a courteous, intelligent driver."

It always amuses me how many people say this. If that really is the case, then to be caught that one time (for a very minor offence, as you have described) then that really is pretty unlucky.
 
Trigger3 and Quartz

To Quartz first of all... what I say is true in terms of I don't speed, I don't use a mobile if driving and it was the first time I've broken the drink drive law. I actually drink very little in general. My father and sister were alcoholics and both died as a result of that. I didn't want to be like them and that is one reason I don't drink much. I've explained earlier on the site what led me to drink and drive the night I did and that it was honestly out of character.
I could have brought into court people who know me, how I drive, know I don't usually drink much if I do drink and that I've not flouted the drink/drive law before. But magistrates still can't do anything than impose the 12 month ban. If none of the 3 special reasons apply then you're banned.

It doesn't make sense to me to penalise a first time offender with a clean driving record (and who didn't actually kill, harm anyone or any property) and who never before acted criminally, in such a way they lose everything as I am now in the process of doing. All UK citizens will now have to pay to keep me when I could have still been working and contributing if the sentencing system for drink drivers was sensibly weighted.

A one month ban would have let me keep my business going. A suspended sentence is a serious conviction and if that had been coupled with a month long ban would have been sufficient to ensure I never thought about repeating what I did. I think any normally sensible person would suppose that someone who's driven without accident or breach of the law for 30 years and has a low alcohol intake as a rule isn't likely to re - offend anyway and a 12 month ban in those circumstances is disproportionate, especially if it means they become another benefit claimant as a result when that could have been avoided.

I agree that a curfew could also be imposed so I couldn't use my car for 12 months for social purposes.

From what Trigger3 says it seems he's been in contact with the police before, committed crimes, though not been convicted, and that's affected his situation. That will have a bearing on matters but he was still over the limit.

I accept I must be penalised for what I did and the penalty must have such an effect on my life that I won't consider doing the same thing again. Living in the countryside as I do, the effect was immediate from day one and gets worse. And I do feel ashamed for what I did, which is another intent of the ban though those who have no regard for the law wouldn't feel that. Those people are most likely to re – offend and more often offend in the first place.

On one day in an otherwise safe and legal driving career I made a grave mistake and I realise I could have hurt or killed someone. Thankfully I didn't. I don't believe though making me bankrupt was necessary.

As I've also said, every day there are drivers on the roads who though not under the influence of alcohol drive in ways that are dangerous with equal potential to drink drivers of killing or maiming others. They are the ones who now cause most deaths and accidents on our roads. They are as aware as anyone else they're in control of a lethal machine but apparently choose to ignore that fact and anyway know unless they kill/hurt someone they'll just get points, at least until they've got 12 or more. Then they can ask for consideration of how a ban might affect their lives.

So those who daily flout the law and don't give a damn for others aren't likely to lose their income and home, not until they kill or maim.

Another correspondent on here disagrees with me and suggests I should stop whingeing and just accept the penalty. I don't accept the current system is just and argue it needs to be changed. I would adopt the same view even if I hadn't been in my situation now I know the sentencing laws.

Penalties have to be seen as much as anything else in the value they offer society as a whole. The 12 month mandatory ban is not in the best interests of all, that is where it fails and why it should be abandoned in favour of more realistic sentencing guidelines.
 
You are getting confused between criminal and civil proceedings taken against you, here. Two comments stand out to me: One by Trigger 3 ('I would've been happy with a 3 month ban or a 12 month curfew') and another by yourself ('A suspended sentence is a serious conviction and if that had been coupled with a month long ban would have been sufficient to ensure I never thought about repeating what I did').

The criminal proceedings taken against you were a £320 fine. That criminal punishment is there to (as you quote) ‘restrict your liberty and make you face up to what they have done, but enable you to keep their jobs or homes’. Now, depending on the severity of the offence, you might have been given a community sentence or imprisonment. For most people a suspended sentence or community order will have much more dire consequences on a persons career than a fine.

The driving ban is something entirely different. It is the motoring (or civil) punishment. When you accept a driving license, you do so on the basis of a contractual agreement with the DVLA, that you will use it in a way that is responsible. If you break this 'contract' with the DVLA, and use your license in a way that is irresponsible, then they have the right to revoke / suspend / endorse your license, as they see fit.

Remember, having access to a car is a luxury - not a human right - and if you abuse this luxury then you lose it. If you are unable to continue working because you don't have a driving license then that is the result of civil proceedings against you, rather than criminal ones. Therefore those guidelines you read are meaningless. Suggesting that you replacing a ban (civil punishment) with a curfew or suspended sentence (criminal punishment) is as absurd as it is impossible.
 
Gutted - you obviously understand the law in this area, and perhaps others, and have made the situation clear.

Whatever the civil and criminal make up in a drink/drive case it doesn't alter my view that giving a mandatory ban is not the best route in every case and how such cases are dealt with needs to be changed.

A motor car might be a luxury to some but I can't think there are many would see it that way nowadays. From September this year the village I live in will no longer have a bus service and that's happening in villages all around the country due to cost cutting. Perhaps you live near your work or have a wife/partner to drive you or colleagues who can assist, or maybe you work from home. In which case I'm sure your car is a luxury.

I don't see why anyone with even half a brain should think it sensible to ban someone for a minimum of a year if that means they're going to lose their livelihood and have to go on to benefits, potentially for the rest of their life. Penalties have to be a deterrent to re - offending but if they're punitive to the point where they create yet more state dependents where's the overall value and benefit to society?
If you're a taxpayer you're paying my benefits, thank you very much, and are likely to for a long time because there are few jobs around and a lot of people (with transport) after them. Without a car I'm severely restricted as to what I can apply for. When the buses stop I won't be able to get to work if I could find a job. After the 12 months of being out of work my chances of finding some when I can drive again will be further diminished. This isn't gobbledy gook but real life facts. And why I believe the current penalty should be changed.

I can only suppose you, and others with similar views can hold those because you didn't lose your living, go bankrupt or lose your home as a result of the ban. You believe the ban should remain even if that means people like me should lose everything as a result of it.
You're fortunate if it was more of an inconvenience for you when you were banned and I hope you never have to experience what it's like to be jobless, bankrupt and homeless.

There is always more than one solution to a problem, what I'm suggesting is that for drink drive cases better solutions could be found and tailored to circumstances of the individual.
 
I was banned for a year (reduced to nine months)

I am self employed and work literally in a different place each day. Manchester, Liverpool, Runcorn, Bury to name a few.

To continue my business i had to use bus,train and trams to get around whilst carrying all my equipment. Drills, Signwriting equipment. This wasn`t easy and resulted in a lot longer days as to get from Stockport to parts of Liverpool could take 2.5 hours each way.

But, i did it. Because after the initial anger, shock at being banned and threatening my business i realised there was only one person to blame. Me.

We know the law about drink driving before we get caught. Its advertised enough (as the magistrates kindly pointed out to me) and we know the minimum ban is a year. In my opinion its time for you to stop being so angry at the unjust nature of it all and use that anger to be positive and prove to them that its not going to beat you.

Whatever the circumstances surrounding your ban, it no longer matters. Your banned. Its time to move on and adapt. Its what i did, and i believe it made me more determined in life.

This is not meant as an attack on you and i wish you all the best.
 
Exactly signman. It's about accepting responsibility for what you have done.

Ladydriver you say 'Perhaps you live near your work or have a wife/partner to drive you or colleagues who can assist, or maybe you work from home. In which case I'm sure your car is a luxury'. Actually no. I cycled >40 miles a day to get work every day for 9 months. I also live 300 miles away from my parents (and my wife's parents). My wife doesn't drive. So the impact of me losing my license was also that my wife had no transport for 9 months. Nobody's fault but mine. I was the one who was stupid enough to get into the car when I was pissed. The consequences are well advertised and every driver knows that there is a minimum, mandatory 12 month ban.

By the way, a car is very much a luxury. Go and speak to the hundreds of thousands of 17-25 yr old male drivers who, despite having no convictions or claims, can't get a car because of insurance premiums exceeding £2000/year. If you think a car is a human right you need your head testing.

End of the day you know that you need your car for work. You also know that drink driving results in a mandatory ban - and that if you were caught drinking and driving you would not be able to continue to trade. Nevertheless you chose to drink and drive. Take responsibility for what you have done like the rest of us have done, and accept the consequences.
 
The penalties must (and thankfully will) stay as they are so as to act as a clear deterrent. Robust enforcement of the Law is working because as Ladydriver says the number of drink driving deaths is thankfully falling.

Drink Driving is more dangerous than speeding - the fact is that only a very small proportion of people drink and drive, yet drink drivers do still cause a significant number of deaths each year. This is not to say that speeding is acceptable however I do think that the Law is proportionate in how it treats drink drivers versus speeders.

The bottom line is that despite the fact that drink driving can kill we do not, except in exceptional circumstances, imprison drink drivers - we simply remove them from the roads for a while.

As with any penalty a ban will have a bigger impact on some people than others however in some ways Ladydrivers postings suggest we should INCREASE the penalties. If a driving ban fails to deter someone who has the most to lose from a ban then maybe it is not a big enough deterrent.................
 
You know, I've got to agree with the others on here. I don't think it should be reviewed at all.

Im currently on a 3 year ban for my second offence, I lost my job as a result and live an area with poor public transport. As I have no income, I cant afford to pay my day to day bills so am now having to wade through a pile of debt. I am also on probation for 9 months...to attend these appointments I have to walk around 4 miles each way to the probation office.

Yes, its a pain. Yes, I'd love to have my licence back. But the fact is, I knew the penalties of DD and yet still somehow committed this offence twice. I don't believe for a second that I deserve any sympathy or pity or that the sentence was too harsh. I do get a bit annoyed when people start the whole "woe is me" thing after being banned.

Perhaps they should speak to a policeman who has had to clear up the scene when someone has been killed by a drink driver, and then had to go and inform the family....Im sure they'd be extremely sympathetic!
 
I've never suggested there shouldn't be a ban for drink drivers. Neither would I advocate a lower limit for how much we can drink if driving, should we choose to combine both. I don't disagree either that I should be punished for breaking the drink drive law. My comments are not meant to be construed as the poor me variety (though some seem to ignore or misunderstand that) but to challenge the wisdom and sense of the sentencing guidelines.
What I do believe is everyone should be allowed to defend themselves if conviced of a criminal offence, which drink driving is. Murderers are allowed to apply mitigating circumstances in their defence, as are many others brought to court for criminal offences. For drink drivers the sentencing guidelines allow no defence whatsover. Is that justice?
The majority of those nowadays who are killed or injured, be they drivers, pedestrians, walkers, cyclists are killed or injured by someone who was sober at the time.

Jaket, you might be interested in the below regards speeding/deaths/etc.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents statistics show:

Speeding
Around 600 people a year are killed in crashes in which someone exceeds the speed limit or drives too fast for the conditions.
Drink Driving
Around 400 people die a year in crashes in which someone was over the legal drink drive limit.
Seat Belt Wearing
Around 300 lives each year could be saved if everyone always wore their seat belt.
Careless Driving
More than 400 deaths a year involve someone being "careless, reckless or in a hurry", and a further 200 involve "aggressive driving".
At-work
Around one third of fatal and serious road crashes involve someone who was at work.
Inexperience
More than 300 newly-qualified drivers and their passengers are killed in car crashes a year.

A Road Safety Research Report that appears on the Department of Transport website shows:
Speeding is not safe; speeding is serious; speeding causes crashes and pedestrians
have less chance of survival at higher speeds: 20% of pedestrians die when hit at 30
mph but 80% at 40 mph. 30% accidents are caused by speed; more people die from
speeding then from drink/drug driving. Speeding drivers are 3–5 times more likely to
crash.

But until you get 12 or more points you won't be banned from driving. Only when you kill someone, even if you've been a regularly bad driver in the meantime, will you get banned. See the below.
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/fatal_crash_driver_spared_jail_term_1_3609828.
Statistics also show that most people don't consider speeding as being anything serious, yet it is a criminal offence (copper on rehab course states that). But the law treats speeders differently so why should any speeder/dangerous/careless driver be worried. Speeders, et al, can bring in mitigating cirumstances and maybe get a short ban but still the max is 6 months. If you're a Senior Judge with good cronies it helps, see below:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23982344-top-judges-six-month-driving-ban-is-cut-so-he-can-look-after-his-cattle.do

All correspondents to me disagree with my view the mandatory ban should be reviewed. You might be confusing that with the belief I want a ban lifted totally, which is not so. Respond to this if you wish but it'll make no difference to my opinion. I believe a graduated system of penalties should apply regarding the ban and be based on individual circmustances. I believe the Law should give everyone the opportunity to defend themselves fully, whatever their situation but at present it doesn't for drink drivers.

If any of you were a persistent heavy drinker and repeatedly broke the law until your luck ran out I can understand why you feel you deserved the penalty you got. If you made one stupid mistake in an otherwise legal driving career you might feel differently.
 
As an observer from the USA I would like to offer up my two cents worth of opinion.
Drink Driving is serious and dangerous behavior. I think we could all agree on that. I have studied the drink driver situation here in the USA and studies show most people caught for drink driving here admit that they have drink driven on average in excess of 50 times before they were actually caught.
We have 50 states and each state has it's own punishment standards but all the states use a "BAC" (blood alcohol content) of 0.08 as the limit, if you blow .08 you are a drink driver. First offense fines can be as little as $150 (US) to as much as $2,000 (US). Loss of license can also vary from 30 days to 3 years depending on the state & the judge in court. It is not uncommon for a person here in the USA to spend in excess of $12,000 in fines, court costs and solictor fees to defend themselves on drink driver charges.
The real problem is not the fines or punishment the problem is a matter of personal responsibility. Rational people do not set out to go drinking, get drunk and then drive. So are the people I mentioned who admit to have drink driven 50 times before getting caught "irrational"? Maybe or maybe they are what I call "good people making bad decisions".
One bad decision leads to another and so on.... just like one drink leads to another, and another, and so on.... So they made a bad decision and drink drive and didn't get caught, so the next time same thing. Each time the decision to drive was a bad decision. This happens all the time even knowing that a drink driving charge can ruin their life.
Alcohol effects a person's judgement and as the drinks add up the impaired judgement increases. A responsible person only needs to remember four simple words to verbalize when offered a drink and they know they will be driving. "No Thanks. I'm Driving."
If people would use these four words and pass up the alcohol there would be no need for this forum and discussing fines and penalties.
In the last four years I have had four co-workers lose their jobs because of drink driving. I've had one friend and one customer killed by drink drivers in the last year and a half.
I'm on a mission to promote the use of "No Thanks. I'm Driving." and the use of designated drivers.
I wish all of you well in your struggles to recover from your drink driving issues. Next time please remember.......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LadyDriver said:
Murderers are allowed to apply mitigating circumstances in their defence, as are many others brought to court for criminal offences. For drink drivers the sentencing guidelines allow no defence whatsover. Is that justice?
Click to expand...
Murder carries a mandatory life sentence.

LadyDriver said:
The majority of those nowadays who are killed or injured, be they drivers, pedestrians, walkers, cyclists are killed or injured by someone who was sober at the time.

Jaket, you might be interested in the below regards speeding/deaths/etc.......................................................
Click to expand...
As previously stated I am well aware that more people die as a result of speeding than as a result of drink driving. However far more people speed than drink drive. The deaths caused per drink driver are MUCH GREATER than deaths per speeder. Drink driving is a more dangerous activity than speeding and therefore if the Police (or we as a society) have a choice between stopping 100 people speeding or 100 people drink driving then they / we will on average save a lot more lives by stopping the latter.

LadyDriver - I am sorry that you have lost so much through your own stupidity. Until the recent recession the State spent a lot of money advertising how big an impact being caught drink driving will have on your life - it is a shame you didn't heed those warnings. Having troubles in your personal life does not give anyone an excuse to risk bringing untold misery to other people. I for one therefore think the mandatory bans should stay. Like you say I can't change your mind on this however your lack of remorse for your crime is doing nothing to change my mind either. Fortunately the State sides with me and drink driving penalties will only be moving in one direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top