Swann in drink drive arrest

[BoyBrumby]

But Got Spin, you keep on saying "so you can't have A beer" or "so one too many SIPS of LIGHT beer" (my emphasis added). The legal limit in most states of Australia is 0.05%, which was arrived at as a reasonable compromise between when a measurable effect could be demonstrated and allowing people to have one drink. There's no way ONE beer, or a few sips of light beer will get you over .05. If you're planning to have more than one glass of wine with dinner, or one beer after work, don't drive - it's a remarkably simple idea.

True story: the elder brother of a mate of mine is a copper (black sheep of the family, etc) and was transferred to the traffic division. As part of his training he had to pass an advanced driving test on a disused airfield where they can practice all sorts of stuff that'd be downright dangerous on a public road.

To show how alcohol affects driving he and the others on the course we given 4 pints of lager to drink fairly quickly and then sent back to go round a course of cones. Obviously all did significantly worse, but the interesting thing was the breathalyser test they were given afterwards. Despite having had what most people would think an unsafe amount, all passed the test. IIRC my mate's bro blew something like .23 when our limit is .35. The police apparently give all traffic cops this demo to show that the "I only had a couple of glasses of wine with lunch" type excuses are invariably bollox.

In the UK at least you have to be pretty far gone to fail a test so it's hard to have sympathy with those who do.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not advocating that people should go out and get blind or even down a six pack then drive straight home.

I am, however, arguing that when the blood alcohol level is breached by a small percentage that the criminal book shouldn't be thrown at the driver. Don't misconstrue this as me believing that drink driving is fine or that there should be no penalty. But i think jail time for a small breach is beyond necessary. This is purely a disagreement based on legal terms

I think you underestimate the extent to which it affects one's ability to drive, though. As GI Joe alluded to, the law doesn't just pick a number at random- the limit is the limit because it's the point where you become unfit to drive, and it's an individual's responsibility to stay under it.

I understand where you're coming from because in everyday life it feels rather insignificant. Everyone has friends and/or relatives who occasionally have an extra drink before driving home and seem to experience no ill-effect. It's just the done thing and when it happens it doesn't appear to be particularly wrong. But the reality is that it's extremely dangerous and shouldn't be taken lightly.

 

[GotSpin]

Do you also think jail time for paedophilia is unnecessary if the younger party happens to be just a couple of days below the legal age of consent?

Don't think this is a reasonable comparison. One has intent to cause to harm while the other doesn't

 

[G.I.Joe]

Don't think this is a reasonable comparison. One has intent to cause to harm while the other doesn't

Not if the younger party is a willing participant.

 

[GotSpin]

Not if the younger party is a willing participant.

Isn't it statutory rape then, not pedophilia?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Isn't it statutory rape then, not pedophilia?

Guess so. I don't know the legal terms perfectly, its illegal all the same, isn't it?

 

[GotSpin]

I think you underestimate the extent to which it affects one's ability to drive, though. As GI Joe alluded to, the law doesn't just pick a number at random- the limit is the limit because it's the point where you become unfit to drive, and it's an individual's responsibility to stay under it.

I understand where you're coming from because in everyday life it feels rather insignificant. Everyone has friends and/or relatives who occasionally have an extra drink before driving home and seem to experience no ill-effect. It's just the done thing and when it happens it doesn't appear to be particularly wrong. But the reality is that it's extremely dangerous and shouldn't be taken lightly.

All I'm trying to argue is that the book shouldn't be thrown at offenders who only slightly breach the limit like was suggested earlier.

 

[Uppercut]

Do you also think jail time for paedophilia is unnecessary if the younger party happens to be just a couple of days below the legal age of consent?

Haha, that's such a bad analogy. AFAIK the law's extremely flexible with regards to statutory rape in Norn Iron.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No one should drink and drive at all. Just because someone doesn't have slurred speech or isn't jumping up and down naked whistling I Shot the Sheriff it doesn't mean that their reactions haven't potentially been slowed even if only by a tiny amount.
If you're caught drinking and driving but haven't had an impact on anyone else you should be banned for a year. If you're caught and have impacted on anyone else there should be a custodial sentence in line with the results of your actions. In an ideal world you could throw someone in prison for the potential danger they caused but in reality it's not practical which is why I would go for a lengthy ban from driving for offenders who don't impact on anyone else.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Haha, that's such a bad analogy. AFAIK the law's extremely flexible with regards to statutory rape in Norn Iron.

Okay, lets go legal age for voting then. Point stands. You can't barge in and demand to have your vote counted if you're just a couple of days away from whatever it is in your area. Limits are limits. And the alcohol limits are even more uncontestable because there's actually evidence behind those.

 

[Uppercut]

Okay, lets go legal age for voting then. Point stands. You can't barge in and demand to have your vote counted if you're just a couple of days away from whatever it is in your area. Limits are limits. And the alcohol limits are even more uncontestable because there's actually evidence behind those.

Yeah, you're quite right. Better analogy .

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, you're quite right. Better analogy .

Yuss! LLB, here I come

 

[Himannv]

Not if the younger party is a willing participant.

My apologies, but not a fair comparison by any means. A guy who has a beer or 2 after work is pretty much every other regular guy over here. You want to equate all of them to pedophiles then I'd say you're pushing it a tad.

True story: the elder brother of a mate of mine is a copper (black sheep of the family, etc) and was transferred to the traffic division. As part of his training he had to pass an advanced driving test on a disused airfield where they can practice all sorts of stuff that'd be downright dangerous on a public road.

To show how alcohol affects driving he and the others on the course we given 4 pints of lager to drink fairly quickly and then sent back to go round a course of cones. Obviously all did significantly worse, but the interesting thing was the breathalyser test they were given afterwards. Despite having had what most people would think an unsafe amount, all passed the test. IIRC my mate's bro blew something like .23 when our limit is .35. The police apparently give all traffic cops this demo to show that the "I only had a couple of glasses of wine with lunch" type excuses are invariably bollox.

In the UK at least you have to be pretty far gone to fail a test so it's hard to have sympathy with those who do.

More true stories. Over here you dont have to fail the test or drink at all to be caught for drunk driving. Most cops just need a quick buck. You want to give them weapons like manslaughter charges as well to add onto that, well, I'll disagree as politely as I can.

 

[GotSpin]

Okay, lets go legal age for voting then. Point stands. You can't barge in and demand to have your vote counted if you're just a couple of days away from whatever it is in your area. Limits are limits. And the alcohol limits are even more uncontestable because there's actually evidence behind those.

This isn't criminally committing anything unless you actually do vote illegally.

 

[G.I.Joe]

This isn't criminally committing anything unless you actually do vote illegally.

exactly.

 

[GotSpin]

exactly.

what.

I don't understand the comparison. One crime is where someone drives while over the allowed intoxicated limit while your comparison is of someone demanding that they vote because they're only a few days short of being the right age

 

[G.I.Joe]

what.

I don't understand the comparison. One crime is where someone drives while over the allowed intoxicated limit while your comparison is of someone demanding that they vote because they're only a few days short of being the right age

So make the leap you already have. Assume that person went ahead and cast a vote despite not being legally allowed to. You're better than being needed to be spoon fed.

 

[GotSpin]

So make the leap you already have. Assume that person went ahead and cast a vote despite not being legally allowed to. You're better than being needed to be spoon fed.

Should have just said so instead of letting great intellectuals like myself help create arguments against me

 

[G.I.Joe]

Should have just said so instead of letting great intellectuals like myself help create arguments against me!

Kramer would have been proud of that

 

[GotSpin]

Damn braless wonder