Drink Driving

[mch1991]

Some very interesting opinions circulating on this topic, and it's good to see nobody being attacked for having their own opinion.

 

I think the drink drive limit in the UK is very tolerant, as mentioned earlier, have a look at other EU Countries that set their limits very low, almost a zero tolerance approach if you will.

 

I agree with what a poster said here, the statistics obviously show that accidents involving drink driving are very small, however, remember that accidents involving drink driving are generally extremely serious in regards to the injuries caused.

 

I read that on average 3,000 people are killed or seriously injured each year in drink drive collisions, and nearly one in six of all deaths on the road involve drivers who are over the legal alcohol limit (drunk driving being one of the "fatal 5").

 

I think also people forget that the drink drive limit is somewhat arbitrary, as there remain so many different factors surrounding how alcohol affects each and every person differently.

[SabreSheep]

Also what are the figures historically for drink drive accidents.

 

You would need a history of drink driver accidents per 1000 drivers measured from before drink driving was made an offesnse all the way through to current day before you can justify that the laws are not worth having.

 

Yes accidents may be fewer now, but MORE people now find it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. Compare that with the attidues decades previously and you will prob find accidents were more frequent.

[BazzaS]

95% of vehicle collisions in the UK are not drink related.

Only 5% of collisions are drink related.

The vast majority of the carnage is caused by motorists who haven't been

drinking at all.

I therefore wonder why motorists who don't drink but cause accidents don't receive an

automatic disqualification for incompetence. or driving without due care and attention.

Over the years I have known people who have lost their licence due to failing a random

breath test by a small margin without any detectable impairment of their driving standard.

These people were risking an accident but never had an accident.

I have also known people who have caused fairly serious accidents who don't drink and

were not disqualified.

I therefore conclude that according to the law, risking an accident is far more serious than actually

having an accident.

Now surely if the government wish to reduce injuries and deaths on the roads then motorists

who cause accidents should be treated equally as severely as motorists who are caught just

risking an accident.

 

Burden of proof.

 

It is easier to prove someone is over the drink drive limit than that their driving fell far below the standard of the careful & competent driver.

[SabreSheep]

95% of vehicle collisions in the UK are not drink related.

Only 5% of collisions are drink related.

What weer the figures per 1000 population before laws were introduced. How do these figures change as the law changed? As mentioned above without this information those stats are meaningless

 

The vast majority of the carnage is caused by motorists who haven't been

drinking at all.

I therefore wonder why motorists who don't drink but cause accidents don't receive an

automatic disqualification for incompetence. or driving without due care and attention.

 

Burden of Proof. PLUS INTENT. Most collsions are not delibrate. By drinking you are deliberately adding RISK, Same with drugs Same with driving with a mobile phone.

 

Over the years I have known people who have lost their licence due to failing a random

breath test by a small margin without any detectable impairment of their driving standard.

 

Who assessed their driving standard?

 

These people were risking an accident but never had an accident.

 

Exactly, KNOWINGLY RISKING is different to accidental incidents.

 

I have also known people who have caused fairly serious accidents who don't drink and

were not disqualified.

 

Key word = Accident

 

I therefore conclude that according to the law, risking an accident is far more serious than actually

having an accident.

 

Driving a vehicle is a huge responsibility with potentially Fatal consequences. You have an obligation to protect yourself passengers and everyone around you by making sure you reduce the risk as far as reasonably practicable. Knowingly driving after having a drink increases risk, is foreseeable and entirely preventable. The law makes knowingly endangering other people more serious than accidental incidents. again. key word. KNOWINGLY or INTENT

 

Now surely if the government wish to reduce injuries and deaths on the roads then motorists

who cause accidents should be treated equally as severely as motorists who are caught just

risking an accident.

 

 

If people cause a major accident and are knowingly driving without due care or attention then they ARE genuinely prosecuted.

I also think that being caught driving whilst on a mobile phone should be an instant ban

[BazzaS]

If people cause a major accident and are knowingly driving without due care or attention then they ARE genuinely prosecuted.

I also think that being caught driving whilst on a mobile phone should be an instant ban

 

Hence the move from "RTA" to "RTC"

 

Collisions rather than Accidents, as many are avoidable, and if avoidable, not strictly speaking "accidental"

[king12345]

Agreed that driving while using a mobile phone should result in an immediate ban.

In my area this would solve the congestion by taking 50% of the drivers off the road.

It seems that in London is compulsory to use a mobile phone while driving.

They should have a dedicated team of police officers banning as many mobile phone users as possible, and smash their phone with a sledge hammer on the spot!

[SabreSheep]

I suppoer this

[chiefmegawatty]

There seems to be something wrong with the laws regarding the use of mobile phones whilst driving.

Research found that driving whilst using a mobile phone was twice as risky as driving whilst just over

the legal alcohol limit. Despite this there is no automatic disqualification for driving whilst using a mobile phone.

Therefore punishments aren't based upon the level of known increased risk.

The driving whilst using a mobile phone laws don't make sense.

These laws only apply to radio devices who operate in either the 900MHz or 1800MHz frequency bands.

I am a fully qualified radio amateur licensed to use radio equipment that operates on frequencies other than

the mobile phone frequencies. Whilst driving it's legal for me to use my amateur radio equipment even

though it's far more difficult and distracting to operate compared to a mobile phone.

I can even legally use a Morse key whilst driving !!

I could be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention however that's difficult to prove unless

I was driving obviously badly.

I therefore conclude that the mobile phone laws were brought in to secure easy bookings and rubber stamp

convictions.

Automatic disqualification of mobile phone offenders would result in the treasury loosing enormous amounts

of tax revenue which implies that punishments are based upon money rather than road safety.

[SabreSheep]

There seems to be something wrong with the laws regarding the use of mobile phones whilst driving.

Research found that driving whilst using a mobile phone was twice as risky as driving whilst just over

the legal alcohol limit. Despite this there is no automatic disqualification for driving whilst using a mobile phone.

Therefore punishments aren't based upon the level of known increased risk.

The driving whilst using a mobile phone laws don't make sense.

These laws only apply to radio devices who operate in either the 900MHz or 1800MHz frequency bands.

I am a fully qualified radio amateur licensed to use radio equipment that operates on frequencies other than

the mobile phone frequencies. Whilst driving it's legal for me to use my amateur radio equipment even

though it's far more difficult and distracting to operate compared to a mobile phone.

I can even legally use a Morse key whilst driving !!

I could be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention however that's difficult to prove unless

I was driving obviously badly.

I therefore conclude that the mobile phone laws were brought in to secure easy bookings and rubber stamp

convictions.

Automatic disqualification of mobile phone offenders would result in the treasury loosing enormous amounts

of tax revenue which implies that punishments are based upon money rather than road safety.

 

Not true. Footage, Video or camera is enough.

[chiefmegawatty]

The stats on collisions are current figures based upon how things are now.

 

Motorists who drive with increased known risk don't do so to deliberately cause a collision.

 

People I have met who have been randomly breath tested and lost their licenses had their driving standard assessed by the Police.

 

 

An old college friend of mine was random breath tested back in 1985

and found to be slightly over the alcohol limit and lost his licence.

 

 

The Police officer told him that he couldn't fault his driving standard and said it was excellent.

 

During the court case the Police stated that his driving standard was impaired which is why they pulled him in.

The Police were telling lies to a Magistrate to secure a conviction. Naughty, naughty.

 

Car insurance companies still pay out if a driver has a collision whilst over the limit and are legally required to provide such cover.

Therefore such an incident is considered to be an accident.

 

I agree that people who cause a major accident and are knowingly driving without due care and attention

are genuinely prosecuted, however, in such cases there is no automatic disqualification.

 

I am therefore still convinced that according to the law, risking an accident is considered far more serious

than actually having an accident.

[chiefmegawatty]

What exactly isn't true regarding my post and what video evidence are you referring to?

[jamesharris343]

Im back...

 

I noticed that king12345 said to sorn the car or could lead to trouble?

 

I do not understand this (I didnt do it). The car is taxed, insured and parked off-road. Surely this is fine? You do not need a license to own, tax and insure a car do you ?!

 

 

I actually logged back in to ask another question and saw the above, so obviously wanted to check on that while I was here.

 

 

The other question I have, my car is insured full comp (I am the main and only driver).

 

 

Can my friend drive the car with his fully comp insurance which permits him to drive a vehicle not owned by him as long as its insured?

Or is there any kind of issues that my insurances policy is held by a banned driver?

 

Thanks, James

[f16]

I think that is because you said you could cover the fine by not shelling out on car tax .

[DragonFly1967]

The other question I have, my car is insured full comp (I am the main and only driver). Can my friend drive the car with his fully comp insurance which permits him to drive a vehicle not owned by him as long as its insured? Or is there any kind of issues that my insurances policy is held by a banned driver?

 

The only way to know for certain, is to check, very carefully, the exact wording in your policy documents.

 

You may find that some motor vehicle insurance policies become void if the policy holder (not driver, my mistake) does not hold, or is disqualified from holding a driving licence.

[chiefmegawatty]

Im back...

 

I noticed that king12345 said to sorn the car or could lead to trouble?

 

I do not understand this (I didnt do it). The car is taxed, insured and parked off-road. Surely this is fine? You do not need a license to own, tax and insure a car do you ?!

 

 

I actually logged back in to ask another question and saw the above, so obviously wanted to check on that while I was here.

 

 

The other question I have, my car is insured full comp (I am the main and only driver). Can my friend drive the car with his fully comp insurance which permits him to drive a vehicle not owned by him as long as its insured? Or is there any kind of issues that my insurances policy is held by a banned driver?

 

 

Thanks, James

 

You don't need a drivers licence to own, tax or insure a car.

Yes your friend can legally drive your car.

Edited January 13, 2015 by caro

[king12345]

You don't need a drivers licence to own, tax or insure a car.

Yes your friend can legally drive your car.

 

This is what the op said:

 

Thanks for everyones help.

 

I got a 15 month ban which will be reduced by 3 months after doing the drink driving programme and a £205 fine (I'll save that by just not paying car tax for 12 months!)

 

So relieved and lesson learnt

 

James

 

 

 

Note this sentence: (I'll save that by just not paying car tax for 12 months!)

 

This to me, a reasonable balanced person, sounds like he intends to not tax the car for 12 months.

That's why I suggested to sorn the car.

F.C.

Edited January 13, 2015 by caro

[caro]

Im back...

 

I noticed that king12345 said to sorn the car or could lead to trouble?

 

I do not understand this (I didnt do it). The car is taxed, insured and parked off-road. Surely this is fine? You do not need a license to own, tax and insure a car do you ?!

 

 

I actually logged back in to ask another question and saw the above, so obviously wanted to check on that while I was here.

 

 

The other question I have, my car is insured full comp (I am the main and only driver). Can my friend drive the car with his fully comp insurance which permits him to drive a vehicle not owned by him as long as its insured? Or is there any kind of issues that my insurances policy is held by a banned driver?

 

 

Thanks, James

 

Something to bear in mind is that your friend will probably only be insured third party driving your car under his policy so if it's to be a regular thing it might be better to name him on your insurance.

[Aretnap]

Have you told your insurance company that you've been banned? Your policy will nearly always stipulate that you have to tell them immediately. If so, did they cancel the policy or were they happy to keep it running?

[caro]

Incidentally, please keep it civil folks. There's no need for rudeness or name calling. Some posts edited to remove offensive remarks.

[jamesharris343]

Have you told your insurance company that you've been banned? Your policy will nearly always stipulate that you have to tell them immediately. If so, did they cancel the policy or were they happy to keep it running?

 

I didnt tell them as saw no need as I wouldnt be driving ? If I was to drive I wouldnt be insured anyway...

[caro]

I didnt tell them as saw no need as I wouldnt be driving ? If I was to drive I wouldnt be insured anyway...

 

You should always advise of any change of circumstances or they might say your insurance is invalid if you have a claim.

[Aretnap]

I didnt tell them as saw no need as I wouldnt be driving ? If I was to drive I wouldnt be insured anyway...

Your policy's almost certainly invalid then. Not much point having it, as it won't pay out, even for something. like theft if you haven't told them about a pretty massive change of circumstances.

 

Why does the car actually need taxing and insuring if you can't drive it? You could save a fair bit of money by cancelling both and SORNing it. If you're worried about theft, you can get a fire and theft only policy (Google "laid up insurance") for a fraction of the price of a "regular" one which covers road accidents.note that laid up insurance doesn't count as insurance for the purposes of the Road Trafic Act as it doesn't cover third party risks, so the car still has to be kept off road and SORNed.

[jamesharris343]

Your policy's almost certainly invalid then. Not much point having it, as it won't pay out, even for something. like theft if you haven't told them about a pretty massive change of circumstances.

 

Why does the car actually need taxing and insuring if you can't drive it? You could save a fair bit of money by cancelling both and SORNing it. If you're worried about theft, you can get a fire and theft only policy (Google "laid up insurance") for a fraction of the price of a "regular" one which covers road accidents.note that laid up insurance doesn't count as insurance for the purposes of the Road Trafic Act as it doesn't cover third party risks, so the car still has to be kept off road and SORNed.

 

I had it insured in case someone damages it or nicks it and I thought it had to be taxed for the insurance to be valid.

 

My insurance quotes this :-

 

 

You are not covered under your policy for any of the following;

 

Contracts

Any claim as a result of an agreement or contract unless it is one the insurer would have been liable for anyway.

 

Who Uses the Car

 

Any injury, loss or damage which takes place while the car is being

* Driven by or in the charge of any person not covered by your Certificate of Motor Insurance; or

* Used other than for the purposes allowed on your Certificate of Motor Insurance; or

* Driven by or in the charge of any person who does not hold or comply with the conditions of a valid license to drive such a vehicle in the country within which the incident occurred.

 

The exception does not apply if the car is;

* Being serviced or repaired by a member of the motor trade.

* Stolen or being taken away without your permission; or

* Being parked by an employee of a hotel or restaurant as part of a car-parking service

 

Sadly Im no lawyer... but I would take this to mean, that even though the guy in charge (me) doesnt have a valid license, this is irrelevant if it is stolen or taken away without my permission?

 

Welcome the view of you guys with more experience in contracts and law ?

[Aretnap]

Generally speaking there'll also be a clause requiring you to inform them of changes to your circumstances, such as convictions, changes of address, changes of occupation. Some of those things you have to tell them about immediately, some of them only in time for your next renewal - but on every policy I've ever seen bans are something that have to be disclosed immediately. It's breaching that clause which potentially makes the whole policy invalid (a far bigger issue than having no tax - which wouldn't be a problem in the event of a claim).