Drink/driving: just a blip or a worrying trend?

[thirdcrank]

Would I support graduated punishments, eg the same as at present, plus greater punishment when more than (say) twice over the limit? Yes, I would.

Me too.
No doubt so would TC.
Thanks TC for a well measured reply.

I wonder if there are "graduated punishments" already in place?
If one were to be at 81wotsits, you'd be guilty. However, they may not fine you so much dosh as if you were at 160wotsits.
No doubt had there been a terrible accident caused by the drink driver/drunk driver, that would hike up the penalty too. Imprisonment is possible as well.

I'm pretty sure that there are greater fines etc for higher alcohol readings. As my original link explains, there's also a system for dealing with "problem" cases which has recently been revised. There's an earlier thread somewhere which I started which suggested that the old system was largely ignored through poor communication IIRC.

My own personal lowest was somebody whose reading was 82. (That was in the days when the sample went to the lab for analysis.) My highest was 407 IIRC and it came back from the lab with a note asking if was still alive (apparently that's the level at which many people would risk death from alcohol poisoning.)

[snibgo]

I'm pretty sure that there are greater fines etc for higher alcohol readings.

Ah, yes, so there are. See p124 of the Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines.

[thirdcrank]

snibgo

That's a very interesting link. On other threads I have banged on about the significance of sentencing guidelines and that pdf spells it all out in fine detail for magistrates' courts. There will be another for the Crown Court.All introduced long after I retired so my knowledge isn't first hand but I think it shows my general drift wasn't off the mark.

For the first time, there is a statutory obligation on every court to have regard to this guideline in a relevant case and to give reasons when imposing a sentence outside the range identified.

[boliston]

.....

Someone well over the limit is one thing, but a good driver a bit over the limit may still be far better than an elderly but totally sober chap.

I don't think age alone makes someone a more dangerous driver, unless of course they have a specific medical condition, such as severely reduced eyesight for example.

It is certainly likely that some drivers are safer even with some alcohol (still within the legally permitted amount of alcohol) than many drivers, who are incapable of driving safely even when totally sober.

I'd imagine that some drivers would compensate for low levels of alcohol (eg a single small glass of wine with a meal) by driving more slowly than they normally would, but other drivers will simply continue to drive in their "normal" reckless manner regardless of whether they have any alcohol or not.

[661-Pete]

.....

Someone well over the limit is one thing, but a good driver a bit over the limit may still be far better than an elderly but totally sober chap.

I don't think age alone makes someone a more dangerous driver, unless of course they have a specific medical condition, such as severely reduced eyesight for example.

Indeed - in the week when we are, alas, reading yet another report of a cyclist death, allegedly due to a 26-year old motorist DUI (drugs not alcohol) - perhaps this is not the time to castigate the more senior motorist who may be entirely competent.

[Mick F]

No.
I wasn't castigating anyone, just asking a rhetorical and comparative question.

[Kenn]

I used to work in the mobile phone industry and received research reports from TRRL on phone use while driving. Their tests showed that mobile phone use impaired driving much more than being a little over the 80 mg alcohol limit. Using hands free kit, which is legal, made little difference to the results. I would like to see phone use while driving gain the same kind of social stigma that drink driving has.