Where do people stand on drink-driving, where I live, it is very commonplace due to it being a country village with no police, and therefore I have been intoxicated at the whhel before, though none of my mates from town areas drink at all when they are driving, I believe there should be a 4 pint limit so you can still have a few and get away with it.
Some of my friends have been killed through drink-driving, or by a drink-driver, so I can see the sides of both arguments!
Take a taxi!
This is what you call a CLASSIC topic title, folks!
Is public opinion in the UK dramatically different from the US when it comes to the topic of “drunk driving” / “drink driving”? Here in the US, driving while intoxicated is considered one of the worst social evils ever visited upon mankind. In some states, penalties for DUI are severe. For example, in Alaska, there is a mandatory 48 hour incarceration when apprehended for DUI. I worked in South America with a group of people from the UK (Scotland, Wales, Ireland, England) and some people from Canada. All those people seemed to have a much more relaxed attitude about “drink driving.” Perhaps the MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) organization has not gotten to the UK yet?
Same in California. 48 hours in the pen. Plus, if you refuse to take any of the tests, boy do they really come down on you. I thought it was a 6 month no license, but no, it’s more like jail time, plus the 6 months plus another year. Also, fine of $300 or more.
Better to pay a lawyer about the same amount, get it dropped to some other charge.
middsy honey…two words…
DESIGNATED DRIVER
rural or not, there is no excuse!
I don’t like to drive my drink I like to drink my drink! If you mean drunk driving then it’s not acceptable at all. Even a little bit. I vote for a designated driver or take a cab! Drunk drivers put EVERYONE on the road at risk.
The moon looks on many flowers, the flowers on but one moon.
upon reading the first post again, I wonder…does middsy’s village have a problem with glue sniffing too?
In most US states the legal Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) is now .10. Most states had limits slightly higher than this but capitulated to pressure from the federal gov’t to lower them. So you can still have a drink or two (or three- dpndnt on your weight and metabolism) and not get a DUI or DWI.
Personally I don’t play around when it come to “Drink Driving”. If I’m going out to a bar or party, its a cab or metro for me. The costs of drunk driving far outweigh any minor convenience it may provide.
Why take the risk for something so stupid? And why bother with nonsense like “a man weighing blah, blah can drink blah, blah before being considered drunk?” If you don’t have any other way to get home, don’t drink anything. After one drink I don’t even trust myself to wander to the bathroom without bumping something; I’d sure as hell never risk it on the road with a car!
In California the limit is .08. And the fines are quite stiff.
With so many cars in this state–in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacrament, * everywhere–* this is a damned serious matter and the penalties are justifiably severe.
In Canada, the limit is .08 as well. It is very strict up here too - mandatory suspension of license after 1 DUI I believe. It may be only for 1 month or so, but gets longer if offenses repeat. This may also be accompanied by a fine and/or jailtime depending on circumstances.
I think that if you are going to drink, take a cab or a D.D. No two ways about it. Btw, I’ve lived in a small town before, and the rate of deaths as a result of drinking and driving is higher per capita there than in a big city (where I now live).
“Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open.”
-Lord Thomas Dewar
I once read or heard something about a person who was driving drunk and killed another person. The drunk driver had to send $1 to the mother of the person killed every month for X amount of years so, therefore, the drunk driver has to think about the person they killed at least once a month for X years. I think that is one of the most fitting punishments I’ve heard yet.
There’s certainly a lot of indoctrination: drunk driving bad, drunk driving bad, drunk driving bad, etc. I agree that it’s a bad idea, but it’s hard to tell how much of my aversion to it is due to the inherent risks and how much is from this indoctrination. Driving without seatbelts is probably even riskier, but there’s less of a penalty. And as far as I know, there no law against driving while really tired, or in an unfamiliar car, or other factors that can increase the risk. If a drunk driver is in an accident, it’s really easy to say “Well, obviously alchohol caused this accident”. But maybe the guy was just a bad driver, drunk or sober. But I guess the bottom line for me is that when you’re driving, you’re responsible for your own life, the lives of your passengers, and the lives of other drivers. Someone with that much responsibility shouldn’t be drunk.
-Ryan
" ‘Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.’ " -Kurt Vonnegut, * Breakfast of Champions *
There was, about 20-30 years ago, a traffic judge in Santa Monica (CA) who had a novel approach to penalizing drunk drivers. He would, as part of their punishment, order then to visit the morgue! Grisly, perhaps, but this judge found it quite effective. I like to think Santa Monica has had fewer drunk drivers since then. 
the seatbelt analogy has a flaw…
see, if I drive drunk, I might hit your car, and kill your family.
If I drive withou a seatbelt, the odds are slim that I will have an accident AND be thrown through the windshield of BOTH cars, thereby killing your family…
see the difference?
I don’t understand this sentence. Are you trying to say that if a driver not wearing a seatbelt hits another car, the only way the occupants of the other car would be killed is if the driver if thrown through the windshields of both cars? Couldn’t they be killed due to, say, being crushed by the impact or something?
Certainly, though, if an accident occurs, a non-seat-belted driver (drunk or sober) is more likely to be injured by, say, being thrown out of the car, than a seat-belted driver is, hence the original statement that driving without a seatbelt might be riskier to oneself than driving drink.
sorry, maybe I was too vague…
Drunk driving is bad because the drunk can kill many people besides himself…he/she is a menace to society.
Not wearing a seatbelt, you are (besides stupid) just a menace to yourself. You might hit a tree, or another car, that is not the point, because wearing/not wearing a seatbelt does not increase the risk to other cars on the road.make sense?