‘Drink-driving laws need to be changed’ says Tim Madgwick, Deputy Chief Constable of North Yorkshire

Tim Madgwick, Deputy Chief Constable of North Yorkshire

Tim Madgwick, Deputy Chief Constable of North Yorkshire

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by

A SENIOR police chief has called for debate on drink driving limits and penalties, suggesting stricter limits and tougher sentences.

Tim Madgwick, Deputy Chief Constable of North Yorkshire questioned whether the current limits are fit for purpose, after what he called "depressing results" of the latest campaign.

Mr Madgwick said the fact that more than 50 people had been caught drink driving in the first two weeks of the campaign showed "a small number of hard core of drivers are prepared to risk their own lives and the lives of other innocent road users". He said research suggested most people do not know how much they can drink before being over the limit.

He said: "Education is always the most effective route to improve driver behaviour but surely the time must be right to consider lowering the legal limit and reviewing the sentencing options?"

Ed Morrow, campaigns officer for the road safety charity Brake, said he was pleased a senior police figure had echoed the organisation's call to consider changes to the drink drive limit.

He said: “The UK’s current drink drive limit is one of the most lenient in the EU; only Malta shares such a high limit. Scotland and Northern Ireland are leading the way in the UK by reducing their limits, from 80mg to 50mg alcohol per 100ml of blood. However, we need the government to go further, by introducing a zero-tolerance limit of 20mg (allowing for naturally occurring blood alcohol).

"Our current drink drive law asks people who have been drinking to guess whether they are over the limit, and whether they are safe to drive. In practice, this is impossible. All the research shows even small amounts of alcohol, less than the legal limit, can severely impact your judgement and reactions and make you more likely to crash. We should not be sending the misleading message that under the limit means safe – we should be absolutely clear: not a drop for the road."

A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "We have no plans to alter the drink drive limit.

"Tackling drink driving is a priority for the Government and we are taking steps to strengthen enforcement, such as removing the automatic right for drivers who fail a breathalyser test to demand a blood test, and requiring convicted drink-drivers to take medical tests to prove they are no longer alcohol-dependent before being allowed to drive."

Tim Madgwick’s comments in full

‘The national summer drink drive campaign has now been running for more than three weeks and in North Yorkshire we have seen the depressing results published week-on-week, which demonstrates that a small number of hard core of drivers are prepared to risk their own lives and the lives of other innocent road users.

The offenders cover all age ranges and from different social backgrounds – the one thing they have in common is they are prepared to take a life-changing risk. It seems that for some drivers it is more important to drink and ignore the evidence of thirty years of road safety research.

A Department for Transport report revealed how 30 years (1979 – 2009) of communications around drink driving saved almost 2,000 lives and prevented over 10,000 serious injuries. Four successive periods of communication campaigns tackled drink-drive attitudes, acceptability, denial and decisions.

We have seen several arrests in North Yorkshire where the drivers are over four times the legal limit, or have been identified as driving so dangerously they are a liability to anyone who is unfortunate enough to be sharing the roads with them at the same time.

Scotland are in the process of reducing the legal limit – with the underlying measure that it is far safer just not to drink at all if you intend to drive.

In the British Social Attitudes Survey (2012) – Public Attitudes towards Transport - 75% agree that most people don’t know how much they can drink before being over the limit.

It is clearly confusing if a member of the public tries to calculate how much they can drink up to the legal limit, but evidence shows that any amount of alcohol will have an impact on the ability of an individual to drive safely.

We can see that over the last few decades, the general message has landed with the majority of drivers.

The roads in the UK are now all safer than at any point in the last decade with huge decreases in fatalities. But are the sentences proportionate to the risk posed by drink drivers?

In parts of Scandinavia offenders can face an immediate prison sentence – should we consider something similar? Or are there other ways that drivers can be held to account by their communities?

In North Yorkshire, recent surveys have shown that road safety issues remain a top priority for a large number of people. Over fifty people will be, or have been, going through the judicial system for drink driving offences. How would they have felt if one of their relatives had been killed by a drink-driver? Education is always the most effective route to improve driver behaviour but surely the time must be right to consider lowering the legal limit and reviewing the sentencing options?’

 

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:46am Wed 25 Jun 14

CommonSense!! says...

Maybe Mr Madgwick would be better spending the resources he has on proper police officers, out on the roads making a difference, rather than squandering them on speed camera vans whose cynical deployment on well sighted straight dual carriageways does nothing to deter drink drivers.

As long as roads policing concentrates mainly on speed the real problems, such as drunk, or dangerous driving shall continue unabated.
Maybe Mr Madgwick would be better spending the resources he has on proper police officers, out on the roads making a difference, rather than squandering them on speed camera vans whose cynical deployment on well sighted straight dual carriageways does nothing to deter drink drivers. As long as roads policing concentrates mainly on speed the real problems, such as drunk, or dangerous driving shall continue unabated. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 42

12:10pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy.

It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person.

SIMPLES
I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy. It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person. SIMPLES Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -13

12:28pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Stevie D says...

Question. What proportion of accidents and incidents are caused by people with between 20mg and 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood? I suspect it's quite low. In other words, (assuming everyone who currently stays legal now would stay legal under the new law, which is unlikely) it would make very little difference to road safety.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as opposed to drink–driving as the next person, I would like to see people convicted of driving while under the influence strung up by their privates, but I'm just not convinced that reducing the limit further is necessary. (I'm teetotal, so it really doesn't affect me personally).

Like CommonSense!!, I would prefer to see police resources targeted into enforcing the current laws more effectively to promote road safety (and not focused on catching people breaking the speed limit on roads where it is patently safe to do so). We would do far more good by tightening up enforcement of the current drink–drive laws than by criminalising people whose behaviour is not dangerous and has been legal up until now.
Question. What proportion of accidents and incidents are caused by people with between 20mg and 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood? I suspect it's quite low. In other words, (assuming everyone who currently stays legal now would stay legal under the new law, which is unlikely) it would make very little difference to road safety. Don't get me wrong, I'm as opposed to drink–driving as the next person, I would like to see people convicted of driving while under the influence strung up by their privates, but I'm just not convinced that reducing the limit further is necessary. (I'm teetotal, so it really doesn't affect me personally). Like CommonSense!!, I would prefer to see police resources targeted into enforcing the current laws more effectively to promote road safety (and not focused on catching people breaking the speed limit on roads where it is patently safe to do so). We would do far more good by tightening up enforcement of the current drink–drive laws than by criminalising people whose behaviour is not dangerous and has been legal up until now. Stevie D
  • Score: 25

1:11pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is...

Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly...

You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 17

1:41pm Wed 25 Jun 14

CHISSY1 says...

All these experts,but you do not have a clue. You criticize the Police and who do you go running to when you are in trouble.
All these experts,but you do not have a clue. You criticize the Police and who do you go running to when you are in trouble. CHISSY1
  • Score: -21

1:50pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Lord_Ray says...

The majority of the comments so far, haven't been entirely constructive and the naivety of some people on here is staggering.

Personally I'm all for this pro-active action... Name and shame as well!.

Fact : Drinking or drug driving is illegal, with 50 motorists caught in such a small period it shows that it is clearly a bigger problem than first thought.

There is always the hard core who believe it is there right to consume more than the limit then drive home, to work the next morning, or take the kids to football on a Saturday morning after a bottle of wine the night before.

These people will get caught eventually, then when they want someone to blame, it's easy to roll out the catchphrase "Haven't you got something better to do...", "Aren't there some cones that need putting out...", "Shouldn't you be catching real villians ?". Tell that to a family who's loved one has died as a result of a drink driver.

Outside of the class of people above, Education is the key... Make people more aware.... send leaflets home with Children from school to show parents the trap they can fall in to... Get adverts in Pubs, and on Television..

Ram it home don't namby pamby about.
The majority of the comments so far, haven't been entirely constructive and the naivety of some people on here is staggering. Personally I'm all for this pro-active action... Name and shame as well!. Fact : Drinking or drug driving is illegal, with 50 motorists caught in such a small period it shows that it is clearly a bigger problem than first thought. There is always the hard core who believe it is there right to consume more than the limit then drive home, to work the next morning, or take the kids to football on a Saturday morning after a bottle of wine the night before. These people will get caught eventually, then when they want someone to blame, it's easy to roll out the catchphrase "Haven't you got something better to do...", "Aren't there some cones that need putting out...", "Shouldn't you be catching real villians ?". Tell that to a family who's loved one has died as a result of a drink driver. Outside of the class of people above, Education is the key... Make people more aware.... send leaflets home with Children from school to show parents the trap they can fall in to... Get adverts in Pubs, and on Television.. Ram it home don't namby pamby about. Lord_Ray
  • Score: 3

1:53pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Lord_Ray says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is...

Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly...

You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Hang on... Hang on...

"that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?.

Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!. Lord_Ray
  • Score: -17

2:22pm Wed 25 Jun 14

CommonSense!! says...

Lord_Ray wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is...

Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly...

You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Hang on... Hang on...

"that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?.

Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.
If you're incapable of driving safely 5mph over a posted limit then you should hand back your licence to the DVLA and give up, it's obviously not for you.

As for being anti-police, far from it, I work closely with them and have a lot of respect for front line officers. I do however think these front line officers are let down by cynical policy making from people like Mr Madgwick, his policies of persecuting motorists over speeding reduces public confidence in his officers, for which he should be ashamed.
[quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.[/p][/quote]If you're incapable of driving safely 5mph over a posted limit then you should hand back your licence to the DVLA and give up, it's obviously not for you. As for being anti-police, far from it, I work closely with them and have a lot of respect for front line officers. I do however think these front line officers are let down by cynical policy making from people like Mr Madgwick, his policies of persecuting motorists over speeding reduces public confidence in his officers, for which he should be ashamed. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 8

2:38pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Lord_Ray says...

Hang on... hang on, hang on.

How can you safely drive over the limit? ... If the limit has been set to 30.. Then driving at 35 is :-

a:) Breaking the law.

b). Clearly dangerous at you are exceedng the limit set for the road. If other motorists have to abide by the rules, why should one person has a dispensation?.
Hang on... hang on, hang on. How can you safely drive over the limit? ... If the limit has been set to 30.. Then driving at 35 is :- a:) Breaking the law. b). Clearly dangerous at you are exceedng the limit set for the road. If other motorists have to abide by the rules, why should one person has a dispensation?. Lord_Ray
  • Score: -9

2:41pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Lord_Ray wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.
Think type... how ironic... Believe it or not you can drive 5mph over the limit and it can be safe... for example 75mph on a dual carriageway when overtaking... safely

The same would apply going down say moor lane? Its 30mph but is going that 5mph extra causing extra risks? No! if you can not stop at 35mph if something is on the road then you should be banned.. And believe it or not you can comfortably drive on such a road at 35mph..

The point can go a tad further if you like. How many cars that receive tickets from these things are about to crash? or indeed go on to crash later on their journey? Ids say it’s less then 1%. So are these cameras beneficial?? No! they are money makers.

So double negative? no... i think i would get a refund on that lord title... moron. YOU CAN DRIVE OVER THE LIMIT SAFELEY.
[quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.[/p][/quote]Think type... how ironic... Believe it or not you can drive 5mph over the limit and it can be safe... for example 75mph on a dual carriageway when overtaking... safely The same would apply going down say moor lane? Its 30mph but is going that 5mph extra causing extra risks? No! if you can not stop at 35mph if something is on the road then you should be banned.. And believe it or not you can comfortably drive on such a road at 35mph.. The point can go a tad further if you like. How many cars that receive tickets from these things are about to crash? or indeed go on to crash later on their journey? Ids say it’s less then 1%. So are these cameras beneficial?? No! they are money makers. So double negative? no... i think i would get a refund on that lord title... moron. YOU CAN DRIVE OVER THE LIMIT SAFELEY. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 7

2:45pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Mikey_Mac says...

The justice system in this country is a joke no matter what extensive punishment they apply to drink-driving offenders...I believe by fact the law is so lenient, people aren't scared enough to make the right decision every time.

We are taught that assaulting & killing is bad yet people still pursue this act. There will always be drunk drivers no matter how much the government want us to believe the offenders will actually be punished.

My friend was killed in a road traffic accident in York about 7 years ago...The lady responsible for his death was drunk-driving with her baby in the car. She received a 5 year sentence, justice? If the law does increase the penalties, would she receive 10 years? I guess the ultimate question is; does that specific penalty justify the loss of a life?...my friend was sentenced to death.
The justice system in this country is a joke no matter what extensive punishment they apply to drink-driving offenders...I believe by fact the law is so lenient, people aren't scared enough to make the right decision every time. We are taught that assaulting & killing is bad yet people still pursue this act. There will always be drunk drivers no matter how much the government want us to believe the offenders will actually be punished. My friend was killed in a road traffic accident in York about 7 years ago...The lady responsible for his death was drunk-driving with her baby in the car. She received a 5 year sentence, justice? If the law does increase the penalties, would she receive 10 years? I guess the ultimate question is; does that specific penalty justify the loss of a life?...my friend was sentenced to death. Mikey_Mac
  • Score: 10

2:52pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Lord_Ray wrote:
Hang on... hang on, hang on. How can you safely drive over the limit? ... If the limit has been set to 30.. Then driving at 35 is :- a:) Breaking the law. b). Clearly dangerous at you are exceedng the limit set for the road. If other motorists have to abide by the rules, why should one person has a dispensation?.
Dear lord ray,

Breaking the law is not a proven safety measure. After all p@ssing in public is pretty safe (might get splash back) but its not legal.

Now to your 2nd point. Yes lord please explain to us why such roads have limits? For example why is the road leading to bishop Thorpe past the college 40mph? It has no corners? No where to cross over? Indeed it only has a path on one side... Maybe ray its down to the fact that they put blanket speed areas in instead of individually risk assessing each road?

Which I would like to add can cause an increased risk? I for one do not wait behind a driver doing 40mph along bishop Thorpe road (where the fields are next to the law college) if its safe to go faster. So by putting a 40mph limit it encourages such reprobates like me to overtake increasing the risk?

As a driver I make my own decisions on what a suitable speed is. And most of the time it is near the limit. But when it’s not its down to common sense. For example I don't drive 20mph down a short cul de sac which is narrow and has cars either side. I drive slower. If I went at 20mph down such a street it would increase my chances of having an accident. Sticking to your logic would cause a lot more accidents.

In short you can drive safe below or above the speed limit. Usually drivers with any common sense do this. I like these drivers. Not drivers like you ray boy.

Please feel free to report me.
[quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: Hang on... hang on, hang on. How can you safely drive over the limit? ... If the limit has been set to 30.. Then driving at 35 is :- a:) Breaking the law. b). Clearly dangerous at you are exceedng the limit set for the road. If other motorists have to abide by the rules, why should one person has a dispensation?.[/p][/quote]Dear lord ray, Breaking the law is not a proven safety measure. After all p@ssing in public is pretty safe (might get splash back) but its not legal. Now to your 2nd point. Yes lord please explain to us why such roads have limits? For example why is the road leading to bishop Thorpe past the college 40mph? It has no corners? No where to cross over? Indeed it only has a path on one side... Maybe ray its down to the fact that they put blanket speed areas in instead of individually risk assessing each road? Which I would like to add can cause an increased risk? I for one do not wait behind a driver doing 40mph along bishop Thorpe road (where the fields are next to the law college) if its safe to go faster. So by putting a 40mph limit it encourages such reprobates like me to overtake increasing the risk? As a driver I make my own decisions on what a suitable speed is. And most of the time it is near the limit. But when it’s not its down to common sense. For example I don't drive 20mph down a short cul de sac which is narrow and has cars either side. I drive slower. If I went at 20mph down such a street it would increase my chances of having an accident. Sticking to your logic would cause a lot more accidents. In short you can drive safe below or above the speed limit. Usually drivers with any common sense do this. I like these drivers. Not drivers like you ray boy. Please feel free to report me. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 11

3:16pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Can't all be wrong says...

I think it's reasonable to assume that the people who were found to be four times over the limit will continue to drive regardless of the law, and I suspect the same could be said for the majority of drink drivers.
Mr Madgwick can advocate a change in the law of course, but the reality is that laws will be ignored by various people, they always have been and always will be, that's why Robert Peel had the great idea of creating a body of men who's task it was to enforce the laws of the land rather than relying on a voluntary code of practice. See where I'm going with this?
I think it's reasonable to assume that the people who were found to be four times over the limit will continue to drive regardless of the law, and I suspect the same could be said for the majority of drink drivers. Mr Madgwick can advocate a change in the law of course, but the reality is that laws will be ignored by various people, they always have been and always will be, that's why Robert Peel had the great idea of creating a body of men who's task it was to enforce the laws of the land rather than relying on a voluntary code of practice. See where I'm going with this? Can't all be wrong
  • Score: 10

3:19pm Wed 25 Jun 14

I'msohappy.com says...

Dave Ruddock wrote:
I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy.

It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person.

SIMPLES
I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy. It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person. SIMPLES[/p][/quote]I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science. I'msohappy.com
  • Score: 5

3:39pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Lord_Ray says...

Mr Archie..

Hang on... Hang on.

Right... Now look here. There is clearly a difference in the amount of effort and time required to stop a car travelling at 35 mph than one travelling at 30 mph. This is a FACT..
Where you too busy looking out of the window during physics at school?.

The extra second(s) can make such a big difference to any object you hit. FACT.

With your second missive.. You are completely missing the point... In the eyes of the law, and in general rules, if the limit is 30,50,70 driving outside of the defined criteria you are driving and acting in reckless manner. FACT.

In most situations you will over take a car on a 30.. Only for that car to catch you up within a minute or so when you have been delayed.

I was looking forward to a good debate on this, however as you have to refer to me as a moron, I think i've won.
Mr Archie.. Hang on... Hang on. Right... Now look here. There is clearly a difference in the amount of effort and time required to stop a car travelling at 35 mph than one travelling at 30 mph. This is a FACT.. Where you too busy looking out of the window during physics at school?. The extra second(s) can make such a big difference to any object you hit. FACT. With your second missive.. You are completely missing the point... In the eyes of the law, and in general rules, if the limit is 30,50,70 driving outside of the defined criteria you are driving and acting in reckless manner. FACT. In most situations you will over take a car on a 30.. Only for that car to catch you up within a minute or so when you have been delayed. I was looking forward to a good debate on this, however as you have to refer to me as a moron, I think i've won. Lord_Ray
  • Score: 2

3:41pm Wed 25 Jun 14

rogue84 says...

the simple solution is always, don't allow drinking at all no matter what level and don't speed! how can people complain when they are caught speeding? it's a law, you've broken it, deal with it!
the simple solution is always, don't allow drinking at all no matter what level and don't speed! how can people complain when they are caught speeding? it's a law, you've broken it, deal with it! rogue84
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Lord_Ray says...

rogue84 wrote:
the simple solution is always, don't allow drinking at all no matter what level and don't speed! how can people complain when they are caught speeding? it's a law, you've broken it, deal with it!
Bang on!.
[quote][p][bold]rogue84[/bold] wrote: the simple solution is always, don't allow drinking at all no matter what level and don't speed! how can people complain when they are caught speeding? it's a law, you've broken it, deal with it![/p][/quote]Bang on!. Lord_Ray
  • Score: -9

3:49pm Wed 25 Jun 14

CommonSense!! says...

Lord_Ray wrote:
Mr Archie..

Hang on... Hang on.

Right... Now look here. There is clearly a difference in the amount of effort and time required to stop a car travelling at 35 mph than one travelling at 30 mph. This is a FACT..
Where you too busy looking out of the window during physics at school?.

The extra second(s) can make such a big difference to any object you hit. FACT.

With your second missive.. You are completely missing the point... In the eyes of the law, and in general rules, if the limit is 30,50,70 driving outside of the defined criteria you are driving and acting in reckless manner. FACT.

In most situations you will over take a car on a 30.. Only for that car to catch you up within a minute or so when you have been delayed.

I was looking forward to a good debate on this, however as you have to refer to me as a moron, I think i've won.
Travelling in excess of the speed limit is not deemed to be acting recklessly (the current wording being without due care and attention), that would come under the competent and careful motorist test and be dealt with separately.

Don't let such frivolities as facts and law get in the way of your poorly formulated argument though.
[quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: Mr Archie.. Hang on... Hang on. Right... Now look here. There is clearly a difference in the amount of effort and time required to stop a car travelling at 35 mph than one travelling at 30 mph. This is a FACT.. Where you too busy looking out of the window during physics at school?. The extra second(s) can make such a big difference to any object you hit. FACT. With your second missive.. You are completely missing the point... In the eyes of the law, and in general rules, if the limit is 30,50,70 driving outside of the defined criteria you are driving and acting in reckless manner. FACT. In most situations you will over take a car on a 30.. Only for that car to catch you up within a minute or so when you have been delayed. I was looking forward to a good debate on this, however as you have to refer to me as a moron, I think i've won.[/p][/quote]Travelling in excess of the speed limit is not deemed to be acting recklessly (the current wording being without due care and attention), that would come under the competent and careful motorist test and be dealt with separately. Don't let such frivolities as facts and law get in the way of your poorly formulated argument though. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 6

3:57pm Wed 25 Jun 14

bill bailey says...

I'msohappy.com wrote:
Dave Ruddock wrote:
I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy.

It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person.

SIMPLES
I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.
YOU TWO MUST BE COPPERS NARKS, You both must be total teetotallers .good for you You must, when driving observe the highway code. never speed, always give way to the right, you do, well done , Lire's both of you, there is not a man jack and that includes the police that are holier that thou, we drivers break the law every day when driving, its the ones that get caught pay the price the rest say IDIOTS. Don't be so smug and law abiding because you not ,
[quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy. It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person. SIMPLES[/p][/quote]I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.[/p][/quote]YOU TWO MUST BE COPPERS NARKS, You both must be total teetotallers .good for you You must, when driving observe the highway code. never speed, always give way to the right, you do, well done , Lire's both of you, there is not a man jack and that includes the police that are holier that thou, we drivers break the law every day when driving, its the ones that get caught pay the price the rest say IDIOTS. Don't be so smug and law abiding because you not , bill bailey
  • Score: 3

3:58pm Wed 25 Jun 14

PhilR@Strike says...

Hasn't he got any Criminals to catch? :(
Hasn't he got any Criminals to catch? :( PhilR@Strike
  • Score: 2

4:03pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Lord_Ray says...

Ha ha...

"Don't let such frivolities as facts and law get in the way of your poorly formulated argument though"...

That I shall not, and i was quite prepared to roll over on this one, until Mr Bald lowered the tone.
Ha ha... "Don't let such frivolities as facts and law get in the way of your poorly formulated argument though"... That I shall not, and i was quite prepared to roll over on this one, until Mr Bald lowered the tone. Lord_Ray
  • Score: -7

4:04pm Wed 25 Jun 14

nottoooldtocare says...

Can't all be wrong wrote:
I think it's reasonable to assume that the people who were found to be four times over the limit will continue to drive regardless of the law, and I suspect the same could be said for the majority of drink drivers.
Mr Madgwick can advocate a change in the law of course, but the reality is that laws will be ignored by various people, they always have been and always will be, that's why Robert Peel had the great idea of creating a body of men who's task it was to enforce the laws of the land rather than relying on a voluntary code of practice. See where I'm going with this?
Hits the nail on the head for me this one. We all know people in our towns and villages that drink and drive every day of the week. As far as they are concerned they haven't had many and in their eyes they are safe, after all they only live round the corner from the pub anyway. Wouldn't matter if the level was zero, they would do as they always have done. The vast majority of drivers don't and wouldn't drink and drive, regardless of the limit, certainly I don't. I do one or the other.

However, although a strong supporter of the Police in general, I can see why comments here are not supportive of Mr Madgwick. Motorist do see themselves as an easy and soft target for generating funds for the council and Police force. Do we really have that many fatalities on the A64 that justifies the van parked on the straight stretches? No. Where are the figures to support the plethora of accident black spots that warrants this big brother approach? Are there any?
Sadly there is a growing resentment that incidents such as anti social behaviour, threatening behaviour and criminal damage don't justify the presence of a Policeman, but doing 80 mph on the A64 is worthy of several sitting in a van generating a fine and points on your licence; is it any wonder we are loosing respect for the badge? The courts and those at the top have a lot to answer for, as they are alienating themselves (the police force) from the general public. Time to look at and understand what we the general public see are the priorities Mr Madgwick, not what you can do to can boost the coffers for the next Christmas party.
[quote][p][bold]Can't all be wrong[/bold] wrote: I think it's reasonable to assume that the people who were found to be four times over the limit will continue to drive regardless of the law, and I suspect the same could be said for the majority of drink drivers. Mr Madgwick can advocate a change in the law of course, but the reality is that laws will be ignored by various people, they always have been and always will be, that's why Robert Peel had the great idea of creating a body of men who's task it was to enforce the laws of the land rather than relying on a voluntary code of practice. See where I'm going with this?[/p][/quote]Hits the nail on the head for me this one. We all know people in our towns and villages that drink and drive every day of the week. As far as they are concerned they haven't had many and in their eyes they are safe, after all they only live round the corner from the pub anyway. Wouldn't matter if the level was zero, they would do as they always have done. The vast majority of drivers don't and wouldn't drink and drive, regardless of the limit, certainly I don't. I do one or the other. However, although a strong supporter of the Police in general, I can see why comments here are not supportive of Mr Madgwick. Motorist do see themselves as an easy and soft target for generating funds for the council and Police force. Do we really have that many fatalities on the A64 that justifies the van parked on the straight stretches? No. Where are the figures to support the plethora of accident black spots that warrants this big brother approach? Are there any? Sadly there is a growing resentment that incidents such as anti social behaviour, threatening behaviour and criminal damage don't justify the presence of a Policeman, but doing 80 mph on the A64 is worthy of several sitting in a van generating a fine and points on your licence; is it any wonder we are loosing respect for the badge? The courts and those at the top have a lot to answer for, as they are alienating themselves (the police force) from the general public. Time to look at and understand what we the general public see are the priorities Mr Madgwick, not what you can do to can boost the coffers for the next Christmas party. nottoooldtocare
  • Score: 15

4:08pm Wed 25 Jun 14

piaggio1 says...

Instant 10year ban. And a re-test.......sorted

Anyone found driving while banned..5 year prison sentance...followed be a restart of the ban.....sorted...
Instant 10year ban. And a re-test.......sorted Anyone found driving while banned..5 year prison sentance...followed be a restart of the ban.....sorted... piaggio1
  • Score: -6

4:14pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

take it some people will be happy to have pilots, train drivers, HGV drivers etc etc **** or under the influence. would they fly, be a passenger knowing the operator if not of sound judgement. as for Bill Baily hope the authorities know of your answer, Im a NON Driver due to vehicle driver breaking the rules and common sense.
take it some people will be happy to have pilots, train drivers, HGV drivers etc etc **** or under the influence. would they fly, be a passenger knowing the operator if not of sound judgement. as for Bill Baily hope the authorities know of your answer, Im a NON Driver due to vehicle driver breaking the rules and common sense. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 3

4:14pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Lord_Ray wrote:
Mr Archie.. Hang on... Hang on. Right... Now look here. There is clearly a difference in the amount of effort and time required to stop a car travelling at 35 mph than one travelling at 30 mph. This is a FACT.. Where you too busy looking out of the window during physics at school?. The extra second(s) can make such a big difference to any object you hit. FACT. With your second missive.. You are completely missing the point... In the eyes of the law, and in general rules, if the limit is 30,50,70 driving outside of the defined criteria you are driving and acting in reckless manner. FACT. In most situations you will over take a car on a 30.. Only for that car to catch you up within a minute or so when you have been delayed. I was looking forward to a good debate on this, however as you have to refer to me as a moron, I think i've won.
Hahahaha ok lord ray lets discuss physics shall we... since the speed limits were introduced how much improvement has there been in the braking speed? I.e. all cars now have anti lock breaks which stop at 30-40mph roughly the same. You are talking less then a 1 second. So in real terms there difference is around 1.5 meters (around 10.5meters from when you pressed the break) so if you can not see an object in front of you that is 10meters away you should not be driving. That’s my physics credentials passed. This is only compounded by the fact that the 30mph zones I mention only have a path on one side so what is actually going to be in or crossing the road?

Driving recklessly and speeding are two different laws actually? i.e. if you are speeding you are fined. If you are driving recklessly i.e swerving etc you are fined. So would you say that all police cars going over the limit in areas with blues and twos on are reckless? They often speed in areas which as you put it would be reckless to speed in.

Ah you are using the 20 is plenty speed simulator on that one? You see I don't bother overtaking if I will get stuck in traffic but as the roads I talk about are not subjected to traffic lights etc congestion is at a minimum. And obviously you either drive at 30mph everywhere or you have indeed overtaken someone at that speed to have such an insight? So you are either the cause or you are not practising what you preach!

I reserve the right to call anyone that with such flawed arguments and made up logic. You even have the cheek to say I missed physics! I suggest you re-evaluate your argument on this one and get back to me.
[quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: Mr Archie.. Hang on... Hang on. Right... Now look here. There is clearly a difference in the amount of effort and time required to stop a car travelling at 35 mph than one travelling at 30 mph. This is a FACT.. Where you too busy looking out of the window during physics at school?. The extra second(s) can make such a big difference to any object you hit. FACT. With your second missive.. You are completely missing the point... In the eyes of the law, and in general rules, if the limit is 30,50,70 driving outside of the defined criteria you are driving and acting in reckless manner. FACT. In most situations you will over take a car on a 30.. Only for that car to catch you up within a minute or so when you have been delayed. I was looking forward to a good debate on this, however as you have to refer to me as a moron, I think i've won.[/p][/quote]Hahahaha ok lord ray lets discuss physics shall we... since the speed limits were introduced how much improvement has there been in the braking speed? I.e. all cars now have anti lock breaks which stop at 30-40mph roughly the same. You are talking less then a 1 second. So in real terms there difference is around 1.5 meters (around 10.5meters from when you pressed the break) so if you can not see an object in front of you that is 10meters away you should not be driving. That’s my physics credentials passed. This is only compounded by the fact that the 30mph zones I mention only have a path on one side so what is actually going to be in or crossing the road? Driving recklessly and speeding are two different laws actually? i.e. if you are speeding you are fined. If you are driving recklessly i.e swerving etc you are fined. So would you say that all police cars going over the limit in areas with blues and twos on are reckless? They often speed in areas which as you put it would be reckless to speed in. Ah you are using the 20 is plenty speed simulator on that one? You see I don't bother overtaking if I will get stuck in traffic but as the roads I talk about are not subjected to traffic lights etc congestion is at a minimum. And obviously you either drive at 30mph everywhere or you have indeed overtaken someone at that speed to have such an insight? So you are either the cause or you are not practising what you preach! I reserve the right to call anyone that with such flawed arguments and made up logic. You even have the cheek to say I missed physics! I suggest you re-evaluate your argument on this one and get back to me. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 3

4:18pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Lord_Ray wrote:
Ha ha... "Don't let such frivolities as facts and law get in the way of your poorly formulated argument though"... That I shall not, and i was quite prepared to roll over on this one, until Mr Bald lowered the tone.
i'd get rolling. But not into a road if someone is travelling at 35mph. Thats just dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: Ha ha... "Don't let such frivolities as facts and law get in the way of your poorly formulated argument though"... That I shall not, and i was quite prepared to roll over on this one, until Mr Bald lowered the tone.[/p][/quote]i'd get rolling. But not into a road if someone is travelling at 35mph. Thats just dangerous. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -3

4:19pm Wed 25 Jun 14

CommonSense!! says...

Dave Ruddock wrote:
take it some people will be happy to have pilots, train drivers, HGV drivers etc etc **** or under the influence. would they fly, be a passenger knowing the operator if not of sound judgement. as for Bill Baily hope the authorities know of your answer, Im a NON Driver due to vehicle driver breaking the rules and common sense.
Don't bring me into it!!
[quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: take it some people will be happy to have pilots, train drivers, HGV drivers etc etc **** or under the influence. would they fly, be a passenger knowing the operator if not of sound judgement. as for Bill Baily hope the authorities know of your answer, Im a NON Driver due to vehicle driver breaking the rules and common sense.[/p][/quote]Don't bring me into it!! CommonSense!!
  • Score: 1

4:26pm Wed 25 Jun 14

bill bailey says...

PERHAPS the police in York o could put the same importance through advertising on the TV that bodies recovered from the Ouse costs he tax payers of the city thousands of pounds. through the stupidity of the idiots that drink and walk too near the river. the is a saying that go's like this " When the drink is in the sense is out "at the end of the day somebody dies, one is no different to tuther.
PERHAPS the police in York o could put the same importance through advertising on the TV that bodies recovered from the Ouse costs he tax payers of the city thousands of pounds. through the stupidity of the idiots that drink and walk too near the river. the is a saying that go's like this " When the drink is in the sense is out "at the end of the day somebody dies, one is no different to tuther. bill bailey
  • Score: 2

4:34pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Lord_Ray says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Lord_Ray wrote:
Ha ha... "Don't let such frivolities as facts and law get in the way of your poorly formulated argument though"... That I shall not, and i was quite prepared to roll over on this one, until Mr Bald lowered the tone.
i'd get rolling. But not into a road if someone is travelling at 35mph. Thats just dangerous.
Ha ha.. A comedy moment from you. Oh well shows you were at least paying attention and not looking out of the window!.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: Ha ha... "Don't let such frivolities as facts and law get in the way of your poorly formulated argument though"... That I shall not, and i was quite prepared to roll over on this one, until Mr Bald lowered the tone.[/p][/quote]i'd get rolling. But not into a road if someone is travelling at 35mph. Thats just dangerous.[/p][/quote]Ha ha.. A comedy moment from you. Oh well shows you were at least paying attention and not looking out of the window!. Lord_Ray
  • Score: 3

5:11pm Wed 25 Jun 14

trailblazer says...

Using a mobile phone whilst driving is just as bad as drinking if not worst the police do nothing positive about phone use that should bring an automatic ban. Sort the drug use and driving out first before altering anything.
Using a mobile phone whilst driving is just as bad as drinking if not worst the police do nothing positive about phone use that should bring an automatic ban. Sort the drug use and driving out first before altering anything. trailblazer
  • Score: 6

5:12pm Wed 25 Jun 14

TheTruthHurts says...

A real bug bear of mine is when i am driving through a village dead on the line 30mph (or whatever the limit is) when some plonker comes speeding up behind me brakes sharply and then is right up my a*** unitil either me or them turn off. Yeah really safe driving that is.
A real bug bear of mine is when i am driving through a village dead on the line 30mph (or whatever the limit is) when some plonker comes speeding up behind me brakes sharply and then is right up my a*** unitil either me or them turn off. Yeah really safe driving that is. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 13

5:12pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Caecilius says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Lord_Ray wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.
Think type... how ironic... Believe it or not you can drive 5mph over the limit and it can be safe... for example 75mph on a dual carriageway when overtaking... safely

The same would apply going down say moor lane? Its 30mph but is going that 5mph extra causing extra risks? No! if you can not stop at 35mph if something is on the road then you should be banned.. And believe it or not you can comfortably drive on such a road at 35mph..

The point can go a tad further if you like. How many cars that receive tickets from these things are about to crash? or indeed go on to crash later on their journey? Ids say it’s less then 1%. So are these cameras beneficial?? No! they are money makers.

So double negative? no... i think i would get a refund on that lord title... moron. YOU CAN DRIVE OVER THE LIMIT SAFELEY.
Yeah. Just like you can safely dump your car on double yellow lines, or on the approach to a pedestrian crossing, or double park it. Or stop on a box junction when you can clearly see you won't be able to get off it - even driving through a red light to get there. There are far too many people behind the wheel who think that rules are for other people, not them.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.[/p][/quote]Think type... how ironic... Believe it or not you can drive 5mph over the limit and it can be safe... for example 75mph on a dual carriageway when overtaking... safely The same would apply going down say moor lane? Its 30mph but is going that 5mph extra causing extra risks? No! if you can not stop at 35mph if something is on the road then you should be banned.. And believe it or not you can comfortably drive on such a road at 35mph.. The point can go a tad further if you like. How many cars that receive tickets from these things are about to crash? or indeed go on to crash later on their journey? Ids say it’s less then 1%. So are these cameras beneficial?? No! they are money makers. So double negative? no... i think i would get a refund on that lord title... moron. YOU CAN DRIVE OVER THE LIMIT SAFELEY.[/p][/quote]Yeah. Just like you can safely dump your car on double yellow lines, or on the approach to a pedestrian crossing, or double park it. Or stop on a box junction when you can clearly see you won't be able to get off it - even driving through a red light to get there. There are far too many people behind the wheel who think that rules are for other people, not them. Caecilius
  • Score: 1

5:22pm Wed 25 Jun 14

nottoooldtocare says...

Caecilius wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Lord_Ray wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.
Think type... how ironic... Believe it or not you can drive 5mph over the limit and it can be safe... for example 75mph on a dual carriageway when overtaking... safely

The same would apply going down say moor lane? Its 30mph but is going that 5mph extra causing extra risks? No! if you can not stop at 35mph if something is on the road then you should be banned.. And believe it or not you can comfortably drive on such a road at 35mph..

The point can go a tad further if you like. How many cars that receive tickets from these things are about to crash? or indeed go on to crash later on their journey? Ids say it’s less then 1%. So are these cameras beneficial?? No! they are money makers.

So double negative? no... i think i would get a refund on that lord title... moron. YOU CAN DRIVE OVER THE LIMIT SAFELEY.
Yeah. Just like you can safely dump your car on double yellow lines, or on the approach to a pedestrian crossing, or double park it. Or stop on a box junction when you can clearly see you won't be able to get off it - even driving through a red light to get there. There are far too many people behind the wheel who think that rules are for other people, not them.
Blimey, I bet you're a real joy to go out with for a couple of pints, can we take it you didn't manage to pass your driving test? :)
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.[/p][/quote]Think type... how ironic... Believe it or not you can drive 5mph over the limit and it can be safe... for example 75mph on a dual carriageway when overtaking... safely The same would apply going down say moor lane? Its 30mph but is going that 5mph extra causing extra risks? No! if you can not stop at 35mph if something is on the road then you should be banned.. And believe it or not you can comfortably drive on such a road at 35mph.. The point can go a tad further if you like. How many cars that receive tickets from these things are about to crash? or indeed go on to crash later on their journey? Ids say it’s less then 1%. So are these cameras beneficial?? No! they are money makers. So double negative? no... i think i would get a refund on that lord title... moron. YOU CAN DRIVE OVER THE LIMIT SAFELEY.[/p][/quote]Yeah. Just like you can safely dump your car on double yellow lines, or on the approach to a pedestrian crossing, or double park it. Or stop on a box junction when you can clearly see you won't be able to get off it - even driving through a red light to get there. There are far too many people behind the wheel who think that rules are for other people, not them.[/p][/quote]Blimey, I bet you're a real joy to go out with for a couple of pints, can we take it you didn't manage to pass your driving test? :) nottoooldtocare
  • Score: -2

5:29pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

nottoooldtocare wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Lord_Ray wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.
Think type... how ironic... Believe it or not you can drive 5mph over the limit and it can be safe... for example 75mph on a dual carriageway when overtaking... safely

The same would apply going down say moor lane? Its 30mph but is going that 5mph extra causing extra risks? No! if you can not stop at 35mph if something is on the road then you should be banned.. And believe it or not you can comfortably drive on such a road at 35mph..

The point can go a tad further if you like. How many cars that receive tickets from these things are about to crash? or indeed go on to crash later on their journey? Ids say it’s less then 1%. So are these cameras beneficial?? No! they are money makers.

So double negative? no... i think i would get a refund on that lord title... moron. YOU CAN DRIVE OVER THE LIMIT SAFELEY.
Yeah. Just like you can safely dump your car on double yellow lines, or on the approach to a pedestrian crossing, or double park it. Or stop on a box junction when you can clearly see you won't be able to get off it - even driving through a red light to get there. There are far too many people behind the wheel who think that rules are for other people, not them.
Blimey, I bet you're a real joy to go out with for a couple of pints, can we take it you didn't manage to pass your driving test? :)
Just rolls around In one of them bubbles to be safe.
[quote][p][bold]nottoooldtocare[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.[/p][/quote]Think type... how ironic... Believe it or not you can drive 5mph over the limit and it can be safe... for example 75mph on a dual carriageway when overtaking... safely The same would apply going down say moor lane? Its 30mph but is going that 5mph extra causing extra risks? No! if you can not stop at 35mph if something is on the road then you should be banned.. And believe it or not you can comfortably drive on such a road at 35mph.. The point can go a tad further if you like. How many cars that receive tickets from these things are about to crash? or indeed go on to crash later on their journey? Ids say it’s less then 1%. So are these cameras beneficial?? No! they are money makers. So double negative? no... i think i would get a refund on that lord title... moron. YOU CAN DRIVE OVER THE LIMIT SAFELEY.[/p][/quote]Yeah. Just like you can safely dump your car on double yellow lines, or on the approach to a pedestrian crossing, or double park it. Or stop on a box junction when you can clearly see you won't be able to get off it - even driving through a red light to get there. There are far too many people behind the wheel who think that rules are for other people, not them.[/p][/quote]Blimey, I bet you're a real joy to go out with for a couple of pints, can we take it you didn't manage to pass your driving test? :)[/p][/quote]Just rolls around In one of them bubbles to be safe. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -2

5:52pm Wed 25 Jun 14

julia brica says...

CHISSY1 wrote:
All these experts,but you do not have a clue. You criticize the Police and who do you go running to when you are in trouble.
I have run to them and got nowhere. My confidence in the police and the justice system as a whole fields me to have a baseball bat by my side at all times.
[quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote: All these experts,but you do not have a clue. You criticize the Police and who do you go running to when you are in trouble.[/p][/quote]I have run to them and got nowhere. My confidence in the police and the justice system as a whole fields me to have a baseball bat by my side at all times. julia brica
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Wed 25 Jun 14

julia brica says...

piaggio1 wrote:
Instant 10year ban. And a re-test.......sorted


Anyone found driving while banned..5 year prison sentance...followed be a restart of the ban.....sorted...
That is a great idea, lets start building town size prisons right now.
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: Instant 10year ban. And a re-test.......sorted Anyone found driving while banned..5 year prison sentance...followed be a restart of the ban.....sorted...[/p][/quote]That is a great idea, lets start building town size prisons right now. julia brica
  • Score: 2

5:59pm Wed 25 Jun 14

nearlyman says...

The law and limit is perfect as it stands. As has been said here already most people make the conscious decision to not drive if they are drinking. The biggest problem if the limit were lowered would be those caught the morning after. Harsh on them if they were within the limits legal at present and realistically and probably statistically very little danger to anyone. The determined drink driver is the one who believes he can calculate on the night what he can drink to stay just within the limit. One pint or one glass of wine should be anyones benchmark if they really have to drink something. If the police keep catching people who continue to either be too clever for their own good or choose to ignore the law it serves as a constant reminder to all others that if they behave recklessly they will suffer the consequences. So i say leave it ss it is and catch those who really take the p%#s.
The law and limit is perfect as it stands. As has been said here already most people make the conscious decision to not drive if they are drinking. The biggest problem if the limit were lowered would be those caught the morning after. Harsh on them if they were within the limits legal at present and realistically and probably statistically very little danger to anyone. The determined drink driver is the one who believes he can calculate on the night what he can drink to stay just within the limit. One pint or one glass of wine should be anyones benchmark if they really have to drink something. If the police keep catching people who continue to either be too clever for their own good or choose to ignore the law it serves as a constant reminder to all others that if they behave recklessly they will suffer the consequences. So i say leave it ss it is and catch those who really take the p%#s. nearlyman
  • Score: 2

6:23pm Wed 25 Jun 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Do some real Policing, Chief Constable! The limit is fine as it is, our issue is the people well exceeding that limit. Next thing you will be sniffing out who had the Sherry Trifle
Better to spend your (& NYP) time arresting Burglars and vandals etc instead of just issuing a crime number for our insurance.
.
Do some real Policing, Chief Constable! The limit is fine as it is, our issue is the people well exceeding that limit. Next thing you will be sniffing out who had the Sherry Trifle Better to spend your (& NYP) time arresting Burglars and vandals etc instead of just issuing a crime number for our insurance. . ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 5

6:32pm Wed 25 Jun 14

I'msohappy.com says...

bill bailey wrote:
I'msohappy.com wrote:
Dave Ruddock wrote:
I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy.

It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person.

SIMPLES
I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.
YOU TWO MUST BE COPPERS NARKS, You both must be total teetotallers .good for you You must, when driving observe the highway code. never speed, always give way to the right, you do, well done , Lire's both of you, there is not a man jack and that includes the police that are holier that thou, we drivers break the law every day when driving, its the ones that get caught pay the price the rest say IDIOTS. Don't be so smug and law abiding because you not ,
It makes me wonder if the boys in blue have caught you out a few times while you've being driving!! Also would you still feel the same had you had an unfortunate encounter with someone drinking and driving? This debate is black and white - if you want a drink don't drive, why risk it? Just for the record yes I am holier than thou that's why I've had a clean driving licence for 25 years.
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy. It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person. SIMPLES[/p][/quote]I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.[/p][/quote]YOU TWO MUST BE COPPERS NARKS, You both must be total teetotallers .good for you You must, when driving observe the highway code. never speed, always give way to the right, you do, well done , Lire's both of you, there is not a man jack and that includes the police that are holier that thou, we drivers break the law every day when driving, its the ones that get caught pay the price the rest say IDIOTS. Don't be so smug and law abiding because you not ,[/p][/quote]It makes me wonder if the boys in blue have caught you out a few times while you've being driving!! Also would you still feel the same had you had an unfortunate encounter with someone drinking and driving? This debate is black and white - if you want a drink don't drive, why risk it? Just for the record yes I am holier than thou that's why I've had a clean driving licence for 25 years. I'msohappy.com
  • Score: 4

6:50pm Wed 25 Jun 14

michaeljohnrogan says...

Dave Ruddock wrote:
I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy.

It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person.

SIMPLES
Well said.Dave.
If you had worked in a Hospital Casualty Department?,and seen the results of drink driving at Weekends,and the effects of drugs on people behind the wheel of a vehicle,then you would agree with.Dave.NO ALCOHOL OR DRUGS,if caught a 2 year ban,large fine, folowed by the IDIOTS test for renewal of licence,at own cost, (as in Germany)
Drink,or drug driving resulting in a death,a LIFE BAN,i would also include useing a phone at the wheel also.
[quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy. It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person. SIMPLES[/p][/quote]Well said.Dave. If you had worked in a Hospital Casualty Department?,and seen the results of drink driving at Weekends,and the effects of drugs on people behind the wheel of a vehicle,then you would agree with.Dave.NO ALCOHOL OR DRUGS,if caught a 2 year ban,large fine, folowed by the IDIOTS test for renewal of licence,at own cost, (as in Germany) Drink,or drug driving resulting in a death,a LIFE BAN,i would also include useing a phone at the wheel also. michaeljohnrogan
  • Score: 3

7:04pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Lord_Ray says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Do some real Policing, Chief Constable! The limit is fine as it is, our issue is the people well exceeding that limit. Next thing you will be sniffing out who had the Sherry Trifle
Better to spend your (& NYP) time arresting Burglars and vandals etc instead of just issuing a crime number for our insurance.
.
They are like broken records.... Copy, Cut and Paste answer.

Copy, Cut, Paste... I knew it wouldn't be log before another one posted a comment along those lines.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Do some real Policing, Chief Constable! The limit is fine as it is, our issue is the people well exceeding that limit. Next thing you will be sniffing out who had the Sherry Trifle Better to spend your (& NYP) time arresting Burglars and vandals etc instead of just issuing a crime number for our insurance. .[/p][/quote]They are like broken records.... Copy, Cut and Paste answer. Copy, Cut, Paste... I knew it wouldn't be log before another one posted a comment along those lines. Lord_Ray
  • Score: -3

7:12pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Ichabod76 says...

nearlyman wrote:
The law and limit is perfect as it stands. As has been said here already most people make the conscious decision to not drive if they are drinking. The biggest problem if the limit were lowered would be those caught the morning after. Harsh on them if they were within the limits legal at present and realistically and probably statistically very little danger to anyone. The determined drink driver is the one who believes he can calculate on the night what he can drink to stay just within the limit. One pint or one glass of wine should be anyones benchmark if they really have to drink something. If the police keep catching people who continue to either be too clever for their own good or choose to ignore the law it serves as a constant reminder to all others that if they behave recklessly they will suffer the consequences. So i say leave it ss it is and catch those who really take the p%#s.
I disagree

I was hit by a young man who had been out drinking the night before, and was still over the limit
from his profession you would have thought that he would have known better ( a paramedic )
he had overslept and was late for his shift, so was also speeding !
I sufferd a broken back , my front seat passenger ( A traffic cop ) suffered a broken collarbone and rear seat passenger suffered a broken leg in the crash
luckily for us I was driving a Mitsubishi Shogun or our injuries would have been much worse.

the other driver died at the scene ( he wasn't even wearing a seatbelt )
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: The law and limit is perfect as it stands. As has been said here already most people make the conscious decision to not drive if they are drinking. The biggest problem if the limit were lowered would be those caught the morning after. Harsh on them if they were within the limits legal at present and realistically and probably statistically very little danger to anyone. The determined drink driver is the one who believes he can calculate on the night what he can drink to stay just within the limit. One pint or one glass of wine should be anyones benchmark if they really have to drink something. If the police keep catching people who continue to either be too clever for their own good or choose to ignore the law it serves as a constant reminder to all others that if they behave recklessly they will suffer the consequences. So i say leave it ss it is and catch those who really take the p%#s.[/p][/quote]I disagree I was hit by a young man who had been out drinking the night before, and was still over the limit from his profession you would have thought that he would have known better ( a paramedic ) he had overslept and was late for his shift, so was also speeding ! I sufferd a broken back , my front seat passenger ( A traffic cop ) suffered a broken collarbone and rear seat passenger suffered a broken leg in the crash luckily for us I was driving a Mitsubishi Shogun or our injuries would have been much worse. the other driver died at the scene ( he wasn't even wearing a seatbelt ) Ichabod76
  • Score: 4

7:31pm Wed 25 Jun 14

chrissyt says...

No I am not a saint. Yes I have definitely broken the law while driving however never to put myself or someone elses son, daughter, mum, dad, etc at risk. There are people that are always going to drink drive and hopefully the police will catch them before they hurt or kill someone but I agree that there should be a zero tolerance. Because I do believe that some people get caught drink driving just for being a little over the limit, which may be down to confusion over the amount we can drink as everyone is different and our bodies can handle different amounts of alcohol. With a zero tolerance these people wouldnt have that problem. And really guys to be fair, what's the point in having a glass if you can't have the bottle? Im far from innocent and definitely cant claim to be a saint but one thing I will never do is drink drive. After loosing a close friend at 17 to a drunk driver it hits home. Whenever anyone drink drives theyre risking killing themselves and somebody elses family x
No I am not a saint. Yes I have definitely broken the law while driving however never to put myself or someone elses son, daughter, mum, dad, etc at risk. There are people that are always going to drink drive and hopefully the police will catch them before they hurt or kill someone but I agree that there should be a zero tolerance. Because I do believe that some people get caught drink driving just for being a little over the limit, which may be down to confusion over the amount we can drink as everyone is different and our bodies can handle different amounts of alcohol. With a zero tolerance these people wouldnt have that problem. And really guys to be fair, what's the point in having a glass if you can't have the bottle? Im far from innocent and definitely cant claim to be a saint but one thing I will never do is drink drive. After loosing a close friend at 17 to a drunk driver it hits home. Whenever anyone drink drives theyre risking killing themselves and somebody elses family x chrissyt
  • Score: 2

7:34pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

michaeljohnrogan
totally agree, still see drivers with one hand to ear with phone, wish the police and any other authority that can impose bans, fines, better still take the phone from the driver and stomp on it, with the remark, "Now Received and Understood" to the driver, and some people on here are a accident waiting to be hospitalized.
michaeljohnrogan totally agree, still see drivers with one hand to ear with phone, wish the police and any other authority that can impose bans, fines, better still take the phone from the driver and stomp on it, with the remark, "Now Received and Understood" to the driver, and some people on here are a accident waiting to be hospitalized. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Wed 25 Jun 14

boroboy66 says...

Been saying for years zero toleance,no alcohol at all except for the barest min trace.
Been saying for years zero toleance,no alcohol at all except for the barest min trace. boroboy66
  • Score: -4

8:00pm Wed 25 Jun 14

bill bailey says...

I'msohappy.com wrote:
bill bailey wrote:
I'msohappy.com wrote:
Dave Ruddock wrote:
I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy.

It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person.

SIMPLES
I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.
YOU TWO MUST BE COPPERS NARKS, You both must be total teetotallers .good for you You must, when driving observe the highway code. never speed, always give way to the right, you do, well done , Lire's both of you, there is not a man jack and that includes the police that are holier that thou, we drivers break the law every day when driving, its the ones that get caught pay the price the rest say IDIOTS. Don't be so smug and law abiding because you not ,
It makes me wonder if the boys in blue have caught you out a few times while you've being driving!! Also would you still feel the same had you had an unfortunate encounter with someone drinking and driving? This debate is black and white - if you want a drink don't drive, why risk it? Just for the record yes I am holier than thou that's why I've had a clean driving licence for 25 years.
Well done that you haven't been caught, But ill bet you have committed the cardinal sin more than once, people who think they are faultless end up in the you know what sooner than later, as you rightly said it is black and white, that is why I mentioned those in the centre of York that drink and end up in the Ouse , but you preferred not to comment on that is also black and white.
[quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy. It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person. SIMPLES[/p][/quote]I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.[/p][/quote]YOU TWO MUST BE COPPERS NARKS, You both must be total teetotallers .good for you You must, when driving observe the highway code. never speed, always give way to the right, you do, well done , Lire's both of you, there is not a man jack and that includes the police that are holier that thou, we drivers break the law every day when driving, its the ones that get caught pay the price the rest say IDIOTS. Don't be so smug and law abiding because you not ,[/p][/quote]It makes me wonder if the boys in blue have caught you out a few times while you've being driving!! Also would you still feel the same had you had an unfortunate encounter with someone drinking and driving? This debate is black and white - if you want a drink don't drive, why risk it? Just for the record yes I am holier than thou that's why I've had a clean driving licence for 25 years.[/p][/quote]Well done that you haven't been caught, But ill bet you have committed the cardinal sin more than once, people who think they are faultless end up in the you know what sooner than later, as you rightly said it is black and white, that is why I mentioned those in the centre of York that drink and end up in the Ouse , but you preferred not to comment on that is also black and white. bill bailey
  • Score: -2

8:06pm Wed 25 Jun 14

piaggio1 says...

And how come round york....its allways er van.s .the driver allways a bloke with mob stuck in his ear.??????...usually builders .....
And how come round york....its allways er van.s .the driver allways a bloke with mob stuck in his ear.??????...usually builders ..... piaggio1
  • Score: 4

8:20pm Wed 25 Jun 14

MouseHouse says...

Impossible to have a zero alcohol rule. Certainly lower the limit,a dn I'd like to see the pub chains giving free drinks to designated drivers, as they sometimes do around New Year. More police and more people ready to shop a mate they believe shouldn't be driving.
Impossible to have a zero alcohol rule. Certainly lower the limit,a dn I'd like to see the pub chains giving free drinks to designated drivers, as they sometimes do around New Year. More police and more people ready to shop a mate they believe shouldn't be driving. MouseHouse
  • Score: 6

8:45pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Silver says...

Love the whole zero tolerance but alcohol isn't just in drinks but it's also in mouthwash
Love the whole zero tolerance but alcohol isn't just in drinks but it's also in mouthwash Silver
  • Score: 6

9:37pm Wed 25 Jun 14

yorkshirelad says...

Yep. We need a lower limit. The current one encourages people to take a chance. It's true it's not the only road traffic issue but it's a big one. I support lowering the limit to 20mg.

At the same time I have some sympathy with the idea that more enforcement of our current limit would also have an effect. And certainly more enforcement of using mobiles (texting while driving seems shocklingly common now), dangerous overtaking and, yes, speeding.

Decent people support the police in keeping downward pressure on road injuries and death. Too often in the UK we enter a nudge-nudge wink-wink game (publicising speed camera locations?) which undermines the seriousness of road safety. We need to be clear that alcohol and driving do not mix at all.
Yep. We need a lower limit. The current one encourages people to take a chance. It's true it's not the only road traffic issue but it's a big one. I support lowering the limit to 20mg. At the same time I have some sympathy with the idea that more enforcement of our current limit would also have an effect. And certainly more enforcement of using mobiles (texting while driving seems shocklingly common now), dangerous overtaking and, yes, speeding. Decent people support the police in keeping downward pressure on road injuries and death. Too often in the UK we enter a nudge-nudge wink-wink game (publicising speed camera locations?) which undermines the seriousness of road safety. We need to be clear that alcohol and driving do not mix at all. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 1

10:07pm Wed 25 Jun 14

strangebuttrue? says...

I note the picture shows the speed trap van with it's camera pointing out of the highly painted back. Last couple of times I have seen it in action it has been facing the traffic with the camera pointing out of the front and the back flaps closed. Funny that especially since from the front it just looks like any other grey camper van. Thought the point was to deter not prosecute?
I note the picture shows the speed trap van with it's camera pointing out of the highly painted back. Last couple of times I have seen it in action it has been facing the traffic with the camera pointing out of the front and the back flaps closed. Funny that especially since from the front it just looks like any other grey camper van. Thought the point was to deter not prosecute? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 4

10:21pm Wed 25 Jun 14

I'msohappy.com says...

bill bailey wrote:
I'msohappy.com wrote:
bill bailey wrote:
I'msohappy.com wrote:
Dave Ruddock wrote:
I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy.

It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person.

SIMPLES
I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.
YOU TWO MUST BE COPPERS NARKS, You both must be total teetotallers .good for you You must, when driving observe the highway code. never speed, always give way to the right, you do, well done , Lire's both of you, there is not a man jack and that includes the police that are holier that thou, we drivers break the law every day when driving, its the ones that get caught pay the price the rest say IDIOTS. Don't be so smug and law abiding because you not ,
It makes me wonder if the boys in blue have caught you out a few times while you've being driving!! Also would you still feel the same had you had an unfortunate encounter with someone drinking and driving? This debate is black and white - if you want a drink don't drive, why risk it? Just for the record yes I am holier than thou that's why I've had a clean driving licence for 25 years.
Well done that you haven't been caught, But ill bet you have committed the cardinal sin more than once, people who think they are faultless end up in the you know what sooner than later, as you rightly said it is black and white, that is why I mentioned those in the centre of York that drink and end up in the Ouse , but you preferred not to comment on that is also black and white.
Just remind me again what has the unfortunate happenings with people falling into the rivers of York got to do with drink drivers? That's why I didn't feel the need to mention it.
[quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy. It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person. SIMPLES[/p][/quote]I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.[/p][/quote]YOU TWO MUST BE COPPERS NARKS, You both must be total teetotallers .good for you You must, when driving observe the highway code. never speed, always give way to the right, you do, well done , Lire's both of you, there is not a man jack and that includes the police that are holier that thou, we drivers break the law every day when driving, its the ones that get caught pay the price the rest say IDIOTS. Don't be so smug and law abiding because you not ,[/p][/quote]It makes me wonder if the boys in blue have caught you out a few times while you've being driving!! Also would you still feel the same had you had an unfortunate encounter with someone drinking and driving? This debate is black and white - if you want a drink don't drive, why risk it? Just for the record yes I am holier than thou that's why I've had a clean driving licence for 25 years.[/p][/quote]Well done that you haven't been caught, But ill bet you have committed the cardinal sin more than once, people who think they are faultless end up in the you know what sooner than later, as you rightly said it is black and white, that is why I mentioned those in the centre of York that drink and end up in the Ouse , but you preferred not to comment on that is also black and white.[/p][/quote]Just remind me again what has the unfortunate happenings with people falling into the rivers of York got to do with drink drivers? That's why I didn't feel the need to mention it. I'msohappy.com
  • Score: 0

11:41pm Wed 25 Jun 14

NoMorePlease says...

PhilR@Strike wrote:
Hasn't he got any Criminals to catch? :(
Bet that strained your braincell. Grow up. It is not either/or but both/and. Ask someone to explain that to you
[quote][p][bold]PhilR@Strike[/bold] wrote: Hasn't he got any Criminals to catch? :([/p][/quote]Bet that strained your braincell. Grow up. It is not either/or but both/and. Ask someone to explain that to you NoMorePlease
  • Score: -2

11:53pm Wed 25 Jun 14

baldiebiker says...

I don't see how by making tougher laws it will stop the people who don't obey them anyway?
To say that someone who has drunk 8 or more pints of beer doesn't know that they are over the limit is stupid.
If the limit needs to be reduced then do it but it won't stop those who don't take any notice of the laws.
Policing now seems to be done to a price and not a standard.
I don't see how by making tougher laws it will stop the people who don't obey them anyway? To say that someone who has drunk 8 or more pints of beer doesn't know that they are over the limit is stupid. If the limit needs to be reduced then do it but it won't stop those who don't take any notice of the laws. Policing now seems to be done to a price and not a standard. baldiebiker
  • Score: 4

12:11am Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is...

Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly...

You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Brains of an idiot, laws are there to obeyed not broken whether it is speeding, drink driving or anything else, you have not seen the affects of a person or child killed by one of the above, or you would not come out with such stupid comments get a brain.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Brains of an idiot, laws are there to obeyed not broken whether it is speeding, drink driving or anything else, you have not seen the affects of a person or child killed by one of the above, or you would not come out with such stupid comments get a brain. jake777
  • Score: -1

12:13am Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
Maybe Mr Madgwick would be better spending the resources he has on proper police officers, out on the roads making a difference, rather than squandering them on speed camera vans whose cynical deployment on well sighted straight dual carriageways does nothing to deter drink drivers.

As long as roads policing concentrates mainly on speed the real problems, such as drunk, or dangerous driving shall continue unabated.
Maybe you should take a look at what an idiot you are making yourself look, like to hear your comments if one of your family were killed by a speeder or drink driver.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: Maybe Mr Madgwick would be better spending the resources he has on proper police officers, out on the roads making a difference, rather than squandering them on speed camera vans whose cynical deployment on well sighted straight dual carriageways does nothing to deter drink drivers. As long as roads policing concentrates mainly on speed the real problems, such as drunk, or dangerous driving shall continue unabated.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should take a look at what an idiot you are making yourself look, like to hear your comments if one of your family were killed by a speeder or drink driver. jake777
  • Score: -1

12:17am Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

Stevie D wrote:
Question. What proportion of accidents and incidents are caused by people with between 20mg and 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood? I suspect it's quite low. In other words, (assuming everyone who currently stays legal now would stay legal under the new law, which is unlikely) it would make very little difference to road safety.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as opposed to drink–driving as the next person, I would like to see people convicted of driving while under the influence strung up by their privates, but I'm just not convinced that reducing the limit further is necessary. (I'm teetotal, so it really doesn't affect me personally).

Like CommonSense!!, I would prefer to see police resources targeted into enforcing the current laws more effectively to promote road safety (and not focused on catching people breaking the speed limit on roads where it is patently safe to do so). We would do far more good by tightening up enforcement of the current drink–drive laws than by criminalising people whose behaviour is not dangerous and has been legal up until now.
what ever the speed limit is, it should be obeyed its simple you don't want to get caught then don't speed " SPEED KILLS" even 1 mile an hour over any limit..
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Question. What proportion of accidents and incidents are caused by people with between 20mg and 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood? I suspect it's quite low. In other words, (assuming everyone who currently stays legal now would stay legal under the new law, which is unlikely) it would make very little difference to road safety. Don't get me wrong, I'm as opposed to drink–driving as the next person, I would like to see people convicted of driving while under the influence strung up by their privates, but I'm just not convinced that reducing the limit further is necessary. (I'm teetotal, so it really doesn't affect me personally). Like CommonSense!!, I would prefer to see police resources targeted into enforcing the current laws more effectively to promote road safety (and not focused on catching people breaking the speed limit on roads where it is patently safe to do so). We would do far more good by tightening up enforcement of the current drink–drive laws than by criminalising people whose behaviour is not dangerous and has been legal up until now.[/p][/quote]what ever the speed limit is, it should be obeyed its simple you don't want to get caught then don't speed " SPEED KILLS" even 1 mile an hour over any limit.. jake777
  • Score: -3

12:19am Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

Lord_Ray wrote:
The majority of the comments so far, haven't been entirely constructive and the naivety of some people on here is staggering.

Personally I'm all for this pro-active action... Name and shame as well!.

Fact : Drinking or drug driving is illegal, with 50 motorists caught in such a small period it shows that it is clearly a bigger problem than first thought.

There is always the hard core who believe it is there right to consume more than the limit then drive home, to work the next morning, or take the kids to football on a Saturday morning after a bottle of wine the night before.

These people will get caught eventually, then when they want someone to blame, it's easy to roll out the catchphrase "Haven't you got something better to do...", "Aren't there some cones that need putting out...", "Shouldn't you be catching real villians ?". Tell that to a family who's loved one has died as a result of a drink driver.

Outside of the class of people above, Education is the key... Make people more aware.... send leaflets home with Children from school to show parents the trap they can fall in to... Get adverts in Pubs, and on Television..

Ram it home don't namby pamby about.
well said.
[quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: The majority of the comments so far, haven't been entirely constructive and the naivety of some people on here is staggering. Personally I'm all for this pro-active action... Name and shame as well!. Fact : Drinking or drug driving is illegal, with 50 motorists caught in such a small period it shows that it is clearly a bigger problem than first thought. There is always the hard core who believe it is there right to consume more than the limit then drive home, to work the next morning, or take the kids to football on a Saturday morning after a bottle of wine the night before. These people will get caught eventually, then when they want someone to blame, it's easy to roll out the catchphrase "Haven't you got something better to do...", "Aren't there some cones that need putting out...", "Shouldn't you be catching real villians ?". Tell that to a family who's loved one has died as a result of a drink driver. Outside of the class of people above, Education is the key... Make people more aware.... send leaflets home with Children from school to show parents the trap they can fall in to... Get adverts in Pubs, and on Television.. Ram it home don't namby pamby about.[/p][/quote]well said. jake777
  • Score: -3

12:31am Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
Lord_Ray wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is...

Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly...

You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Hang on... Hang on...

"that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?.

Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.
If you're incapable of driving safely 5mph over a posted limit then you should hand back your licence to the DVLA and give up, it's obviously not for you.

As for being anti-police, far from it, I work closely with them and have a lot of respect for front line officers. I do however think these front line officers are let down by cynical policy making from people like Mr Madgwick, his policies of persecuting motorists over speeding reduces public confidence in his officers, for which he should be ashamed.
You idiot, you just don't get it do you, have you ever seen a child that has been killed by a car that was only doing 5 MPH over the speed limit No cause you are exactly the type of person that does not care less if it says 20, or 30 then that's the speed. Not 21 or 31 you should be taken to the mortuary and shown that child laid there then see what the parents have to go through.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.[/p][/quote]If you're incapable of driving safely 5mph over a posted limit then you should hand back your licence to the DVLA and give up, it's obviously not for you. As for being anti-police, far from it, I work closely with them and have a lot of respect for front line officers. I do however think these front line officers are let down by cynical policy making from people like Mr Madgwick, his policies of persecuting motorists over speeding reduces public confidence in his officers, for which he should be ashamed.[/p][/quote]You idiot, you just don't get it do you, have you ever seen a child that has been killed by a car that was only doing 5 MPH over the speed limit No cause you are exactly the type of person that does not care less if it says 20, or 30 then that's the speed. Not 21 or 31 you should be taken to the mortuary and shown that child laid there then see what the parents have to go through. jake777
  • Score: 1

12:35am Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Lord_Ray wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.
Think type... how ironic... Believe it or not you can drive 5mph over the limit and it can be safe... for example 75mph on a dual carriageway when overtaking... safely

The same would apply going down say moor lane? Its 30mph but is going that 5mph extra causing extra risks? No! if you can not stop at 35mph if something is on the road then you should be banned.. And believe it or not you can comfortably drive on such a road at 35mph..

The point can go a tad further if you like. How many cars that receive tickets from these things are about to crash? or indeed go on to crash later on their journey? Ids say it’s less then 1%. So are these cameras beneficial?? No! they are money makers.

So double negative? no... i think i would get a refund on that lord title... moron. YOU CAN DRIVE OVER THE LIMIT SAFELEY.
You are an Idiot and should be banned.if you think you have the right to break the law what an arse.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.[/p][/quote]Think type... how ironic... Believe it or not you can drive 5mph over the limit and it can be safe... for example 75mph on a dual carriageway when overtaking... safely The same would apply going down say moor lane? Its 30mph but is going that 5mph extra causing extra risks? No! if you can not stop at 35mph if something is on the road then you should be banned.. And believe it or not you can comfortably drive on such a road at 35mph.. The point can go a tad further if you like. How many cars that receive tickets from these things are about to crash? or indeed go on to crash later on their journey? Ids say it’s less then 1%. So are these cameras beneficial?? No! they are money makers. So double negative? no... i think i would get a refund on that lord title... moron. YOU CAN DRIVE OVER THE LIMIT SAFELEY.[/p][/quote]You are an Idiot and should be banned.if you think you have the right to break the law what an arse. jake777
  • Score: 0

12:38am Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

Mikey_Mac wrote:
The justice system in this country is a joke no matter what extensive punishment they apply to drink-driving offenders...I believe by fact the law is so lenient, people aren't scared enough to make the right decision every time.

We are taught that assaulting & killing is bad yet people still pursue this act. There will always be drunk drivers no matter how much the government want us to believe the offenders will actually be punished.

My friend was killed in a road traffic accident in York about 7 years ago...The lady responsible for his death was drunk-driving with her baby in the car. She received a 5 year sentence, justice? If the law does increase the penalties, would she receive 10 years? I guess the ultimate question is; does that specific penalty justify the loss of a life?...my friend was sentenced to death.
Anyone who kills someone, if it drunk driving or speeding should pay the same price of life in prison. A LIFE FOR A LIFE.
[quote][p][bold]Mikey_Mac[/bold] wrote: The justice system in this country is a joke no matter what extensive punishment they apply to drink-driving offenders...I believe by fact the law is so lenient, people aren't scared enough to make the right decision every time. We are taught that assaulting & killing is bad yet people still pursue this act. There will always be drunk drivers no matter how much the government want us to believe the offenders will actually be punished. My friend was killed in a road traffic accident in York about 7 years ago...The lady responsible for his death was drunk-driving with her baby in the car. She received a 5 year sentence, justice? If the law does increase the penalties, would she receive 10 years? I guess the ultimate question is; does that specific penalty justify the loss of a life?...my friend was sentenced to death.[/p][/quote]Anyone who kills someone, if it drunk driving or speeding should pay the same price of life in prison. A LIFE FOR A LIFE. jake777
  • Score: 1

12:48am Thu 26 Jun 14

nearlyman says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
nearlyman wrote:
The law and limit is perfect as it stands. As has been said here already most people make the conscious decision to not drive if they are drinking. The biggest problem if the limit were lowered would be those caught the morning after. Harsh on them if they were within the limits legal at present and realistically and probably statistically very little danger to anyone. The determined drink driver is the one who believes he can calculate on the night what he can drink to stay just within the limit. One pint or one glass of wine should be anyones benchmark if they really have to drink something. If the police keep catching people who continue to either be too clever for their own good or choose to ignore the law it serves as a constant reminder to all others that if they behave recklessly they will suffer the consequences. So i say leave it ss it is and catch those who really take the p%#s.
I disagree

I was hit by a young man who had been out drinking the night before, and was still over the limit
from his profession you would have thought that he would have known better ( a paramedic )
he had overslept and was late for his shift, so was also speeding !
I sufferd a broken back , my front seat passenger ( A traffic cop ) suffered a broken collarbone and rear seat passenger suffered a broken leg in the crash
luckily for us I was driving a Mitsubishi Shogun or our injuries would have been much worse.

the other driver died at the scene ( he wasn't even wearing a seatbelt )
That is an awful event that you recall, and all those involved have my sympathy. However, you state that he was still over the limit and doubtless he should have known better.....my comment, on the other hand, was to say that those under the current limit would be unlikely to cause these problems ( he, you say was over. That is irresponible). I still stand by my argument that the worse incidents are caused by drivers who are significantly over the prescribed limits rather than those just under. There are also serious accidents caused by drivers with no alcohol in their systems.....are they factored into statistics ?
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: The law and limit is perfect as it stands. As has been said here already most people make the conscious decision to not drive if they are drinking. The biggest problem if the limit were lowered would be those caught the morning after. Harsh on them if they were within the limits legal at present and realistically and probably statistically very little danger to anyone. The determined drink driver is the one who believes he can calculate on the night what he can drink to stay just within the limit. One pint or one glass of wine should be anyones benchmark if they really have to drink something. If the police keep catching people who continue to either be too clever for their own good or choose to ignore the law it serves as a constant reminder to all others that if they behave recklessly they will suffer the consequences. So i say leave it ss it is and catch those who really take the p%#s.[/p][/quote]I disagree I was hit by a young man who had been out drinking the night before, and was still over the limit from his profession you would have thought that he would have known better ( a paramedic ) he had overslept and was late for his shift, so was also speeding ! I sufferd a broken back , my front seat passenger ( A traffic cop ) suffered a broken collarbone and rear seat passenger suffered a broken leg in the crash luckily for us I was driving a Mitsubishi Shogun or our injuries would have been much worse. the other driver died at the scene ( he wasn't even wearing a seatbelt )[/p][/quote]That is an awful event that you recall, and all those involved have my sympathy. However, you state that he was still over the limit and doubtless he should have known better.....my comment, on the other hand, was to say that those under the current limit would be unlikely to cause these problems ( he, you say was over. That is irresponible). I still stand by my argument that the worse incidents are caused by drivers who are significantly over the prescribed limits rather than those just under. There are also serious accidents caused by drivers with no alcohol in their systems.....are they factored into statistics ? nearlyman
  • Score: 1

12:48am Thu 26 Jun 14

nearlyman says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
nearlyman wrote:
The law and limit is perfect as it stands. As has been said here already most people make the conscious decision to not drive if they are drinking. The biggest problem if the limit were lowered would be those caught the morning after. Harsh on them if they were within the limits legal at present and realistically and probably statistically very little danger to anyone. The determined drink driver is the one who believes he can calculate on the night what he can drink to stay just within the limit. One pint or one glass of wine should be anyones benchmark if they really have to drink something. If the police keep catching people who continue to either be too clever for their own good or choose to ignore the law it serves as a constant reminder to all others that if they behave recklessly they will suffer the consequences. So i say leave it ss it is and catch those who really take the p%#s.
I disagree

I was hit by a young man who had been out drinking the night before, and was still over the limit
from his profession you would have thought that he would have known better ( a paramedic )
he had overslept and was late for his shift, so was also speeding !
I sufferd a broken back , my front seat passenger ( A traffic cop ) suffered a broken collarbone and rear seat passenger suffered a broken leg in the crash
luckily for us I was driving a Mitsubishi Shogun or our injuries would have been much worse.

the other driver died at the scene ( he wasn't even wearing a seatbelt )
That is an awful event that you recall, and all those involved have my sympathy. However, you state that he was still over the limit and doubtless he should have known better.....my comment, on the other hand, was to say that those under the current limit would be unlikely to cause these problems ( he, you say was over. That is irresponible). I still stand by my argument that the worse incidents are caused by drivers who are significantly over the prescribed limits rather than those just under. There are also serious accidents caused by drivers with no alcohol in their systems.....are they factored into statistics ?
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: The law and limit is perfect as it stands. As has been said here already most people make the conscious decision to not drive if they are drinking. The biggest problem if the limit were lowered would be those caught the morning after. Harsh on them if they were within the limits legal at present and realistically and probably statistically very little danger to anyone. The determined drink driver is the one who believes he can calculate on the night what he can drink to stay just within the limit. One pint or one glass of wine should be anyones benchmark if they really have to drink something. If the police keep catching people who continue to either be too clever for their own good or choose to ignore the law it serves as a constant reminder to all others that if they behave recklessly they will suffer the consequences. So i say leave it ss it is and catch those who really take the p%#s.[/p][/quote]I disagree I was hit by a young man who had been out drinking the night before, and was still over the limit from his profession you would have thought that he would have known better ( a paramedic ) he had overslept and was late for his shift, so was also speeding ! I sufferd a broken back , my front seat passenger ( A traffic cop ) suffered a broken collarbone and rear seat passenger suffered a broken leg in the crash luckily for us I was driving a Mitsubishi Shogun or our injuries would have been much worse. the other driver died at the scene ( he wasn't even wearing a seatbelt )[/p][/quote]That is an awful event that you recall, and all those involved have my sympathy. However, you state that he was still over the limit and doubtless he should have known better.....my comment, on the other hand, was to say that those under the current limit would be unlikely to cause these problems ( he, you say was over. That is irresponible). I still stand by my argument that the worse incidents are caused by drivers who are significantly over the prescribed limits rather than those just under. There are also serious accidents caused by drivers with no alcohol in their systems.....are they factored into statistics ? nearlyman
  • Score: 2

2:32am Thu 26 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

its simple driver who do not, can not control drugs, drink, use phones should be given 10 max ban, if any fatalities in accident or what ever LIFE BAN , its about time people realised its a 1 ton vehicle, if it was a woks vehicle Health and Safety be everywhere. vehicles need to be treated as a potential lethal weapon, Quicker police, public and government get a grip . Thiose on here that gripe and moan, GET A LIFE CHECK
its simple driver who do not, can not control drugs, drink, use phones should be given 10 max ban, if any fatalities in accident or what ever LIFE BAN , its about time people realised its a 1 ton vehicle, if it was a woks vehicle Health and Safety be everywhere. vehicles need to be treated as a potential lethal weapon, Quicker police, public and government get a grip . Thiose on here that gripe and moan, GET A LIFE CHECK Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 1

8:39am Thu 26 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

jake777 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Brains of an idiot, laws are there to obeyed not broken whether it is speeding, drink driving or anything else, you have not seen the affects of a person or child killed by one of the above, or you would not come out with such stupid comments get a brain.
No Jake I have not seen the effects of driving 5mph over the limit. I think this is due to there the fact there is no difference. If you get hit at 30mph or 35mph or 70mph or 75mph. either way if you go under the car you are dead.

But Jake I have seen the damage that other more serious laws that are broken do. I think given the amount of rapes and attacks in york currently there time would be better spent preventing them rather then issuing a fine after an event has occurred. After all how does that prevent it Jake?

So once again you just write a pointless comment. Was it a busy day at nursery? Do you need sleep sleep?
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Brains of an idiot, laws are there to obeyed not broken whether it is speeding, drink driving or anything else, you have not seen the affects of a person or child killed by one of the above, or you would not come out with such stupid comments get a brain.[/p][/quote]No Jake I have not seen the effects of driving 5mph over the limit. I think this is due to there the fact there is no difference. If you get hit at 30mph or 35mph or 70mph or 75mph. either way if you go under the car you are dead. But Jake I have seen the damage that other more serious laws that are broken do. I think given the amount of rapes and attacks in york currently there time would be better spent preventing them rather then issuing a fine after an event has occurred. After all how does that prevent it Jake? So once again you just write a pointless comment. Was it a busy day at nursery? Do you need sleep sleep? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 4

8:41am Thu 26 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

jake777 wrote:
Stevie D wrote: Question. What proportion of accidents and incidents are caused by people with between 20mg and 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood? I suspect it's quite low. In other words, (assuming everyone who currently stays legal now would stay legal under the new law, which is unlikely) it would make very little difference to road safety. Don't get me wrong, I'm as opposed to drink–driving as the next person, I would like to see people convicted of driving while under the influence strung up by their privates, but I'm just not convinced that reducing the limit further is necessary. (I'm teetotal, so it really doesn't affect me personally). Like CommonSense!!, I would prefer to see police resources targeted into enforcing the current laws more effectively to promote road safety (and not focused on catching people breaking the speed limit on roads where it is patently safe to do so). We would do far more good by tightening up enforcement of the current drink–drive laws than by criminalising people whose behaviour is not dangerous and has been legal up until now.
what ever the speed limit is, it should be obeyed its simple you don't want to get caught then don't speed " SPEED KILLS" even 1 mile an hour over any limit..
well that’s a lie Jake. But again from someone with your intelligence I expect nothing less. Technically you can be 3mph over the limit. So if it meant instant death from being 1mph over i doubt they would have that flexibility you idiot.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Question. What proportion of accidents and incidents are caused by people with between 20mg and 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood? I suspect it's quite low. In other words, (assuming everyone who currently stays legal now would stay legal under the new law, which is unlikely) it would make very little difference to road safety. Don't get me wrong, I'm as opposed to drink–driving as the next person, I would like to see people convicted of driving while under the influence strung up by their privates, but I'm just not convinced that reducing the limit further is necessary. (I'm teetotal, so it really doesn't affect me personally). Like CommonSense!!, I would prefer to see police resources targeted into enforcing the current laws more effectively to promote road safety (and not focused on catching people breaking the speed limit on roads where it is patently safe to do so). We would do far more good by tightening up enforcement of the current drink–drive laws than by criminalising people whose behaviour is not dangerous and has been legal up until now.[/p][/quote]what ever the speed limit is, it should be obeyed its simple you don't want to get caught then don't speed " SPEED KILLS" even 1 mile an hour over any limit..[/p][/quote]well that’s a lie Jake. But again from someone with your intelligence I expect nothing less. Technically you can be 3mph over the limit. So if it meant instant death from being 1mph over i doubt they would have that flexibility you idiot. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 6

8:45am Thu 26 Jun 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

jake777 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
Lord_Ray wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.
If you're incapable of driving safely 5mph over a posted limit then you should hand back your licence to the DVLA and give up, it's obviously not for you. As for being anti-police, far from it, I work closely with them and have a lot of respect for front line officers. I do however think these front line officers are let down by cynical policy making from people like Mr Madgwick, his policies of persecuting motorists over speeding reduces public confidence in his officers, for which he should be ashamed.
You idiot, you just don't get it do you, have you ever seen a child that has been killed by a car that was only doing 5 MPH over the speed limit No cause you are exactly the type of person that does not care less if it says 20, or 30 then that's the speed. Not 21 or 31 you should be taken to the mortuary and shown that child laid there then see what the parents have to go through.
Well call me heartless but as optioned out previously if you can not see a child in the road (who is not meant to be there) from 10m away then you should be banned.

i'd blame the parents for letting their child run into a road! Road safety education is a far better method of reducing accidents then speed tickets. Fact.

My mate ran a school girl over who ran out from behind a bus. He was doing the limit and she still got a broken leg and sued him despite it being her fault. Her parents ensured that they got enough compo from him. And why? he was sober? he was in the speed limit? she ran out into a road blind? How is that his fault?

So jake i suggest you look at the cause of people getting run over in the ROAD!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.[/p][/quote]If you're incapable of driving safely 5mph over a posted limit then you should hand back your licence to the DVLA and give up, it's obviously not for you. As for being anti-police, far from it, I work closely with them and have a lot of respect for front line officers. I do however think these front line officers are let down by cynical policy making from people like Mr Madgwick, his policies of persecuting motorists over speeding reduces public confidence in his officers, for which he should be ashamed.[/p][/quote]You idiot, you just don't get it do you, have you ever seen a child that has been killed by a car that was only doing 5 MPH over the speed limit No cause you are exactly the type of person that does not care less if it says 20, or 30 then that's the speed. Not 21 or 31 you should be taken to the mortuary and shown that child laid there then see what the parents have to go through.[/p][/quote]Well call me heartless but as optioned out previously if you can not see a child in the road (who is not meant to be there) from 10m away then you should be banned. i'd blame the parents for letting their child run into a road! Road safety education is a far better method of reducing accidents then speed tickets. Fact. My mate ran a school girl over who ran out from behind a bus. He was doing the limit and she still got a broken leg and sued him despite it being her fault. Her parents ensured that they got enough compo from him. And why? he was sober? he was in the speed limit? she ran out into a road blind? How is that his fault? So jake i suggest you look at the cause of people getting run over in the ROAD!!!!! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 0

8:47am Thu 26 Jun 14

bill bailey says...

I'msohappy.com wrote:
bill bailey wrote:
I'msohappy.com wrote:
bill bailey wrote:
I'msohappy.com wrote:
Dave Ruddock wrote:
I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy.

It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person.

SIMPLES
I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.
YOU TWO MUST BE COPPERS NARKS, You both must be total teetotallers .good for you You must, when driving observe the highway code. never speed, always give way to the right, you do, well done , Lire's both of you, there is not a man jack and that includes the police that are holier that thou, we drivers break the law every day when driving, its the ones that get caught pay the price the rest say IDIOTS. Don't be so smug and law abiding because you not ,
It makes me wonder if the boys in blue have caught you out a few times while you've being driving!! Also would you still feel the same had you had an unfortunate encounter with someone drinking and driving? This debate is black and white - if you want a drink don't drive, why risk it? Just for the record yes I am holier than thou that's why I've had a clean driving licence for 25 years.
Well done that you haven't been caught, But ill bet you have committed the cardinal sin more than once, people who think they are faultless end up in the you know what sooner than later, as you rightly said it is black and white, that is why I mentioned those in the centre of York that drink and end up in the Ouse , but you preferred not to comment on that is also black and white.
Just remind me again what has the unfortunate happenings with people falling into the rivers of York got to do with drink drivers? That's why I didn't feel the need to mention it.
I'll tell you what I mean if you are too thick work it out ,The unfortunate people as you say, are stupid people who get smashed out of their minds DRINK is the optimum word, now do you get it!! They could be one of those who you said are irresponsible ,and get in a car and drive off and kill someone, You are holier than thou , Falling in the river through drink and die affects their families in the same way as a families loss through drink driving, perhaps you now understand, No, ? Takes all sorts.
[quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bill bailey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]I'msohappy.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy. It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person. SIMPLES[/p][/quote]I totally agree, zero tolerance should be enforced then there is no doubt, if you've had a drink then you don't drive - it's not rocket science.[/p][/quote]YOU TWO MUST BE COPPERS NARKS, You both must be total teetotallers .good for you You must, when driving observe the highway code. never speed, always give way to the right, you do, well done , Lire's both of you, there is not a man jack and that includes the police that are holier that thou, we drivers break the law every day when driving, its the ones that get caught pay the price the rest say IDIOTS. Don't be so smug and law abiding because you not ,[/p][/quote]It makes me wonder if the boys in blue have caught you out a few times while you've being driving!! Also would you still feel the same had you had an unfortunate encounter with someone drinking and driving? This debate is black and white - if you want a drink don't drive, why risk it? Just for the record yes I am holier than thou that's why I've had a clean driving licence for 25 years.[/p][/quote]Well done that you haven't been caught, But ill bet you have committed the cardinal sin more than once, people who think they are faultless end up in the you know what sooner than later, as you rightly said it is black and white, that is why I mentioned those in the centre of York that drink and end up in the Ouse , but you preferred not to comment on that is also black and white.[/p][/quote]Just remind me again what has the unfortunate happenings with people falling into the rivers of York got to do with drink drivers? That's why I didn't feel the need to mention it.[/p][/quote]I'll tell you what I mean if you are too thick work it out ,The unfortunate people as you say, are stupid people who get smashed out of their minds DRINK is the optimum word, now do you get it!! They could be one of those who you said are irresponsible ,and get in a car and drive off and kill someone, You are holier than thou , Falling in the river through drink and die affects their families in the same way as a families loss through drink driving, perhaps you now understand, No, ? Takes all sorts. bill bailey
  • Score: 1

9:15am Thu 26 Jun 14

CommonSense!! says...

jake777 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
Maybe Mr Madgwick would be better spending the resources he has on proper police officers, out on the roads making a difference, rather than squandering them on speed camera vans whose cynical deployment on well sighted straight dual carriageways does nothing to deter drink drivers.

As long as roads policing concentrates mainly on speed the real problems, such as drunk, or dangerous driving shall continue unabated.
Maybe you should take a look at what an idiot you are making yourself look, like to hear your comments if one of your family were killed by a speeder or drink driver.
I refuse to be called an idiot by someone with such a poor grasp of the English written word.

Go to school, learn to write and then come back when you are capable of arguing with the grown ups.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: Maybe Mr Madgwick would be better spending the resources he has on proper police officers, out on the roads making a difference, rather than squandering them on speed camera vans whose cynical deployment on well sighted straight dual carriageways does nothing to deter drink drivers. As long as roads policing concentrates mainly on speed the real problems, such as drunk, or dangerous driving shall continue unabated.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should take a look at what an idiot you are making yourself look, like to hear your comments if one of your family were killed by a speeder or drink driver.[/p][/quote]I refuse to be called an idiot by someone with such a poor grasp of the English written word. Go to school, learn to write and then come back when you are capable of arguing with the grown ups. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 5

11:19am Thu 26 Jun 14

Yorkmackem1 says...

michaeljohnrogan wrote:
Dave Ruddock wrote:
I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy.

It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person.

SIMPLES
Well said.Dave.
If you had worked in a Hospital Casualty Department?,and seen the results of drink driving at Weekends,and the effects of drugs on people behind the wheel of a vehicle,then you would agree with.Dave.NO ALCOHOL OR DRUGS,if caught a 2 year ban,large fine, folowed by the IDIOTS test for renewal of licence,at own cost, (as in Germany)
Drink,or drug driving resulting in a death,a LIFE BAN,i would also include useing a phone at the wheel also.
Whilst you're at, what about driving whilst feeling unwell ? Driving whilst tired ? Listening to music ? Being an utterly incompetent driver full stop ?

I'd hazard a guess that there are far more accidents caused by the above (LEGAL) activities than there will ever be as a result of alcohol. But measuring alcohol blood levels is easy so let's just ban those drivers yeah ?
[quote][p][bold]michaeljohnrogan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: I know my comment will attract attention, NO ALCOHOL when any person is behind the wheel, or as the police say (In the driver seat. Its easy. It works in Industry so if caught all Drivers should get ban (FOR LIFE). Driving under the influence of Drink or Drugs (LIFE BAN that from conviction the death of the person. SIMPLES[/p][/quote]Well said.Dave. If you had worked in a Hospital Casualty Department?,and seen the results of drink driving at Weekends,and the effects of drugs on people behind the wheel of a vehicle,then you would agree with.Dave.NO ALCOHOL OR DRUGS,if caught a 2 year ban,large fine, folowed by the IDIOTS test for renewal of licence,at own cost, (as in Germany) Drink,or drug driving resulting in a death,a LIFE BAN,i would also include useing a phone at the wheel also.[/p][/quote]Whilst you're at, what about driving whilst feeling unwell ? Driving whilst tired ? Listening to music ? Being an utterly incompetent driver full stop ? I'd hazard a guess that there are far more accidents caused by the above (LEGAL) activities than there will ever be as a result of alcohol. But measuring alcohol blood levels is easy so let's just ban those drivers yeah ? Yorkmackem1
  • Score: 3

4:26pm Thu 26 Jun 14

PhilR@Strike says...

NoMorePlease wrote:
PhilR@Strike wrote: Hasn't he got any Criminals to catch? :(
Bet that strained your braincell. Grow up. It is not either/or but both/and. Ask someone to explain that to you
Yawn!
[quote][p][bold]NoMorePlease[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PhilR@Strike[/bold] wrote: Hasn't he got any Criminals to catch? :([/p][/quote]Bet that strained your braincell. Grow up. It is not either/or but both/and. Ask someone to explain that to you[/p][/quote]Yawn! PhilR@Strike
  • Score: 0

9:57pm Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Brains of an idiot, laws are there to obeyed not broken whether it is speeding, drink driving or anything else, you have not seen the affects of a person or child killed by one of the above, or you would not come out with such stupid comments get a brain.
No Jake I have not seen the effects of driving 5mph over the limit. I think this is due to there the fact there is no difference. If you get hit at 30mph or 35mph or 70mph or 75mph. either way if you go under the car you are dead.

But Jake I have seen the damage that other more serious laws that are broken do. I think given the amount of rapes and attacks in york currently there time would be better spent preventing them rather then issuing a fine after an event has occurred. After all how does that prevent it Jake?

So once again you just write a pointless comment. Was it a busy day at nursery? Do you need sleep sleep?
You are an irresponsible idiot that does not deserve to breath the air around you, and lets hope the worst happens to you, you moron.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Brains of an idiot, laws are there to obeyed not broken whether it is speeding, drink driving or anything else, you have not seen the affects of a person or child killed by one of the above, or you would not come out with such stupid comments get a brain.[/p][/quote]No Jake I have not seen the effects of driving 5mph over the limit. I think this is due to there the fact there is no difference. If you get hit at 30mph or 35mph or 70mph or 75mph. either way if you go under the car you are dead. But Jake I have seen the damage that other more serious laws that are broken do. I think given the amount of rapes and attacks in york currently there time would be better spent preventing them rather then issuing a fine after an event has occurred. After all how does that prevent it Jake? So once again you just write a pointless comment. Was it a busy day at nursery? Do you need sleep sleep?[/p][/quote]You are an irresponsible idiot that does not deserve to breath the air around you, and lets hope the worst happens to you, you moron. jake777
  • Score: -1

10:02pm Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Stevie D wrote: Question. What proportion of accidents and incidents are caused by people with between 20mg and 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood? I suspect it's quite low. In other words, (assuming everyone who currently stays legal now would stay legal under the new law, which is unlikely) it would make very little difference to road safety. Don't get me wrong, I'm as opposed to drink–driving as the next person, I would like to see people convicted of driving while under the influence strung up by their privates, but I'm just not convinced that reducing the limit further is necessary. (I'm teetotal, so it really doesn't affect me personally). Like CommonSense!!, I would prefer to see police resources targeted into enforcing the current laws more effectively to promote road safety (and not focused on catching people breaking the speed limit on roads where it is patently safe to do so). We would do far more good by tightening up enforcement of the current drink–drive laws than by criminalising people whose behaviour is not dangerous and has been legal up until now.
what ever the speed limit is, it should be obeyed its simple you don't want to get caught then don't speed " SPEED KILLS" even 1 mile an hour over any limit..
well that’s a lie Jake. But again from someone with your intelligence I expect nothing less. Technically you can be 3mph over the limit. So if it meant instant death from being 1mph over i doubt they would have that flexibility you idiot.
absolute moron who has no right to breath.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Question. What proportion of accidents and incidents are caused by people with between 20mg and 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood? I suspect it's quite low. In other words, (assuming everyone who currently stays legal now would stay legal under the new law, which is unlikely) it would make very little difference to road safety. Don't get me wrong, I'm as opposed to drink–driving as the next person, I would like to see people convicted of driving while under the influence strung up by their privates, but I'm just not convinced that reducing the limit further is necessary. (I'm teetotal, so it really doesn't affect me personally). Like CommonSense!!, I would prefer to see police resources targeted into enforcing the current laws more effectively to promote road safety (and not focused on catching people breaking the speed limit on roads where it is patently safe to do so). We would do far more good by tightening up enforcement of the current drink–drive laws than by criminalising people whose behaviour is not dangerous and has been legal up until now.[/p][/quote]what ever the speed limit is, it should be obeyed its simple you don't want to get caught then don't speed " SPEED KILLS" even 1 mile an hour over any limit..[/p][/quote]well that’s a lie Jake. But again from someone with your intelligence I expect nothing less. Technically you can be 3mph over the limit. So if it meant instant death from being 1mph over i doubt they would have that flexibility you idiot.[/p][/quote]absolute moron who has no right to breath. jake777
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
jake777 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
Lord_Ray wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit!
Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.
If you're incapable of driving safely 5mph over a posted limit then you should hand back your licence to the DVLA and give up, it's obviously not for you. As for being anti-police, far from it, I work closely with them and have a lot of respect for front line officers. I do however think these front line officers are let down by cynical policy making from people like Mr Madgwick, his policies of persecuting motorists over speeding reduces public confidence in his officers, for which he should be ashamed.
You idiot, you just don't get it do you, have you ever seen a child that has been killed by a car that was only doing 5 MPH over the speed limit No cause you are exactly the type of person that does not care less if it says 20, or 30 then that's the speed. Not 21 or 31 you should be taken to the mortuary and shown that child laid there then see what the parents have to go through.
Well call me heartless but as optioned out previously if you can not see a child in the road (who is not meant to be there) from 10m away then you should be banned.

i'd blame the parents for letting their child run into a road! Road safety education is a far better method of reducing accidents then speed tickets. Fact.

My mate ran a school girl over who ran out from behind a bus. He was doing the limit and she still got a broken leg and sued him despite it being her fault. Her parents ensured that they got enough compo from him. And why? he was sober? he was in the speed limit? she ran out into a road blind? How is that his fault?

So jake i suggest you look at the cause of people getting run over in the ROAD!!!!!
You idiot you have no brain and you need locking up.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord_Ray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: yes don’t drink drive!!! come chat with me about it while i stand next to my cash cow that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit... while what i am doing is sitting in a van not making the world a safer place i want to patronise you all about scientific findings.. despite me not being a scientists or knowing precisely what the figures of drink drivers crashing is... Then when zero is enforceable i can complain about not having enough staff to go out and stop people randomly... You are a copper! Stop the murders, rapes and muggings before speeders and someone who is a mg over the limit![/p][/quote]Hang on... Hang on... "that catches safe drivers going 5mph over the limit".... Surely that's a double negative?. Think... Type... Think.. Click.. Send!.[/p][/quote]If you're incapable of driving safely 5mph over a posted limit then you should hand back your licence to the DVLA and give up, it's obviously not for you. As for being anti-police, far from it, I work closely with them and have a lot of respect for front line officers. I do however think these front line officers are let down by cynical policy making from people like Mr Madgwick, his policies of persecuting motorists over speeding reduces public confidence in his officers, for which he should be ashamed.[/p][/quote]You idiot, you just don't get it do you, have you ever seen a child that has been killed by a car that was only doing 5 MPH over the speed limit No cause you are exactly the type of person that does not care less if it says 20, or 30 then that's the speed. Not 21 or 31 you should be taken to the mortuary and shown that child laid there then see what the parents have to go through.[/p][/quote]Well call me heartless but as optioned out previously if you can not see a child in the road (who is not meant to be there) from 10m away then you should be banned. i'd blame the parents for letting their child run into a road! Road safety education is a far better method of reducing accidents then speed tickets. Fact. My mate ran a school girl over who ran out from behind a bus. He was doing the limit and she still got a broken leg and sued him despite it being her fault. Her parents ensured that they got enough compo from him. And why? he was sober? he was in the speed limit? she ran out into a road blind? How is that his fault? So jake i suggest you look at the cause of people getting run over in the ROAD!!!!![/p][/quote]You idiot you have no brain and you need locking up. jake777
  • Score: -1

10:07pm Thu 26 Jun 14

jake777 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
jake777 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
Maybe Mr Madgwick would be better spending the resources he has on proper police officers, out on the roads making a difference, rather than squandering them on speed camera vans whose cynical deployment on well sighted straight dual carriageways does nothing to deter drink drivers.

As long as roads policing concentrates mainly on speed the real problems, such as drunk, or dangerous driving shall continue unabated.
Maybe you should take a look at what an idiot you are making yourself look, like to hear your comments if one of your family were killed by a speeder or drink driver.
I refuse to be called an idiot by someone with such a poor grasp of the English written word.

Go to school, learn to write and then come back when you are capable of arguing with the grown ups.
Yawn Yawn Yawn Idiot.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: Maybe Mr Madgwick would be better spending the resources he has on proper police officers, out on the roads making a difference, rather than squandering them on speed camera vans whose cynical deployment on well sighted straight dual carriageways does nothing to deter drink drivers. As long as roads policing concentrates mainly on speed the real problems, such as drunk, or dangerous driving shall continue unabated.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should take a look at what an idiot you are making yourself look, like to hear your comments if one of your family were killed by a speeder or drink driver.[/p][/quote]I refuse to be called an idiot by someone with such a poor grasp of the English written word. Go to school, learn to write and then come back when you are capable of arguing with the grown ups.[/p][/quote]Yawn Yawn Yawn Idiot. jake777
  • Score: -3

1:49pm Fri 27 Jun 14

growthorgreed says...

As far as speeding goes, there is a vital factor involved that all those who choose to drive over the speed limit are either ignoring, or ignorant of, and that's the effect on the human body when their vehicle contacts one. To quote RoSPA; "The risk of a pedestrian who is hit by a car being killed increases slowly until impact speeds of around 30 mph. Above this speed, the risk increases rapidly, so that a pedestrian who is hit by a car travelling at between 30 mph and 40 mph is between 3.5 and 5.5 times more likely to be killed than if hit by a car travelling at below 30 mph." So apart from those who believe that pedestrians (or cyclists) have no right on the public highway, it might be worth reflecting on that next time you choose to set your own speed limit.
As far as speeding goes, there is a vital factor involved that all those who choose to drive over the speed limit are either ignoring, or ignorant of, and that's the effect on the human body when their vehicle contacts one. To quote RoSPA; "The risk of a pedestrian who is hit by a car being killed increases slowly until impact speeds of around 30 mph. Above this speed, the risk increases rapidly, so that a pedestrian who is hit by a car travelling at between 30 mph and 40 mph is between 3.5 and 5.5 times more likely to be killed than if hit by a car travelling at below 30 mph." So apart from those who believe that pedestrians (or cyclists) have no right on the public highway, it might be worth reflecting on that next time you choose to set your own speed limit. growthorgreed
  • Score: 1

12:40am Sun 29 Jun 14

jake777 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
jake777 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
Maybe Mr Madgwick would be better spending the resources he has on proper police officers, out on the roads making a difference, rather than squandering them on speed camera vans whose cynical deployment on well sighted straight dual carriageways does nothing to deter drink drivers.

As long as roads policing concentrates mainly on speed the real problems, such as drunk, or dangerous driving shall continue unabated.
Maybe you should take a look at what an idiot you are making yourself look, like to hear your comments if one of your family were killed by a speeder or drink driver.
I refuse to be called an idiot by someone with such a poor grasp of the English written word.

Go to school, learn to write and then come back when you are capable of arguing with the grown ups.
Yawn Yawn Yawn.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: Maybe Mr Madgwick would be better spending the resources he has on proper police officers, out on the roads making a difference, rather than squandering them on speed camera vans whose cynical deployment on well sighted straight dual carriageways does nothing to deter drink drivers. As long as roads policing concentrates mainly on speed the real problems, such as drunk, or dangerous driving shall continue unabated.[/p][/quote]Maybe you should take a look at what an idiot you are making yourself look, like to hear your comments if one of your family were killed by a speeder or drink driver.[/p][/quote]I refuse to be called an idiot by someone with such a poor grasp of the English written word. Go to school, learn to write and then come back when you are capable of arguing with the grown ups.[/p][/quote]Yawn Yawn Yawn. jake777
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Sun 29 Jun 14

CommonSense!! says...

growthorgreed wrote:
As far as speeding goes, there is a vital factor involved that all those who choose to drive over the speed limit are either ignoring, or ignorant of, and that's the effect on the human body when their vehicle contacts one. To quote RoSPA; "The risk of a pedestrian who is hit by a car being killed increases slowly until impact speeds of around 30 mph. Above this speed, the risk increases rapidly, so that a pedestrian who is hit by a car travelling at between 30 mph and 40 mph is between 3.5 and 5.5 times more likely to be killed than if hit by a car travelling at below 30 mph." So apart from those who believe that pedestrians (or cyclists) have no right on the public highway, it might be worth reflecting on that next time you choose to set your own speed limit.
Please explain to me the difference in an impact to a human body at 70mph or 80mph on a dual carriageway?

No one is advocating hammering through Rougier Street at midnight on Friday, rather pointing out that putting the camera vans on the A64 at Whitwell or the Malton Bypass is purely designed to make money and contributes very very little to road safety whilst not catching the drunk drivers, dangerous drivers, unlicenced uninsured etc.
[quote][p][bold]growthorgreed[/bold] wrote: As far as speeding goes, there is a vital factor involved that all those who choose to drive over the speed limit are either ignoring, or ignorant of, and that's the effect on the human body when their vehicle contacts one. To quote RoSPA; "The risk of a pedestrian who is hit by a car being killed increases slowly until impact speeds of around 30 mph. Above this speed, the risk increases rapidly, so that a pedestrian who is hit by a car travelling at between 30 mph and 40 mph is between 3.5 and 5.5 times more likely to be killed than if hit by a car travelling at below 30 mph." So apart from those who believe that pedestrians (or cyclists) have no right on the public highway, it might be worth reflecting on that next time you choose to set your own speed limit.[/p][/quote]Please explain to me the difference in an impact to a human body at 70mph or 80mph on a dual carriageway? No one is advocating hammering through Rougier Street at midnight on Friday, rather pointing out that putting the camera vans on the A64 at Whitwell or the Malton Bypass is purely designed to make money and contributes very very little to road safety whilst not catching the drunk drivers, dangerous drivers, unlicenced uninsured etc. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 2

9:47am Tue 1 Jul 14

the original Homer says...

growthorgreed wrote:
As far as speeding goes, there is a vital factor involved that all those who choose to drive over the speed limit are either ignoring, or ignorant of, and that's the effect on the human body when their vehicle contacts one. To quote RoSPA; "The risk of a pedestrian who is hit by a car being killed increases slowly until impact speeds of around 30 mph. Above this speed, the risk increases rapidly, so that a pedestrian who is hit by a car travelling at between 30 mph and 40 mph is between 3.5 and 5.5 times more likely to be killed than if hit by a car travelling at below 30 mph." So apart from those who believe that pedestrians (or cyclists) have no right on the public highway, it might be worth reflecting on that next time you choose to set your own speed limit.
The RoSPA statement you quoted highlights how much difference it makes when the impact speed is above 30 mph. Note "impact speed" not "driving speed".

A car being driven at just over 30 mph is unlikely to hit a pedestrian at an impact speed over 30 mph. Even if the driver couldn't avoid the accident entirely they would brake or swerve, which would reduce the impact speed.

Whilst the limit may say 30 mph, it is generally accepted that this can be safely exceeded. The Police, the Courts, RoSPA and the IAM all work to a higher threshold.

For example, UK Courts won't process cases for speeding in a 30 mph limit unless the actual speed was 35 mph or more.

Factor in speedometer error, and an indicated 35 or 36 mph is acceptable and safe in most situations.

Others will see the 30 mph as an absolute limit, and will prefer to stick to an indicated 25 to 28 mph, because they don't want to stray over 30.

So some drivers will choose to drive at an indicated 25 mph and some will choose an indicated 36 mph.

The important point, whatever your preferred interpretation of the limit is, is that you should be aware and tolerant that other drivers may have a different interpretation and that doesn't make them wrong, unsafe, or illegal.
[quote][p][bold]growthorgreed[/bold] wrote: As far as speeding goes, there is a vital factor involved that all those who choose to drive over the speed limit are either ignoring, or ignorant of, and that's the effect on the human body when their vehicle contacts one. To quote RoSPA; "The risk of a pedestrian who is hit by a car being killed increases slowly until impact speeds of around 30 mph. Above this speed, the risk increases rapidly, so that a pedestrian who is hit by a car travelling at between 30 mph and 40 mph is between 3.5 and 5.5 times more likely to be killed than if hit by a car travelling at below 30 mph." So apart from those who believe that pedestrians (or cyclists) have no right on the public highway, it might be worth reflecting on that next time you choose to set your own speed limit.[/p][/quote]The RoSPA statement you quoted highlights how much difference it makes when the impact speed is above 30 mph. Note "impact speed" not "driving speed". A car being driven at just over 30 mph is unlikely to hit a pedestrian at an impact speed over 30 mph. Even if the driver couldn't avoid the accident entirely they would brake or swerve, which would reduce the impact speed. Whilst the limit may say 30 mph, it is generally accepted that this can be safely exceeded. The Police, the Courts, RoSPA and the IAM all work to a higher threshold. For example, UK Courts won't process cases for speeding in a 30 mph limit unless the actual speed was 35 mph or more. Factor in speedometer error, and an indicated 35 or 36 mph is acceptable and safe in most situations. Others will see the 30 mph as an absolute limit, and will prefer to stick to an indicated 25 to 28 mph, because they don't want to stray over 30. So some drivers will choose to drive at an indicated 25 mph and some will choose an indicated 36 mph. The important point, whatever your preferred interpretation of the limit is, is that you should be aware and tolerant that other drivers may have a different interpretation and that doesn't make them wrong, unsafe, or illegal. the original Homer
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree