More than 32,000 people have died on British roads in the past 10 years

[summerdays]

I pretty much am, actually, except for motorways. Or perhaps 15mph. But I've let it go for the purposes of this discussion...

Well it sounds nice but I can't imagine managing to sneak that one into law! But did I ever think smoking would be banned in public places etc...

 

[theclaud]

Let me put it another way.

A) You're standing in the road and a car is coming towards you at 20mph. The driver has impared judgement through drink or drugs and you cannot get out of his way. He then he proceeds to run you over (ouch)

You're standing in the road and a car is coming towards you at 30mph. The driver is sover and alert and as a result steps on the brakes in good time. You cannot get out of his way but he stops in good time (result)

Can you see the problem with your argument

Linf, I can only assume you do it deliberately. Both drunk, one at 20, one at 30. So the one at 30 is drunk is well. They are both drunk. Both equally drunk. Both of them have been drinking, to the same extent. They are equally pissed. Langered, the pair of them. Did I remember to add that they are both drunk? The only difference between them is the speed. We're going to glue your feet to the road and let one of them hit you - take your pick.

 

[MacB]

Linf, We're going to glue your feet to the road and let one of them hit you - take your pick.

Wouldn't work the mothership would 'beam' him out of harms way, his mission is too important.

 

[very-near]

Linf, I can only assume you do it deliberately. Both drunk, one at 20, one at 30. So the one at 30 is drunk is well. They are both drunk. Both equally drunk. Both of them have been drinking, to the same extent. They are equally pissed. Langered, the pair of them. Did I remember to add that they are both drunk? The only difference between them is the speed. We're going to glue your feet to the road and let one of them hit you - take your pick.

I'm sorry TC, but I cannot proscribe to your 'both drunk argument as there will never be mitigation for this scenario. You need to look at this one again when you have understood how many lives are lost through drink and drugs on the roads in the UK.

 

[very-near]

Wouldn't work the mothership would 'beam' him out of harms way, his mission is too important.

MacB I'm making an conscious effort to not bait or needle you. Can you make an effort to do the same ?

 

[MacB]

MacB I'm making an conscious effort to not bait or needle you. Can you make an effort to do the same ?

I am, believe me, I am

 

[theclaud]

I'm sorry TC, but I cannot proscribe to your 'both drunk argument as there will never be mitigation for this scenario. You need to look at this one again when you have understood how many lives are lost through drink and drugs on the roads in the UK.

Barmy! It's a hypothetical scenario, that needs no mitigation. We would never really glue you to the road and have you run over. Just as well as it wouldn't work anyway - you currently don't have a leg to stand on...

 

[very-near]

And you're going to explain where...

You're wrong. "Campaigns" are extra to normal police work. It doesn't mean that they don't do anything to tackle the problem the rest of the time.

Source...

Bold is correct. The rest isn't. It's just your opinion, and you display a poor understanding of most of these issues, so your opinion isn't really valid.

What for? To allow drink drivers to carry one driving over the limit? Or are you talking about tiredness now?

You're getting confused again. Policing anything costs money.

Are you talking about the cost of policing or implementing? They're different things.

20mph limits are proven to be successful. To justify your claim that they're not effective, you're going to have to outline their cost (thin air isn't the place to get this from) and show how successful they will be. The second bit has been done for you.

All of the issues raied are ones which cause substantial loss of life. It is a shame that you cannot see how important they are and quite frankly how bad your own judgment is that you have focussed on a single issue which clearly is not primary cause of the vast majority of deaths on the road in the UK.

We have existing laws to cover drink and drug driving and if they were better policed would garner far greater results than what you propose.

 

[very-near]

You're addressing a different question, by comparing a drink driver with a sober one.

The question put to you compares two equally drunk drivers at the same speed. They'd have the same reaction ability.

It's the same bit you've got stuck on many times before -all things being equal.

All things being equal, it doesn't matter whether both drivers are drunk, sober, dead, French, talking on the phone or eating haggis. If the only thing different is the speed then that's what you have to address.

20 or 30?

Neither is acceptable if under the influence as it skews the reults so your question is irrelevant to the debate.

Next question!

 

[theclaud]

Neither is acceptable if under the influence as it skews the reults so your question is irrelevant to the debate.

Next question!

The question has nothing to do with acceptability. It is to do with you choosing one of two options. Get on with it.

 

[very-near]

I am, believe me, I am

You won't have a problem refraining from further digs then ?

 

[very-near]

The question has nothing to do with acceptability. It is to do with you choosing one of two options. Get on with it.

As I don't accept either as an acceptable scenario as you have no idea of how a drunk would react when seeing a person on the road in front of them, the question has no merit.

Anyway seeing as you seem to think that drink driving is not a real crime, you will no doubt agree with halving this idiots sentence.

Drunk driver who killed cyclist has sentence halved on appeal
3.03.09 by Buffalo Bill

From last week’s Yorkshire Evening Post:

Chandler, of Arthington Lane, Otley, received four and a half years at Leeds Crown Court after admitting causing death by careless driving in December 2007 while under the influence of alcohol. He also pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice.
The Appeal Court heard Chandler attempted to cover up damage to his car in the accident. He also escaped to Wales the following day to avoid being breathalysed.
Mr Justice Mackay said the evidence suggested Chandler was around 50 per cent over the legal alcohol limit at the time.
But, despite the gravity of his crimes, the judge concluded his sentence was too long.
The jail term took insufficient account of Chandler’s early guilty plea and the assistance he ultimately gave to the authorities, the judge concluded, cutting his sentence by a year, to three and a half years.
Chandler’s original 10-year driving ban was also halved.
​

 

[theclaud]

the question has no merit.

Oh yes it does. It shows everyone what you're up to, as if they didn't know already.

 

[Cab]

Mr Clarkson quite rightly stated that cars have the luxury of 'Brakes'

An inebriated driver is very unlikely to bother to use them before impact
so your question is really irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that you would be happy to share the roads with drink drivers as long as they are doing 20mph ?

Nope. I'm saying that the evidence has been gathered, studied, and it is clear that 20mph limits save lives. If everyone is doing that speed then the chance of being hit by someone faster than that in a stream of traffic (or more likely deviating from that stream) is remote; the question is therefore entirely relevant.

A drunk at 30mph is more likely to have an accident and more likely to cause serious harm than one at 20mph; true or false?

 

[Cab]

IIRC, that was Cab

You recall incorrectly. No one has suggested that all roads should be 20mph.