Drinking and driving over Christmas.

you see loads of them (polis cars) when there is a crash

but then they are unlikely to get much agro there   oh whoops - I shouldn't be so sarcastic

apologies

I was thinking how when I was younger I was out drinking and driving every night year after year.
I only ever got stopped once, and then got away with it.
The chances of getting pulled up now must be virtually nil especially if you try to avoid the main roads coming back.

Nil is going a bit far with half a million breath test carried out, but most of them must be for accidents.
Drive extra carefully and keep clear of accidents.

You can run the gauntlet time and time again.....but eventually, you WILL get caught....as I know to my cost......so my Christmas message is.....just don't do it :)

I think the good Doc is on a wind up

Ministers do not know the impact that funding cuts have had on police forces, the UK's public spending watchdog says.

According to the National Audit Office, the Home Office does not know whether the police system in England and Wales is "financially sustainable".

It calls the approach to police funding "ineffective" and "detached" from the changing demands faced by officers.

A Home Office spokesman said the department had conducted a substantial review of police pressures last year.

However, the Home Office had not even forecast the effect of losing 44,000 police officers and staff since 2010, the NAO said.

Since September 2009 - the last set of Home Office figures before the Conservatives came into government - there has been a cut of 22,424 police officers.

There were 126,252 police officers in England and Wales in September 2017, according to the latest figures.

Historically there have been fewer officers - with 123,474 in 2001; 125,453 in 1991; and 116,544 in 1981, for example.

Officer numbers grew during the Labour government from 2002 onwards, peaking in 2009.

The report found:

- It took 18 days to charge an offence for the year ending March 2018 - four days longer than for the year ending March 2016
- The arrest rate fell to 14 arrests per 1,000 population in 2016-17, down from 17 per 1,000 population in 2014-15
- There have been fewer breathalyser tests, motoring fixed penalty notices and convictions for drugs trafficking and possession since 2010
- 33% of victims were not happy with police response in the year ending March 2018, up from 29% in the year ending March 2016


Met Police commissioner Cressida Dick told the annual conference of the Police Superintendents' Association that the force had faced "unprecedented challenges", noting that some officers are working "longer and harder".

"This is not a service that needs reform, this is a service that needs support and needs resources... the NAO report shows this," she said.

Durham's chief constable Mike Barton said the decisions of Home Office ministers in regards to police funding were "sometimes in the hands of the Treasury".

"I actually think the cuts in 2010 were the wake up call that policing needed to say: 'Come on spend your money wisely'," Mr Barton told BBC Breakfast.

But he said there had been a "constant strain" since then with "austerity dragging out".

Mark Burns-Williamson, police and crime commissioner for West Yorkshire, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the report highlighted what other PCCs had been saying "for some time".

Firstly, that the overall amount of funding for policing "isn't enough" - and secondly that the funding formula was "not really fit for purpose", leading to "unfairness and differences" between different areas.

Home Affairs Select Committee chair Yvette Cooper said MPs had repeatedly heard about police forces being overstretched, calling the report "very accurate" and "damning".

The Labour MP told the BBC it showed an "irresponsible approach from the Home Office" in making "substantial cuts" in the police budget "without appearing to have any clear idea about what the impact of those cuts are".

The NAO report comes as Home Secretary Sajid Javid prepares for a speech to police superintendents in which he will say the police must be equipped for a changing landscape.

On Monday, the leader of the superintendents' association warned the service was on the verge of a crisis.

Police forces in England and Wales are funded through a £12.3bn combination of a central grant to each police and crime commissioner, as well as additional cash raised locally through the council tax and one-off grants for special projects.

The NAO says the amount coming from the government is down 30% in real terms since 2010-11.

The NAO's Tom McDonald said the Home Office "does not really understand the nature of the demand" facing police forces.

He said the funding formula used to allocate money was "out of date", three years after the Home Office told Parliament that the formula was ineffective.

"It's unlikely that the money is going to the right places," he said. "We have real concerns about it."

It's extremely bad luck if you're asked to provide a specimen on a spot check these days.

Always bluddy spill it when i do...

Nick Ferrari said on his show, that of every 100 police personnel only four are on the streets at any given time.

900 of little khan's men are watching you from behind their computer desk

Drinking and driving is not funny as it's not just your own personal safety you are putting at risk, others might die or have life changing injuries because of your own selfishness.
HTH..

ritchies the guy you need to ask

Doesn't help JC.
I've never had an accident while under the influence.
You see after a responsibly minded person has had a drink, they bear it in mind and drive with particular care.
And far safer than the average sober driver who's prepared to take a chance or two.

If you get caught, just state you are a follower of the Religion of Pieces who is about to change gender. Not only will you get away with it, they will put you at the top of the waiting list for the op and give you a luxury home in which to recover!

They daren't do anything else otherwise they would be branded racist and transgenderphobes.

Drinking and driving at Christmas ? Why not, there's no old bill about anymore

Yeah what possible other reason would you not?

Of course if a sober driver crashes into you while you're over the limit, you will get blamed for the accident even if it isn't your fault.
That's why you have to drive with extra care if you've had a couple or more.

It seems a pity now there's no law to protect us that we can't get something out of the situation.

Oh so driving drunk is actually a good thing.  Blimey they've got it wrong all this time.

Sensible drivers have always known they're safer drivers after they've had a few.
The fear of getting caught makes them twice as careful.

Sensible drivers don’t drink and drive.

So the logical conclusion is:

If we can identify which drivers are sensible, if we keep them a bit pissed all the time the roads will be safer?

(assuming you aren't driving past a book depositry or grassy knoll)

That's very silly JC.

The reason sensible drivers are even safer after having a drink, is simply because of the threat of losing their licences if they get caught.
Remove the threat and they'd drive the same as if they were sober.

Because drinking and making sensible decisions go hand in hand

Drunk people are not in full control of their senses or movement, in other words, there's no such thing as a sensible driver, and btw, it's also an offence to drive too slow particularly on the motorways which can be just as dangerous breaking the speed limit.

Of course the degree of intoxication has to be a factor.
I'm sure sensible drivers always make sure they didn't drink too much.

What if youre too drunk to realise youre too drunk though?

The more i drink the better i am at anything in my head

I don't think drinking and driving is for you Pleasegivemeanailedontip.

Not many people could make a case for drinking and driving.
Even fewer could make that case seem plausible.

So the definition of a "sensible driver" is one who is slightly over the limit and therefore a better driver than everyone else?

You're excelling yourself with this one, crippen.

What springs to mind is the motorists who have lost their licences while driving carefully and safely, but have simply failed the breath test.

Which seems unfair.

neil armstrong would never have landed the eagle on the lunar surface had he not been slightly pished

thats one small drink for man, one giant pish up for mankind.

These motorists are a world apart from the drunken types that manage to wrap their cars around a lamppost.

Driving is quite easy so I find a few drinks makes it more of a challenge

When drink driving law was brought in people protested, seat belts, another protest.
I get that people want individual freedoms but when you act like f***wits & other
people have to scrape the guts of said f***wits & their victims off the kerb side then
yeah a bit of regulation is required.

more driving under the influence of drugs these days

Of course there is Nellie, and with so few police on the streets these days, and those that are, all conditioned to follow correct procedure rather than uphold the law it's no wonder.

The drug thing annoys me, especially in summer, I've walked past many parked cars where they are obviusly off their silly little tits.

I don't know about you, I'm not a dog, but I can smell weed about 1/4 a mile away... (and I'm not joking).

Can't help thinking that most stoned people wouldn't be in much of a hurry to get anywhere so any increase in danger because they're off their face would be mitigated by their reduced speed.

I could be wrong though.

I agree jed, along with the thought that if they did get caught driving in that state they'd lose their licence.
Most serious accidents are causes by excessive speed, which reduces the time to react considerably.

I’ve noticed a hell of a lot more people using a mobile when driving recently, I presume they feel safer doing that now as well.

BARROWBOY,
That's one thing I'd never do.

I just get a taxi. Mad not to IMO.

Very sensible Torq but it's a no brainer unless your a clever d!ck, who's too tight to pay for a taxi. You lose more than your licence if you get caught.

We don’t know how many accidents caused by excessive speed or carelessness , whatever , there have been that wouldn’t have happened if the driver was being extra careful after having a drink
This is part of the invisible evidence , could be thousands

The notion that drivers who have been drinking are extra careful is ludicrous. They might be trying to be careful but,the fact that they have been drinking and presumably would be over the limit, means their ability to drive would be inhibited. The first organ of the body to be affected by alcohol is the brain.

There should be higher penalties for drink driving and a lower limit IMO.

You only need to look at peoples' ability to post something sensible on here after alcohol.

But what about the thousands of accidents that might not have happened if the driver been drinking ?

* had been drinking ?

and also the accidents that didn’t happen because the driver was being extra careful ?

invisible evidence

Eh!

I can't see any point in lowering the limit for drink driving, when the major accidents caused by drink driving are due to people well over the limit.

Lowering the limit would merely make criminals of more people for no worthwhile reason.

We'll never stop mad heads from getting drunk behind the wheel and causing major accidents, so why pretend that persecuting responsible drivers who slow down after having a drink, is going to put the reckless drivers off getting completely sloshed behind the wheel?

The vast majority of accidents are caused by people being careless or poor drivers or speeding
surely these are the people that need to be targeted and perhaps lose their licence for 5 years , or a possible prison sentence

Crystalhunt have you ever been in a car accident , caused by yourself
and what was your excuse ?

a small glass of wine can make people more intelligent , think a little more clearly isn’t that strange ?

Yes the stimulation one can get from a glass of alcohol is most remarkable.

lfc1971    27 Nov 18 12:11 
Crystalhunt have you ever been in a car accident , caused by yourself
and what was your excuse ?

No.

people that need to be targeted and perhaps lose their licence for 5 years , or a possible prison sentence

I agree, especially drink drivers who should all be jailed.

Having seen the devastation caused by drink drivers, I find it hard to comprehend how any same person can condone driving when over the limit.

And according to the RAC slow drivers cause more accidents than speedsters.

*sane

"We'll never stop mad heads from getting drunk behind the wheel and causing major accidents, so why pretend that persecuting responsible drivers who slow down after having a drink, is going to put the reckless drivers off getting completely sloshed behind the wheel?"

Responsible drivers don't drive after drink. Why would they need to slow down

fair enough the mightymac , if we are going to jail the non drinkers it’s only right that we jail the drinkers also

And according to the RAC slow drivers cause more accidents than speedsters.

That sounds like utter tripe to me.

some people will believe any old twaddle dr  crippen

So if I get in my car now and drive around at 40mph, I'm less likely to have an accident than if I drive around at 30mps.

Utter tripe.

They make it up as they go along.

I can assure you if we started to jail the non drinkers and the drinkers there would be a lot more non drinkers in jail

Who can deny that ?

In fact it could be argued that the sober driver who drives recklessly, commits the greater crime than one whose driving is careless through alcohol.
The sober driver knows exactly what they're doing and has no excuse whatsoever.

Exactly so he will simply be a poor driver and a menace on the roads at all times

What excuse does the drink driver have?

It’s amazing when you think of it that poor drivers have the gaul to take their car out of their garage
But they do

You are taking it in the wrong context Crippen.

I shall try and make it simple.

Drivers going 30/40mph on motorways cause more accidents than drivers doing 80mph on motorways according to the RAC.

Drink drivers should be jailed and the key thrown away. In severe cases, they should be hanged like your namesake. They have destroyed many many lives and the ones who "drove carefully", after drinking think it`s ok until the day some poor sod is killed because of them. Drivers should abide by the law.

Dr Crippen
24 Nov 18 13:34
Joined: 16 Apr 02
| Topic/replies: 36,377 | Blogger: Dr Crippen's blog

I was thinking how when I was younger I was out drinking and driving every night year after year.
I only ever got stopped once, and then got away with it.
The chances of getting pulled up now must be virtually nil especially if you try to avoid the main roads coming back.

If you are doing this from the same place, time after time, then sooner or later you will be grassed and the police will have you.

Or until the eejit kills someone.

i thought it was illegal to drive too slowly on a motorway
Well if it’s a problem then enforce the law that’s fine

Drivers going 30/40mph on motorways cause more accidents than drivers doing 80mph on motorways according to the RAC.


Ridiculous, how many driver involved in a motorway accident admit to be driving at 80ph?
They all claim to be doing 70 or less unless they've been clocked by the police.
Some common sense needs to be applied here.

That will be a few more elderly drivers added to our prison population
possibly hung if the mightymac gets his way : (

So all these gantries across the motorways showing reduced maximum speeds are causing accidents according to some folk.

They think we should be driving along at 80 mph on motorways at all times in the interests of safety.

Doesn't matter how much research anyone does--if Crippen disagrees with the results they have to be wrong.

A recent survey states that almost one third of drivers have had an accident or a near miss caused by slow drivers on all roads.

What recent survey themightymac?

So we're not driving quickly enough. Then what are the speed cameras for?

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for driving too slowly through a speed camera?

It was done by the online insurer Confused.com DrC.

reported in the Mail.

Stopped in the High street for driving too slowly:

You were only doing 20mph when the speed limit is 30 mph

Yes but people kept stepping off the pavement.

No excuse, fined £100.

I've never seen an accident caused by someone who was driving too slowly.
But I've seen plenty of accidents where excessive speed was involved.

Saw an accident a few weeks ago on the M4,car doing 45/50 middle lane nothing in front of him another car decided to go past him on inside lane,just as he was going past middle lane man pulled in.obviously the guy undertaking was wrong but would you say the accident was 100% his fault?

There is talk of a minimum speed being imposed on motorways.

Saw a motorcycle cop yesterday, he was on a main road with a queue of traffic in front of which was held up.
He overtook them at speed, on the wrong side of the road including a small island provided for pedestrians.

I expected a car to appear from the opposite direction or a pedestrian to walk into him from out of the queue of traffic.
A pedestrian wouldn't be looking to see a vehicle coming from that direction with the traffic held up.

I though yes, and that's the kind of lunatic who stops people to check if they're slightly over the limit.

Probably should revert to being asked to walk a straight line or similar sobriety tests when pulled over by police for suspected drink driving.

Those that could hold their drink would be fine and those who were very drunk or whose drinking would affect their driving would be prosecuted.

So the message should be - if you drink and drive, then drink well within your limit.
But above all drive extra carefully and keep off the main roads where speeds are generally higher.