Seriously... WTF?

[Philmo 0]

The guy was obviously a total low life, for even thinking of asking someone else, clearly over the limit to drive. :cuckoo:

Simply to potentially save his own skin - or was he really thinking of public safety in relative terms?!!!!

He obviously also cares a great deal for his wife - NOT!

As for the guys on this forum who consider him guiltless - club together and get a brain cell!!!! :cuckoo:

[muppetlab 0]

The bloke who was jailed was clearly an accessory to the accident. He knew his wife was drunk and allowed her to drive which in my opinion makes him guilty of something (not having a brain cell or morals). That he thought it was okay to let his slightly less pissed wife drive is a problem but unfortunately she had an accident which then changes the scene further. As she caused death he could have knowingly prevented. So he is in fact just as guilty as the driver although he was not driving. Wether his sentance was harsh depends but to be honest a :censored: who lets his pissed up wife drive because he either doesn't want the hassle if HE gets caught or thinks his wife wont get caught deserves to be inside anyway in my opinion.

[Critical_Mass 10]

As for the guys on this forum who consider him guiltless - club together and get a brain cell!!!! :cuckoo:

 

A bit harsh there Phil :?

[Philmo 0]

As for the guys on this forum who consider him guiltless - club together and get a brain cell!!!! :cuckoo:

 

A bit harsh there Phil :?

 

I trust you're in jest Critical - the guy is clearly a total menace to society - and anyone who can't perceive that needs some education/thought process retraining!

Sorry about being so outspoken at full volume - stuff like this just gets to me. :shock: :brickwall:

[andy 0]

As for the guys on this forum who consider him guiltless - club together and get a brain cell!!!! :cuckoo:

 

A bit harsh there Phil :?

 

I trust you're in jest Critical - the guy is clearly a total menace to society - and anyone who can't perceive that needs some education/thought process retraining!

Sorry about being so outspoken at full volume - stuff like this just gets to me. :shock: :brickwall:

A total menace to society, are you a complete idiot? Keep things in proportion.

[dgtvr6 0]

As for the guys on this forum who consider him guiltless - club together and get a brain cell!!!! :cuckoo:

 

A bit harsh there Phil :?

 

I trust you're in jest Critical - the guy is clearly a total menace to society - and anyone who can't perceive that needs some education/thought process retraining!

Sorry about being so outspoken at full volume - stuff like this just gets to me. :shock: :brickwall:

 

Seriously mate get a life!

 

"A total menace to society" is a ridiculous sttement to make. The guy asked someone else if they were ok to drive... Big deal... She really could have said no and unless he had a gun to her head she really should have said no...

 

Or do you believe she was a poor innocent little lamb who has been forced to do something bad by nasty mr husband...awww...

[Guest]

Or do you believe she was a poor innocent little lamb who has been forced to do something bad by nasty mr husband...awww...

 

I think there in lies the answer to our discussion.

As mentioned in the Toyota recall thread, the press often (always???) reports in such a way as to 'enhance' the worthyness of a story.

We are not in possesion of the full facts.

 

I still stand by my comment that although there is a huge amount of inconsistency with sentances I feel that, from what has been reported, he did have some level of responsibility.

And yes, if an elderly relative of mine continued to drive after I thought was safe I would approach the subject. That is not to say I would take their car keys off them but neither would I actively encourage them to drive.

[dgtvr6 0]

Or do you believe she was a poor innocent little lamb who has been forced to do something bad by nasty mr husband...awww...

 

I think there in lies the answer to our discussion.

As mentioned in the Toyota recall thread, the press often (always???) reports in such a way as to 'enhance' the worthyness of a story.

We are not in possesion of the full facts.

 

I still stand by my comment that although there is a huge amount of inconsistency with sentances I feel that, from what has been reported, he did have some level of responsibility.

And yes, if an elderly relative of mine continued to drive after I thought was safe I would approach the subject. That is not to say I would take their car keys off them but neither would I actively encourage them to drive.

 

Wow...reasoned debate... Not sure how to handle that anymore :D

 

Yep, all good points we genuinely don't know the full details. And yes he shouldn't ask someone to drive who is clearly incapable but then we don't know that she was clearly incapable either...

 

Only real thing we know is it is a ridiculous sentence and ludicrously inconsistent!

[Guest]

:grin:

 

On a lighter not.... It's snowing :) HUGE flakes the size of pennies and the car is white within 5 minutes.

[Philmo 0]

For my part I actually agree that this bloke should have been punished. I just can't help thinking that 4 years and a £20k fine/costs is just a bit out of proportion to his act.

 

In this case he appears to have been sentenced in view of the consequences of the resulting accident (and nobody was forcing the woman to drive were they) rather that the offence.

 

Agreed John, 4 years was a bit much.

But the guy was a total low-life - inviting his co-director to drive knowing full well that both of them were unfit to drive! ie he and she were a threat to the general public who were anywhere near them on the road.

What sort of peeps do we have on the forum who can't see what an anti social moron he is?

Costs are costs whatever they mount up to, no fine involved, so far as we can tell.

[Critical_Mass 10]

As for the guys on this forum who consider him guiltless - club together and get a brain cell!!!! :cuckoo:

 

A bit harsh there Phil :?

 

I trust you're in jest Critical - the guy is clearly a total menace to society - and anyone who can't perceive that needs some education/thought process retraining!

Sorry about being so outspoken at full volume - stuff like this just gets to me. :shock: :brickwall:

 

 

yes was in jest :D

[blue95 0]

Both old enough to know better.....got what they deserved. Feel for the family of the 20 year old guy and his 19 year old girlfriend, what a waste of life :(

[colinstubbs 0]

A total menace to society, are you a complete idiot? Keep things in proportion.

 

Oh drink driving isn't a problem then??

 

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2008 estimates for accidents involving illegal alcohol levels

This release includes provisional statistics on accidents involving drinking and driving in Great Britain in 2008, according to the arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority. The figures also include final estimates for 2007. Figures show that:

 

Fatalities resulting from drink drive accidents rose by 5 per cent from 410 in 2007 to 430 in 2008, whilst seriously injured casualties fell by 7 per cent from 1,760 to 1,630. Slight casualties resulting from drink drive accidents also fell by 7 per cent from 11,850 to 10,970. Total casualties fell by 7 per cent from 14,020 to 13,020.

There was an increase of 3 per cent in fatal accidents from 370 to 380. Overall drink and drive accidents fell by 7 per cent from 9,280 to 8,640.

 

I'm sure the living casualties that weren't drunk drivers would disagree. Get an accurate perspective

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... drinkdrive

[dgtvr6 0]

A total menace to society, are you a complete idiot? Keep things in proportion.

 

Oh drink driving isn't a problem then??

 

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2008 estimates for accidents involving illegal alcohol levels

This release includes provisional statistics on accidents involving drinking and driving in Great Britain in 2008, according to the arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority. The figures also include final estimates for 2007. Figures show that:

 

Fatalities resulting from drink drive accidents rose by 5 per cent from 410 in 2007 to 430 in 2008, whilst seriously injured casualties fell by 7 per cent from 1,760 to 1,630. Slight casualties resulting from drink drive accidents also fell by 7 per cent from 11,850 to 10,970. Total casualties fell by 7 per cent from 14,020 to 13,020.

There was an increase of 3 per cent in fatal accidents from 370 to 380. Overall drink and drive accidents fell by 7 per cent from 9,280 to 8,640.

 

I'm sure the living casualties that weren't drunk drivers would disagree. Get an accurate perspective

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... drinkdrive

 

 

 

Nobody said drink driving isn't a problem...Of course it is. Drink drivers should get banned for minimum 10 years and sent to prison for several of those years! Drink driving kills! And it aint even like the main victim i snormally the complete ar$e that decided to drink/drive.

 

The point here though is that he wasn't drinking and driving!

 

He asked someone else to drive as he felt he had drunk too much so was unfit to drive! Yes, he probably shouldn't have asked his missus and that is not a pleasant situation to put her in but it isn't his decision for her to then agree and drink drive! Stupid cow!

 

yes, he was an ar$e for asking but guilty of a real crime with a real punishment??? Not to the extent that people here seem to think in my view...

[andy 0]

A total menace to society, are you a complete idiot? Keep things in proportion.

 

Oh drink driving isn't a problem then??

 

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2008 estimates for accidents involving illegal alcohol levels

This release includes provisional statistics on accidents involving drinking and driving in Great Britain in 2008, according to the arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority. The figures also include final estimates for 2007. Figures show that:

 

Fatalities resulting from drink drive accidents rose by 5 per cent from 410 in 2007 to 430 in 2008, whilst seriously injured casualties fell by 7 per cent from 1,760 to 1,630. Slight casualties resulting from drink drive accidents also fell by 7 per cent from 11,850 to 10,970. Total casualties fell by 7 per cent from 14,020 to 13,020.

There was an increase of 3 per cent in fatal accidents from 370 to 380. Overall drink and drive accidents fell by 7 per cent from 9,280 to 8,640.

 

I'm sure the living casualties that weren't drunk drivers would disagree. Get an accurate perspective

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... drinkdrive

Go and read the post properly. The guy in question wasn't driving, what does that have to do with drink driving.

 

Of course drink driving is a problem. This guy was a fool, however he wasn't driving, he wasn't speeding in wet weather, he didn't kill anyone.

Being a passenger in a car driven by someone who had been drinking does not make somebody "a total menace to society". Fact.

 

We have to leave that label for the murderers, rapists paedophiles etc

[corozin 0]

A total menace to society, are you a complete idiot? Keep things in proportion.

 

Oh drink driving isn't a problem then??

 

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2008 estimates for accidents involving illegal alcohol levels

This release includes provisional statistics on accidents involving drinking and driving in Great Britain in 2008, according to the arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority. The figures also include final estimates for 2007. Figures show that:

 

Fatalities resulting from drink drive accidents rose by 5 per cent from 410 in 2007 to 430 in 2008, whilst seriously injured casualties fell by 7 per cent from 1,760 to 1,630. Slight casualties resulting from drink drive accidents also fell by 7 per cent from 11,850 to 10,970. Total casualties fell by 7 per cent from 14,020 to 13,020.

There was an increase of 3 per cent in fatal accidents from 370 to 380. Overall drink and drive accidents fell by 7 per cent from 9,280 to 8,640.

 

I'm sure the living casualties that weren't drunk drivers would disagree. Get an accurate perspective

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... drinkdrive

Go and read the post properly. The guy in question wasn't driving, what does that have to do with drink driving.

 

Of course drink driving is a problem. This guy was a fool, however he wasn't driving, he wasn't speeding in wet weather, he didn't kill anyone.

Being a passenger in a car driven by someone who had been drinking does not make somebody "a total menace to society". Fact.

 

We have to leave that label for the murderers, rapists paedophiles etc

 

Well I think the argument goes along the line of 'he knew he was over the limit, and encouraged her to drive instead, knowing that she was also exceeding the limit" That makes him a proper bastard in my book, and her a stupid idiot for agreeing to it (and then driving at over 100mph etc etc). What he did was appalling, but nonetheless she was the one driving the car, and she has to take the responsibility (which she has as she got a 7 year sentence, although that's nowhere near the sentencing limit nowadays).

 

That all said I still think a 4 year stretch is excessive and inappropriate simply for encouraging her to take the risk that she accepted. But others may well disagree. My good friend Butterfly once showed me a photo of car she used to own once (which was flattened by another vehicle), and if I'd escaped a wreck like that one I would probably have a different view to the one I've expressed here.

[Philmo 0]

This guy was a fool, however he wasn't driving, he wasn't speeding in wet weather, he didn't kill anyone.

Being a passenger in a car driven by someone who had been drinking does not make somebody "a total menace to society". Fact.

 

We have to leave that label for the murderers, rapists paedophiles etc

 

It's clear that the Judge and 12 good men and true concluded that the guy had a significant influence on and input to the disastrous outcome. They had access to all the facts, we don't. I trust their assessment.

Re the issue of semantics - I think anyone who has such a casual regard for others' health and safety is a "total menace", anti-social bar-steward etc. You talk as if the guy was an innocent by-stander!

WRT the other criminals - I consider all drug traffickers and purveyors of excess alchohol to be well up there. They are steadily bringing an increasing proportion of us [especially the younger end] to a sensation crazed anarchic state, quite simply as a result of their idleness and/or greed, regardless of the catastrophic effects on their customers' lives, or the law. They are total low-lifes. :pukeright:

Before anyone else points out - I do like a glass or two of nice stuff myself - but everything in moderation [including moderation] and certainly off-road!

[colinstubbs 0]

I did realise the bloke wasn't the actual drink-driver but it is a problem and if they'd got a taxi home none of this discussion would be going on.

 

I agree his actual charge of 'drink driving' does seem to go against common sense with him being a passenger, surely they could have charged him with something else that was more appropriate but serious enough to warrent punishment? Who knows?

[andy 0]

You talk as if the guy was an innocent by-stander!

Rubbish.

 

I've said several times I think he was in the wrong. I just don't see how a passenger can be done for a driving offence. That was the original point of discussion in this thread.

 

It's now turned into, "Who thinks drink driving is ok?". Nobody on here, clearly.

 

Point well and truly missed :scratch:

[muppetlab 0]

To be classed as driving you dont actually have to be behind the wheel, trundling along. I was told that even if you were pushing a vehicle along a highway with the keys in the ignition you would be deemed in control of said vehicle and could be prosectuted for drink driving. Not sure if thats true or not though? There was a case of a lorry driver who was asleep in his lorry in the drivers seat. The lorry rolled down a hill and into a house or wall while he was asleep and he was prosectuted for drink driving. The law can be funny sometimes but i am sure the judge and jury would have all the facts necessary and if there were a more appropriate sentance i'm sure the judge would have used it. Must have been a precedent set somewhere before maybe for passenger done for drink driving??

[Walesy 0]

Its true, its illegal for me to sleep in my campervan whilst over the limit if i have the keys in my possession :cuckoo:

[andy 0]

To be classed as driving you dont actually have to be behind the wheel, trundling along. I was told that even if you were pushing a vehicle along a highway with the keys in the ignition you would be deemed in control of said vehicle and could be prosectuted for drink driving. Not sure if thats true or not though? There was a case of a lorry driver who was asleep in his lorry in the drivers seat. The lorry rolled down a hill and into a house or wall while he was asleep and he was prosectuted for drink driving. The law can be funny sometimes but i am sure the judge and jury would have all the facts necessary and if there were a more appropriate sentance i'm sure the judge would have used it. Must have been a precedent set somewhere before maybe for passenger done for drink driving??

Parts of that are true, irrelevant but partially true.

 

If you are pushing your car, with the keys in, you could be deemed in control of it. However if you are pushing a car, someone else is sitting in the driving seat, you wouldn't be deemed in control of it would you, they would. In the same way if you are a passenger in a car, someone else is in the driving seat, you wouldn't ordinarily be deemed in control of it would you. THEY WOULD, the person in the driving seat, the one at the controls, the one who put the keys in the ignition etc.

[dgtvr6 0]

To be classed as driving you dont actually have to be behind the wheel, trundling along. I was told that even if you were pushing a vehicle along a highway with the keys in the ignition you would be deemed in control of said vehicle and could be prosectuted for drink driving. Not sure if thats true or not though? There was a case of a lorry driver who was asleep in his lorry in the drivers seat. The lorry rolled down a hill and into a house or wall while he was asleep and he was prosectuted for drink driving. The law can be funny sometimes but i am sure the judge and jury would have all the facts necessary and if there were a more appropriate sentance i'm sure the judge would have used it. Must have been a precedent set somewhere before maybe for passenger done for drink driving??

Parts of that are true, irrelevant but partially true.

 

If you are pushing your car, with the keys in, you could be deemed in control of it. However if you are pushing a car, someone else is sitting in the driving seat, you wouldn't be deemed in control of it would you, they would. In the same way if you are a passenger in a car, someone else is in the driving seat, you wouldn't ordinarily be deemed in control of it would you. THEY WOULD, the person in the driving seat, the one at the controls, the one who put the keys in the ignition etc.

 

 

A complicated point that many seem to be struggling with...

[muppetlab 0]

I understand that this was not the person in the driving seat, my point was that you dont necessarily have to be "driving" to be prosecuted for drink driving. Which i think is relevant in this case as the person charged was not physically driving.

Having looked at the news i think he was actually charged with aiding and abetting death by dangerous driving not actually dangerous driving.

[Philmo 0]

I understand that this was not the person in the driving seat, my point was that you dont necessarily have to be "driving" to be prosecuted for drink driving. Which i think is relevant in this case as the person charged was not physically driving.

Having looked at the news i think he was actually charged with aiding and abetting death by dangerous driving not actually dangerous driving.

 

Yes indeed Muppet!

Others also have missed the point that we all have a duty of care [towards fellow man, third parties, property etc], particularly in the public arena and especially in hazardous [including illegal] circumstances. In law "Duty of care" extends well beyond HASAWA in which it is explicitly required.