Hi, I've been disqualified from driving for 18m and I'm getting my licence back on Friday. I've been sorting out my car to get it back on the road so I can drive on the 26th (ban expires midnight 25th). It's been serviced and MOT'ed and my insurance begins on 26th November.
Soooo, tax is the only outstanding thing. My understanding is that I can take the reg. certificate, insurance documents and MOT proof to the PO and get a tax disc enabling me to drive that day? Even though it's not the 1st of the month? Some friends have been confusing me saying that I can't tax it until 1st December.....any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks :)
|
I'm pretty sure that your car will trigger an ANPR camera as untaxed if on the road before the first. You've paid for 12/6 months from 0000hrs on the first.
Ted
|
|
You can tax your car at any time but the tax will start at the beginning of the month in which you apply i.e 1st November if you apply on 26th. It would therefore be financially advantageous to wait until the 1st December but I guess you don't want to wait.
|
|
Spot on.... he would be able to tax it for Nov. So paying for all of November but for only 5 days use in November. Not cost effective but hey he's been banned for 18 months so sure he wants to drive ASAP.
|
It's only a brand new unregistered car that you can apply for tax that runs for over 12 months.
Otherwise, as it's already been said. 11 months and 'x' days.
|
>>Hi, I've been disqualified from driving for 18m and I'm getting my licence back on Friday
How eye watering was the Insurance compared to what you used to pay before a ban?
I know of somebody who hopes to get back on the road early next year after a similar 15 mths catching the bus / shanks pony (walking FYI). He knows it will not be cheap but steep!
|
Yes, you can tax it on the 26th - you will have to ask for it to start from 1 Nov because every other tax disc customer will be renewing their 1 Dec VED as their cars will be taxed already. This means your new disc will expire on either 30 April or 30 October.
You probably won't be able to purchase the disc until the day your insurance becomes valid though, AFAIK the vehicle has to be currently insured at the moment of tax disc purchase.
Good luck with getting back on the road, and don't do it again!!
|
Actually, the insurance was way better than I was expecting! Before it was £250/year-ish and now it's £577. I was expecting at least £1000+. I was banned for drink-driving, 3 times over the limit. Banned for two years, down to 18m because I did an alcohol awareness course.
The insurance wasn't too bad because I have full no claims which I'd kept because I'd been insured within the last two years.
|
...Actually, the insurance was way better than I was expecting!...
Friend of mine found the same, he was bracing himself for refusals and enormous premiums, but was pleasantly surprised.
However, the advice from Dave not to do it again is sound from all points of view.
|
I would tax it from 1st Dec, what's another 5 days on 18 months ...
|
|
I know but when you haven't been driving for 18m, 5 days is a loooong time when you know you can technically drive!!! And I'm relying on others to do what it is my responsibility to do, so from that point of view I'm not prepared to wait. It's only a Polo anyway so it isn't a lot.
|
>> what's another 5 days on 18 months ...
About 15 quid, probably :)
|
It's been an interesting experience actually - when I was banned I was the sole driver in the household (my husband didn't drive) and we had two daughters at school a 20min drive away, the youngest of whom has medical problems so was in and out of the hospital and suddenly I couldn't do anything. Friends would say to me "Oh, you can drive a bit," but I haven't even got in my car since the moment I was banned, let alone driven it. Just wouldn't risk it. When I did my course absolutely every single person on it had continued driving to some extent or other except me (which amazed me) and most planned to lie to insurance companies about their conviction to secure lower rates. I obviously have not; I used a specialist insurance company.
As for doing it again - the circumstances of my arrest were that a son of a friend attacked me in their house, his father restrained him, I ran out and got into my car. I was heading for the station a mile down the road but the son called the police and reported me for drink-driving. I take full responsibility, I should never have been so stupid but I panicked. When I can drive again I have decided that I will never, ever drink alcohol if I'm driving, either that day or the next morning. I don't think you can ever be fully certain that you're under the limit and if you start juggling and estimating units you're likely to get into trouble if stopped. It happened to a friend the other day; wasn't caught driving but at the side of the road, he was double the limit and has been charged with being drunk in charge of the car. He'd thought he was fine....
Sorry - bit long - but no, I certainly won't be doing it again!!!
Thanks for all the help :)
|
...Friends would say to me "Oh, you can drive a bit,"...
Idiots.
I thought 18 months/24months was a bit light for three times over the limit, so the court looked after you by taking some account of the circumstances of your offending.
Wise words on drinking and driving.
I drink occasionally and drive often.
But never at the same time.
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 23 Nov 11 at 10:28
|
Bit digressing here, but how the driving bans are enforced? No one is going to check if offenders are actually driving (and the neighbors may not know offender is having a driving ban).
|
...but how the driving bans are enforced?...
Most prosecutions I see stem from a police officer seeing the banned driver behind the wheel.
|
In the days of beat officers they were detailed to keep an eye open for this sort of thing. Neighbour when I was a kid (1966ish) was banned for a couple of months for repeat speeding offences in his MGB.
Coppers were around several times to check up on him.
|
If I drove another car then no-one would know unless I was stopped. But I'd driven my car it would flag up as being owned by a banned driver and I'd almost certainly be stopped. Especially seeing as no-one else is insured to drive it.
To avoid detection I've known people have foreign cars shipped in and registered to someone else.
BUT - whichever - I personally wasn't prepared to take the risk - I'd be straight back to court and my ban probably doubled.
|
I pleaded special reasons but they weren't accepted. So the court took no account of my circumstances. But I had no previous record of any kind and they gave me a heavy fine.
My husband is a magistrate and thought the sentence was a fair one - neither easy nor harsh.
|
...I pleaded special reasons but they weren't accepted. So the court took no account of my circumstances...
Doesn't quite follow.
Your special reasons plea was to avoid a ban.
That plea was rejected, but your circumstances probably were given some account when deciding the length of the ban.
Further, not every banned driver is offered the chance to reduce the ban by attending a course, although the guidelines state an offer should be 'considered' for all first offenders.
The bench did not have to offer you a course, so by doing so they have sweetened the pill a little bit.
www.peterjepson.com/law/Magistrates%20Court%20Sentencing%20Guidelines.pdf
|
I also pleaded guilty immediately and that can reduce your sentence by a third.
Whatever - frankly I was just grateful I didn't get community service :)
|
Your friend might like to have a look at the guidelines.
Unlike drink driving, unfit while in charge due to drink does not carry an automatic ban.
If he presents his case skilfully, he may keep his licence.
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 23 Nov 11 at 12:43
|
|
Well as I said, my husband is a magistrate so he's already taken him through the sentencing guidelines. He was lucky to just be charged with in charge of a car but tbh I think he'll be lucky to escape without a ban, considering the circumstances. Should just be a small one though....and anything would be better than what he would have got for drink-driving!
|
I'm glad you were honest and didn't drive and didn't lie to insurance companies like so many others.
Have you applied for your licence? I think when you are banned there is another process you have to go though so you can't just start driving on the day after the ban expires. It's worth checking out as you don't want to find yourself in more trouble after doing the right thing.
Good luck with it all!
|
>> Have you applied for your licence?
>>...... when you are banned there is another process you have to go though so you can't just start driving on the day after the ban expires.
>>
>>
This situation has been covered on the UK traffic police programmes.
You must apply for a new licence. It appeared to be a simple application process.
Found the link
www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/NeedANewOrUpdatedLicence/DG_195689
|
^
^
wot the previous 2 posters said.
There was a recent Motorway Cops where they were tootling along in lane 2 and a woman in a Beemer overtook so her kid could wave at the policeman...... who noticed mummy wasnt wearing her seatbelt.
When he pulled her, it turned out following a ban years ago, she had never re-applied for her licence, just thought it was OK to start driving again when the ban was up - not a happy girly
|
Yes - you have to apply to have your licence returned to you (you have to surrender it when you're banned, well, you're *supposed* to - again - lots of people didn't!!).
Poor woman.....nightmare. Still, her fault for not checking things out properly I suppose....
|
Ooooh yes, I have been through the process....! Not taking ANY risks.
Thanks though :)
|
Scary story alert.
Guy who works for us, ( he's a sales rep so licence pretty fundamental to his job ) was banned for a month 9 years ago having collected too many speeding points in too quickly.
Anyway, he got around the ban by getting his wife to drive and has behaved himself since. Last year though, we asked him to hire a van on company business. The hire company refused his licence on the basis that it was not valid. When he checked, it hadn't been valid for 8 years !
He got it sorted but it cost him (and us) a further 3 weeks of him being off the road. Not because he got into any further trouble but because it took that long to get his licence re-validated.
Nightmare !
|
Most people banned due to D&D are chronic alcoholics.
Most chronic alcoholics who drive are chronic liars (to themselves and others).
Most banned drivers who are caught are well known to the Police because they have a long history of alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour.
People who are banned because of a poor choice of when to drive with no long history of alcohol abuse do very well after a ban - those I mention above do not.
|
>> Most people banned due to D&D are chronic alcoholics.
Complete and absolute Tripe
>> Most banned drivers who are caught are well known to the Police because they have
>> a long history of alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour.
So far from the truth its a foreign language.
>> People who are banned because of a poor choice of when to drive with no
>> long history of alcohol abuse do very well after a ban -
Oh! they do exist in Lygonos world then.
|
Do we have any statistics here one way or the other to support either case?
For what it is worth the only two people I have know who were banned were regular heavy drinkers although would not have describe them as alcoholics
|
>> regular heavy drinkers although would not have describe them as alcoholics
Herein lies the problem - what seems to be social drinking to many is probably harmful drinking medically.
35+ units a week, or regularly 8+ drinks at a single sitting I'd reckon is enough to make me suspicious of dangerous drinking.
Drunk people make bad decisions - the more often you are drunk, the more bad decisions you make.
|
|
There is a difference between heavy social drinking OCCASIONALY, and medical damage or alcoholism.
|
|
But there is little difference between heavy social alcohol regularly and alcoholism, or "problem drinking " as I think the pinks call it these days.
|
>> Do we have any statistics here one way or the other to support either case?
>>
>>
>> For what it is worth the only two people I have know who were banned
>> were regular heavy drinkers although would not have describe them as alcoholics
Well you now know two who weren't.
|
"Well you now know two who weren't."
Which is just about as statistically significant. Do you have any proper stats or are you are just guessing?
|
The "who drink-drives" bit on the stats I posted below is about as useful as I can find from Google.
One problem with stats is that courts record criminal data, doctors record medical data, and there is very little sharing of these datasets (no court/official body has an automatic right to medical information without very good cause).
I'll tend to see drink-drivers who also have significant medical/social issues.
We have a few legal chaps on the boards - what do they see coming through the doors of the courts?
|
>> "Well you now know two who weren't."
>>
>> Which is just about as statistically significant. Do you have any proper stats or are
>> you are just guessing?
Well Assuming the OP is telling the truth, that is one, and there is me. So that's your two who were not. You now know 4 and its 50/50
|
The point I am making is that you are rubbishing Lygonis' comments without any real statistical evidence to the contrary.
This Finnish study or drink drive profile would tend to indicate by the re-offending rate that a substantial proportion of DUI offences are committed by heavy regular drinkers which does tend to corroborate Lygonis' post.
www.liikenneturva.fi/www/en/index.php?we_objectID=7813
|
>> The point I am making is that you are rubbishing Lygonis' comments without any real
>> statistical evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> This Finnish study or drink drive profile would tend to indicate by the re-offending rate
>> that a substantial proportion of DUI offences are committed by heavy regular drinkers which does
>> tend to corroborate Lygonis' post.
>>
>> www.liikenneturva.fi/www/en/index.php?we_objectID=7813
This not Finland, there are significant social differences between the fins and ourselves. I gave you the numbers, a 25% re-offending rate, which tends to back up my assertion.
|
>> For what it is worth the only two people I have know who were banned were regular heavy drinkers although would not have describe them as alcoholics
At the risk of sounding crass, how many people do you know that you'd describe as wife-beaters, child-abusers, cross-dressers, closet homosexuals, etc.
Most social 'variations' can be hidden by sufferers/perpetrators very nicely. Drinking dangerously is no different.
I'm regularly surprised by disclosure of some dreadful (and comical) social/medical issues that have been hidden/dormant for years.
|
Perhaps my view is jaundiced by seeing the worst cases, or because Scotland's level of alcohol abuse is greater than SE England.
www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/drink_driving.pdf
Drink drivers tend not to be regular citizens (on average) with respect to criminality and recidivism.
Plenty are people who made a mistake and have no intent to do it again.
The OP's statements suggest driving while banned is far from rare - I doubt any of the regulars here would consider it for a second if they were unfortunately nabbed and banned the day after a sesh.
If any of the regulars think they would be tempted to drive 'a little' while banned, have a wee look at your relationship with alcohol.
My presumption is the OP falls into "I would never normally do it, and unfortunately was caught the time I did" which tends to be someone who learns from their mistakes.
|
You know what....has anyone heard of the High Risk Offenders Scheme? I had NO idea about it until I did my alcohol-awareness course; the courts don't tell you about it.
You're included in it if you were more than 2 1/2 times the drink-drive limit when stopped (as I was), or it's your second or more offence in ten years or if you refused to give a sample of breath at the roadside or blood/urine. If you fall into one of those categories you have to have a DVLA medical before your licence is returned to you. It's a full physical and psychological assessment including the 'taking of blood for analysis'. They will analyse your blood and if they find evidence of liver damage/high levels of alcohol consumption they will consider not returning your licence to you on the grounds that you are medically unfit. This makes my blood BOIL. It's a presumption of future guilt, basically. But I bet it weeds out the chronic alcoholics.
|
>>But I bet it weeds out the chronic alcoholics
Yup.
Having a driving licence is far from a right, and the regulations are black and white (although sometimes applied by idiots).
I think the technical split between high-risk and low-risk is helpful in practice - social drinkers tend to drive after 2-3 pints, problem drinkers much more, or the day after substantial binges (eg. 1 bottle of spirits). It also brings 'high-risk' drink-drivers to their doctor's attention as we get asked to send a report and do the liver tests - sometimes these men (and women) haven't seen a doctor for years (other than the police surgeon) and are blissfully unaware of their insane drinking habits!
Obviously individual cases vary greatly, but on a population-wide basis I think it is helpful.
|
>> I think the technical split between high-risk and low-risk is helpful in practice - social
>> drinkers tend to drive after 2-3 pints, problem drinkers much more, or the day after
>> substantial binges
Wrong again, you love sticking people into drinking groups dont you, its very black and white in your world.
I drove after a substantial amount, I was three time over. I wasnt a problem drinker then (28 years ago, and I am not now. People have occasional benders, two or three times a year - does not make them medical risks, problem drinkers, alcoholics or any of the other pigeon holes you want to put them in.
|
What part of "Obviously individual cases vary greatly, but on a population-wide basis I think it is helpful" don't you understand?
Medicine is partly about trying to find needles in haystacks - you go through a lot of hay before pricking your finger.
Sometimes there are tools to get rid of some hay.
|
|
I understand it perfectly, I just think your "population wide basis" is silage. You are far too quick to judge everyone.
|
>> I understand it perfectly, I just think your "population wide basis" is silage. You are
>> far too quick to judge everyone.
Or in other language he's expressing it in terms of his own take on his professional experience.
|
well after his bold statement
>> Most people banned due to D&D are chronic alcoholics.
I dont rate his experience.
|
I agree my use of the word 'alcoholic' is unhelpful, and 'problem drinker' would be more useful.
I don't see a big difference between "regular heavy users of alcohol where it affects their decision making skills" and people who suffer withdrawal when stopping drinking, or need an alcoholic drink to function - they are different dots on the same line of dangerous drinking.
Just because you don't see pink elephants when you've not had a drink doesn't mean that a person doesn't have a significant alcohol problem.
Many drink-drivers also have family/work/criminal/social/health problems due to their drinking without needing an eye-opener at 8am.
I would presume that Z-man falls into the same category as the OP from the so-called "high risk" group she was involved with - the ones unlikely to do it again. Great. Note the number of those at the OPs course who seemed pretty blase about the entire process. They're the chaps (mainly, with a few women) who tend to be problem drinkers.
|
What's your suggestion then?
Follow up every drink-driver to look for high risk behaviour?
Follow up none of them and treat them as innocent-until-proven-guilty of a further offence?
Generalisations are useless on a one-to-one basis I agree, only when you start to look at larger groups.
If you'd been referred to a 'high-risk' group would you have been annoyed at that, or still kicking yourself for being caught in the first place? Would you have been upset that someone wanted to ask about your drinking behaviour?
Lung cancer sufferers tend to have been smokers.
Non smokers also get lung cancer.
The one thing you can guarantee medically is that there is 'never a never, and never an always' when it comes to making diagnoses.
|
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/6906321/Nearly-one-in-four-drink-drive-motorists-guilty-for-a-second-time.html
This statement says that 25% re-offend. That mean that 75% dont. so
>> Follow up every drink-driver to look for high risk behaviour?
No - none of them. Why do you persist in poking around trying to put people in pigeon holes, they had a drink - it happens.
>>Follow up none of them and treat them as innocent-until-proven-guilty of a further offence?
Yes
>>If you'd been referred to a 'high-risk' group would you have been annoyed at that, or still >>kicking yourself for being caught in the first place? Would you have been upset that >>someone wanted to ask about your drinking behaviour?
I would have been annoyed for being wrongly labelled.
>Lung cancer sufferers tend to have been smokers.
|
And child molesters after release? How dare we follow them up too?
|
>> And child molesters after release? How dare we follow them up too?
If they were a risk they shouldnt have been released, PLUS they are entered onto the sex offenders register as part of the Sentence.
You want everyone caught over the DD limit to be entered onto the Known drunks register? Thats what you seem to be implying with that one.
|
>>You want everyone caught over the DD limit to be entered onto the Known drunks register? Thats what you seem to be implying with that one.
Absolutely not. I'm interested in the sub-segment who are at higher risk of poor health, and the courts are interested in those at higher risk of recidivism.
Amongst this group, of course, will be a good number of "innocent" drink drivers.
|
>> This statement says that 25% re-offend. That mean that 75% dont.
Wrong, and you know it.
That means 75% are not caught.
How do we know what %age of these people were just lucky?
I guess we don't.
|
>>
>> That means 75% are not caught.
>>
>> How do we know what %age of these people were just lucky?
>>
>> I guess we don't.
>> That means 75% are not caught.
Means we dont know or can state that either then.
|
>>Means we dont know or can state that either then.
100% agreed.
|
Why do you persist in poking around trying to put people in pigeon holes, they had a drink - it happens.
Because sometimes it can help us deliver help where it is needed, or at least offer it so it can be heeded in the future.
It's what we do.
Why do we pop round after a relative dies? Because we are ghouls or because someone might appreciate it or need some support/help?
How many people who bleed from their bottoms do I send to hospital for a camera - loads. How many have cancer? A handful.
My work depends on a degree of discimination - sometimes it's fair, sometimes it is unwelcome.
Tough.
|
>
>> My work depends on a degree of discimination - sometimes it's fair, sometimes it is
>> unwelcome.
Its your degree of discrimination I am challenging, It appears to me to be skewed from what you seem to be saying on here.
|
If anyone tells me they've been disqualified from D&D I will ask about their alcohol habits - this may draw a blank as they've been unlucky as yourself and the OP.
Sometimes (and in my experience more often than not) it opens up a can of worms with social/marital/work/mental health issues where alcohol has played an important role.
As I said above, perhaps my view is jaundiced in that a DDer who attends at doctor is more likely to have these issues in the first place.
I would imagine your GP either doesn't know about your conviction 28yrs ago, or if he/she does, you probably didn't see them at the time because there was no underlying issues/problems.
I still see the doctor-patient thing as a relationship, not just a business transaction. Patients shouldn't be surprised that their GP is actively looking for problems that they themselves might not even be aware of.
|
The point is that you rarely see a large proportion of the patients on your books, and of those 99% wouldn't even consider telling you about a DD conviction
It's like the washing machine repair man, ask him if they are reliable and he will say that every one he sees is broken
|
>>The point is that you rarely see a large proportion of the patients on your books, and of those 99% wouldn't even consider telling you about a DD conviction.
Scotland's conviction rate is around 7000 per annum.
I'm aware of 2-3 cases per annum in patients I see personally, I presume my colleagues see a similar number - since some will be the same patients I guess we see perhaps 8-10 new D&D patients per year.
My practice covers approximately 0.2% of Scotland's population so if we are representative of the country we should have 14 cases per year.
Using these (highly dubious!) statistics I guess we are maybe aware of around 50%, rather than the 1% of convicted patients you suggest.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 23 Nov 11 at 22:14
|
...If anyone tells me they've been disqualified from D&D I will ask about their alcohol habits - this may draw a blank as they've been unlucky as yourself and the OP...
The OP was three times over the limit, which is a good scoop of drink.
She wisely pleaded guilty, which effectively draws a veil over the circumstances of the taking of the drink, if not what happened after it was taken.
Were she cross-examined, a likely question would have been: "How did you plan to get home were you not attacked?"
|
drink, if not what happened after it was taken.
>>
>> Were she cross-examined, a likely question would have been: "How did you plan to get
>> home were you not attacked?"
>>
And the answer is "I wasnt planning to go home until I was attacked"
|
...And the answer is "I wasnt planning to go home until I was attacked"...
And the follow-up question is:
"This is a court of law, not a court of morals, but as a married woman, you had planned to spend the night at the home of a male friend?
"I put it to you, Mrs OP, that you had always planned to drive to your home after drinking, and you are using this alleged attack as a convenient excuse for doing so."
I covered a case which went down a similar line.
We ended up with floor plans of the house to prove it had a spare room and the drink driver could have slept there.
As I said, best not to go there, and the OP was wise not to.
|
Feel obliged to say: I had been out drinking with my (female) friend - it was a Friday night, we hadn't planned to drink as much as we did but it was one of those fun nights where you just don't stop. She is married and early on in the evening she offered me their spare room for the night in their family home; this wasn't unusual as I had stayed there on occasions before when I didn't want to drive home. Had the evening continued as planned there is no way I would ever have considered getting into my car.
The prosecution actually went down the line of "Well if you were attacked why didn't you drive to the nearest police station?" - I had already admitted I was driving to the station to get a taxi. It never occurred to me to get the police involved!! Genuinely. I don't know why....I was drunk....! And by the next morning my arrest had eclipsed anything else that might have been going through my mind. I was held in a cell overnight and charged the next morning. Horrific experience. Luckily I read Law at Uni and had done all sorts of work experience so I wasn't quite as intimidated as I might otherwise have been.
I'm a social drinker, not an habitual drinker. I don't drink at home or alone or anything. (I'm not criticising anybody's habits btw). On the night in question we'd been drinking wine for a good 6-7 hours which, as I said, wasn't a usual circumstance but just one of those nights and explains the level of alcohol in my body!!!
|
...this wasn't unusual as I had stayed there on occasions before when I didn't want to drive home...
Good answer, which has the added benefit of being true.
The value of veracity is often under estimated by defendants.
|
>> "This is a court of law, not a court of morals, but as a married
>> woman, you had planned to spend the night at the home of a male friend?
Does the social attitude that underwrites that sort of question still run up North Iffy? Plenty friends/colleagues have stayed over on the sofa of a person of the opposite sex after getting pickled & missing the last train home.
If asked it's one of those questions where Counsel might want to want to be sure of the answer before plunging in (eg friend was gay!!)
|
...Does the social attitude that underwrites that sort of question still run up North Iffy?...
I wouldn't read too much into it.
The prosecutor, if he's got the bit between his teeth, will assume whatever attitude suits to dig out the person he's cross-examining.
On t'other hand, I've heard the phrase used by judges who want to give the defendant a mild ticking-off during sentencing remarks, or following an acquittal.
A couple of rape cases spring to mind.
|
In the future they'll discuss with incredulity the social human consumption of alcohol. They'll also especially be shocked by the revelation that some even used to get into their SCPTP ( self controlled personal transport pod ) while under the influence of that astonishingly freely available mind altering drug.
They will analyse early video footage of life in towns on weekend evenings and wonder why the populations enjoyed and indeed paid handsomely for the privelege of making utter fools of themselves, intimidating and commiting acts of violence on others and vomiting on those streets while the authorities by and large stood by and let it happen.
They will find this quite bizarre as they will also know that far from being unaware of the dangers of the drug and the consequences of abusing it that its dangers were even then very well known.
Then one of them will connect the fact that it was also a high tax revenue earner and they'll understand.
|
From press bench I see a significant number of heavy drinking older males who view the drink/drive laws as an unjust impediment to their alcohol consumption.
I've seen a few who get blotto in the house, run out of drink, and get nicked on the way to the offie to buy some more.
Then there's the golf club know-alll who thinks the police should concentrate on proper criminals, rather than drunk drivers like him.
|
>> From press bench I see a significant number of heavy drinking older males who view
>> the drink/drive laws as an unjust impediment to their alcohol consumption.
No-one doubts there is a hard core, who are probably alcoholic, but that is not a majority of those caught. There is also of course a lump of older males who dont see it as anti-social, because it wasn't in their day.
|
SWMBO & I have had this conversation over many years.
The person has since died so I can speak about it.
Work colleague goes out for lunch, 2 x pints and a chaser "if he had a cold".
5pm and it is off to the pub, before going home for a swift half - 1 or more likely 2 pints. Drives 20 miles and calls in at his local for 20 minutes and then "goes home for tea".
He was a "good lad", an unblemished driving record, no accidents, no speeding convictions etc but everybody at work knew of his drinking & driving.
SWMBO says he should have been reported to his manager/police and had the company car taken away..............I did nothing.
Who was right? Should I have reported him?
Last edited by: Falkirk Bairn on Thu 24 Nov 11 at 10:06
|
>> Who was right? Should I have reported him?
These days with focus on driving as an H&S risk and corporate manslaughter legislation in place a 'conversation' would certainly be required. Managers know he's doing it in a company car and do nothing = negligence in my book. Off duty might affect the evening shenanigans but was he driving at lunchtime? Two pints and a chaser is probably (lots of variables) going to be over limit.
Does he lay off it after 'tea'?. On the basis of lunchtime eveinig intake I'd suspect not. The evening/night time intake might be enough to be still over the limit next morning.
|
>>>Does he lay off it after 'tea'?. On the basis of lunchtime eveinig intake I'd suspect not. The evening/night time intake might be enough to be still over the limit next morning.
I would say the reason he is not with us today is related to his drinking - he would have been 67 now but did not get to 65.
We were all on good money - say £25-£40K + bonus/commission so £40-£60K was ppossible for most if not all in 1990. We could all afford to "enjoy ourselves" and indulge in a few beers when there was something to celebrate - my average was modest except when the occasion came around.
His drinking pattern was topping up his alcohol levels all day and everyday - I knew him for 30+ years. When away on business he had favourite hotels - In the 80's early 90's we were allowed £25-30 / night for a meal and this included a glass of wine - needless to say the favourite hotels would feed him for £10 and provide £20 of liquid refreshment - say 2 x nights / week.
His immediate boss, slightly younger than him also liked a pint & a glass of red wine - in fact a bottle red per night - he had a stroke at 43 (1992) and was confined to a wheel chair. Hence reporting him to his boss for drink driving had its issues.
|
|
I was in a similar environment for most of my career - disposable income, high pressure job, easy to go for a "swift half" I never did though when I was driving. Easy to succumb..
|
I have often observed within my social circle and that of my parents a culture of acceptance of drinking and driving. Obviously people wouldn't allow anybody to stagger to their car and fall in and try and drive, but no-one bats an eyelid at someone drinking 2/3 large glasses of wine/pints and driving home, especially if it's over a couple of hours or more. It's only now I've had this experience and suffered the consequences of humiliation, inconvenience, expense, etc. that I truly have taken on board all the warnings. I've become one of those boring people who lectures others about how many units they can drink and how many units there are in any given drink. Friends were at a party the other week and the husband drank six (small) beers over six hours and then drove home. He'd used an app on his iPhone to tell him whether he was over the limit or not!!! I don't think for a second he would have been under the limit but he defends his decision to drive and the method used to establish his 'sobriety'.....on his own head be it, frankly.
Personally I wouldn't have reported the person, I don't think. I might now, knowing more about the dangers to innocent drivers than I did before.
|
|
Seen a lot of drink driving cases over the years, people of all classes do it. One notable memory was a farmer who was chased on foot before he was arrested and had crapped himself, the resultant mess in his tucked in wellies were how can I say ?
|
Coincidentally received some info about this site today which you can use to monitor your alcohol intake, and tell you how many burgers you could have had instead etc.
my.drinkaware.co.uk/users/sign_up
|
>> the circumstances of my arrest were that a son of a friend attacked me in their house,
If its not too personal a question, why did he attack you?
|
I was wondering when someone would ask that!
Basically he thought something untoward was going on between myself and his father - both that night and in general (I was unaware of any such suspicions before that night). He made the accusations, I defended myself and the argument spiralled, he went to hit me, his father restrained him and I left - you know the rest.....
|
|
I should add that the gentleman in question is approx 25 years older than me and quite literally older than my father....
|
...the gentleman in question is approx 25 years older than me...
One might think the lad would admire his father for being able to pull a younger model. :)
|
|
ha ha! Nooo.....didn't quite happen like that :)
|
|
Presumably the father didn't speak up on your behalf at the trial?
|
He did actually - he was totally sober that night and was able to back me up in court, for which I was grateful, I think it caused some family issues! The son lied of course.
I found out subsequently that the son had made similar accusations in the past towards other women....pattern of behaviour? Who knows. I speculated why he'd said what he did for ages but it doesn't help. Forget it and move on, that's all you can do.
|
Pity the police didn't charge the son for assault.
Sounds like an ASBO waiting to happen.
|
|
Best of luck for tomorrow!
|
Some of the comments above take me back to my school days.
There was one teacher who was known to like a drink, and was every kids favourite, but on at least two occasions he had a drink before driving 15 rowdy 10 year olds home in the school Bedford CF (crew bus format, P registered in yellow, no seatbelts).
On one memorable occasion we had been to visit an exhibition at Shrewsbury Tech, and on the way back he parked the bus on yellow lines while popping in to a hostelry for half an hours worth of Wem ales before driving us back to Os.
There is no real point to this recollection, other than to say you wouldn't get away with:-
1. Abandoning a bus load of kids in a town centre
2. Driving them home after a pint (or two)
these days.
|
|
Jesus. NO way! But that's possibly not a bad thing :)
|
Thanks, I think I'm all set. Tax shouldn't be a problem. I checked it with the DVLA today.
I'm so grateful to everyone here for all the advice (and comments!) If anyone wants to know who I am then google my name: Sarah Haynes :) I'm the first thing that comes up in Google I think. I'm not the actress, I'm the writer :)
Thanks again everyone.
|
|
Hope you are going to stick around the forum. New blood is always welcome. :)
|
|
Gosh, I would definitely come back here! I couldn't offer advice though (other than not drinking and driving :)) I'd always be the girl crying for help on some simple issue or other...!
|
"I would definitely come back here! I couldn't offer advice"
Why ever not? Everybody else does on everything under the sun. Lack of knowledge definitely not a handicap. :-) Do stick around
|
|
So why the original Matt17 name if you now say you are Sarah Haynes? Just curious. Oissibly as simple as child name/age I guess.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 24 Nov 11 at 22:36
|
|
That's my husband - he registered for me. I'm not clever with computers :)
|
>>I would definitely come back here! I couldn't offer advice"
You should, you've experienced what most of us haven't. That's all we do.
|
Remember what you promised - so no glasses of wine at the book launch in Southampton.
It'll be cheap plonk anyway.
Stick a decent bottle in the fridge for when you get back in the house.
|
It's a signing and I will definitely be drinking (they offer you wine, etc. before you start at these Christmas signings) BUT I'm not driving :) I already have my lifts arranged!
|
Toyboy, is he ? 17 !!......wow !
I've enjoyed reading what you posted, Sarah. Refreshingly honest account of your situation.
There but for the grace, etc. I certainly indulged in drink driving when younger, I'm not sure how many here can say they didn't. Never got caught but memories of some drives home make me shudder now. I may have just 1 Peroni with an Italian meal out but normally it's diet coke for me now.
Stick around, please....another lass to keep us in check....stick a few words in anywhere you want...we're just a big daft gang of friends here.
The mods will always change your name here if you want........if they're ever awake !
Ted
|
+1
Yes, please stick around.
I'm only an infrequent poster - principally bad jokes, stupid queries, and occasionally a piece of useful information.
Your post sparked a useful thread, and you are an unusually sapient being compared to many in the forum and blog world (not this forum, obviously)
I'm sure you'll be able to contribute.
Do you know anything about cinema organs?
8o)
|
Unfortunately not re.cinema organs :)
As the original point of this post was car tax - thought I should really post to say that I now have it! I am all set to drive tomorrow morning (six and half hours of my ban left....feels weird!)
Thanks all again :)
Sarah x
|
Car tax help! - Ted
