So Ray Wilkins has been arrested for drink driving, having driven 90 miles from Bournemouth to Cobham ...... Is this the longest distance someone has driven before beingg pulled over and charged......was he lucky , not to have caused an accident beforehand or unlucky to have been stopped so close to his destination ??
About 18 months ago, a neighbour had been to a golf do on the Friday night and took a cab home. The following morning , he returned to pick up his car, pulled out, hit a motorcyclist and killed him outright.
After a long protracted court case, he was banned for 18 months and fined over 1000.
It seems the biker had been doing around 60 in a 40 zone, and the police messed up with their part of the prosecution, despite being 1.5 over the limit......there but for the grace go I, though a long time ago
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 9 May 12 at 09:43
|
Wilkins has been arrested and bailed to a Mags Ct sitting later in month. He is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
I suspect there are people doing it all the time; particularly 'respectable' folks going home from dinners. Without an accident or police observation of infractions most get away with it.
Being pulled is a game of chance.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 9 May 12 at 09:45
|
Well, as he's been breathalyzed and arrested it's a tad hard to presume he's innocent:)
Bit like overloading for a lorry driver...I didn't put it there Officer, doesn't cut the mustard!
Pat
|
>>Wilkins has been arrested and bailed to a Mags Ct sitting later in month.
>>
I note that he was stopped near Cobham and was questioned at Reigate police station and charged.
That is quite a distance between the to locations.( M25)
Is this another example of how thin the coverage is on the roads and manned stations.
Several police staions are being closed not a few miles from Cobham.
|
....there but for the grace go I, though a long time ago...
Same here.
Many years ago, I had several pints in a country pub just outside Cirencester in Gloucestershire before driving to London.
Got away with it, but the recollection still sends a shiver down my spine.
|
Zhonghua (and BMW) are made by Brilliance China Automotive Holdings Limited. tinyurl.com/cnv3wp8
So what happened to Zhonghua in the thread title? It was there before I wrote my post!
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 9 May 12 at 09:50
|
Two and two usually makes four, but saying Wilkins drove 90 miles from Bournemouth is an assumption.
We know he was at a function in Bournemouth, and he was arrested on suspicion of drink driving near Cobham a few hours later.
What we don't know is how he got between the two.
For example, we might be told in due course a friend or Mrs Wilkins drove the majority of the distance, and Wilkins only took over for the last few miles.
Why would he do that?
"The driver became unwell, your worships, and as it was several hours later, Mr Wilkins thought he was OK to take over."
|
>> "The driver became unwell, your worships, and as it was several hours later, Mr Wilkins
>> thought he was OK to take over."
Might have taken the train and been driving home from the station.
I'm told by those who seem to know these things that roads around the commuter stations locally are rich pickings for the BiB for potential DD's at certain times of the day, especially around Xmas party season. Seems people seem to think it's OK to have a drink up in town because they're getting the train home but the drive from station to home seems to get forgotten about.....
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 9 May 12 at 12:46
|
I have no time for drink driving. I like to drink but if I have a lot I simply won't drive the next day. That way I can enjoy the night out without wondering if I am still over the limit the next day!. Also if you're not getting in till 4:00am and getting rough 'drunk' sleep I would probably too tired to drive anyway.
Sometimes not being able to drink and drive is a right pain, but the pain is far less than the consequences of being caught or causing an accident because you're drunk.
|
The vast majority of drink drivers go about their business on the roads without accident or incident and noone is any the wiser.
They are associated with a higher risk of accident and road death, although the absolute risk is still very low.
There will be drivers who have driven for years over the limit almost all the time and never had a peep from the police.
|
>> The vast majority of drink drivers go about their business on the roads without accident
>> or incident and noone is any the wiser.
>>
>> They are associated with a higher risk of accident and road death, although the absolute
>> risk is still very low.
Depends on the amount drunk. If you are over twice the limit then I would suspect that the risk of an accident is actually fairly high, although it might be without injury. A neighbour used to drive a black ambulance, and he will not drink a drop and drive.
|
In most collisions involving a drunk driver, it's usually only one of the drivers who is drunk. It's very rare that both drivers are drunk. Would one therefore be safer driving on the roads if all drivers were drunk?
;-)
|
I like the mollusc's thinking.
Apparently 99% of shark attacks on humans occur in less than 4 feet of water. Get out into the deeper water and you should be OK.
If threat of terrorism makes you fearful of air travel, pack a bomb yourself. What are the chances of there being two bombs on the same plane?
|
|
Can't wait til the GCHQ-bot reads that last post!
|
|
Do declare it at the check in desk please.
|
>> If threat of terrorism makes you fearful of air travel, pack a bomb yourself. What
>> are the chances of there being two bombs on the same plane?
Good for a laugh on this subject but the same logic convicted Sally Clark of murder following he cot deaths of two of her children.
|
Have your name engraved on a bullet.......It's said there's a bullet with your name on it somewhere.
How much safer if it's in your pocket !
Ted
|
Ted, you are as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of
Cunning at Oxford University. ;-)
|
>> Good for a laugh on this subject but the same logic convicted Sally Clark of
>> murder following he cot deaths of two of her children.
Absolutely right - I was astonished at the original trial verdict. It's like winning the lottery - in fact not even as unlikely as that. Improbable that it will happen to a nominated individual, but almost a certainty it will happen to somebody, and it did. And it ended very tragically.
|
Cot death affects about 1 baby in 2000 in the first year of life.
Assuming there is no genetic or household reason why a sibling of a cot-death victim is not at higher risk, it means for every couple who've suffered a cot death has a 1 in 2000 chance of their next child also dying. In reality the risk is a bit higher than this.
Fag-packet arithmetic suggest to me that in the UK, every couple of years there will be a family suffering their 2nd consecutive cot death.
Long odds, but not impossible.
From Wiki:
"A United Kingdom pediatrician, Roy Meadow believes that many cases diagnosed as SIDS are really the result of child abuse on the part of a parent.
During the 1990s and early 2000s, a number of mothers of multiple apparent SIDS victims were convicted of homicide, on the basis of Meadow's opinion.
In 2003 a number of high-profile acquittals brought Meadow's theories into disrepute.
Several hundred murder convictions were reviewed, leading to several high-profile cases being reopened and convictions overturned.
... The Royal Statistical Society issued a media release refuting the expert testimony in one UK case in which the conviction was subsequently overturned.
Meadows had a special interest in child abuse, not SIDS - hardly an unbiased expert opinion upon which to convict women of killing babies.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 9 May 12 at 23:44
|
>>the same logic convicted Sally Clark of murder following he cot deaths of two of her children.
Wasn't she an alcoholic who eventually died as a result?...............
|
>>Wasn't she an alcoholic who eventually died as a result?...............
Most would have you believe the alcohol misuse was something that developed after she was banged up, as a double child-murdering lawyer, with other convicted female felons for 4 years.
Her husband stated after her release that "she will never be well again"
Is there any evidence she had a drink problem, or any significant mental health problem before her conviction?
|
...Is there any evidence she had a drink problem before her conviction...
Yes.
The prosecution gathered evidence of her doing the typical alcoholic's thing of buying a small amount of drink from each of several off-licences, so that no single shopkeeper would see her as a large consumer of alcohol.
If I recall correctly, much of that evidence was withheld from the jury after the defence successfully applied for it to be excluded.
|
>>If I recall correctly, much of that evidence was withheld from the jury after the defence successfully applied for it to be excluded.
Which in turn means it's not been dissected in court so is not really 'evidence' as such.
But it is something I didn't know.
Bottom line is Sally Clark, in the eyes of the courts, did not kill her first 2 children.
I note the pathologist and Roy Meadow were both struck off for their part in this trial. meadow was reinstated by the courts who decided the GMC had been overly heavy-handed in their dealings with him. The High Court, however, upheld the GMC's decision to strike off the pathologist.
|
>> Fag-packet arithmetic suggest to me that in the UK, every couple of years there will
>> be a family suffering their 2nd consecutive cot death.
>>
>> Long odds, but not impossible.
That's the nub. The court in effect convicted on the second statement, but ignored the fact that it's odds on it will happen to somebody on a regular basis.
On the Roy Meadow logic, nobody would ever be given the lottery jackpot because it's so unlikely that they could have won it - yet somebody wins it nearly every week.
I was astonished at the first verdict, more so when the appeal was lost. Just after the appeal, I was at a seminar at one of the London law firms - the appeal was a big topic of conversation among the lawyers present and the almost unanimous view was that it was an appalling miscarriage of justice. I still can't understand how a court could fall for that simple misuse of statistics (never mind that the numbers were wrong) and especially that her defence team didn't destroy it at the first trial.
|
I think this highlights the fallibility of 'expert' witnesses.
Many have their own agendas and perhaps too unshakeable a belief in their own ideas.
Doctors rarely work in an environment of decision making based of 'beyond reasonable doubt', but much of our work is based on the 'balance of probabilities'.
If a doctor ever tells you that you 'absolutely/definitely' do or do not have something, get a second opinion!
|
>> I think this highlights the fallibility of 'expert' witnesses.
Dragging this thread back to the original...
Yep, ray Wilkins was over the limit.
Here's a bloke who can kick a football rather well, IIRC.
He's probably got the reactions of a cat, even when 'over the limit'.
I recall a few 'sessions' with a certain goalkeeper of my acquaintance. At 2am, he was still throwing 120-180s at darts, and potting pool shots which I wouldn't have got sober.
Was he 'safe' to drive? Yep. I'd have trusted myself being in his car more than with most folk. Was he over the limit? Yep as well.
As long as you have an empirical measure, as opposed to the US 'close your eyes and touch your nose' or 'walk down this white line' tests, there's going to be confusion over what is 'too much'.
|
>> I recall a few 'sessions' with a certain goalkeeper of my acquaintance. At 2am, he
>> was still throwing 120-180s at darts, and potting pool shots which I wouldn't have got
>> sober.
>> Was he 'safe' to drive? Yep. I'd have trusted myself being in his car more
>> than with most folk. Was he over the limit? Yep as well.
Are you sure he was over the limit? Apparently there is a huge variation in people's tolerance to alcohol. And it does not necessarily follow what you would expect from their physique.
|
>> Are you sure he was over the limit? Apparently there is a huge variation in
>> people's tolerance to alcohol. And it does not necessarily follow what you would expect from
>> their physique.
The test is alcohol level in breath or failing that blood/urine. The possibility of those with a high tolerance might, tested in a car/simulator, be safe over the limit is neither here nor there.
Factors such as physique and whether drink is taken with food affect concentration or absorption but once you're over 35 microgrammes in 100ml of breath you're likely to be jiggered (absent any procedural or technical irregularity)
|
>> The test is alcohol level in breath or failing that blood/urine. The possibility of those
>> with a high tolerance might, tested in a car/simulator, be safe over the limit is
>> neither here nor there.
That is not the point I made. I was asking if you were sure he was over the limit. Some people can take in much more alcohol before they reach the limit. Me, well three pints and I am kippered.
|
|
I read Ian's post as implying the goalie to have been on a sesh; five pints plus or the equivalent in shorts. Even with food that's going to have anybody, including those with a high BMI, over the UK limit.
|
>> I read Ian's post as implying the goalie to have been on a sesh; five
>> pints plus or the equivalent in shorts. Even with food that's going to have anybody,
>> including those with a high BMI, over the UK limit.
Do please reread my post to save me repeating myself again. You might find this interesting:
www.whatcar.com/car-news/drink-driving-why-we-need-a-zero-limit/why-the-limit-must-be-lower/255826
I quote: "Our four volunteers each consumed vastly different amounts to get to them to the current 80mg/100ml limit. One required a full 12 shots of vodka to get there, and it wasn't simply the smaller the person the less they needed to drink: our 12-shots man is only 5ft 7in tall and weighs just 12 stone 4lb."
I can only take the above at face value, but it appears to have been a well controlled test.
|
>> Do please reread my post to save me repeating myself again. You might find this
>> interesting:
Sorry. It was the phrase 'tolerance to alcohol' that mislead me; I took it as referring to the effect of a given Breath/Blood Alcohol Concentration rather than absorption rate for a given volume of absolute alcohol.
|
>> Sorry. It was the phrase 'tolerance to alcohol' that mislead me; I took it as
>> referring to the effect of a given Breath/Blood Alcohol Concentration rather than absorption rate for
>> a given volume of absolute alcohol.
Okay, no problem. It was only a minor point I was making anyway! :)
|
>> If a doctor ever tells you that you 'absolutely/definitely' do or do not have something,
>> get a second opinion!
Never heard a Doctor prepared to be certain in anything. Except to certify death, they have even got that wrong in the past.
|
>> I think this highlights the fallibility of 'expert' witnesses.
>>
>> Many have their own agendas and perhaps too unshakeable a belief in their own ideas.
That last point is certainly true, especially for academics. I would tend to trust the opinion of someone who assessed risk for a living, but someone like Meadows is a researcher, not a risk assessor. Academics, good ones, are often very opinionated, and not at all objective as they would have us believe. I've been in a room during a lecture when two world class academics disagreed, and it was like two school kids in a playground.
|
The fact that Ray Wilkins has great ball control has nothing to do with his ability to drive. I am prepared to bet that a drunk Stirling Moss, is a better driver than any of us when we are sober.
But what is his decision making and risk assessment like when he is drunk?
|
>>a drunk Stirling Moss
Oh no! Please don't let me ever imagine he'd ever take more than a glass of milk.
You've just destroyed my image of him.
It's like imagining the pope as a Muslim.
|
>>It's like imagining the pope as a Muslim.
There's a difference?
|
Drink driving - Bromptonaut
