Article: 1500 drunk drivers arrested

[scotty777]

Yeeeeaaaaah... Sorry, but if you're drinking, you shouldn't be driving. It's just plain irresponsible. The term designated driver comes to mind. I don't see how it's in any way excusable.


http://www.arrivealive.co.za/pages.aspx?i=2181

It's really simple: if you're going to drive, don't drink.

yes, but my argument is that either say make any about of alcohol in the system is bad, and should be illegal, or have the cops judge if a person if able and coherent (so the cop decides, then takes you to the station where you booked if you aren't). With the current system, sure, you'll think it's fine to have a beer, but you could still fail the breathalyzer...

If they want to curb this problem, implement an adequate DD system, give the designated drivers stamps and they are given free cokes for the night... If we had better public transport, this wouldn't be a problem either, and there's no leeway with the system either. You don't get a criminal conviction if you go 20KM/h faster than the speed limit, but I'm telling you, at 80KM/h vs 60KM/h your time for reaction is a lot worse...

If they need to make drunk driving go onto the point system... I think it's a little silly if you get caught and that's your life... effed up! I've been in situations whereby I was forced to drive home and I was pretty drunk (the DD got hammered, and we couldn't sleep in the car seeing as Newtown isn't the best place to sleep for white kids!). I didn't enjoy it, but it was a last resort sorta thing... (I was told the cops in the area are dicks too, and will charge me for being drunk in public).

I'm sorry, but I just don't like the system is all I'm saying.

 

[Lope]

Speed limits are just a fixed number applied to a road which is supposed to apply to all different types of vehicles, visibility conditions, night/day, abs/no abs, stopping distance of your particular vehicle, traction control/no traction control, weather conditions, traffic conditions, driver age, skill level, state of mental alertness, number of pedestrians around the road, etc. In other words, fixed speed limits are unintelligent and of very questionable effectiveness and validity.

So you think its better to be:

• co-ordination inhibited
• reaction time delayed
• mentally incapacitated
• unable to make decisions as well as you normally can
• more careless
• less self aware

Than to intelligently assess all of the conditions in 1st paragraph and make a considered decision to disregard the unintelligently set, fixed speed limit of questionable validity and travel a little bit faster than the so-called limit.
Respectfully I must say I think you are seriously deluded.

The main effectiveness of speed limits, and the reason they're heavily enforced and the idea promoted is because they give the government the authority to collect a lot of extra tax money and the people are too weak, stupid or uninterested to stand up against it.

 

[EtienneK]

Yeeeeaaaaah... Sorry, but if you're drinking, you shouldn't be driving. It's just plain irresponsible. The term designated driver comes to mind. I don't see how it's in any way excusable.


http://www.arrivealive.co.za/pages.aspx?i=2181

It's really simple: if you're going to drive, don't drink.

If we had public transport, then I would have agreed with you.

But the simple fact is, the limit is way too low at the moment. If my wife and I go out for dinner, I can't even have 2 glasses of wine with her without going over the limit. That's crazy.

They must up the limit or they must invest heavily in public transport. Otherwise bribes to the police are just going to continue because of stupid laws.

Disclaimer: For people without comprehension skills: And by stupid laws I don't mean that I support drinking and driving. Quite the opposite. What I mean is that the limit is just way too low for our country which has no public transport.

 

[Paul_S]

If we had public transport, then I would have agreed with you.
But the simple fact is, the limit is way too low at the moment. If my wife and I go out for dinner, I can't even have 2 glasses of wine with her without going over the limit. That's crazy.
They must up the limit or they must invest heavily in public transport. Otherwise bribes to the police are just going to continue because of stupid laws.
Disclaimer: For people without comprehension skills: And by stupid laws I don't mean that I support drinking and driving. Quite the opposite. What I mean is that the limit is just way too low for our country which has no public transport. .

Uhh ... were you under the influence of alcohol when you typed that?

You reason that the limit is too low so therefore the authorities should up the limit to allow you to legally drive while you're drunk?
Then you complain that you have to drive under the influence because there is inadequate public transport?

I cannot believe the arrogance you just displayed!
Firstly you believe it is your right to endanger other people's lives.
Secondly you believe that because your demands for public transport are not met it gives you the right to break the law?

The solution is really simple. If you want to drink then pick one of the following:
- Drink at home
- Drink and sleepover
- Get someone else to drive you

If you drink then stay the FRICK off the roads!
I don't want myself or my family to be killed by an idiot who thinks it's his right to break the law.
Personally I think they should impound and crush the vehicles of people who are caught driving under the influence.

FYI:
The Civil Aviation Authority regulations state that a pilot is not allowed to pilot an aircraft if he has had a drink within the past 8 hours. The recommendation is to wait up to 72 hours before flying because of the secondary effects of consuming alcohol such as dehydration, fatigue, etc.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Uhh ... were you under the influence of alcohol when you typed that?

You reason that the limit is too low so therefore the authorities should up the limit to allow you to legally drive while you're drunk?
Then you complain that you have to drive under the influence because there is inadequate public transport?

I cannot believe the arrogance you just displayed!
Firstly you believe it is your right to endanger other people's lives.
Secondly you believe that because your demands for public transport are not met it gives you the right to break the law?

The solution is really simple. If you want to drink then pick one of the following:
- Drink at home
- Drink and sleepover
- Get someone else to drive you

If you drink then stay the FRICK off the roads!
I don't want myself or my family to be killed by an idiot who thinks it's his right to break the law.
Personally I think they should impound and crush the vehicles of people who are caught driving under the influence.

FYI:
The Civil Aviation Authority regulations state that a pilot is not allowed to pilot an aircraft if he has had a drink within the past 8 hours. The recommendation is to wait up to 72 hours before flying because of the secondary effects of consuming alcohol such as dehydration, fatigue, etc.

See, half a brain, terribly difficult to come by when having fun is worth the risk

 

[killadoob]

I would say concentrate on getting rid of the killer taxi's and the deaths will drop 2/3s. Why are they so focussed on us while taxi's do what they like?

When i start seeing a war on taxi's then i will take cops seriously, how about daily taxi rank raids, so worried about some drunk folk driving around, sure some drunk people do crash cars and kill but i would say taxi's are the worst thing on the roads yet they are just allowed to carry on while we get arrested for being over the limit.

Anyone got the stats on taxi related deaths, of those 700 odd that have died, how many are linked to taxi's?

I wonder in a month how many deaths are caused by drunk driving?
Taxi's?
wrecklace driving?

When a drunk person kills someone it is headlines news but taxi's kill everyday and you barely hear about it. my mate said he saw a taxi on wednesday and he looked shocked.

 

[UnUnOctium]

Lol, you people are looking at it the wrong way. If you look at it purely objectively (statistically), drunk driving only increases your odds of killing someone else, they are NOT 0 even if you're a sober Michael Schumacher. In fact, purely by the virtue of being alive you have the probability of killing someone in a vehicle collision (you cross the street with some bad timing for example).

Either way, the question should rather be: what probability is acceptable?

This probability can be linked algebraically to several things (i.e. your age, your blood-alcohol level, your gender, whether you have a phone, whether you're driving alone, time of day, etc).

It's quite ironic though that people say "people who drive drunk are killers" but no one says "people who use their phones while driving are killers, people who talk to other people while driving are killers", etc. The only difference is how likely they are to incurr a collision, either of them can be killers.

As always, governments proceed with the "disregard science, acquire currency" mantra.