Should we be Naming & Shaming Drunk Drivers?

[Syndyre]

I'm planning to leave early morning and take it very easy. East London i still raining.

Same here, rainy and cold, gives me an excuse to feed my coffee addiction though.

Damn, just checked the weather forecast to see if it'd be better tomorrow and saw this:

National Warning - Issued on Monday, 24 December 2007 at 16.00

: Heavy falls of rain are possible in places over southern parts of the Northern Cape and the eastern interior of the Western Cape in the morning, as well as over the northern and eastern parts of the Eastern Cape.

 

[dlk001]

Same here, rainy and cold, gives me an excuse to feed my coffee addiction though.

Damn, just checked the weather forecast to see if it'd be better tomorrow and saw this:

Well, the positive side is that I can catch up with my family and relatives, watch movies and more family talk.

 

[hj2k_x]

I would be for naming and shaming the worst offenders and certainly repeat offenders( who should have their licenses revoked imo) but there is no need to do it in all cases. That is completely unnecessary and a waste of time and money.

The argument about public transport is valid. The fact that there is almost no reliable late night and reasonably priced public transport in this country is not a reason to go out and get wasted and then still drive home, however, improving the public transport system can only help this situation, surely?

As for the argument that you should not have to drink to enjoy yourself raised by a few forumites. I have to say that that is simply bollocks. In order to be over the limit according to the figures posted above(which are correct) you need to have very little to drink. 3 beers for an average man iirc. Even people going out to dinner and not out on some wild party bender will manage to consume more than this in one night.

 

[PeterCH]

I would be for naming and shaming the worst offenders and certainly repeat offenders( who should have their licenses revoked imo) but there is no need to do it in all cases. That is completely unnecessary and a waste of time and money.

I just think it's pathetic to 'name and shame' anyone. A court finds
you guilty, hopefully an impartial court and you get sentenced.
When that sentence is complete, you repaid your debt to society.
That's all. Violating someone's privacy and exposing them to the public
and possible abuse or vigilante activity is additional inhumane punishment
for the cuplrit (AND HIS FAMILY) and maybe is OK in a barbaric society like Nazi Germany or North Korea
but certainly not in a supposedly civilised society based on the respect
of others' CIVIL and HUMAN rights. If someone is a repeat offender
there need to be laws put in place for that. Sentence them to
10 years hard labour but don't publish their name in the paper.
The idea of 'shaming' someone is ridiculous. Everyone has secrets
if we knew everyones I'm sure there's a lot worse than drunken driving.

 

[hj2k_x]

I just think it's pathetic to 'name and shame' anyone. A court finds
you guilty, hopefully an impartial court and you get sentenced.
When that sentence is complete, you repaid your debt to society.
That's all. Violating someone's privacy and exposing them to the public
and possible abuse or vigilante activity is additional inhumane punishment
for the cuplrit (AND HIS FAMILY) and maybe is OK in a barbaric society like Nazi Germany or North Korea
but certainly not in a supposedly civilised society based on the respect
of others' CIVIL and HUMAN rights. If someone is a repeat offender
there need to be laws put in place for that. Sentence them to
10 years hard labour but don't publish their name in the paper.
The idea of 'shaming' someone is ridiculous. Everyone has secrets
if we knew everyones I'm sure there's a lot worse than drunken driving.

I see your point. It just seems it may serve as some kind of deterrent if it were in the public domain.

The argument to be made for the naming and shaming of paedophiles is a much stronger one, but that is not what this thread is about. ( For the record, I am for much harsher punishments than naming and shaming when it comes to sex offenders, but that is another issue altogether)

I agree that it would be difficult to Constitutionally allow such an infringement on the rights of the people involved, drunk drivers that is, but something needs to be done. Legislation and adequate punitive measures would be the best options, however, the best option is not always the one that gets implemented.

 

[supersunbird]

I see your point. It just seems it may serve as some kind of deterrent if it were in the public domain.

The argument to be made for the naming and shaming of paedophiles is a much stronger one, but that is not what this thread is about. ( For the record, I am for much harsher punishments than naming and shaming when it comes to sex offenders, but that is another issue altogether)

I agree that it would be difficult to Constitutionally allow such an infringement on the rights of the people involved, drunk drivers that is, but something needs to be done. Legislation and adequate punitive measures would be the best options, however, the best option is not always the one that gets implemented.

Well, everyone moans about the car confiscation thing, people will drive without licenses if those are suspended, they pay their fines without a second though, the only way these drunk driving ***holes can be made to stop, before they whipe out some family, is by making sure everyone know whats selfish, manslaughter intent ***holes they are...

 

[hj2k_x]

Well, everyone moans about the car confiscation thing, people will drive without licenses if those are suspended, they pay their fines without a second though, the only way these drunk driving ***holes can be made to stop, before they whipe out some family, is by making sure everyone know whats selfish, manslaughter intent ***holes they are...

Yeah, confiscation seems quite harsh and you are correct that if you revoke their licenses many will simply drive without. This does pose the problem of just what to do to deter such behaviour. I would prefer stricter fines and jail terms for repeat offenders who are way over the limit. Don't get me wrong here, I am not suggesting strict punishment for people just over the limit. Sure, there are laws and if you break them you need to be punished, but there are many people that can have a whole lot more than three beers and still be fine to drive. It is not the people who are just over the limit that are the problem. It is people like in the list above who are 10 times over the limit, and who repeatedly drink and drive that need to be targeted and eradicated.

 

[Syndyre]

Well, the positive side is that I can catch up with my family and relatives, watch movies and more family talk.

Yeah its Christmas either way, weather can't ruin that.

 

[kilos]

Was driving from Johannesburg to East London (Mdantsane) yesterday between 11AM and 8PM. No major incidences fortunately! It was raining from Jamestown to East London.

All you guys, have a great festive season!

Drove from George to PE and back and everyone on the
road was well behaved, that is great news to all

 

[koffiejunkie]

Take away their licenses. For a year, at least. If they do it again, take it away for good. And if they're caught driving with a suspended licences - go directly to jail - no trail, no nothing.

I'm not sure if we should be but don't the sentences seem wildly disproportionate when compared to each other?

I think the fines are relative to the guilty party's financial ability, like bail.

 

[Captain Slog]

Yeah, confiscation seems quite harsh and you are correct that if you revoke their licenses many will simply drive without. This does pose the problem of just what to do to deter such behaviour. I would prefer stricter fines and jail terms for repeat offenders who are way over the limit. Don't get me wrong here, I am not suggesting strict punishment for people just over the limit. Sure, there are laws and if you break them you need to be punished, but there are many people that can have a whole lot more than three beers and still be fine to drive. It is not the people who are just over the limit that are the problem. It is people like in the list above who are 10 times over the limit, and who repeatedly drink and drive that need to be targeted and eradicated.

Well said - i have seen people who are legally sober cause more mayhem than most who have had a couple of beers and are driving carefully. Trouble is that acohol is measurable, stupidity, inattention, recklessness, blatant disobeyence of other traffic laws are not.

People always quote all the sob stories about little darlings being killed by "drunk" drivers - what about the people killed by sober drivers going through red lights?? Sems strange to me that the most dangerous practice on our roads - that of going through red lights is mostly un-policed and ignored by the public - witness this forum


It is too easy to police speeding and "drunk" driving thus earning revenue to be mis-apropriated.

 

[koffiejunkie]

It is too easy to police speeding and "drunk" driving thus earning revenue to be mis-apropriated.

Captain Slog you're right. Speed and drunk driving are the two big boogeymen yet it's reckless driving that causes accidents.

 

[CathJ]

Captain Slog you're right. Speed and drunk driving are the two big boogeymen yet it's reckless driving that causes accidents.

Yeah, it's just that often speed and drunk driving are the causes of the reckless driving...

Not always, by any means, but often.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Yeah, it's just that often speed and drunk driving are the causes of the reckless driving...

Not always, by any means, but often.

Actually it's the other way around. People drive like arses already - the booze just make them more aggressive and make them think they're invincible.

People who drive painfully carefully when they're sober tend to drive painfully carefully (relative to their intoxication, of course) when they're drunk too, if at all.

 

[Mr TB]

Captain Slog you're right. Speed and drunk driving are the two big boogeymen yet it's reckless driving that causes accidents.

Would you allow a drunk driver to take your 7 year old kid to school?

IOW... a buddy or friend you realise had a drink and should not be driving?

If your answer is no Captain Slog is wrong.
If your answer is yes you don't care about your kid and you are reckless...
Not really that difficult too sort out..

My mother is a nice lady but she has a problem, she still think she is a good driver when she is drunk.
IOW one evening by midnight she skipped a robot (by accident) and nearly killed 2 other people. BTW my mom was drunk and got out scot free by way of a very clever lawyer...

However it seems you first must be under the cosh before you learn...

BTW: My dad taught me never drink and drive (he was a good toppie you know) , he hate spilling the dop on his lap, rather have a marijuana pipe as we were charging along...

 

[Mr TB]

Well, everyone moans about the car confiscation thing, people will drive without licenses if those are suspended, they pay their fines without a second though, the only way these drunk driving ***holes can be made to stop, before they whipe out some family, is by making sure everyone know whats selfish, manslaughter intent ***holes they are...

I do not naming and shaming drunk drivers will have a positive influence on the situation...

Once under the influence of alcohol no one will convince such a person to hand over keys without violence...

"Dop" has another name, it is Bachus... and before everyone jump on me, think about it...

 

[koffiejunkie]

Would you allow a drunk driver to take your 7 year old kid to school?

Did I say I would? You're making assumptions. I bemoaned the fact that so much effort is put into blaming speeding and drunk driving and very little, if anything, is said about the way people drive - drunk or not. Just spend a day on Jo'burg's roads and you'll see what I'm talking about. Sweeping across lanes without indicating or looking, skipping red lights, changing lanes in an intersection, overtaking on blind rises or around blind turns, etc. My pet peeve: driving on people's ass at high speed. It never ceases to amaze me that people think because they're driving a luxury or sporty car, they can overcome the laws of physics. If I cannot see the three pointed star on the Merc's grill in my rear view mirror because the idiot is driving so close to me it's hidden behind my boot, I don't even have to break. Taking my foot off the accelerator would be enough to send him crashing into me.

My mother is a nice lady but she has a problem, she still think she is a good driver when she is drunk.

EVERYBODY thinks they're either a good driver.

...rather have a marijuana pipe as we were charging along...

I would agree with you there. If you're proper stoned you'll be going too damn slow to do anything stupid.

Then again, people driving much slower than everyone else on the same piece of road are in my opinion just as big a danger (if not bigger) than people speeding. Why? Because when everybody is doing 120km/h and Johnny is doing 160km/h, Johnny is the one who has to look out for and avoid driving into everyone else, which isn't too difficult. But if everybody is doing 120km/h, and Johnny is doing 80km/h on the same stretch of road, EVERYBODY now has to look out for and avoid driving into Johnny. Much bigger chance of one person out of *everybody* not paying enough attention. And it makes everybody else's frustration levels higher which in turn results in more aggressive and impatient driving.

 

[supersunbird]

I do not naming and shaming drunk drivers will have a positive influence on the situation...

Once under the influence of alcohol no one will convince such a person to hand over keys without violence...

"Dop" has another name, it is Bachus... and before everyone jump on me, think about it...

OK, I have thought about it, straight to jail for 2 months if found guilty on first offence. And if you hadent learnt your lesson to stop drinking and driving, 2 years on second offence. Fine smine, naming and shaming = useless...

 

[Captain Slog]

OK, I have thought about it, straight to jail for 2 months if found guilty on first offence. And if you hadent learnt your lesson to stop drinking and driving, 2 years on second offence. Fine smine, naming and shaming = useless...

OK Adolf, what do you get for red lights, reckless, without due care and attention or just plain driving like a cnut?? Thought long and hard, obviously.

 

[Mr. named]

Named & shamed & not even me...!

Hi guys, i know this is an old topic, but it hurts everytime i google my name, and the named and shamed article comes up. I live in Cape Town, and there seems to be another 2 Lungile Koti's living in Cape Town, and one of them found himself drinking and driving and ended up on the front page of the Cape Times last year. Everyone who knows me has been asking me about this and i dont know anything about it, naming and shaming is a big mistake, i think it will only work if they include a picture and the guy's ID number...