Banned for drink-driving

User avatar
Deep Sea Isopod
Bathynomus giganteus
Posts: 7806
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Gods blind spot.
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by Deep Sea Isopod » Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:20 pm

Pappa wrote: I suppose it's similar to getting points on your license when you haven't even got one yet.

Or getting a driving ban after you were caught driving whilst banned.
I run with scissors. It makes me feel dangerous Image

Image

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by Tigger » Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:41 pm

Meekychuppet wrote:
Tigger wrote:
Meekychuppet wrote:
Tigger wrote:But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk. :drunk:
I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.
I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.
How is it unfair on the motorist?
Motorist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine and a ban.
Cyclist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine.
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
mozg
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:25 am
About me: There's not much to tell.
Location: US And A
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by mozg » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:31 am

What the hell is drink-driving?
'Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you.' - George Carlin

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by FBM » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:34 am

mozg wrote:What the hell is drink-driving?
That's what them Brits call 'drunk driving'. I just pretend that it's normal and let them carry on. :whisper:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by Feck » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:47 am

FBM wrote:
mozg wrote:What the hell is drink-driving?
That's what them Brits call 'drunk driving'. I just pretend that it's normal and let them carry on. :whisper:

Not the same :nono: we are not allowed to drive after A drink (ie 1 pint of ale)... you in the US are not allowed to drive if totally shit-faced (that's 3 Miller Lite for most of you )
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by FBM » Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:48 am

Oh, sorry to hear that, Feck. :console:

I suppose the expression "not drunk enough to drive" isn't common over there, then?

Here in Korea, they have alcohol checkpoints and you're busted if you're over 0.06, IIRC. On the other hand, if you're
involved in an accident of any sort and have any BAC whatsoever, you'll be prosecuted whether you're the cause of the accident or not and whether or not alcohol played a role.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by Feck » Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:54 am

FBM wrote:Oh, sorry to hear that, Feck. :console:

I suppose the expression "not drunk enough to drive" isn't common over there, then?

Here in Korea, they have alcohol checkpoints and you're busted if you're over 0.06, IIRC. On the other hand, if you're
involved in an accident of any sort and have any BAC whatsoever, you'll be prosecuted whether you're the cause of the accident or not and whether or not alcohol played a role.
Same here you can have a glass of wine or 35ml of vodka that's the legal limit and they can and do check whenever they want ..

In my first year of driving I got tested over a hundred times !!!!!!!!(cops don't like me :ask: )
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32530
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by charlou » Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:55 am

The limit is 0.05 g/100ml here.
no fences

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by FBM » Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:01 am

Feck wrote:...In my first year of driving I got tested over a hundred times !!!!!!!!(cops don't like me :ask: )
Simple. Let Feck drive. Everybody loves Feck. :tup:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by Feck » Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:06 am

FBM wrote:
Feck wrote:...In my first year of driving I got tested over a hundred times !!!!!!!!(cops don't like me :ask: )
Simple. Let Feck drive. Everybody loves Feck. :tup:

things to do tomorrow ... blow up vacuum cleaner ...teach dog to drive ...
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

Meekychuppet
Seriously, what happened?
Posts: 4193
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by Meekychuppet » Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:29 am

Tigger wrote:
Meekychuppet wrote:
Tigger wrote:
Meekychuppet wrote:
Tigger wrote:But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk. :drunk:
I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.
I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.
How is it unfair on the motorist?
Motorist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine and a ban.
Cyclist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine.
You might have a point, but given the number of deaths caused by motorists versus the almost complete absence of any injuries or deaths caused by cyclists I don't see any value in banning cyclists. Drunk cycling is a total non-issue, and the most likely consequence of anyone doing it is either injuring or killing themselves. Motorists constantly whine about cyclists because we're an easy target and many car users believe that the roads belong to them.
Rum wrote:Does it occur to you that you have subscribed to the model of maleness you seem to be pushing in order to justify your innately hostile and aggressive nature? I have noticed it often and even wondered if it might be some sort of personality disorder. You should consider this possibility.

Rum wrote:Did I leave out being a twat? (With ref to your sig)
Things Rum has diagnosed me with to date: "personality disorder", autism, Aspergers.
eRvin wrote:People can see what a fucking freak you are. Have you not noticed all the disparaging comments you get?
rum wrote:What a cunt you are. Truly.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by FBM » Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:36 pm

Feck wrote:
FBM wrote:
Feck wrote:...In my first year of driving I got tested over a hundred times !!!!!!!!(cops don't like me :ask: )
Simple. Let Feck drive. Everybody loves Feck. :tup:

things to do tomorrow ... blow up vacuum cleaner ...teach dog to drive ...

Unremarkable behavior for Ratzians, methinks. What're ya gonna do in the afternoon, then?
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by Tigger » Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:38 pm

Tigger wrote:
Meekychuppet wrote:
Tigger wrote:
Meekychuppet wrote:
Tigger wrote:But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk. :drunk:
I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.
I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.
How is it unfair on the motorist?
Motorist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine and a ban.
Cyclist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine.
Meekychuppet wrote: You might have a point, but given the number of deaths caused by motorists versus the almost complete absence of any injuries or deaths caused by cyclists I don't see any value in banning cyclists. Drunk cycling is a total non-issue, and the most likely consequence of anyone doing it is either injuring or killing themselves. Motorists constantly whine about cyclists because we're an easy target and many car users believe that the roads belong to them.
I certainly agree with you on that one.
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:32 pm

Tigger wrote:
Meekychuppet wrote:
Tigger wrote:
Meekychuppet wrote:
Tigger wrote:But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk. :drunk:
I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.
I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.
How is it unfair on the motorist?
Motorist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine and a ban.
Cyclist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine.
Meekychuppet wrote: You might have a point, but given the number of deaths caused by motorists versus the almost complete absence of any injuries or deaths caused by cyclists I don't see any value in banning cyclists. Drunk cycling is a total non-issue, and the most likely consequence of anyone doing it is either injuring or killing themselves. Motorists constantly whine about cyclists because we're an easy target and many car users believe that the roads belong to them.
Tigger wrote:I certainly agree with you on that one.
I wish I could find the photo of my face after a cyclist knocked me flying on a footpath. He was sober - but he was racing along an unlit footpath with neither lights nor consideration.

I was so badly concussed, I couldn't remember my address or the phone number of anyone that I knew! Two weeks off work recovering from that 'total non-issue'!

Cunts that do not consider other road/path users can and do cause damage whatever they are driving/riding. Pissed-up cyclists should be fined every bit as severely as motorists.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: Banned for drink-driving

Post by Tigger » Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:49 pm

Tigger wrote:
Meekychuppet wrote:
Tigger wrote:
Meekychuppet wrote:
Tigger wrote:But as you don't need a licence to ride a bike, the two things are separate. Or should be. You can't say that riding a bike is material in assessing someone's competence to drive as there is no mandatory test for it, unlike a motorbike. Someone could be banned for being drunk in charge of a bike when all they do is ride around fields. Car drivers tend not to do this. Unless they're drunk. :drunk:
I don't understand why you think driving convictions require a person to have passed a test. It's not as though passing your test creates a covenant that you cannot break. That is simply the law.
I don't, but riding a bike without a licence being required and driving a car or motorcycle are different matters. You don't need a licence to ride a bike, and if you commit an offence on one, then there should be some punishment that doesn't involve a driving licence or it's just not fair on the motorist. Here's another one: those disabled scooter things require no training at all, yet the rider can use them anywhere. I saw one old chap drinking neat vodka (it was, as he'd just bought it) from a bottle as he trundled along at 4mph on a road. I called the police and they said he wasn't a motorist so they could do nothing official. (They did offer to have "a word"). He is just as much a road user as the pedal cyclist, and just as likely to have a driving licence too, so why is he immune? It's because he's not regarded as a motorist, and neither should the cyclist be. As I said, I abhor drink driving, but I abhor unfairness too.
How is it unfair on the motorist?
Motorist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine and a ban.
Cyclist cycling while drunk:- Punishment: a fine.
Meekychuppet wrote: You might have a point, but given the number of deaths caused by motorists versus the almost complete absence of any injuries or deaths caused by cyclists I don't see any value in banning cyclists. Drunk cycling is a total non-issue, and the most likely consequence of anyone doing it is either injuring or killing themselves. Motorists constantly whine about cyclists because we're an easy target and many car users believe that the roads belong to them.
Tigger wrote:I certainly agree with you on that one.
Xamonas Chegwé wrote: I wish I could find the photo of my face after a cyclist knocked me flying on a footpath. He was sober - but he was racing along an unlit footpath with neither lights nor consideration.

I was so badly concussed, I couldn't remember my address or the phone number of anyone that I knew! Two weeks off work recovering from that 'total non-issue'!

Cunts that do not consider other road/path users can and do cause damage whatever they are driving/riding. Pissed-up cyclists should be fined every bit as severely as motorists.
But do you think it's fair that a motorist committing an effectively "non-motoring" offence - in that he doesn't need a driving licence to ride a bike even though he's on the road - should have his car licence impacted upon? On the grounds that there are highway code rules for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists in the Highway Code, then should not a pedestrian be liable to the same punishments as the cyclist and motorist? Get pissed, walk up a motorway, get banned from driving.
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests