Send Message
Weather | Buy&Sell | Forums |  |
Weather | Buy & Sell | Gallery | Forums | |
Would it be sensible to suggest that in order to be able to consume alcohol and drive, one should have to have an endorsement on their licence. Not just be deemed capable once they are off their Ps?
This would mean, going to a test centre, consuming an amount of alcohol to bring the person to what ever level they are going for. Then perform a driving test. Pass or Fail.
This way we can pick out those that can drive at 0.2 verses those like my wife that cant do the washing up after a glass of wine with dinner.
If you are capable you should be allowed....
The best way to get home from the pub is to drive while wearing a Burka. No one will pull you over. Something about profiling.
Thats twice you've brought muslims up,
Ha, your straight out of Pauline playbook
Yes, you should be allowed to drive drunk, the police should be breath testing to see whose been eating halal certified food
The real shame is Remo, his lover, opps, lawyer get to benefit greatly from most people complying with the rules
If everyone was as selfish, degenerative or just plain retared as those who boast about driving drunk then it would be a very dangerous place
Respect and love to all those that have ever been affected by people like remo, just shameful!!!!!
You got trolled hard 
. All you lot love to be recreationaly outraged, its like you find it fun or uplifting to tell people that they are so much lower than you. Makes all of you feel prim and propper.
My view still stands that you should have to do a test to be able to DD. Not once you get you open licence you are magically able to control a vehicle when in the .05 limit. For the record I have never been to court for anything.
The original post was about what should he do. There are some Lawyers that can get him off will cost about 5 grand but thats a small price to pay if you are driving employers vehicles and the rest. If he goes in and pleads guilty and tells his story, he will loose his licence for 3 months plus a fine. He will also be able to get a work licence. If he works at all types of hours then it won't really bother him. I've seen heaps of mates and work colleagues go through this one.
Get legal help the block who can get professor to say about body chemistry &how time &food etc &if how after his massive breakfast he would have been under in 20 more minutes because of chemistry **** the right lawyer can do that it will cost as being told.
I don't condone anything its just how it works
. All you lot love to be recreationaly outraged, its like you find it fun or uplifting to tell people that they are so much lower than you. Makes all of you feel prim and propper.
. All you lot love to be recreationaly outraged, its like you find it fun or uplifting to tell people that they are so much lower than you. Makes all of you feel prim and propper.
. All you lot love to be recreationaly outraged, its like you find it fun or uplifting to tell people that they are so much lower than you. Makes all of you feel prim and propper.
. All you lot love to be recreationaly outraged, its like you find it fun or uplifting to tell people that they are so much lower than you. Makes all of you feel prim and propper.
Just to answer the original question, not that I condone drink driving what so ever (not saying I'm perfect, far from but I don't condone it), an angle could be to "blame the pub for getting him pissed".
I'm unsure if this has ever been tested, and I'm sure you would need to have the most creative lawyer ever and have the balls to go with such an argument BUT a licenced premises must not have an intoxicated person on their premises (strange but true). If you become intoxicated on the premises, the licencee/approved manager must ask you to leave and has a duty of care to do anything practicable to ensure your safety.
So I'd imagine, if he blew 0.1% in the morning, he was wasted the night before, staggering around, slurring his words, being a good old drunk at the reception. I'd say the licenced premises breeched the law by having an intoxicated person on their premises and should have told him to leave hours before he actually did, THEREFORE he should have woken up much less boozed and should have been OK to drive!!
So it's not his fault, it's the pubs fault!!
It's a long shot but I reckon it has legs!!
Alternatively, cop the punishment on the chin and don't do it again!!
. All you lot love to be recreationaly outraged, its like you find it fun or uplifting to tell people that they are so much lower than you. Makes all of you feel prim and propper.
I am quite pleased that most of the posters here saw the negatives of DD. Some people still believed that they are a special breed who can actually still function perfectly even at or well over the legal limit. Actually, I know of some long term alcoholics who can still do the normal things when pissed. These people were my ex-work mates in the mine fields. Of course, that was long before mandatory breath testing.
Even though they can still do the work they had been doing for the last 20 odd years, like working a Jumbo, or driving a truck, but I suspect they are running on automatic, ie. in robotic mode. The trouble is they may not be able to deal with the unexpected, eg. an emergency, or machine mal-functioning.
One of these persons was an underground air-leg miner. He earned a very good wage, but saved bugger all. Most, if not all, of what he made, was pissed down the urinal at the local pub ! A top bloke, but you wouldn't want to sit opposite him for longer than necessary. His alcoholic breath was awful. The last I heard of him wasn't good. He had developed the dreaded "shake" possibly due to the fact that his brain was in a permanent pickled state. He was only 45, but looked 60. Poor bastard.
The same with DD on our roads. Drunks may be able to continue driving in robotic mode. Unfortunately, their reaction time and the reaction itself are compromised greatly.
I believe the alcohol limit such as "0.05" ought to be changed. The reason being people wrongly believe "0.05" is such a tiny amount, and it should do any harm. I suggest it should be magnified by a factor of 1000. So "0.05" is 50 units. "0.2" is 200 units. To book someone over 50 sounds a lot more serious than "0.05", don't you agree ?
Remo, you need a long hard look in the mirror. Everyone else is wrong, but you are different?
All the research on alcohol impairing function doesn't apply to you? What a beauty!
I understand your argument but reject it as ill informed and based on a fantasy justifying your own unacceptable behaviour.
Alcohol impairs everyone's ability to drive. Whatever your driving ability is sober is worse with alcohol in your system. And you think that is okay obviously. Perhaps I am wrong and you are such a markedly better driver than everyone else that being drunk only brings you back to average. Science says you are wrong so I can only hope your little fantasy gets popped sooner rather than later. Then again, with your record, nothing will change the fervour with which you believe yourself different to and better than everyone else.
BTW, I'm done because nothing anyone says will change special people like you.
I stand by my single car/single occupant hope - any other outcome would be an avoidable tragedy.
