Drunk driving

Not if someone else gets hurt because of it.......

Being over the limit depends on the person & how long between drinks. Someone who went out to drink last night could still be over the limit whilst making their way to work this morning. Others wouldn't be.

If you're unsure of your biochemical make up (as most of us are) then alcohol can stay in your system longer than it would with most. In this situation, yes, I have sympathy for the person. They could possibly be a danger to no one & not be feeling the effects of alcohol yet still get pulled for being over the limit. But if someone gets hurt then no I do not.

Personally if I know I'm going to be drinking then I won't drive. But saying that I generally only drink when I'm within 30 minute walking distance from where I'll be sleeping, when I'm able to easily get transport home or if I'm with a non drinker who drives (Although I only know 1 such person). I just don't like to take the risk.

However, if there's an "emergency", like family or child related, the risk can sometimes be worth it..........

You go out for the night. You have 3 drinks & decide to leave your car parked & walk home. You get a phonecall saying that your child has been rushed to hospital. The hospital is 5 miles away so will take you over an hour & a half to walk to. A taxi will take 20 minutes to reach you. The next bus will not arrive for 30 minutes. Do you jump in your car & drive to hospital, Wait for the bus, wait for the taxi or walk?

It's not all black & white........

The taxi will take 20 minutes because they have no car available for at least 20 minutes.

You've been out for the night so your friend is likely to be as drunk as you if not worse. Asking them to drive is the same as doing it yourself. The fact you drove means you're probably a bit of a way from home so a friend or neighbour would take at least 15 minutes to drive to you.

With any parent their child is top priority. If a parent has the choice of mowing down 3 children to save thier own child, although not rational, they would probably mow down the 3 children. It's a natural parental instict which overrides every other rational thought process.

It sounds nice & easy, but as I said, it's not all black & white. Sometimes circumstances arise which are beyond your control. If life was as easy as you're making out then problems would never arise & everything would be predictable. Unfortunately they are not.

I didn't say I agreed with it or that it's right. My earlier post condems drinking & driving especially if someone gets hurt. All I'm saying is that it's not as black & white as you make out. If it was then we wouldn't be having this discussion......

In my opinion that's the answer to. In my opinion if you don't know how to do something then you shouldn't do it. In the real world it just doesn't work like that.

Concerning the theory of an emergency, we both know that whether a parent makes it to the hospital or not there is pretty much nothing they can do apart from sit around & wait to see what the doctor says, but as I said earlier, a parent in a panic doesn't think with such rationality. A parent won't be thinking "Well, I might have an accident on the way making this whole thing pointless". The only thought process going through a parents mind in such circumstances are "Get to my child as quickly as possible by whatever means necessary ". It's quite natural for a parent to be willing to risk their own life & the lives of others to reach their child. It's uncommon for a parent to have rational thought processes during an emergency....

The only thing which doesn't hold up is people thinking that there is a "Simple, workable" answer. People are different & what may motivate one person to or not to do something will not motivate the next in the same fashion. Whilst one person would never get behind the wheel of a car once they have had even 1 drink, others will do so after 10.

That's just human nature my friend. Not simply black & white.......

Well it is black and white, if you break the law then you can be arrested and charged. The discussion is a hypothetical one as to whether or not it is ever “morally” excusable not legally. I’d agree with NR on this one, the law is very clear about it but that’s not to say that you wouldn’t understand the occurrence in certain situations.

Breaking the law is black & white?

A wife kills her husband after 5 years of abuse at his hands. That's murder. Simple. So she should be given the exact same sentence as say Myra Hindley?

Ever heard the phrase mitigating circumstances? If breaking the law was black & white such a phrase wouldn't exist, would it?

I don't agree with people drinking & driving. I wouldn't do it, but every now & again you can understand why someone has done it & sympathise with them. Understanding the reason for something & agreeing with something are 2 totally different things. Wouldn't you agree?

markeymark wrote:it moraly wrong if you just had the one drink and then drive, if your a decent person you wouldnt put other at risk because of your selfness action

It's morally wrong to kill a person. I guess soldiers aren't decent people.......

markeymark wrote:it moraly wrong if you just had the one drink and then drive, if your a decent person you wouldnt put other at risk because of your selfness action

Now I know you to be a more understanding person than that so I’m guessing that you’ve been directly affected by drink driving. Would that be an accurate guess?

It's not unreasonable when you don't feel any different than normal. The amount of drink that it would actually take to affect your normal functions changes depending on the person. The amount of alcohol it would take to affect you is different from the amount it would take to affect me.......

It's also not unreasonable when you are incapable of rational thought, like in cases of emergencies. Very few people use rational thought processes in an emergency & if you can think rationally in an emergency then maybe it's not an emergency after all.......

markeymark wrote:

LP wrote:

markeymark wrote:it moraly wrong if you just had the one drink and then drive, if your a decent person you wouldnt put other at risk because of your selfness action

Now I know you to be a more understanding person than that so I’m guessing that you’ve been directly affected by drink driving. Would that be an accurate guess?

myself i never been directly affected by drink driving

but i have known of people that have

That’s what I thought. What NR is saying here is that drink driving is wrong and shouldn’t be condoned (accepting your contention) but can you not see how sometimes a person could be in a situation so drastic that after weighing up the risks they feel that they have to break that law? Or would you see a father sent to jail for rushing to by the bedside of his child while they drew their last breath?

Yeah, catch a cab or walk as long as everything is going to plan, which it always does in the real world of course.

I would think to myself that in the same situation I would more than likely have taken the same risk. As a parent you are not expected to think rationally when your child is involved in an emergency.

Either way, my first post on this subject states that I could have sympathy as long as no one got hurt as a result.........

We all seem to be agreed that drinking & driving is wrong.
We all seem to agree that it shouldn't be done.

We are nearly agreeing that as long as no one gets hurst as a result we can have sympathy for someone over the limit, but in extreme circumstances.

Syl wrote:I would have sympathy with ANYONE who's child is desperately ill in hospital, I would understand thet any parent would want to get there as quickly as possible. I would have no sympathy for someone who drove there whilst drunk.
Can you imagine if that person killed someone elses child in his rush to be there? I think your sympathy for his predicament would fade a bit, especially if it was your child he killed.

I suspect that this would increase my sympathy for the driver in question, not only has he lost his licence and ended up in jail he now has to deal with the guilt of a childs death whilst grieving for his own child. Not saying I condone it Syl but I think you'd have to be pretty hard hearted not to sympathise with that

And everything in your life has gone exactly as planned with no surprises, right Markey

Yay Ty's here

Have a look at the 8 year old sex change thread Ty, I've been looking forward to your thoughts on it

Syl wrote:

LP wrote:

Syl wrote:I would have sympathy with ANYONE who's child is desperately ill in hospital, I would understand thet any parent would want to get there as quickly as possible. I would have no sympathy for someone who drove there whilst drunk.
Can you imagine if that person killed someone elses child in his rush to be there? I think your sympathy for his predicament would fade a bit, especially if it was your child he killed.

I suspect that this would increase my sympathy for the driver in question, not only has he lost his licence and ended up in jail he now has to deal with the guilt of a childs death whilst grieving for his own child. Not saying I condone it Syl but I think you'd have to be pretty hard hearted not to sympathise with that

If someone killed my child, whilst driving drunk, I would care not a jot for the reason he/she was driving drunk, just that he/she was, and because of it, my child was gone.
If that was your child he had killed, and your sympathy for him has been increased, you and I are on different planets.

Sorry Syl I must have overlooked that last sentence. I would, of course, feel differently if it was my child that had been injured but that’s just the irrational protective emotions that come with being a parent, those same emotions that caused this hypothetical person to get behind the wheel anyway. If I am emotionally detached from the situation then I would sympathise with all parties equally.

Most parents wouldn't care if the person was drinking or not.....

All I'm aurguing here is that this is not as black & white as it's being made out to be......

Ty! Nice to see you! To answer your question, I'm not actually sure. You see, in my mind if no one gets hurt then what a person does is their business. As long as no one is affected but the person themselves.

Not hearing about it doesn't mean it hasn't happened......

Use what exactly? A mitigating circumstance? People have got away with murder because of mitigating circumstances & it hasn't made headline news. What makes you think that the same cannot be said of drunk drivers??

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer

Snookerballs wrote:So what mitigating circumstances would you think would get a person off a drink driving charge.???

If the incident lead to the preservation of anothers life