Cruising for a Bruising (Drink and Drive?!)

Member Name: SpankMarvin

Product:	Drink and Drive?!
Date:	06/07/01 (32 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: None

Disadvantages: Doom

Drink driving is a completely non-sensical act, which is mortally dangerous and therefore carries with it the potential to ruin the lives of innocent victim(s) of an accident which it might cause. This has a knock-on effect on the victim(s)’s family, but there it also has an effect on the offender. This is not to say that I have any particular sympathy with drink-drivers or their actions – they are foolish and selfish people, and drink driving is a disgusting thing to do. They are not however, purely evil. I am sure that a great majority of those who have caused a death by their own drink driving really do feel sorry (albeit too late) and find it extremely difficult to live with themselves after what they have done. Recent adverts campaigning against drink driving and also those against speeding have used a method where rather than concentrate on the mannequin which is struck down, the attention focuses on the driver and how he or she is affected. In the case of the drink driving ad that I remember, the driver is shown some time after he wrapped his car around a tree, as mentally retarded. The speed ad which I remember simply shows the dead woman in the background and the driver unable to cope mentally with the situation. Both I think are highly effective adverts which target what is really the main area of ignorance in this issue. Everyone knows the effects on a victim – they are terrible and tragic, but they are perhaps so familiar that they are easily forgotten.

Of course, the principal blame of drinking and driving is with the drivers themselves, who are not headstrong enough to leave the alcohol alone and ensure a clear head for the journey home. Drink driving laws are not the main reason that people drink and drive, but those in force in England certainly don’t help the situation.

A male driver is legally allowed the equivalent of a pint of average strength beer and is still allowed to drive a vehicle. This
is a little like sitting a child down with a huge slice of cake, and leaving him alone with it, telling him or her that he or she may only eat the marzipan. This may seem like a fairly ridiculous comparison, yet the sense of self-control is essentially the same as your average whino in the pub who owns a car and would quite like to use it to get home again. Allowing the public one drink legally is theoretically fine in the case of a responsible adult, as such a person can realistically assess whether they are in a fit state to drive after one drink, and wait accordingly if they are not. A responsible adult will also not venture on to a second beer, dismissing its effects as many people sadly do. I have been to a pub many times with the intention of having only one or two drinks (not when I have been driving, mind) and the beer has gone down REEEAL EASY! One turns into two, and two turns into a magical haze where kebabs are not only tasty, but they are also good for you and a stylish accessory in the street. This is, I am sure, what happens in the minds of those who drink-drive. Needless to say, everyone in the pub thinks they are responsible – this is why they would all do such a good job at running the country on their own. It is sad but true that many people falsely assume that they are responsible human beings, and use this in an irresponsible way. Thoughtlessness caused by the permission to have that one drink turns into carelessness once the booze starts to sink in. The law, as it is in many European countries, should be all or nothing – you either come to the pub in your car and drink soft drinks, or you don’t drive there in the first place. Such a law makes temptation less of an issue.

Also, a stricter law would make life easier for the police and less escapable for those who do drink and drive. There is a difficulty at the moment when someone is pulled over in that there is a blurry line separating almost at the limit a
nd arresting someone for being over it. A friend of mine who was in the police force told me about a demonstration they were shown as part of their training. One man drank over the limit in whiskey, ate some food, and waited a short space of time (short enough to still be over the limit). Another swilled whiskey in his mouth and spat it out, but was tested immediately. When they were tested, the first man, although registering that he had been drinking, did not register as having had enough not to drive. The second man, who had not had any alcohol, went straight into the red and would have been arrested. Some system, and some law which allows such a discrepancy to occur.

The bottom line is (obviously) that drinking and driving are, like combat trousers with flat shoes, incompatible and confirms that the culprit is senseless and foolish. But we really need a law which backs up the assertive nature of anti-drink driving adverts and doesn’t give the more weak-minded folk something which they see as an excuse for their behaviour.

Summary: