AIBU to think drink driving and speeding are morally equivalent

[Highdaysandholidaze]

One gets treated as unforgivable, the other as a peccadillo. The sort of thing we all do, so it can’t be that bad.

But drink driving isn’t bad in and of itself. If someone wants to down a bottle of gin and drive round a deserted island then good luck to them. Drink driving is bad because it increases the risk of hurting or killing other people.

Speeding’s the same, isn’t it? It increases your odds of hurting or killing someone.

Does it make it worse if you kill someone with your car because you’re half cut rather than if you’re over the limit?

One defence people seem to have is that their speeding wasn’t dangerous. They’ll say that the speed limit was silly in that area, or that there wasn’t anyone else on the road.

But people used to say the same sort of stuff about drink driving. And tbh Lewis Hamilton will have better reflexes after four beers than I do sober.

So, AIBU?

It's on the police programs . Is one of the signs of a possible drink driver

The major difference between the 2 is that drink/drug driving impairs your judgement so you are much slower to recognise danger & react to it. Speeding, although still an offence doesn't impair your judgement but does cut down your reaction time when faced with danger. Doing 37 in a 30 is still an offence but you'll probably still be able to react & stop in time. Doing 25 in a 30 whilst drunk or drugged up, you're less likely to see someone cross the road & run them over!

@PurpleDaisies

I read things, and sometimes remember them.

You can understand why that doesn’t seem like a very reliable source of information.

Your question was how I know it.

Yes, it is the same.

You are responsible for a vehicle and you should use that accordingly and stay on full safe, control of that car to prevent it being used as a weapon.

Do I ever speed, yes I do.
Is it right, no it's absolutely not but I can own the mistakes I make and don't try to defend them, I do try to be more compliant though.

The difference is premeditation, which is reflected in culpability for a number of criminal acts, e.g. murder - the law says murdering someone is worse if you plan it than if it is a crime of passion.

No one gets in the car intending to speed. Drink drivers get in the car over the limit intending to drink drive.

I agree if you’re the person hit you may not care which, just as if you’re the person murdered you don’t care if it’s planned or not - but it is a concept well reflected in law.

It’s also harder to prevent speeding - I literally never drink and drive, even a tiny amount, as then there’s no grey area. Therefore I totally prevent the possibility. If I could put a gadget in my car to literally prevent me being able to speed I would, but these aren’t available despite the technology being possible.

No one gets in the car intending to speed. Drink drivers get in the car over the limit intending to drink drive.

I disagree, if someone is running late, they know they are going to be speeding to get where they need to be on time.
Some people just like driving fast and it's the norm to do 80/90 on the motorway that's not an accident.
Cars have sensors now that you can set to alarm you when you go over a certain speed
Cars have cruise control that you can set.

A lot of drink divers are caught the next day, adamant they are fine. Some jump in the car after eating out, working out how long they have been there so it's fine to have 2 pints and they have miscalculated it, not all drink drivers are on mad nights out, stumbling around, some it's a mistake and they are just over.

If I could put a gadget in my car to literally prevent me being able to speed I would, but these aren’t available despite the technology being possible.

That’s literally what my speed limiter does.

(I really do need to step away from this thread)

@Ifailed

50 years ago, drink driving (amongst men) was routine, and getting caught was seen to be 'bad luck'. Since then things have moved on, helped by government campaigns, to the point that most people would see it as reprehensible (although I know several men in the late 60s/70s who still persist). Speeding is routine by many drivers, men and women, and getting caught is seen as 'bad luck', with speed cameras labelled as unfair and a 'tax' on drivers. Plenty of people think themselves above the law, and believe their driving skills are so superior that they can ignore speed limits. Is it going to take another government campaign to change this?

Completely agree

If I could put a gadget in my car to literally prevent me being able to speed I would, but these aren’t available despite the technology being possible.

You have eyes. If you cannot monitor and be aware of your own speed, you really should not be driving a car if your concentration can not be such that it keeps you and others safe.

I actually think speeding is worse - at least with drink driving the alcohol has impaired your judgment.

@PattyPan

I actually think speeding is worse - at least with drink driving the alcohol has impaired your judgment.

Sorry, “at least the alcohol has impaired your judgement”? What does that even mean?

I think speeding it depends, where's drink driving there's no excuse other than you are a dick. Ofcourse, you can be a dick if you speed, but for example, I got caught speeding on a 30 going 37, because the road used to be a 40 and I hadn't realised it was now a 30

@etulosba

It's the way people have been conditioned

It could be generational. I am old enough to remember when there were no speed limits in the UK. Outside built areas, that is.

You see I'm not , I'm 37. But I know theres more to dangerous driving than go faster then a number in a metal circle

@FudgeSundae

The difference is premeditation, which is reflected in culpability for a number of criminal acts, e.g. murder - the law says murdering someone is worse if you plan it than if it is a crime of passion.

No one gets in the car intending to speed. Drink drivers get in the car over the limit intending to drink drive.

I agree if you’re the person hit you may not care which, just as if you’re the person murdered you don’t care if it’s planned or not - but it is a concept well reflected in law.

It’s also harder to prevent speeding - I literally never drink and drive, even a tiny amount, as then there’s no grey area. Therefore I totally prevent the possibility. If I could put a gadget in my car to literally prevent me being able to speed I would, but these aren’t available despite the technology being possible.

Well that's not totally true. Loads of people drive not caring if they speed or not, and some do set out to deliberately speed, whether because they don't want to drive slower or because they are late, makes no difference.

Escooters for hire in London are fitted with speed limitiers and geo fenced so the speed limit is low on some routes (shared paths) than others.

I don't understand why cars are not required to be fitted with the same speed limiting tech.

Lorries are often fitted with speed limitiers and some delivery vans are - along with black boxes recording the speed travelled and braking patterns to identify terrible drivers.

We should stop treating driving as a right and be much stricter on limiting who can do it and demand high standards.
It's the greatest threat of harm to our children (death and serious injuries)

I would think they mean because of the alcohol your decision making capabilities are worse. Where if your speeding you thinking clearly

Attitudes to drink driving were hugely changed by government advertising. Wish we had the same for speeding- this sort of thingwww.youtube.com/watch?v=B2rFTbvwteo

There is quite a hard hitting ad that I've seen a few times recently, about speeding, with a dad driving in a car with 2 kids.

I do agree with some pp that sometimes it depends on conditions and time. I used to regularly drive along a 3 lane road into London. The speed limit was 40mph. During the day it was so busy it was virtually impossible to do more than about 20mph. At night, if dry and good visibilty it was easy to creep over 40 on what was essentially like a motorway in a non residential area.

I'm always surprised at speed limits on narrow, country lanes. Often the speed limit is 60mph which to me seems strange on roads, with limited visibility (hedges, winding roads) where 2 cars can not pass safely at various points, and will need to slow down significantly.

Yabu.

"Speeding" is a concept defined by arbitrary laws. Take the motorway speed limit for example, this has been the same since the 1960s and hasn't been adjusted to reflect the massive improvements in car performance, road condition (arguable I know), or volume of traffic.

Similarly, 10 years ago you could drive through Edinburgh at 30mph without a worry, now you'd be 10mph over the limit in most places in the city. It wasn't any safer to driver at 30mph back then just because that was the speed limit.

What IS as bad as drink driving, and something that I see constantly, is driving too fast for the conditions whether that involves exceeding the speed limit or not. It is far less dangerous to do 90mph on a clear, straight motorway in good conditions than it is to do 50mph on a snowy, wet, busy motorway.

@MojoMoon

Escooters for hire in London are fitted with speed limitiers and geo fenced so the speed limit is low on some routes (shared paths) than others.

I don't understand why cars are not required to be fitted with the same speed limiting tech.

Lorries are often fitted with speed limitiers and some delivery vans are - along with black boxes recording the speed travelled and braking patterns to identify terrible drivers.

We should stop treating driving as a right and be much stricter on limiting who can do it and demand high standards.
It's the greatest threat of harm to our children (death and serious injuries)

Well isnt North Korea we are free to make our own decisions right or wrong

Speeding wise there is a HUGE difference between doing 80 in 70 compared to 30 in a 20 etc.

I had to do a speed course, average speed cameras for a temporary 60 stretch that was usually 70 at 2am in the morning. The police officer delivering that said along the same lines.

I'm more in control of my car at 80 in a 70 than I could ever be even slightly over the limit.

*this isnt North Korea

We dont need more controlling in the uk

With speeding it really depends on the speed, 10% over the speed limit while overtaking or taking your eyes off the speedo is completely different to recklessly driving way over the limit.
Also, doing 80 mph on the motorway is very different to doing 30 mph on a 20 mph outside a school for example.

[quote Highdaysandholidaze]@JuergenSchwarzwald

You may well be an excellent driver, but you’re not in control of physics.

It will take you longer to brake from 40 than from 30. If you hit someone (a daft drunk pedestrian, a feckless cyclist without lights or high vis, a child) at 40 you’re more likely to kill them than at 40.

And as I said above Lewis Hamilton will have quicker reflexes drunk than I do sober. So is it okay for him to drink and drive?[/quote]
OP I would judge someone who killed someone whilst speeding the same as I would judge someone who killed someone whilst drink driving. But if neither of those people killed anyone, I would judge the drink driver regardless, I'd only judge the speeder if they were doing ridiculous speeds in a ridiculous location (I.e if they were doing 60 in a 30 I'd judge them, if they were doing 40 in a 30 I probs wouldn't)

Purpledaisies, it means there is literally no excuse to speed because your judgment is not impaired, you're just choosing to drive dangerously

@Keke94LND

Calm down. That sound dangerously like common sense