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?

Your judgment wasn't impaired when you decided to drink too much!

No, but the decision to drive may have been taken whilst already impaired. Whereas speeders are either fully aware of what they are doing and think it's fine for them to ignore, or fully in control of their faculties but just not bothering to pay attention to what they're doing. Both of which are worse imo.

@MindyStClaire

I think there are degrees of seriousness for speeding - couldn't get worked up about 75 on the motorway, or not noticing a temporarary limit, not slowing quickly enough downhill etc. Whereas drink driving is open and shut for me, regardless of the level someone is over.

This. I don’t feel remotely guilty doing 80 on an almost deserted motorway. No way would I drive after even one drink.

15 years ago I was driving in an unfamiliar road, at night. I actually thought it was maybe a 40 mph road. It turned out it was a 30mph road, a camera flashed me.
I got 3 points and a fine.

I was actually did 36mph according to the paper work.

I wouldn’t class that as the same as drink driving.

Obviously someone doing 80mph on a 50mph road is different.

There's speeding, speeding and speeding.
Driving to road conditions and being prepared for hazards is one thing. If you're doing 78mph on a dual carriageway with a substantial space and see a lorry moving into lane 2, you can react and modify your speed accordingly. It's a reasonably anticipated driving style and in isolation highly unlikely to attract the attention of the police.

110mph is being a berk because the chances are high that another road user will fail to spot you and the chances of braking sharply and losing control are also pretty high.

Driving nose to tail at 69mph in poor weather may not be speeding, but it's not a safe driving style as there's insufficient reaction/ braking time.

There's a 40mph country road near me that was brought down from NSL after a crash where a young driver, high on amphetamines took a sharp bend at 63mph killing everyone in the car. I could legally take that bend at 40mph, but 30mph is plenty. Half a mile later where the road straightens out, 50mph is often safe, but a blanket 40mph was put on the whole area which suits neither the bends nor the straights. It probably averages out about right, but to do the entire section at 40mph with a speed limit is a target attitude would be very risky.

If a driver has been drinking, they can't adapt and change the impact that that has on their reactions and judgement. You're stuck with that alcohol until your liver slowly deals with it.

Speeding is far more variable in its potential for harm. It's also dealt with with more variation according to context.

@Agrudge

Well many people travel fast over there and the death rate isnt high. I got over taken by a smart car, it was very embarrassing

There are less people though. If you looked at the stats and compared them to the uks on a similar scale, then the stats might not actually be that different. Dunno what they are though.

@RegardingMary

To me the difference is if someone goes out to a put necks 8 pints and gets in a car and drives it, they've premeditated it, they're a danger from the minute they get in the car until they get out it. It doesn't change if there on a highly built up street or outside a school.

Someone speeding may have thought, ohvits quiet here, I'll speed up. As soon as they drop their speed they're back at low risk.

I'm not excusing either.

Agree. And the aspect of premeditation isn’t just about falling out of the pub, looking at the lonely bus stop, feeling your car keys in your pocket and deciding to risk it - in other words just a choice on that particular night, it’s about a more general attitude to it. There’s a statistic from the US Bureau of Investigation that the average drunk driver has driven drunk around 80 times before they’re actually caught. If correct it demonstrates more than a silly impaired decision; more an attitude that includes waking up in the next morning and thinking that it’s ok to continue if there’s no impact on them or “I got away with it”. I’ve known a few drunk drivers in my time and they were all habitual and regular drunk drivers who made the decision to continue with that behaviour (or not put a stop to it) when they were sober

I don't think so, no.

I drive at or below the speed limit almost everywhere, to the point my friends call me the Nana Driver - but if I'm on the motorway early in the morning and there's no other cars around (which happens often - the motorway I use is a 3 junction offshoot that only goes to one place which everyone commutes out of, so I'm going against the flow of traffic, and I can frequently travel the entire length of it without another car going my direction), I feel more than comfortable doing 80mph - obviously conditions depending.

If you're over the limit, you're choosing to get into a car when your judgement is impaired. Choosing to go 10mph faster on an empty, straight motorway in dry conditions and daylight is a judgement made on the surroundings, in sound mind. There's a difference, I think. On A/B roads there's the potential for people, horses, etc to be around (and rarely the opportunity to speed even if you wanted to) so I wouldn't anyway, but motorways... yeah, I don't feel guilty about that.

Mumsnet always tickles me a bit: I'm not by any means saying it's right, because in many situations it's clearly not, but I drive thousands of miles a year for work and if I'm doing 70 in the work car in the inside lane, I'm getting passed constantly. So lots of people - I'd say 60% - are doing more than 70 on the motorway*. Unless all the non-speeders are here, it seems odd!

*Apart from that one Honda Jazz that's always doing fucking 50

@YouokHun I imagine that applies just as much to speeding though. Most people will have broken the speed limit loads before they are caught. Plenty of people posting on here that they think it’s safe to go faster on certain roads.

Both are bad (esp. if exceeding the speed limit by an insane amount), but imo they're not the same. Driving buzzed is worse than driving very slightly over the speed limit. But driving sober at breakneck speeds is worse than driving slightly buzzed at a very low speed.

I've driven when I was really too sleep-deprived for safety. I was young and stupid. Didn't realise how tired I was and how it was affecting me. Fortunately nothing happened, but there was a scary moment. I learned my lesson and won't do that again.

If speeding, I can still make judgements about the road, the conditions, how to drive - I can leave plenty of space between me and the car in front, slow down appropriately for hazards and be aware of other vehicles and road users.

I couldn't do any of that if I was drink driving.

I also think there is a difference in how and where you speed. Doing 90mph down the dual carriageway when the road is clear and visibility is good - probably pretty safe. Doing 90mph down a busy single carriageway at rush hour, in and out of my lane in to the oncoming lane, overtaking on bends, pulling in directly in front of a heavy lorry on the approach to a roundabout - not safe. If I'd been drink driving, I probably wouldn't have the insight to make that judgement. I don't think the two are morally equivalent at all.

There is speeding as in exceeding the posted speed limit, then there is driving at an inappropriate speed - which can be less than the posted speed limit.
It is possible to driving perfectly safely and appropriately at a speed in excess of the posted speed limit.
The same cannot be said for drink driving.

80mph on a quiet motorway on a dry sunny day is far safer than 69mph on the same motorway in pouring rain at rush hour yet one is legal and the other is likened to driving after 5 pints. Yet an identical road (with the same hazards and risks) in a different jurisdiction, that 80mph could be perfectly legal and thus not a danger by the argument being proposed.
Speed itself, not speed in relation to an arbitrary limit figure is the issue

What about driving tired? It impairs your judgement and slows reaction times but I know that with 2 small children - particularly when the second one was a newborn I drove tired a lot.
I would never drink drive but I did drive tired. I remember once stopping at traffic lights and I could feel my eyes closing while waiting for them to go green again.
It's worrying and I'm lucky nothing bad happened. There's not the same moral outrage about it though - I guess because it's not so much of a conscious choice as drink driving or speeding but the consequences could be just as bad.