|
Post by johnbutlershair on Sept 2, 2017 23:29:30 GMT
But staring at a sat nav whilst driving - you could run down a whole queue of people waiting for a bus. You could also do the same daydreaming, switching cds, turning round to bollock your kids, ogling a woman at the side of the road. Hence why when you're driving you have to make sure you're in a fit enough condition to do so your concentration levels are high. If people are stupid enough to get pissed up and then think it's a good idea to drive then they don't deserve a licence. Difference is Rooney can afford to be chauffeured about.
|
|
|
Post by entropy92 on Sept 2, 2017 23:34:27 GMT
But staring at a sat nav whilst driving - you could run down a whole queue of people waiting for a bus. You could also do the same daydreaming, switching cds, turning round to bollock your kids, ogling a woman at the side of the road. Hence why when you're driving you have to make sure you're in a fit enough condition to do so your concentration levels are high. If people are stupid enough to get pissed up and then think it's a good idea to drive then they don't deserve a licence. Difference is Rooney can afford to be chauffeured about. Well does it not basically boil down to negligence? And if so why should someone be hanged for being over the limit while a woman gets just 3 points for putting her make up on while driving
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Sept 2, 2017 23:34:56 GMT
But staring at a sat nav whilst driving - you could run down a whole queue of people waiting for a bus. What's your point? Looking at your SAT nav is legal, and so it would be a terrible accident, drink driving is illegal and so cannot be considered an accident, so comparing the two things is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Sept 2, 2017 23:36:54 GMT
You could also do the same daydreaming, switching cds, turning round to bollock your kids, ogling a woman at the side of the road. Hence why when you're driving you have to make sure you're in a fit enough condition to do so your concentration levels are high. If people are stupid enough to get pissed up and then think it's a good idea to drive then they don't deserve a licence. Difference is Rooney can afford to be chauffeured about. Well does it not basically boil down to negligence? And if so why should someone be hanged for being over the limit while a woman gets just 3 points for putting her make up on while driving If a woman killed someone while putting on her makeup, it would be considered death by dangerous driving, the same conviction as McCormick.
|
|
|
Post by entropy92 on Sept 2, 2017 23:39:14 GMT
Well does it not basically boil down to negligence? And if so why should someone be hanged for being over the limit while a woman gets just 3 points for putting her make up on while driving If a woman killed someone while putting on her makeup, it would be considered death by dangerous driving, the same conviction as McCormick. Yeah ive heard of loads of cases like that lol the fact is the woman says I wasnt and tbats the end of it
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 23:40:00 GMT
But staring at a sat nav whilst driving - you could run down a whole queue of people waiting for a bus. You could also do the same daydreaming, switching cds, turning round to bollock your kids, ogling a woman at the side of the road. Hence why when you're driving you have to make sure you're in a fit enough condition to do so your concentration levels are high. If people are stupid enough to get pissed up and then think it's a good idea to drive then they don't deserve a licence. Difference is Rooney can afford to be chauffeured about. The thing is, if you killed a load of people in a bus queue, as long as you were not one degree over the alcohol limit, and not on your phone you would be ok. But if you were staring at your Sat Nav, or changing your music, you would still be ok. Presumably.
|
|
|
Post by entropy92 on Sept 2, 2017 23:40:26 GMT
Where as if she gets caught in the act she gets 3 points
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Sept 2, 2017 23:40:58 GMT
You could also do the same daydreaming, switching cds, turning round to bollock your kids, ogling a woman at the side of the road. Hence why when you're driving you have to make sure you're in a fit enough condition to do so your concentration levels are high. If people are stupid enough to get pissed up and then think it's a good idea to drive then they don't deserve a licence. Difference is Rooney can afford to be chauffeured about. Well does it not basically boil down to negligence? And if so why should someone be hanged for being over the limit while a woman gets just 3 points for putting her make up on while driving Both are negligent but you know the effects of being drunk. You simply cannot do it whilst driving. Both are fucking stupid
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Sept 2, 2017 23:42:13 GMT
If a woman killed someone while putting on her makeup, it would be considered death by dangerous driving, the same conviction as McCormick. Yeah ive heard of loads of cases like that lol the fact is the woman says I wasnt and tbats the end of it You have a warped sense of reality, I do hope your life is never destroyed by a drink driver.
|
|
|
Post by entropy92 on Sept 2, 2017 23:44:26 GMT
Im done with this thread anyway. You can say what u like. I agree drink driving is inexcusable but I dont agree with peoples hatsh judgment on It when you come accross dickheads EVERY day on their phone
|
|
|
Post by entropy92 on Sept 2, 2017 23:46:22 GMT
Yeah ive heard of loads of cases like that lol the fact is the woman says I wasnt and tbats the end of it You have a warped sense of reality, I do hope your life is never destroyed by a drink driver. Yeah so do I and I hope your life isnt destroyed by some fucker talking on the phone
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 23:51:54 GMT
But staring at a sat nav whilst driving - you could run down a whole queue of people waiting for a bus. What's your point? Looking at your SAT nav is legal, and so it would be a terrible accident, drink driving is illegal and so cannot be considered an accident, so comparing the two things is stupid. I suppose that I have very little regard to the laws that are made by very stupid people. I have a very clear view of what is right, and what is wrong. It must be the way that I was brought up by my parents. Just because killing people whilst looking at your Sat Nav might be lawful, I do not agree.
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Sept 2, 2017 23:52:27 GMT
You could also do the same daydreaming, switching cds, turning round to bollock your kids, ogling a woman at the side of the road. Hence why when you're driving you have to make sure you're in a fit enough condition to do so your concentration levels are high. If people are stupid enough to get pissed up and then think it's a good idea to drive then they don't deserve a licence. Difference is Rooney can afford to be chauffeured about. The thing is, if you killed a load of people in a bus queue, as long as you were not one degree over the alcohol limit, and not on your phone you would be ok. But if you were staring at your Sat Nav, or changing your music, you would still be ok. Presumably. You wouldn't be okay would you? Look at the lorry driver who killed a family if four because he was changing his music. His sentence is longer than McCormicks was. Driving negligently is fucking stupid but some people do it because they are simply stupid or woeful drivers. Choosing to drink and drive is willingly putting yourself and others at risk. That's why people go nuts about it
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Sept 2, 2017 23:54:49 GMT
What's your point? Looking at your SAT nav is legal, and so it would be a terrible accident, drink driving is illegal and so cannot be considered an accident, so comparing the two things is stupid. I suppose that I have very little regard to the laws that are made by very stupid people. I have a very clear view of what is right, and what is wrong. It must be the way that I was brought up by my parents. Just because killing people whilst looking at your Sat Nav might be lawful, I do not agree. It's not necessarily lawful. If your proven to be looking at your sat nav for too long you're done for negligent driving. Same goes with changing radio stations, cds etc. All perfectly legal as long as you're not being stupid about it. Drink driving though there's no grey area. You're either over the limit or you're not. If you are then expect the boom to be thrown at you
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 23:59:52 GMT
I suppose that I have very little regard to the laws that are made by very stupid people. I have a very clear view of what is right, and what is wrong. It must be the way that I was brought up by my parents. Just because killing people whilst looking at your Sat Nav might be lawful, I do not agree. It's not necessarily lawful. If your proven to be looking at your sat nav for too long you're done for negligent driving. Same goes with changing radio stations, cds etc. All perfectly legal as long as you're not being stupid about it. Drink driving though there's no grey area. You're either over the limit or you're not. If you are then expect the boom to be thrown at you I said that at the start here. Rooney will get a two year ban and a hefty fine. He will probably get judged harsher than any of us would be judged. Folks are suggesting here that he will "get off" because he is a celeb. That is not gong to happen.
|
|
|
Post by entropy92 on Sept 3, 2017 0:01:20 GMT
I suppose that I have very little regard to the laws that are made by very stupid people. I have a very clear view of what is right, and what is wrong. It must be the way that I was brought up by my parents. Just because killing people whilst looking at your Sat Nav might be lawful, I do not agree. It's not necessarily lawful. If your proven to be looking at your sat nav for too long you're done for negligent driving. Same goes with changing radio stations, cds etc. All perfectly legal as long as you're not being stupid about it. Drink driving though there's no grey area. You're either over the limit or you're not. If you are then expect the boom to be thrown at you Yeah your either over the limit or not. So I could have 1 swig of a beer more than I should of and be over the limit, classed as a reckless driver, been sentenced to death on here and been banned from driving by the courts.
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Sept 3, 2017 0:06:11 GMT
It's not necessarily lawful. If your proven to be looking at your sat nav for too long you're done for negligent driving. Same goes with changing radio stations, cds etc. All perfectly legal as long as you're not being stupid about it. Drink driving though there's no grey area. You're either over the limit or you're not. If you are then expect the boom to be thrown at you Yeah your either over the limit or not. So I could have 1 swig of a beer more than I should of and be over the limit, classed as a reckless driver, been sentenced to death on here and been banned from driving by the courts. You would be a reckless driver in my opinion but if you're slightly over the limit then you wouldn't get sentenced as harshly as someone who is six times over. It's an emotive subject which is why people sometimes react how they do to it.
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Sept 3, 2017 0:09:58 GMT
What's your point? Looking at your SAT nav is legal, and so it would be a terrible accident, drink driving is illegal and so cannot be considered an accident, so comparing the two things is stupid. I suppose that I have very little regard to the laws that are made by very stupid people. I have a very clear view of what is right, and what is wrong. It must be the way that I was brought up by my parents. Just because killing people whilst looking at your Sat Nav might be lawful, I do not agree. Nobody agrees. So, again, what's your point, relating to drink driving? You think the penalty for drink driving should be the same for causing an accident by looking at a SAT nav?
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Sept 3, 2017 0:10:49 GMT
It's not necessarily lawful. If your proven to be looking at your sat nav for too long you're done for negligent driving. Same goes with changing radio stations, cds etc. All perfectly legal as long as you're not being stupid about it. Drink driving though there's no grey area. You're either over the limit or you're not. If you are then expect the boom to be thrown at you I said that at the start here. Rooney will get a two year ban and a hefty fine. He will probably get judged harsher than any of us would be judged. Folks are suggesting here that he will "get off" because he is a celeb. That is not gong to happen. I agree with that.
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Sept 3, 2017 0:11:36 GMT
You have a warped sense of reality, I do hope your life is never destroyed by a drink driver. Yeah so do I and I hope your life isnt destroyed by some fucker talking on the phone Me too, both are equally as bad.
|
|
|
Post by entropy92 on Sept 3, 2017 0:12:52 GMT
Yeah your either over the limit or not. So I could have 1 swig of a beer more than I should of and be over the limit, classed as a reckless driver, been sentenced to death on here and been banned from driving by the courts. You would be a reckless driver in my opinion but if you're slightly over the limit then you wouldn't get sentenced as harshly as someone who is six times over. It's an emotive subject which is why people sometimes react how they do to it. No u wouldnt get the same punishment. But you would still get 12 months mandatory ban and I predict Rooney will get 18 months
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 0:14:25 GMT
Got to love the moral high ground stance people are taking on this thread. He got caught 3 times over, thats equivalent to around 6 pints, u never done it youself? Good for u if u havent give yourselves a pat on the back ffs. Its gone from being something that was acceptable in the 80s and 90s (look at only fools and horses for example) to something un excusable nowadays. Yes I have been caught before but fuck me some of you make out like it should be a death sentence. Drink does silly things and when u have your car keys on you it tends to make things worse for u. It's a death sentence for the victims of drink drivers. Those caught should banned for years. 2 or 3 minimum. I don't want to share the road with drunks like you. Just like I don't want to share the road with fuckwits who are texting, yapping on their phone, otherwise distracted, under the influence, or just plain stupid, ignorant, selfish, shitty drivers. Have a word with yourself. Fucking idiot.
|
|
|
Post by entropy92 on Sept 3, 2017 0:19:37 GMT
Got to love the moral high ground stance people are taking on this thread. He got caught 3 times over, thats equivalent to around 6 pints, u never done it youself? Good for u if u havent give yourselves a pat on the back ffs. Its gone from being something that was acceptable in the 80s and 90s (look at only fools and horses for example) to something un excusable nowadays. Yes I have been caught before but fuck me some of you make out like it should be a death sentence. Drink does silly things and when u have your car keys on you it tends to make things worse for u. It's a death sentence for the victims of drink drivers. Those caught should banned for years. 2 or 3 minimum. I don't want to share the road with drunks like you. Just like I don't want to share the road with fuckwits who are texting, yapping on their phone, otherwise distracted, under the influence, or just plain stupid, ignorant, selfish, shitty drivers. Have a word with yourself. Fucking idiot. Missed my point u "fucking idiot"
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Sept 3, 2017 0:28:50 GMT
It's a death sentence for the victims of drink drivers. Those caught should banned for years. 2 or 3 minimum. I don't want to share the road with drunks like you. Just like I don't want to share the road with fuckwits who are texting, yapping on their phone, otherwise distracted, under the influence, or just plain stupid, ignorant, selfish, shitty drivers. Have a word with yourself. Fucking idiot. Missed my point u "fucking idiot" So what was your point, you implied that it was acceptable in the 80s and 90s because it was shown on Only Fools and Horses which was a comedy show. It was never acceptable in them decades.
|
|
|
Post by entropy92 on Sept 3, 2017 0:35:36 GMT
Missed my point u "fucking idiot" So what was your point, you implied that it was acceptable in the 80s and 90s because it was shown on Only Fools and Horses which was a comedy show. It was never acceptable in them decades. You either get what im trying to say or not. Goodnight
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 0:38:41 GMT
I suppose that I have very little regard to the laws that are made by very stupid people. I have a very clear view of what is right, and what is wrong. It must be the way that I was brought up by my parents. Just because killing people whilst looking at your Sat Nav might be lawful, I do not agree. Nobody agrees. So, again, what's your point, relating to drink driving? You think the penalty for drink driving should be the same for causing an accident by looking at a SAT nav? My point is. You were saying that killing people whilst looking at a Sat Nav is legal and therefore ok (Let's just call it an accident). Killing people whilst under the influence is illegal and therefore not ok. I am not in anyway suggesting that drink driving is ok. I'm suggesting that law should be consistent and not be prejudiced against mobile phone users, as against Sat Nav watchers - they are equally guilty IMO. Also. To be classed as a "drunk driver" - I would suggest that someone needs to be "drunk". One degree over the limit, may class someone, legally, to be unfit to drive, but that really is a pretty useless definition. Men, women, large small. fat. thin, tall, short .... one limit for all. Just one degree over a statutory limit does not always define a "drunk driver". I can say that my wife with a quarter of the legal limit to drive would be very unsafe. She isn't a habitual drinker. Getting to the point - if someone is negligent whilst driving and kills someone - whether the cause is obsession with mobile phone or Sat Nav, or alcohol -yes the same penalty should apply. I will put an "edit" here. I never, ever drink and drive. Not a drop.
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Sept 3, 2017 0:43:28 GMT
Nobody agrees. So, again, what's your point, relating to drink driving? You think the penalty for drink driving should be the same for causing an accident by looking at a SAT nav? My point is. You were saying that killing people whilst looking at a Sat Nav is legal and therefore ok (Let's just call it an accident). Killing people whilst under the influence is illegal and therefore not ok. I am not in anyway suggesting that drink driving is ok. I'm suggesting that law should be consistent and not be prejudiced against mobile phone users, as against Sat Nav watchers - they are equally guilty IMO. Also. To be classed as a "drunk driver" - I would suggest that someone needs to be "drunk". One degree over the limit, may class someone, legally, to be unfit to drive, but that really is a pretty useless definition. Men, women, large small. fat. thin, tall, short .... one limit for all. Just one degree over a statutory limit does not always define a "drunk driver". I can say that my wife with a quarter of the legal limit to drive would be very unsafe. She isn't a habitual drinker. Getting to the point - if someone is negligent whilst driving and kills someone - whether the cause is obsession with mobile phone or Sat Nav, or alcohol -yes the same penalty should apply. The same penalty does apply. Look at the lorry driver who killed the family in Sandbach in 2009 whilst looking at a laptop. He got a worse sentence than McCormick did. The point is drink driving is worse. Your distracted whilst using a phone for the duration of the time on the phone which is probably maximum a minute to 5 minutes. Drink driving is from the second you get in the car to the end of the journey so generally a lot longer time period and therefore more dangerous. Personally I think mobile phone usage of any kind should be banned in cars and a zero limit on drink driving but that's just my opinion
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Sept 3, 2017 0:45:55 GMT
Nobody agrees. So, again, what's your point, relating to drink driving? You think the penalty for drink driving should be the same for causing an accident by looking at a SAT nav? My point is. You were saying that killing people whilst looking at a Sat Nav is legal and therefore ok (Let's just call it an accident). Killing people whilst under the influence is illegal and therefore not ok. I am not in anyway suggesting that drink driving is ok. I'm suggesting that law should be consistent and not be prejudiced against mobile phone users, as against Sat Nav watchers - they are equally guilty IMO. Also. To be classed as a "drunk driver" - I would suggest that someone needs to be "drunk". One degree over the limit, may class someone, legally, to be unfit to drive, but that really is a pretty useless definition. Men, women, large small. fat. thin, tall, short .... one limit for all. Just one degree over a statutory limit does not always define a "drunk driver". I can say that my wife with a quarter of the legal limit to drive would be very unsafe. She isn't a habitual drinker. Getting to the point - if someone is negligent whilst driving and kills someone - whether the cause is obsession with mobile phone or Sat Nav, or alcohol -yes the same penalty should apply. No, I never once said if you kill someone because you looked at your SAT nav it would be ok, what I said is, I imagine it would be classed as an accident. If you are talking my words are "Drunk" driver then you are correct, one degree over the limit may not make someone drunk, but it would make their reactions impaired. Anyway, I think we are basically on the same page bud.
|
|
|
Post by scfcrmagic on Sept 3, 2017 2:05:32 GMT
Not taking moral high ground sides here.....just wanted to say what an idiot Rooney is ..suspected it all along especially after grangate (the incident with the ladies of ill repute) the likes of which are often found round Cobridge of an evening....allegedly...I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Colleen gets hold of him....snigger
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 2:23:48 GMT
Not taking moral high ground sides here.....just wanted to say what an idiot Rooney is ..suspected it all along especially after grangate (the incident with the ladies of ill repute) the likes of which are often found round Cobridge of an evening....allegedly...I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Colleen gets hold of him....snigger Isn't it funny how so many people do not want to take the "morally high ground", and then shove their knives in. Football fans for you, I suppose.
|
|