if you had drank two beers (average strength, not pints but bottles)and needed to drive somewhere in an emergency, can it be justified?

obviousley if you hit a person etc it would be a different story.

 

Never! There is always a way around it if you have been drinking.

 

if there wasnt a way round it, what then?

if its a matter of life and death?

 

Two average strength bottles probably wouldn't put you over the limit.

I don't think it can ever be justified, an ambulance or the police can always be called upon in an emergency.

Say you did take someone elses life trying to rush someone somewhere to try and save there's, for that reason it could never be justified.

 

Very rarely and in a way beyond my understanding there have been people who have defended speeding charges on the basis that they were using their vehicle as an ambulance. I have no idea how successful the defence was, I just have a vague recollection of it happening. With this in mind, in terms of the law, there might just be a defence if you have clever representation but I wouldn't bet on it.

In moral terms then I guess the question is along the lines of "Is it reasonable to risk killing someone in order to save someone who will certainly die?" In view of the complexity of such a question this thread probably has about another 5 minutes before it appears in muppets.

 

I'm interested when would there be a situation with no way round it? I'm just trying to think what knd of thing you mean.

 

You missed the bit where I said there is always a way around it.

 

if you had to get someone to hospital and waiting for an ambulance would be fatal....

 

Depends on the person. I can quite happily down several beers and still drive perfectly safely.

A lightweight might be dangerous after a single beer....

The drink drive limit is a completely arbitrary limit.

 

Then you put their needs first and you don't drink.

 

i hope you was joking

 

you dont plan when you might need to act in am emergency

 

No. Why would I be joking?

Two beers has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever so I wouldn't hesitate to drive in an emergency.

Are you a lightweight?

 

After two bottles, yes. But only if it really was a life or death emergency and there were no alternatives.

 

you said you could drive perfectly after several bears

thats just wrong

 

By driving someone while over the drink drive limit you would be putting others lifes at risk, I don't think a childs life is worth less than a heart attack victim or whatever situation so no it's never acceptable.

I'm sure people do it though.

 

Well in more remote areas there is often only one ambulance on cover overnight. Should it be on a call and at some distance from the hospital then it may be a matter of perhaps 2 hours before it would be with you while the actual car journey to hospital may only be half an hour. I can think of one location where this is not a hypothetical situation and it probably applies in other areas as well.

 

This is a toughie.
If I had only drank two small bottles of beer, and say I got a call about one of my kids in danger, then yes I would risk it. Living out in the sticks, a taxi would not be quick enough, nor an ambulance.
Saying that, I have never ever had a drink and drove, it's not worth it.

 

i suppose if it was in the middle of the night in a remote area it might be okish

 

Bears? No more beers for THAT woman!

It's not wrong. Just because you are a lightweight and have been brain washed into thinking that being over an arbitrary government limit is worse than rape doesn't mean people can't drive perfectly competently after 5 or 6 bottles.

With my blood volume it would probably take that much to push me over the limit anyway.

 

lol, BEERS then

 

lol here come the hypotheticals

a) Someone IS going to die if you don't drive them to the hospital
b) A snivelling brat out past their bedtime MIGHT get run over in the process

It's obvious, on balance of probability you should still drive!

 

This is really very simple.

Is it against the law? yes it is, and if caught you will be punished and would be VERY VERY lucky to get off with it. If you hurt someone you will face the full force of the law.

SHould you do it? Thats a VERY different question, the reason the law says no is that you are at a greater risk of an RTA...but if the risk of your child dying is 95% then you should go for it....because the chance of an RTA is less than that (you would hope) and so is the chance of being caught. If you are caught or have an RTA then luck was against you and neither event will be any better despite your reasons for driving.

thats life.

Rhino

 

what proof do you have that drink has no effect?

 

The problem with that statement, in the context of a moral argument, is that you imply that it is reasonable to risk the life of a rural dweller walking or cycling home in the early hours of the morning (as is common in some rural areas) while it is not reasonable to risk the life of an urban dweller under similar circumstances.

A rural dweller might think that, as most town centres are relatively empty in the middle of the night, it would be OK to do it in the town but not in the countryside where they know that people often walk or cycle during the night because it is quiet and safe to do so.

So, based upon this argument, you are of the view that the life of someone living in the town is worth more than the life of someone living in a remote area. You must then factor this into your initial set of conditions: is the life you are saving rural or urban and are the people you potentially put at risk rural or urban? Does this change the system of values and the answer you might give?

 

 

i suppose in a real emergency you would forget that you have had a couple of drinks anyway.

 

Ah but this is probably not the way a court would view it, quite the opposite in fact.

If you are caught speeding, say, and you give one of the following statements to a court:

1) I was late for work and so drifted over the limit
2) I noticed the road was clear and as I drive a performance car decided to test it's abilities.

The court is most likely to look favourably upon the second rather than, as might be expected, the first. The reasoning is that the person making the first statement was not fully in control of their actions and so may have been unaware of the implications and likely outcomes. It would, therefore, be the duty of the court to impose a penalty to remind such a person of the likely outcomes in future.

The person making the 2nd statement was clearly in control of their circumstances and made a reasoned decision to take the action they took and it is likely that they took all the risks and outcomes into consideration. With this in mind they are likely to suffer a less severe penalty because they are likely to have had the control of their circumstances such that they would have slowed down while the person making excuse number 1 was not in this position.

So, potentially, a court may look less favourably upon someone on a mercy mission than it would upon someone just out driving quickly because it was safe to do so.

Which leads me to conclude that in both legal and moral terms this question is far from simple.

 

lol here we go.... the bit where I have to justify myself.

Ok, I'll humour you... for now...

What proof?.... Let's see now....

How about.... I'm ******* telling you it has no effect.

Prove two beers has a measurable effect on my driving. Imbecile.

 

Totally agree.I will already be fcuked up with one reason of this kind where i will find myself helpless.I would never want to cause myself another stress if I hurt someone on the road.For someone like me,half a wine glass is enough to make me dizzy.