Richard Lacey, 70, appeared at Llandrindod Wells Magistrates’ Court this week, where he pleaded guilty to a single charge of drink driving, in Powys, last month.
Lacey, who is now retired but revealed he actually helped design breathalysers when he was in employment, had to use one of the devices after police were called to the scene of a road traffic collision on the A479 near Talgarth on November 23.
Lacey had mounted a roundabout in his Peugeot 208 Gt Puretech, damaging a wheel and leaving the vehicle completely immobile.
…
Representing himself at the hearing, Lacey said: “I’ve really got nothing to say. I misjudged how much I’d drunk.
“I had a couple of glasses of wine with lunch and a few pints of beer.
“I’m retired. I designed breathalysers and used to work with the police.”
Lacey was disqualified from driving for 13 months; he can reduce this ban by 13 weeks if he completes a drink drive awareness course.
He was also fined £600 and told to pay a £240 surcharge and £85 costs.
Jesus Christ. A “couple of glasses of wine and a few pints of beer” and he still reckoned he could drive? That’s basically how much I’d have if I was going for a piss-up.
People really should just stop drinking any alcohol if they’re going to drive.
Why is it called “drink driving” and not “drunk driving”?
“Drink driving” sounds like something a very drunk person would say.
Even one beer can potentially put you over the legal limit, ergo you won’t necessarily be drunk, as you’d judge it.
Should call it tipsy wipsy driving then.
Where and what one beer would put you over the limit?
a strong pint (like 5.5%apv) in the UK can put you over the legal limit
That really depends on the person.
yeah no 100%
A 50kg person will not have the same result as a 100kg person after the same amount of alcohol.
Yea, you’re wrong.
yeah, you’re dick.
if you think I don’t know that body weight effects blood APV and you’re helping then you come off like a dick while trying to be helpful.
if you just like to write more information on a topic then hit enter twice to get a new line so you can write “you’re wrong” as a separate statement because you spend time doing things like that, you’re a dick.
also, someone else already pointed out your mileage will vary per person, which I agreed with, of course. You either didn’t take the time to see what you said had already been posted, or you did see it and you just like to write “you’re wrong” to someone you don’t know on the internet, because you are a dick.
It’s just the British way of saying it
This is the same country where you can see a public figure stumble out of a bar, vomit, and pass out, and you’re not allowed to report “he was drunk” unless you walked over and did a blood-alcohol test. You’re not even allowed to imply it through understood shorthand.
Cant you.
Lived here most of my life. Never seen anyone critisized for calling a drunk drunk.
Because in genral. Being drunk os not a crime. So why the hell would anyone care how accurate you are being.
Calling and reporting are not the same thing.
Also you might wanna check in on how JK Rowling handles people accurately describing her politics.
Why would anyone report a drunk. It is not a crime. So why the hell would anyone listen to whining shits reporting them. The people being reported to have no authority to do anything based on being drunk alone.
What has JKR got to do with UK rules etc. She is just a mouthy idiot that has money. Not an official part of our legal structure.
Reporting… on. Like, in text, in a newspaper. Or on television.
We are talking about libel laws.
JK Rowling routinely abuses libel laws - which I think you’ll find are in fact part of your legal structure - to silence people who point out she’s a fucking bigot.
Ah, UK! Vs US English, I think. First off, libel laws in no way require blood alcohol testing to do anything, But I’ll add to this later. And to report may be a US interpretation, but in the UK a reporter does not report. A journalist writes. In UK English, reporting a person means passing info on to an authority figure. Although I will admit, many younger folks seem to mix US English nowadays. So it is getting more confusing.
We also do not tend (as a society) to judge people for getting drunk. Unless they are in charge of something. So newspapers etc rarely have reason to comment on an individual who stumble out of a bar, vomit, etc. Most would only give a shit if he was supposed to be elsewhere. They report on how much it happens as a social issue often.
But you are correct, our libel laws get out of hand. But what must fail to realise, it is not the formation of the law that is the issue. You can indeed indicate a person seems drunk if their actions would be interpreted as drunk. You will notice the word “seems” holds a lot of weight in that sentence. As honestly it should. There are many other reasons a person may exit a pub to vomit and pass out. It would be bad journalism not to consider the possibility of food poisoning or health issues. Honestly, if you see someone pass out, you should be calling for an ambulance drunk or not.
The issue with our laws is more the cost. Because anyone can accuse someone of libel. As It is a civil matter, not criminal. This means you tend to be required to prove yourself innocent once an individual brings the case. This leaves the wealthy able to use the law to silence others. As few are able to afford a defence. The real issue is that libel is a civil offence rather than a crime. A serious complexity in our old system.
Put bluntly, assuming you are in the UK. I am technically able to start a civil case against you for any darn reason I want. Technically, I could accuse you of libel for insulting my nation with your original comment. But to do so, I’d be required to pay all my own costs. As would you until you won. At that time, you can ask the court to assign costs. And in a case like that they likely would (because you would prove I suffered no harm from the claim). But if I am wealthy, you are likely bankrupt and having to back down before we get that far.
Just because you’ve had a few drinks, doesn’t mean you’re drunk.
You may not be drunk, but you have drunk, I suppose.
You have drunk from some vessel, and you have drank a drink that may leave you drunk.
Bloody English.
A guess. But to prevent folks claiming they are not drunk.
The UK has a long history of people thinking they can handle drink. When the law changed (1967), there were loads of news articles. With people claiming it did not affect their ability to drive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg
So the media likely used the word drink intentionally to indicate. Drinking alcohol is the crime. Not being drunk or not.
Because the Brits love to say things in a silly way and I’ll never understand why. Making words sound childish and immature is their favorite pastime.
