A sobering read

[Paul in NZ]

Not just because we share the road with these drop kicks but because of the effect of the accident on the others around it..

Sounds horrendous and the driver needs shooting...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9863081/Officer-will-never-forgive-man-for-killing-his-mate

[James Deuce]

Oh look, and indignant policeman. Obviously not in the same category as a motorcyclist as he's allowed to have a voice in the media. Plenty of people suffer the same way. Most of them get vilified for being a drain on the taxpayer. But a policeman? Brave defender of public freedom? His pain is worse.

Cry me a river.

[Robbo]

That's a pretty shit comment James. Are your meds not working this morning. :angry:

[Paul in NZ]

Well yes he is a Policeman but he is speaking as a motorcyclist. Worlds overlap, even for motorcyclists... Rather than get hung up about his job applaud the fact that one motorcyclist found a way to get his voice heard over a tragic and frankly horrendous incident.

[p.dath]

Oh look, and indignant policeman. Obviously not in the same category as a motorcyclist as he's allowed to have a voice in the media. Plenty of people suffer the same way. Most of them get vilified for being a drain on the taxpayer. But a policeman? Brave defender of public freedom? His pain is worse.

Cry me a river.

Come come James. The point of the article has nothing to do with him being a Policeman, and citing such a distraction detracts from the problem. And as you well know, sensationalism sells advertising, which is what the owners of commercial media want. I'm certain you could get onto mainstream media in a story like this if you wanted.


It seems from this article the problem is a person who has no respect for others, and as a consequence, no respect for their rules (aka, the law of the land). He has nothing, and hence "punishments" that take things away from him will have little impact.

There is probably only one thing he highly values, and that is alcohol. Figure out a way to take that away from him and you'll certainly have his attention.

[Crasherfromwayback]

John was one of our reg customers. Was a nasty accident with lots of peeps having to see it.

[SMOKEU]

If he had 6 previous convictions for EBA like the article states, then he should have been in jail so the accident could not have occurred. It's yet another failure of the NZ government where they don't really care until someone dies. This guy is going to be out of jail within 2-3 years, and then I bet he will be up to the same old tricks until there's yet another victim. Kill it with fire.

[willytheekid]

Read that and was disgusted as well Paul.

Ive been hit by three drunk drivers in my 30+yrs of riding...I hate them with a fucking passion!
...I hope that cop meets up with that drunk driving prick in a dark ally one night...and doesn't hold ANYTHING back!

Never nice to lose a mate:no:...but when it happens right in front of you....the memory of it stays with you for the rest of your life!:bye:

And the drunken prick not ONLY left the fucken scene..but went on to drunk drive again-

"As people tended to the injured, Whalley left the scene, walking about 200 metres to his home. Whalley has six previous drink driving convictions and was also arrested after getting back behind the wheel two weeks after the crash on December 19, 2012, the day after Wilson died in hospital."

..obviously learnt from his actions :angry2:...now just watch the NZ "justice" system slap this prick with a wet bus ticket so he can go on to kill another innocent!


RIP John...loving thoughts to his family and friends...especially his mate who had to watch this horror unfold

[willytheekid]

Oh look, and indignant policeman. Obviously not in the same category as a motorcyclist as he's allowed to have a voice in the media. Plenty of people suffer the same way. Most of them get vilified for being a drain on the taxpayer. But a policeman? Brave defender of public freedom? His pain is worse.

Cry me a river.

:no:....not called for James

Poor guys just lost his best mate...right in front of his eyes.

Im glad he's using the media to highlight this inccident, he's a fellow rider thats lost a friend to another drink driving fuckwit!...a repeat drink driver at that!, anything that helps get these fuckers off the road is a good thing :yes:

[Paul in NZ]

John was one of our reg customers. Was a nasty accident with lots of peeps having to see it.

Yeah - not sure 'accident' describes this Pete....

[Edbear]

Yeah - not sure 'accident' describes this Pete....

IMHO, anyone like this should face a mandatory Manslaughter charge with Murder as an upgrade option. The US has Vehicular Homicide, don't we? These people know full well what they are doing, it's no "accident"! Same with anyone driving an unwarranted vehicle that has an accident due to a vehicle fault.

[Trade_nancy]

Oh look, and indignant policeman. Obviously not in the same category as a motorcyclist as he's allowed to have a voice in the media. Plenty of people suffer the same way. Most of them get vilified for being a drain on the taxpayer. But a policeman? Brave defender of public freedom? His pain is worse.

Cry me a river.

Pretty pathetic comment. Better not said dropkick.

[TheDemonLord]

IMHO, anyone like this should face a mandatory Manslaughter charge with Murder as an upgrade option. The US has Vehicular Homicide, don't we? These people know full well what they are doing, it's no "accident"! Same with anyone driving an unwarranted vehicle that has an accident due to a vehicle fault.

I always struggle with how repeat drink drivers are allowed to exist

and yes I do mean exist - after the 2nd drink driving charge, you should be shot

Preferably in the liver or stomach to ensure a drawn out agonising death

[Paul in NZ]

I always struggle with how repeat drink drivers are allowed to exist

and yes I do mean exist - after the 2nd drink driving charge, you should be shot

Preferably in the liver or stomach to ensure a drawn out agonising death


yeah best be careful as its super easy to be over the limit these days and that alone does not make you a dangerous driver.. This appears to be done deliberately while drunk so he definately needs a permanent attitude adjustment...

[Swoop]

I always struggle with how repeat drink drivers are allowed to exist
The question has to be asked "what support or treatment had he been through"?

In most cases an individual will struggle to get off of the bottle. Then there is the continuing battle to stay off.
A very good mate has done just that and been dry for 20yrs. He still goes to AA every month though.
It surprised me when he said it is only "in remission". You never become an ex-alcoholic.

[kiwi cowboy]

While I really do feel for the guy killed and his mates and I also hate pissed drivers with a passion and think they should be shot on the side of the road I know I will get roasted for saying this but.

The way the article reads to me it suggests that the whole group was traveling too close together so there was no room to take evasive action properly resulting in the three bikes involved not the one that had to take action.
If the bikes were further apart maybe he could have evaded the pissed cunt and lived to smash his head in later.

I do not mean this to be in any way rude or unkind to anyone involved but just maybe something to think about when group riding.

Sound like katman don't I.

[pritch]

So he'll be out in less than two years. No prizes for guessing the first thing that he'll do as soon as he gets his hands on cash?

Sometimes it seems that life is cheap in NZ. Well, in our court system anyway...

[TheDemonLord]

yeah best be careful as its super easy to be over the limit these days and that alone does not make you a dangerous driver.. This appears to be done deliberately while drunk so he definately needs a permanent attitude adjustment...

I am going to pick my next words really carefully:

You.

Can.

Fuck.

Right.

Off.

With.

That.

Excuse.

I have never had an issue with being over the limit....

You know why?

Cause I know that if I need to or am going to drive - I don't drink - and thus I have never been over the limit.

Now for some serious discussion (and to expand on the above outburst):

I choose not to drink if I know I am going to be driving - I understand the desire of some people to enjoy a (singular) wine with dinner or enjoy a cold beer on a hot day. The problem is with most people is that a drink turns into 3-4 and then funnily enough they are over the limit.

if we also factor into this that at the legal limit you are significantly more likely to be involved in an accident then sober:
http://metaffordance.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.metaffordance.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bac-graph-safer-journeys.jpg&target=tlx_new&title=The%20effects%20of%20alcohol%20on%20driving% 20%28New%20Zealand%29

If someone can give me a logical reason why someone might need to consume 3-4 alcoholic drinks and then drive, I might lessen my stance. but the above attitude is precisely why we have the drink driving problem in this country and by extension the reason why Twat Fucks like Mr Drink-then-Kill-someone-cause-they-drove exist.

If you need to drive, don't drink.

[SMOKEU]

yeah best be careful as its super easy to be over the limit these days and that alone does not make you a dangerous driver.. This appears to be done deliberately while drunk so he definately needs a permanent attitude adjustment...

The breath and blood alcohol limits in NZ are quite high as is for those aged 20 and over. Unless someone has a medical problem, 1 or 2 standard drinks with dinner is not going to put an average adult anywhere near the limit.


The question has to be asked "what support or treatment had he been through"?

In most cases an individual will struggle to get off of the bottle. Then there is the continuing battle to stay off.
A very good mate has done just that and been dry for 20yrs. He still goes to AA every month though.
It surprised me when he said it is only "in remission". You never become an ex-alcoholic.

That's not an acceptable excuse. Why should other people have to suffer or die just because someone else has a self inflicted problem?




I have never had an issue with being over the limit....

You know why?

Cause I know that if I need to or am going to drive - I don't drink - and thus I have never been over the limit.

Now for some serious discussion (and to expand on the above outburst):

I choose not to drink if I know I am going to be driving - I understand the desire of some people to enjoy a (singular) wine with dinner or enjoy a cold beer on a hot day. The problem is with most people is that a drink turns into 3-4 and then funnily enough they are over the limit.

if we also factor into this that at the legal limit you are significantly more likely to be involved in an accident then sober:
http://metaffordance.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.metaffordance.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bac-graph-safer-journeys.jpg&target=tlx_new&title=The%20effects%20of%20alcohol%20on%20driving% 20%28New%20Zealand%29

If someone can give me a logical reason why someone might need to consume 3-4 alcoholic drinks and then drive, I might lessen my stance. but the above attitude is precisely why we have the drink driving problem in this country and by extension the reason why Twat Fucks like Mr Drink-then-Kill-someone-cause-they-drove exist.

If you need to drive, don't drink.

Exactly. If I know that I will be required to operate a motor vehicle on a public road, then I'll either not drink any alcohol, or a small amount if I have a reasonably full stomach (of food). Otherwise, ride a push bike. There's nothing wrong with riding one of them pissed as fuck within reason.

[Grashopper]

Riding a pushbike home at night is with the danger of being attacked by a car load of hoods. People who have biked or walked home have indeed been attacked.

Then take a cab. If you have the money to drink then you should have the money to pay a cab!

[SMOKEU]

Riding a pushbike home at night is with the danger of being attacked by a car load of hoods. People who have biked or walked home have indeed been attacked.

That's exactly it. If only we were allowed to carry a handgun like in the USA.


Then take a cab. If you have the money to drink then you should have the money to pay a cab!

A big night on the piss costs me around $1. I can't afford taxis.

[Paul in NZ]

I am going to pick my next words really carefully:

You.

Can.

Fuck.

Right.

Off.

With.

That.

Excuse.

I have never had an issue with being over the limit....

You know why?

Cause I know that if I need to or am going to drive - I don't drink - and thus I have never been over the limit.

Now for some serious discussion (and to expand on the above outburst):

I choose not to drink if I know I am going to be driving - I understand the desire of some people to enjoy a (singular) wine with dinner or enjoy a cold beer on a hot day. The problem is with most people is that a drink turns into 3-4 and then funnily enough they are over the limit.

if we also factor into this that at the legal limit you are significantly more likely to be involved in an accident then sober:
http://metaffordance.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.metaffordance.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bac-graph-safer-journeys.jpg&target=tlx_new&title=The%20effects%20of%20alcohol%20on%20driving% 20%28New%20Zealand%29

If someone can give me a logical reason why someone might need to consume 3-4 alcoholic drinks and then drive, I might lessen my stance. but the above attitude is precisely why we have the drink driving problem in this country and by extension the reason why Twat Fucks like Mr Drink-then-Kill-someone-cause-they-drove exist.

If you need to drive, don't drink.

I what way was I making an excuse? I'm just saying its not always cut and dried why someone might have a DIC conviction... Having 6 is another thing altogether and deliberately swerving at people is something else again.

WTF? Have you signed up to the katman communications school??

Oh stuff this... Got better stuff to do...

[iranana]

The way the article reads to me it suggests that the whole group was travelling too close together so there was no room to take evasive action properly resulting in the three bikes involved not the one that had to take action.
If the bikes were further apart maybe he could have evaded the pissed cunt

I kind of thought the same thing too. But, at the end of the day, what a terrible way to go... If you're driving, don't drink. If you're drinking, don't drive. Plain and simple. What a pity some people can't grasp such a simple concept. Repeat drink drivers should be given a permanent disability to prevent them from doing so again and again...

[buggerit]

While I really do feel for the guy killed and his mates and I also hate pissed drivers with a passion and think they should be shot on the side of the road I know I will get roasted for saying this but.

The way the article reads to me it suggests that the whole group was traveling too close together so there was no room to take evasive action properly resulting in the three bikes involved not the one that had to take action.
If the bikes were further apart maybe he could have evaded the pissed cunt and lived to smash his head in later.

I do not mean this to be in any way rude or unkind to anyone involved but just maybe something to think about when group riding.

Sound like katman don't I.

I aggree that alot of group riding seems close and for no good reason as far as I can see, I prefer a good bit of breathing space around
me as it makes it easier to pick your lines, see hazards, take evasive action and you are less affected by different peoples riding
style

[TheDemonLord]

I what way was I making an excuse? I'm just saying its not always cut and dried why someone might have a DIC conviction... Having 6 is another thing altogether and deliberately swerving at people is something else again.

WTF? Have you signed up to the katman communications school??

Oh stuff this... Got better stuff to do...

You infered the excuse that somehow it is hard or difficult to stay under the limit:


yeah best be careful as its super easy to be over the limit these days

It isn't.

It is a conscious choice by the individual to Drink knowing they have to drive (or that they intend to drive) - it is this attitude that I take extreme umbridge with - as it is a key part of the collective national psyche that drink driving isn't that bad or that driving after perhaps you have had one too many is noble or something to be rewarded.

I am saying it IS cut and dried with a DIC - I think the only instance where it could be claimed where it wasn't cut and dried was the incident with the wine taster who breathalyzed himself before driving home (and the breathalyzer wasn't accurate enough).

Everyone else has no excuse and more importantly will never have an excuse - You choose to drive after drinking, you choose to drink knowing you have to drive. there is NO excuse, it isn't difficult or hard and if you think it is - please hand over your licence.

[Big Dave]

Oh stuff this... Got better stuff to do...

That'll larn ya for taking anything on here seriously.

[BoristheBiter]

Oh look, and indignant policeman. Obviously not in the same category as a motorcyclist as he's allowed to have a voice in the media. Plenty of people suffer the same way. Most of them get vilified for being a drain on the taxpayer. But a policeman? Brave defender of public freedom? His pain is worse.

Cry me a river.

Oh look, a fuckwit.

[BoristheBiter]

yeah best be careful as its super easy to be over the limit these days and that alone does not make you a dangerous driver.. This appears to be done deliberately while drunk so he definately needs a permanent attitude adjustment...

It takes a lot more than you think to get over the limit.
Most men (over 20) can drink at least 3 pints and still be under the limit.

[SMOKEU]

This guy has his 18th EBA conviction. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9865840/Recidivist-drink-driver-jailed-again)

He should be killed.

[James Deuce]

Oh look, a fuckwit.

The feelings mutual. Comes from being hit twice by drunks and no one giving a fuck except to lecture the fuck out of me for riding one of them dangerous motorcycles - for months on end. Funny how the "brotherhood of motorcyclists" fucking disappears when you really need help.

Give a cop a pulpit and it's a terrible tragedy. I had to hold my brother-in-law down at 14 years of age while he had a gastric lavage after being run over by a drunk on the footpath outside his school, so they coul dfind the blood vessel he was bleeding to death out of. I don't give a fuck what anyone "thinks" about what I said. I do give a fuck that being a cop somehow makes his pain all the more tragic. Hundreds of people suffer the same shit every year.

[BoristheBiter]

The feelings mutual. Comes from being hit twice by drunks and no one giving a fuck except to lecture the fuck out of me for riding one of them dangerous motorcycles - for months on end. Funny how the "brotherhood of motorcyclists" fucking disappears when you really need help.

Give a cop a pulpit and it's a terrible tragedy. I had to hold my brother-in-law down at 14 years of age while he had a gastric lavage after being run over by a drunk on the footpath outside his school, so they coul dfind the blood vessel he was bleeding to death out of. I don't give a fuck what anyone "thinks" about what I said. I do give a fuck that being a cop somehow makes his pain all the more tragic. Hundreds of people suffer the same shit every year.

Then maybe instead of being a complete fucktard about it maybe you should point your anger not at the police, that have caught this guy before, but at the judges that keep letting him out.

[jasonu]

This guy has his 18th EBA conviction. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9865840/Recidivist-drink-driver-jailed-again)

He should be killed.

So how many convictions is too many??? 30, 40 maybe 50 before the key is thrown away? NZ law says it is serious about drunk driving and they certainly appear to be with all the check points and booze busses. This sort of person and the totally lame penalties imposed make a mockery of the system.

[BoristheBiter]

So how many convictions is too many??? 30, 40 maybe 50 before the key is thrown away? NZ law says it is serious about drunk driving and they certainly appear to be with all the check points and booze busses. This sort of person and the totally lame penalties imposed make a mockery of the system.

Yep, the judges are a bunch of soft cock useless mofo's, and that goes across all offending.

[Akzle]

Come come James. The point of the article has nothing to do with him being a Policeman, and citing such a distraction detracts from the problem. And as you well know, sensationalism sells advertising, which is what the owners of commercial media want. I'm certain you could get onto mainstream media in a story like this if you wanted.


It seems from this article the problem is a person who has no respect for others, and as a consequence, no respect for their rules (aka, the law of the land). He has nothing, and hence "punishments" that take things away from him will have little impact.

There is probably only one thing he highly values, and that is alcohol. Figure out a way to take that away from him and you'll certainly have his attention.

the "law of the land" is not "legislation".
Legislation provides for weasel tactics, and gets jews paid.
I have (some) respect for others, ie, i avoid fucking up other peoples' days.
But that isnt because its illegal to. And i have no respect for the intent, nor application of legislation.

The solution would be to ban alcohol. Good luck getting that voted in. (hint, theres money to be made all the way along...) innit.

[Akzle]

So how many convictions is too many??? 30, 40 maybe 50 before the key is thrown away? NZ law says it is serious about drunk driving and they certainly appear to be with all the check points and booze busses. This sort of person and the totally lame penalties imposed make a mockery of the system.

shh!...listen.....*kaching*

!! Hear that??...

Thats the jewstice system at work.

[Akzle]

the above attitude is precisely why we have the drink driving problem in this country

ive never crashed, car, truck, bike, boat or anything else, while high, drunk, or exceeding the posted speed limit.
Given that at least 30% of my driving (~2 decades) has been done under 1 or more of those conditions, it would suggest the problem isnt booze. Its fuckwits.

[SMOKEU]

So how many convictions is too many??? 30, 40 maybe 50 before the key is thrown away? NZ law says it is serious about drunk driving and they certainly appear to be with all the check points and booze busses. This sort of person and the totally lame penalties imposed make a mockery of the system.

That's a good question. The PC crowd will of course say that he deserves an infinite number of chances to kill innocent road users.

[SMOKEU]

But if it were up to me I'd support preventative detention (open ended sentence) after the third or fourth offence, and only release the prisoner if they can convince a judge, or panel of judges that they are no longer a menace to society, after serving at least 10 years of that sentence.

The people that make these laws are callous enough to view each life lost in road accidents as just another number, until one of their loved ones dies in such a crash.

[caseye]

Three STRIKES and you are OUT! Gone for bloody good. a Waikato person driving drunk head oned my mum and dad on the Tahuna road 16 years ago. Had he lived ( there is a God!) it would have been his 14th conviction for DIC.My apretns meantime went htorugh the next 16 years in pain and for my dad agony because fo this nice guy who the Waikato times described as a gentle giant. I called him a fat useless drunken local ( he lived 2 k's from the accident scene) who nearly cost my family and I our parents.
2 times with a third being incarceration for good, then we'd all know our pollies are serious and many would simply not drink at all if they were required to drive. Hell our girls all have cars and none of them drink and drive ANYWHERE.

[FJRider]

That's a good question. The PC crowd will of course say that he deserves an infinite number of chances to kill innocent road users.

If it was YOU that was caught ... how many chances would YOU want .. ??

Even if you were never caught ... how many times were YOU guilty of the same offense ...??

[SMOKEU]

If it was YOU that was caught ... how many chances would YOU want .. ??

Even if you were never caught ... how many times were YOU guilty of the same offense ...??

I don't drive pissed so getting busted doesn't worry me. Everyone makes fuck ups, so I'm not advocating severe punishments for first time offenders. So how many chances do you think someone should have? Until they've killed one person? 2 People? 5 People?

[Virago]

yeah best be careful as its super easy to be over the limit these days and that alone does not make you a dangerous driver...

Like others I'm struggling to understand your post. NZ has quite high drink-driving breath / blood limits, which haven't changed in many years. Why is it "super easy to be over the limit these days"?

[FJRider]

I don't drive pissed so getting busted doesn't worry me. Everyone makes fuck ups, so I'm not advocating severe punishments for first time offenders. So how many chances do you think someone should have? Until they've killed one person? 2 People? 5 People?

How many chances would YOU want .. ??? that question wasn't answered ...

I doubt you have never operated any vehicle under the influence ... just never (admitted) being caught ..

[Paul in NZ]

Like others I'm struggling to understand your post. NZ has quite high drink-driving breath / blood limits, which haven't changed in many years. Why is it "super easy to be over the limit these days"?

Oh for fucks sake.... Its just a bloody phrase... Yes - occasionally someone gets a DIC for a wierd reason. Stick you sanctimonious tripe up your arses because it happens and while i don't approve a few points over does NOT make most people swerve at oher road users... My post was in response to suggestion anyone with a DIC should be shot which is stupid. There is a HUGE difference between 1 DIC (which I have never had btw) and 6 DIC's coupled with deliberately swerving at riders.... The man is obviously sick and can't help himself... hes a fuckin menace...

I posted the link originally because I was horrified...

Now I'm even more horrified... Not one of you even seems to care that what seemed like a decent bloke was effectively killed by this? I thought I might make 10 years of KB but I bloody doubt it...

[Brett]

The feelings mutual. Comes from being hit twice by drunks and no one giving a fuck except to lecture the fuck out of me for riding one of them dangerous motorcycles - for months on end. Funny how the "brotherhood of motorcyclists" fucking disappears when you really need help.

Give a cop a pulpit and it's a terrible tragedy. I had to hold my brother-in-law down at 14 years of age while he had a gastric lavage after being run over by a drunk on the footpath outside his school, so they coul dfind the blood vessel he was bleeding to death out of. I don't give a fuck what anyone "thinks" about what I said. I do give a fuck that being a cop somehow makes his pain all the more tragic. Hundreds of people suffer the same shit every year.

I don't think it's fair to claim that he is getting the attn because he's a cop, if that is the case, then yes...it is unbalanced, but I would rather see it as a small win for motorcyclist...at least they're listen ing to someone...if it took a cop to have a voice of advocacy, then hey...better than no one isn't it?

[SMOKEU]

How many chances would YOU want .. ??? that question wasn't answered ...

I doubt you have never operated any vehicle under the influence ... just never (admitted) being caught ..

The same as everyone else.

Yes I openly admit to have often driven under the influence of alcohol, although that's only after 2 or 3 standard drinks with a meal spread out over an hour or more, so I wasn't "drunk" or even close to the breath alcohol limit. Once I was even a passenger being a supervisor for a driver on a 1L since I had my 1F for more than 2 years, and the cop who pulled us over breath tested me too, even though I wasn't driving. I felt quite intoxicated, and I would have not wanted to drive in that state as it wouldn't be safe to do so, yet I came back us being under the limit. So the breath alcohol limit is quite high, and to get caught several times means that someone has a serious problem.

An average adult could still have 5 or 6 standard drinks over the course of an evening and still be under the breath alcohol limit after 3 or 4 hours.

[FJRider]

There is a HUGE difference between 1 DIC (which I have never had btw) and 6 DIC's coupled with deliberately swerving at riders.... The man is obviously sick and can't help himself... hes a fuckin menace...

I posted the link originally because I was horrified...

Now I'm even more horrified... Not one of you even seems to care that what seemed like a decent bloke was effectively killed by this? I thought I might make 10 years of KB but I bloody doubt it...

There was NO mention (I read) that any swerving at any riders WAS deliberate ... YOUR interpretation ...

It however ... doesn't make the result any less serious.

No DIC charges doesn't mean total innocence, just never been caught.

[Katman]

....and 6 DIC's coupled with deliberately swerving at riders.....

That's the second time you've said that.

Is it confirmed that he was "deliberately swerving at riders"?

'Cos I seem to have missed that part in the article.

[Robbo]

That's the second time you've said that.

Is it confirmed that he was "deliberately swerving at riders"?

'Cos I seem to have missed that part in the article.

The original article that i read did state that he swerved at the riders, however it did not say whether it was deliberate or the fact that he was so pissed that he was just veering all over the road. Either way, this bastard should have not been on the roads in charge of a vehicle.
If one of our soft cock judges had done his job properly in the first place this tradgedy would never have happened.:mad:

[T.W.R]

Brazil's Lei Seca (dry law) zero tolerance

http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403471_text

A good start to get recidivous drink drivers

[FJRider]

The same as everyone else.

Yep ... as many chances as you can ... :laugh: NO different to HIM ..


Yes I openly admit to have often driven under the influence of alcohol, although that's only after 2 or 3 standard drinks with a meal spread out over an hour or more, so I wasn't "drunk" or even close to the breath alcohol limit. So the breath alcohol limit is quite high, and to get caught several times means that someone has a serious problem.

Under the influence (but not over the limit) is usually the escape clause that voids most insurance policy's ... for a dam good reason. "Legally Drunk" is the best way to explain it. If you are involved in an accident while under the influence (but not over the limit) ... you will be held responsible ... regardless of who "caused " it ..

The admission of more than once .. may mean you have a problem. Your problem hasn't got serious ... yet .. !!!

Will it be a matter of time before YOU get unlucky ...


An average adult could still have 5 or 6 standard drinks over the course of an evening and still be under the breath alcohol limit after 3 or 4 hours.

No such thing as average adult limit. Different amounts affect different people differently ... and especially if they haven't eaten previously to drinking ...

So far ... I think you have been lucky.

NOT clever.

[Virago]

Oh for fucks sake.... Its just a bloody phrase... Yes - occasionally someone gets a DIC for a wierd reason. Stick you sanctimonious tripe up your arses because it happens and while i don't approve a few points over does NOT make most people swerve at oher road users... My post was in response to suggestion anyone with a DIC should be shot which is stupid. There is a HUGE difference between 1 DIC (which I have never had btw) and 6 DIC's coupled with deliberately swerving at riders.... The man is obviously sick and can't help himself... hes a fuckin menace...

I posted the link originally because I was horrified...

Now I'm even more horrified... Not one of you even seems to care that what seemed like a decent bloke was effectively killed by this? I thought I might make 10 years of KB but I bloody doubt it...

Wow. Angry man much?

I'm sorry that my request for clarification was viewed as sanctimonious. As per your request I have printed off the offending post, and am shoving it up my arse at this very moment.

I think you'll find that most of us are as horrified as you over the original link.

Chill.

[pritch]

a few points over does NOT make most people swerve at oher road users...

Some years ago the doctor in charge of the blood testing for the Police went on record as saying that random stopping checkpoints caught the wrong people. He said that the checkpoints tended to catch people marginally over the limit, but that these are not the people causing mayhem on the roads. The people that cause the accidents tend to be several times the limit. Bearing in mind that he was presumably testing blood from corpses and the injured as well as drunks that had been arrested.

So actually Paul does have a point.

[SMOKEU]

Yep ... as many chances as you can ... :laugh: NO different to HIM ..



Under the influence (but not over the limit) is usually the escape clause that voids most insurance policy's ... for a dam good reason. "Legally Drunk" is the best way to explain it. If you are involved in an accident while under the influence (but not over the limit) ... you will be held responsible ... regardless of who "caused " it ..

The admission of more than once .. may mean you have a problem. Your problem hasn't got serious ... yet .. !!!

Will it be a matter of time before YOU get unlucky ...

No such thing as average adult limit. Different amounts affect different people differently ... and especially if they haven't eaten previously to drinking ...

So far ... I think you have been lucky.

NOT clever.

Any amount of alcohol over a threshold dose for that particular person in those specific circumstances is going to put the drinker "under the influence" to some extent. So even literally 1 standard drink consumed over a period of say, 5 minutes will put an average adult under some level of intoxication, even if it's only at a very minor level that is barely noticeable to the drinker. The only real way to not be under the influence of alcohol to any extent is to not have any alcohol whatsoever in the bloodstream.

The fact that I have not crashed due to alcohol intoxication has nothing to do with "luck". I prefer not be under the effects of alcohol at all when driving, or if I am, it's only after consuming small amounts of alcohol with food, at such a level that I can barely feel any effects from the alcohol.

[Virago]

Some years ago the doctor in charge of the blood testing for the Police went on record as saying that random stopping checkpoints caught the wrong people. He said that the checkpoints tended to catch people marginally over the limit, but that these are not the people causing mayhem on the roads. The people that cause the accidents tend to be several times the limit. Bearing in mind that he was presumably testing blood from corpses and the injured as well as drunks that had been arrested.

So actually Paul does have a point.

I think that such a view can be applied to any crime - i.e. giving your wife a black eye is not as bad as beating her to death.

The key issue is that NZ driving alcohol limits are quite high by international standards. Over the years I've seen a couple of trials on TV where a panel of people steadily consume alcohol and are regularly tested - for both breath alcohol levels and driving impairment. In each case, the participants are stunned at how drunk they had to be to be over the limit.

In my opinion, any suggestion that roadside testing is catching the wrong people is bullshit.

[Wingnut]

Riding a pushbike home at night is with the danger of being attacked by a car load of hoods. People who have biked or walked home have indeed been attacked.

Fuck - I'm glad I dont live where you do then...

[FJRider]

Some years ago the doctor in charge of the blood testing for the Police went on record as saying that random stopping checkpoints caught the wrong people.

Not the wrong people ... just not the target offenders ... . SOME guilty people still got caught though.

[pritch]

In my opinion, any suggestion that roadside testing is catching the wrong people is bullshit.

Well that was the guy who was responsible for running the programme, so I'll give his opinion more weight.

[R650R]

Oh look, and indignant policeman. Obviously not in the same category as a motorcyclist as he's allowed to have a voice in the media. Plenty of people suffer the same way. Most of them get vilified for being a drain on the taxpayer. But a policeman? Brave defender of public freedom? His pain is worse.

Cry me a river.

I think its more a media thing than the man himself. Reporting standards have dropped so much they have to add qualifiers to stories to make them seem more interesting.
Down this way we have a local photographer who does a lot of work for charity and good on him, but every single time he's in the paper they have to bring up the story about his son dying from cancer and the sunrise image he took a few hours later.
Tragic yes but we don't need to read about it repeatedly. Nearly everybody has lost someone close to cancer, the rates are exponentially increasing all the time...

Back to topic I think the drink drive thing is overdone to the detriment of road safety. We should be hammering home how crappy EVERYONES driving is as SOBER drivers cause about 70% of all crashes, and the ones involving alcohol maybe they were due to have a whoopsy anyway drunk or sober.
That repeat drink drivers are still alive after 20 odd times shows that some people can do it, perhaps because they have good driving skills at their core? Meanwhile theirs people who really shouldn't have a license to start with that have an accident just over the limit and DUI is recorded as cause.
If you crunch the numbers when they have these big random stops, only 1-1.5 % are DUI, I'm really concerned still about the driving ability of the other 98.5-99%...
I don't condone DUI and have been hit headon in Truck by one, wasn't nice experience.
But we have all this drama and yet the govt via council still allows pubs and clubs with carparks via resource consents. Overnight they could say you can only enter a bar/restaurant/pub with a recent bus or taxi receipt and ban all cars from CBD drinking areas on fri sat nights etc.
But no our alcohol industry brings in too much tax revenue and doing something costs too many votes...

[FJRider]

I think that such a view can be applied to any crime - i.e. giving your wife a black eye is not as bad as beating her to death.

Yeahh .. ??? scratch: ... she just waits until you're asleep. Then beats the fuck out of ya ... :pinch:


The key issue is that NZ driving alcohol limits are quite high by international standards. Over the years I've seen a couple of trials on TV where a panel of people steadily consume alcohol and are regularly tested - for both breath alcohol levels and driving impairment. In each case, the participants are stunned at how drunk they had to be to be over the limit.

But felt fine ... right .. ??? :shit:


In my opinion, any suggestion that roadside testing is catching the wrong people is bullshit.

How can catching guilty people ... be the WRONG people .. ???? :facepalm:

[SMOKEU]

But we have all this drama and yet the govt via council still allows pubs and clubs with carparks via resource consents. Overnight they could say you can only enter a bar/restaurant/pub with a recent bus or taxi receipt and ban all cars from CBD drinking areas on fri sat nights etc.
But no our alcohol industry brings in too much tax revenue and doing something costs too many votes...

We don't need any more of a nanny state than we're already in. People should be forced to take much more personal responsibility for their actions than current legislation allows. You fuck up = you suffer the consequences.

Limiting car parks around pubs is like the pathetic attempt the government is using to try to reduce alcohol related harm by reducing opening hours of licensed premises, liquor stores and supermarket alcohol selling hours instead of making the people themselves bear full responsibility for what they do next. The pathetically weak laws we have keep the majority of citizens in line, as they fear getting a criminal conviction and limiting their future job and/or travel opportunities.

The hardcore recidivist offenders don't give a flying fuck about court appearances and convictions, and it's these people who should be prosecuted hard enough to the extent that they are fearful of breaking the laws and the subsequent consequences.

[Edbear]

I think I have blinged you enough. Yup, we already have good laws and people to catch the law breakers. What is needed now, like yesterday, not in 10 years time, are the judges who will apply the law to that extent.

How blatantly obvious is the fact that recidivist drink drivers are not going to stop until they are stopped? The first offence should be mandatory 12mth loss of licence then after that permanent loss of licence and six months jail. Third time? Say two years jail and compulsory AA. Causing injury by accident - same as Aggravated Assault, causing death, mandatory Manslaughter. That carries the same possible penalties as murder. In all cases, no early parole. Full sentence served. I am not too confident of this happening any time soon.

[FJRider]

We don't need any more of a nanny state than we're already in. People should be forced to take much more personal responsibility for their actions than current legislation allows. You fuck up = you suffer the consequences.

True ... ZERO breath / Alcohol limit ... right .. ??? :calm:


Limiting car parks around pubs is like the pathetic attempt the government is using to try to reduce alcohol related harm by reducing opening hours of licensed premises, liquor stores and supermarket alcohol selling hours instead of making the people themselves bear full responsibility for what they do next. The pathetically weak laws we have keep the majority of citizens in line, as they fear getting a criminal conviction and limiting their future job and/or travel opportunities.

Laws keep the honest ... honest. The rest ... whatever suits at the time. (That includes YOU) ;)


The hardcore recidivist offenders don't give a flying fuck about court appearances and convictions, and it's these people who should be prosecuted hard enough to the extent that they are fearful of breaking the laws and the subsequent consequences.

And the rest should be left alone ... right .. ?? :whistle:

[SMOKEU]

True ... ZERO breath / Alcohol limit ... right .. ??? :calm:

Laws keep the honest ... honest. The rest ... whatever suits at the time. (That includes YOU) ;)

And the rest should be left alone ... right .. ?? :whistle:

1. I'm not advocating a zero breath alcohol limit.

2. You've got to start looking a bit more at context. I don't go around deliberately causing more danger to other road users than necessary in order to perform the task at hand.

3. Every road user should be placed under scrutiny for any wrongdoing that has major potential implications for safety or traffic flow in the current conditions. If that person has done nothing wrong, then they shouldn't have anything to fear from law enforcement.

[FJRider]

1. I'm not advocating a zero breath alcohol limit.

So you think it's OK to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol .. ??? :eek:


2. You've got to start looking a bit more at context. I don't go around deliberately causing more danger to other road users than necessary in order to perform the task at hand.

What do you consider as necessary ... your ability to get/drive home after drinking .. ?? :eek:

You admit you DO drink and drive ... and I have to "Look a bit more at context" :eek:

So you admit that you have put other road users at risk ... you might have "accidentally" had a drink or two more than what could be considered safe (as opposed to illegal)... ??? :eek:


3. Every road user should be placed under scrutiny for any wrongdoing that has major potential implications for safety or traffic flow in the current conditions. If that person has done nothing wrong, then they shouldn't have anything to fear from law enforcement.

By your own admission ... that includes YOU ...

But .. if you are within the law ... it's not wrong ... right .. ??? :eek:

[Akzle]

The hardcore recidivist offenders don't give a flying fuck about court appearances and convictions, and it's these people who should be prosecuted hard enough to the extent that they are fearful of breaking the laws and the subsequent consequences.

i get the intent. But no. That requires sensible rules to enforce for a start.
Second, for all the illegal shit ive been caught for, theres 90% more i havent.
And i dont give a fuck about any of it, because ive never caused anyone else any harm.

[SMOKEU]

So you think it's OK to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol .. ??? :eek:

What do you consider as necessary ... your ability to get/drive home after drinking .. ?? :eek:

You admit you DO drink and drive ... and I have to "Look a bit more at context" :eek:

So you admit that you have put other road users at risk ... you might have "accidentally" had a drink or two more than what could be considered safe (as opposed to illegal)... ??? :eek:

By your own admission ... that includes YOU ...

But .. if you are within the law ... it's not wrong ... right .. ??? :eek:

What's the point in having a breath alcohol limit if one can't consume any alcohol before driving? How do you propose to drink small amounts of alcohol, to be under the breath alcohol limit, without being under the influence of alcohol in some manner? Explain it to me, as you keep wanking on about it but you offer no explanation as to how your theory works. I tried to test your theory last night by drinking alcohol, but I certainly did become impaired by it even after 1 standard drink (don't worry, I didn't even leave the house). Maybe I wasn't drinking the alcohol properly, but you seem to be the expert on anything and everything so maybe you will have some insight.

When operating any motor vehicle, there is always a potential for the occupant(s) of that vehicle, or other vehicles to come to harm. For example, one could drive a car and have a heart attack, causing the car to go out of control and run down an innocent pedestrian. It's all about mitigating risk. I'm sure the roads will be much safer if the speed limits were 5kmh for all roads, but there's always going to be a balance of safety vs practicality.

I don't know if you're dumb or just trying to troll, but I'll explain this for the last time, and if you can't comprehend it then it's your problem:
1. I do not start drinking alcohol if I haven't eaten a meal recently and have a reasonably full stomach.
2. I plan my travel so if I know that I have to drive, I will generally consume no more than 2 standard drinks over a period of no less than 30 minutes.
3. Each subsequent hour, I will consume less than 1 standard drink.
4. If I feel like I am "too impaired" to drive, I will make alternative travel arrangements.
5. I've been drinking alcohol for long enough to know where my limits are, and how it will effect me.

I know this will keep me well under the breath alcohol limit, as I was once pissed and felt unsafe to drive and I still blew under the limit, and as I had explained before I wasn't operating any sort of motor vehicle at the time.

[haydes55]

Just to add to the convo, if anyone had a DUI recently, once they get their license back, they are strictly on a zero limit. If they get pulled up or in a check point and blow 0.01, they get another slap on the wrist.

I'd like to see drunk drivers having to sit through a scare tactic course about drink driving, with mothers of victims speaking and victim impact statements if victims etc.

You still have to laugh at how there are people who manage to crash a car sober... In my opinion if you can't operate a car sober, you shouldn't have a license at all. Sober drivers kill innocent people as well. Why aren't the people who gave them licenses scrutinised for letting them pass with inadequate skills?

Or at least test drivers capabilities regularly, like a license WOF.

[Katman]

You still have to laugh at how there are people who manage to crash a car sober... In my opinion if you can't operate a car sober, you shouldn't have a license at all.


Same with motorcycles.

[avgas]

This guy has his 18th EBA conviction. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9865840/Recidivist-drink-driver-jailed-again)
He should be killed.
Why don't they just cut up the license when that happens?

May be thats how it should be - get caught DIC, lose license and have to start over again.
Get caught with no licence, drunk, behind a wheel - go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not pay $200

Do the latter twice and just get dropped in the ocean somewhere and told which direction shore is.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Why don't they just cut up the license when that happens?

.

Cause it doesn't stop them driving.

[SMOKEU]

Why don't they just cut up the license when that happens?

May be thats how it should be - get caught DIC, lose license and have to start over again.
Get caught with no licence, drunk, behind a wheel - go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not pay $200

Do the latter twice and just get dropped in the ocean somewhere and told which direction shore is.


Cause it doesn't stop them driving.

Exactly. Disqualifying people from driving works on most people, but for the repetitive hardcore offenders it's just another typical softcock approach that achieves nothing other than making judges and police happy that they've actually done something.

[TheDemonLord]

Cause it doesn't stop them driving.

But you know what would?

a .308 FMJ travelling at 600m/s ripping through their brain stem.

[ellipsis]

...the poor guy was killed...it was the direct result of a national problem/disease that is rampant... from the lawmakers, judges cops, down to the old ladies playing a bridge tournament to our youth who are just about expected to play the game to be normal kiwis...not one thing other than a complete ban on the stuff is going to make one iota of difference...and even if 90% of the voters ticked the 'prohibition', box on the voting papers, (if it's still on there), the problem would still remain...humans have been troublesome when mixed with alcohol ever since the bloke or blokess that sipped the tainted grape or whatever fruit it was that accidentally changed it's molecular structure...it would be easier to fix public transport and take vehicles off the road altogether than fix the age old problem...the law of not being able to serve an intoxicated person in a licenced premises, if adhered to by the book would mean every drinking establishment in the country would be breaking the law every minute of the day and would be paying enough fines to fix the national debt of the country...all words written or vocalised on the subject are nothing more than ineffectual words...the whole system and psyche of the problem is fucked...lots of money to be made though...

[SMOKEU]

...the poor guy was killed...it was the direct result of a national problem/disease that is rampant... from the lawmakers, judges cops, down to the old ladies playing a bridge tournament to our youth who are just about expected to play the game to be normal kiwis...not one thing other than a complete ban on the stuff is going to make one iota of difference...and even if 90% of the voters ticked the 'prohibition', box on the voting papers, (if it's still on there), the problem would still remain...humans have been troublesome when mixed with alcohol ever since the bloke or blokess that sipped the tainted grape or whatever fruit it was that accidentally changed it's molecular structure...it would be easier to fix public transport and take vehicles off the road altogether than fix the age old problem...the law of not being able to serve an intoxicated person in a licenced premises, if adhered to by the book would mean every drinking establishment in the country would be breaking the law every minute of the day and would be paying enough fines to fix the national debt of the country...all words written or vocalised on the subject are nothing more than ineffectual words...the whole system and psyche of the problem is fucked...lots of money to be made though...

While you do have some valid points, your response seems similar to what the lefties would say. Why punish the majority of people for the actions of a minority? What we should be doing is holding individuals responsible for their own actions. If people prove that they repeatedly cause trouble when under the influence of alcohol, then these people should be imprisoned. The laws should be sufficiently strong so that people no longer want to offend.

I've been to Singapore and done pub missions late at night and in the early hours of the morning on weekends, and there were plenty of young people on the piss, but there was a clear lack of hooliganism that we have here, because people are too scared of the legal ramifications, so they no longer want to do stupid stuff. I'm not saying that we should copy their approach, but the current system is not working. I'm not saying we should treat first time offenders harshly, but if people prove again and again they they can't conduct themselves in a safe and sociable manner when drinking, then it's not the fault of society or anything else, but the entire blame should be put on the offender and they should be punished accordingly.

[BoristheBiter]

But you know what would?

a .308 FMJ travelling at 600m/s ripping through their brain stem.

That would have to be a good shot.

.308 FMJ@150gr traveling 600msec = 400yrd(365m) from muzzle.

[Mushu]

Eradicating alcohol completely is the only way to solve the issue. The problem is it's far to easy to make alcohol, literally thousands of different ways with all kinds of ingredients so making it illegal would only create criminals, profits for those criminals and take money away from the government.

The whole issue is fucked and there is no clear cut solution, harsher penalties for repeat offenders is really the only thing we can do but that won't solve the problem, in reality it won't even make a dent in the problem. Drunk drivers are everywhere, fuck all we can really do about it other than be careful and do what ever we can to mitigate the risk to ourselves. Atleast until every car on the road drives itself.

[TheDemonLord]

Eradicating alcohol completely is the only way to solve the issue. The problem is it's far to easy to make alcohol, literally thousands of different ways with all kinds of ingredients so making it illegal would only create criminals, profits for those criminals and take money away from the government.

The whole issue is fucked and there is no clear cut solution, harsher penalties for repeat offenders is really the only thing we can do but that won't solve the problem, in reality it won't even make a dent in the problem. Drunk drivers are everywhere, fuck all we can really do about it other than be careful and do what ever we can to mitigate the risk to ourselves. Atleast until every car on the road drives itself.

First you need to scrap the limited licence system

then:

1st offence - automatic loss of licence for 6 months and a rediculas fine
2nd offence - automatic prison sentance
3rd offence - Death

Then I reckon we would see either a sharp decline in drink driving or we would see a very sharp decline in repeat drink driving offenders

[Mushu]

But you know what would?

a .308 FMJ travelling at 600m/s ripping through their brain stem.

Why FMJ? Is the average drunk driver wearing a kevlar helmet? (might make them easier to spot) JHP ammo would make a bigger mess.

[SPman]

When did ZB talkback somehow seque across to KB.............




Oh, it's always been thus..............


:brick:

[SMOKEU]

The whole issue is fucked and there is no clear cut solution, harsher penalties for repeat offenders is really the only thing we can do but that won't solve the problem, in reality it won't even make a dent in the problem. Drunk drivers are everywhere, fuck all we can really do about it other than be careful and do what ever we can to mitigate the risk to ourselves. Atleast until every car on the road drives itself.

Harsh laws are the only viable solution. In Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Iran they don't have all these drunks causing problems like here. Now, the laws in those countries are completely fucked and I'm not suggesting we impose those draconian laws here, but there needs to be a balance. Only someone who is completely stupid or ignorant would agree that NZ doesn't have a major alcohol problem.

The repeat offenders don't give a fuck about another conviction, as it's just another item added to the list of previous offences and for some it's even seen as a "badge of honour" type situation. If people are sufficiently scared of the laws that they no longer want to offend, then crime is certain to drop. Those who still offend repeatedly should be locked up for a very long time, which will further enforce the mentality that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable, and will be dealt with accordingly. Once the crime to benefit ratio sufficiently falls away from the favour of the criminal, then those with any sort of sense will want to reevaluate their behaviour, and for those who are stupid enough to never learn, we have prisons for that.

[yevjenko]

Fuck - I'm glad I dont live where you do then...

Exactly what i thought! then i saw she lives in Christchurch and thought "it figures..."

[yevjenko]

That repeat drink drivers are still alive after 20 odd times shows that some people can do it

People under the influence normally come off better during a crash as due to their inability to react as quickly means their bodies are normally more relaxed and therefore get less injured than people who are sober and who try to tense up

[pritch]

The first offence should be mandatory 12mth loss of licence then after that permanent loss of licence and six months jail. Third time? Say two years jail and compulsory AA. Causing injury by accident - same as Aggravated Assault, causing death, mandatory Manslaughter. That carries the same possible penalties as murder. In all cases, no early parole. Full sentence served. I am not too confident of this happening any time soon.

Previous posts on KB seem to have created the impression that you drive under the influence of prescription meds? Does the staunch position you take here on alcohol
not seem just a little incongruous?

[Edbear]

Previous posts on KB seem to have created the impression that you drive under the influence of prescription meds? Does the staunch position you take here on alcohol
not seem just a little incongruous?

Don't believe everything you read on KB. I do take medications on prescription as do most people in the world, it would seem. I take about 20 pills a day to not only stay alive, but to function in a vertical capacity.

The difference, is that I work with my Doctor and other medical specialists to limit the side effects of anything I take, and to take the least amount possible. I would wager, were I a betting man, that most drivers/riders on the roads are taking some form of medication for some reason or other. What we are refeerring to here, is personal responsibility in minimising the risk to everyone on the road including ourselves, so if I was told by my medical specialist(s) not to drive while taking this or that, I wouldn't, simple. And even if I am not forbidden to drive, I have no hesitation in handing the wheel over to my wife or other driver with me if I feel I may not be in a suitable state. I have no ego to feed in this matter and safety is my priority when behind the wheel.

This thread is about recidivist drink drivers with no regard for either their own or anyone else's safety, who will continue to drive even after killing someone until they are stopped.

[ellipsis]

First you need to scrap the limited licence system

then:

1st offence - automatic loss of licence for 6 months and a rediculas fine
2nd offence - automatic prison sentance
3rd offence - Death

Then I reckon we would see either a sharp decline in drink driving or we would see a very sharp decline in repeat drink driving offenders

...does the liklihood of death row drastically reduce the incidences of homicide in Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia and those other states that condone legal homicide...I dont think so...Does the liklihood of a jail sentence stop recidivist drunk drivers who have been warned that they will go inside on their next appearence before a beak stop them...I dont think so...ineffectual words...piss is the problem and it's everybodies problem whether you are a drinker or a tee-totaller...but you ain't gonna fix that one , are you...not with words and surmising about it...prohibition would be fun, I'd still manage to get pissed...

[BoristheBiter]

...does the liklihood of death row drastically reduce the incidences of homicide in Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia and those other states that condone legal homicide...I dont think so...Does the liklihood of a jail sentence stop recidivist drunk drivers who have been warned that they will go inside on their next appearence before a beak stop them...I dont think so...ineffectual words...piss is the problem and it's everybodies problem whether you are a drinker or a tee-totaller...but you ain't gonna fix that one , are you...not with words and surmising about it...prohibition would be fun, I'd still manage to get pissed...

What a limp wrist, piss weak, wank fest of a post. (and that's just the lack of grammar and none existent sentence and paragraph structure)

Going by what you are saying here is, we should have no punishment for anything as people keep doing it anyway.

What you fail to comprehend is they will never do it again if, a) you never let them out or b) you put a bullet in their head.
Also if you make prison a shit load worse to be in, instead of the cuddle fest it is now it might become more of a deterrent.

We have had the left's way of doing things for quite some time and it just doesn't work so lets go the other way and start supporting victims
first and locking these fucktards away for good.

And yes it might not work but at least they wont be bothering anyone.

[Jay GTI]

I would wager, were I a betting man, that most drivers/riders on the roads are taking some form of medication for some reason or other..

Shame you aren't a betting man, I'd quite happily take your wager off you for that particular peice of fact-free nonsense.

[pritch]

This thread is about recidivist drink drivers with no regard for either their own or anyone else's safety, who will continue to drive even after killing someone until they are stopped.

Aaaaah context, now there's a thing :-)

[TheDemonLord]

...does the liklihood of death row drastically reduce the incidences of homicide in Kentucky, Alabama, Virginia and those other states that condone legal homicide...I dont think so...Does the liklihood of a jail sentence stop recidivist drunk drivers who have been warned that they will go inside on their next appearence before a beak stop them...I dont think so...ineffectual words...piss is the problem and it's everybodies problem whether you are a drinker or a tee-totaller...but you ain't gonna fix that one , are you...not with words and surmising about it...prohibition would be fun, I'd still manage to get pissed...

Who said anything about Deterrent?

I propose the Death sentance as a simple way of preventing repeat drink drivers from being able to re-offend.... permenantly.

[tbs]

....for all the illegal shit ive been caught for, theres 90% more i havent.
And i dont give a fuck about any of it, because ive never caused anyone else any harm.

I call bullshit on this.
None of us get to see all of the carry-on effects of our actions. You are applying a non-existent arbitrary lower limit to the harm you've caused and putting yourself above that threshold. That is bollocks. You absolutely have caused harm in your life.... probably a lot that you aren't even aware of.


And if you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk or stoned and hurt someone, then all those years of getting away with it won't mean squat, will they?

[ellipsis]

What a limp wrist, piss weak, wank fest of a post. (and that's just the lack of grammar and none existent sentence and paragraph structure) Oh no!. A heckle from a knobsuck in the back row about my grammar...hahahahahahahah

Going by what you are saying here is, we should have no punishment for anything as people keep doing it anyway. I could read my post a thousand times and never see where I even slightly hinted there should be no punishment

What you fail to comprehend is they will never do it again if, a) you never let them out or b) you put a bullet in their head.
Also if you make prison a shit load worse to be in, instead of the cuddle fest it is now it might become more of a deterrent. More ineffectual words that are meaningless, because we know it is not going to happen. What country do you live in?

We have had the left's way of doing things for quite some time and it just doesn't work so lets go the other way and start supporting victims
first and locking these fucktards away for good. I bet you know a few of the fucktards, front up to your colours and dob them in. It would suit your style, probably.

And yes it might not work but at least they wont be bothering anyone.

..........

[kiwi cowboy]

What a limp wrist, piss weak, wank fest of a post. (and that's just the lack of grammar and none existent sentence and paragraph structure)

Going by what you are saying here is, we should have no punishment for anything as people keep doing it anyway.

What you fail to comprehend is they will never do it again if, a) you never let them out or b) you put a bullet in their head.
Also if you make prison a shit load worse to be in, instead of the cuddle fest it is now it might become more of a deterrent.

We have had the left's way of doing things for quite some time and it just doesn't work so lets go the other way and start supporting victims
first and locking these fucktards away for good.

And yes it might not work but at least they wont be bothering anyone.


BINGO to the part about the prison conditions mate.

I have said they get looked after far too well and too softly for a long time.

Theres some even do something that will get them banged up for around 3 months over winter to have a warm bed and three squares a day.:wacko:

[Akzle]

You absolutely have caused harm in your life.... probably a lot that you aren't even aware of.


And if you get behind the wheel of a car while drunk or stoned and hurt someone, then all those years of getting away with it won't mean squat, will they?

1) yes i have caused harm. And i regret it.
The fact remains it hasnt been while high/low/drunk/tired/"speeding"/hungry and operating machinery.
If i have somehow caused harm i dont know about... Well, let the injured party stand to accuse me and ill answer.

2) yes it would.
But i rank that equally likely whether "under the influence" or not.

[Akzle]

BINGO to the part about the prison conditions mate.

I have said they get looked after far too well and too softly for a long time.

Theres some even do something that will get them banged up for around 3 months over winter to have a warm bed and three squares a day.:wacko:

how was your trip to norway?

[kiwi cowboy]

how was your trip to norway?

sorry fella don't get it???????????????????????????????????????:girlfigh t:

[Akzle]

sorry fella don't get it

slip your wife some herbal ignite...

(check out norways non-punitive justice system and incredibly low recidivism)

[SPman]

Also if you make prison a shit load worse to be in, instead of the cuddle fest it is now it might become more of a deterrent.


Speaking from first hand experience?

[GrayWolf]

The question has to be asked "what support or treatment had he been through"?

In most cases an individual will struggle to get off of the bottle. Then there is the continuing battle to stay off.
A very good mate has done just that and been dry for 20yrs. He still goes to AA every month though.
It surprised me when he said it is only "in remission". You never become an ex-alcoholic.

Thing is really your mate WANTED to come off it, sounds like this asswipe has/had no intention...We need a system similar to countries like Finland, 3rd offence? You NEVER get a license again, and WILL be jailed for any subsequent offense.

[BoristheBiter]

.

I could read my post a thousand times and never see where I even slightly hinted there should be no punishment
That's because you're an idiot.

More ineffectual words that are meaningless, because we know it is not going to happen. What country do you live in?
Unfortunately it won't, due to idiots like you.

I bet you know a few of the fucktards, front up to your colours and dob them in. It would suit your style, probably.
?????? i don't know anyone that drinks and drive, clean up after a few.


.....................

[BoristheBiter]

Speaking from first hand experience?

This is KB, of course not.

But then I'm not a criminal.

[BoristheBiter]

slip your wife some herbal ignite...

(check out norways non-punitive justice system and incredibly low recidivism)

possibly due to them not arresting them in the first place.

[ellipsis]

.....................

...fairly weak, even for you...a large disposable nappy should fit your head...I suggest you wear one, it would stop the shit running out every time you open your mouth.....

[BoristheBiter]

...fairly weak, even for you...a large disposable nappy should fit your head...I suggest you wear one, it would stop the shit running out every time you open your mouth.....

Does that go under or over the tinfoil?

[FJRider]

What's the point in having a breath alcohol limit if ...

I do hope your adherence to the Drink/Drive legislation is consistent with your adherence to the speed limits ...

More people die in the roads due to excessive speed than as a result of booze ... but booze usually causes you to kill OTHER people. Drunks usually survive .. (funny that)

Hurt somebody on the roads after having a few drinks, and the old "But I wasn't over the limit" ... will have the same ring of bullshit (later in Court) ... had you referred to either the booze ... AND/OR .... speed limit.

Few Insurance companies make a distinction between over the limit and under the influence ...

[SMOKEU]

I do hope your adherence to the Drink/Drive legislation is consistent with your adherence to the speed limits ...


Sometimes speeding is much safer than travelling at the speed limit, such as when overtaking or travelling in 30kmh zones as other drivers frequently get extremely angry and drive in a very dangerous manner if I'm not speeding by at least 10 or 15kmh over the speed limit. I speak from personal experience. If I'm on a motorway or quiet countryside road in dry conditions with good visibility then sometimes I will travel faster than the speed limit, but then no one else is going to get hurt if it all goes pear shaped. I don't care if drunk drivers crash and kill themselves, but it's when they hurt or kill innocent people that there's a problem.

[FJRider]

Sometimes speeding is much safer than travelling at the speed limit ..


Tell it to the cop that stops you ... and the Judge when it gets to court ...

Whats the bet THEY wont agree with you ...

[bogan]

Tell it to the cop that stops you ... and the Judge when it gets to court ...

Whats the bet THEY wont agree with you ...

Interesting, if speeding was well risky, shouldn't you have said if it gets to court? :shifty:

Speeding and boozing are two different issues, so people are welcome to have two different opinions of them.

[SMOKEU]

Tell it to the cop that stops you ... and the Judge when it gets to court ...

Whats the bet THEY wont agree with you ...

I'm very well aware of that. The current system is quite good at turning ordinary people into criminals, while many of the real criminals are set free to roam the streets.

The system is corrupt, and the war on speeding achieves nothing for road safety. That money is far better spent on driver/rider training and enforcement for serious offences that are much more likely to end in death or serious injury. You may even be surprised at the number of people who think they are a safe driver, just because they don't exceed the speed limits, even though they engage in other risky behaviour that will sooner or later cause a crash. But that's a whole different thread altogether.

[FJRider]

Interesting, if speeding was well risky, shouldn't you have said if it gets to court? :shifty:

Cops have a word for those risky speeding times ... Dangerous. The fines and Demerits go UP for them ...

If speeding is so much safer ... I'd think he'd be keen to tell the judge that ... wouldn't he .. ?? He might get off the charge.


Speeding and boozing are two different issues, so people are welcome to have two different opinions of them.

People die doing both ... (some guilty and some innocent) How can they be two different issues ... ???

If you pick and choose which law (and by how much) you will comply with ... it may end with another paying the price.

[bogan]

Cops have a word for those risky speeding times ... Dangerous. The fines and Demerits go UP for them ...

If speeding is so much safer ... I'd think he'd be keen to tell the judge that ... wouldn't he .. ?? He might get off the charge.



People die doing both ... (some guilty and some innocent) How can they be two different issues ... ???

If you pick and choose which law (and by how much) you will comply with ... it may end with another paying the price.

Cops use that same word for bikers...

If law is your only benchmark, different laws, different issues. If safety is simply a binary one, why do you ride?

[SMOKEU]

If you pick and choose which law (and by how much) you will comply with ... it may end with another paying the price.

Some laws are just stupid and don't serve to protect anyone, except for the politicians and bureaucrats who demonise whatever they don't like or understand, so therefore I don't feel like I should comply with certain laws. The best example of this is how cannabis is illegal, yet alcohol is legal. It's not really any different from telling learner riders that they're not allowed to ride a CBR125, but they are allowed to ride a GSXR1000 "just because the government says so".




If law is your only benchmark, different laws, different issues. If safety is simply a binary one, why do you ride?

Exactly!

[Mushu]

I'm very well aware of that. The current system is quite good at turning ordinary people into criminals, while many of the real criminals are set free to roam the streets.

The system is corrupt, and the war on speeding achieves nothing for road safety. That money is far better spent on driver/rider training and enforcement for serious offences that are much more likely to end in death or serious injury. You may even be surprised at the number of people who think they are a safe driver, just because they don't exceed the speed limits, even though they engage in other risky behaviour that will sooner or later cause a crash. But that's a whole different thread altogether.

I agree completely, for a start drink driving and speeding are two very different things. And fuck the cop that thinks it's dangerous to speed in every situation, overtaking for instance should always be done at or close to full throttle (or close to as much throttle as the conditions allow). Often it is safer to speed to get out of a situation than to allow a suspect driver to remain close for any length of time.

I speed every day at some point, doesn't make me a bad driver, situational awareness and allowing for the condition of the road, traffic, weather etc is far more important than some arbitrary number they put on a sign next to the road. (I only really check my speedo if there is a reason to, otherwise I just cruise about at whatever speed I feel is appropriate, could be under or over the speed limit depending on any number of factors)

The only time being under the influence is of benefit on the road is after you have already caused the accident, bring drunk will increase your chances of surviving (and judging by what I have seen the difference in survival rates between drunk and sober drivers is quite substantial)

[Ocean1]

If you pick and choose which law (and by how much) you will comply with ... it may end with another paying the price.

Can you imagine a law for which compliance is more dangerous than making your own decision based on your own environment? Take your time, but there's plenty to choose from.

In which case the price of compliance is more than that of ignoring the law, innit?

And you'd obey that law regardless?

[SMOKEU]

I agree completely, for a start drink driving and speeding are two very different things. And fuck the cop that thinks it's dangerous to speed in every situation, overtaking for instance should always be done at or close to full throttle (or close to as much throttle as the conditions allow). Often it is safer to speed to get out of a situation than to allow a suspect driver to remain close for any length of time.

I speed every day at some point, doesn't make me a bad driver, situational awareness and allowing for the condition of the road, traffic, weather etc is far more important than some arbitrary number they put on a sign next to the road. (I only really check my speedo if there is a reason to, otherwise I just cruise about at whatever speed I feel is appropriate, could be under or over the speed limit depending on any number of factors)

+1 to all of this, although I rarely speed around town since those pesky low powered Ka band speed cameras aren't easily detectable with a radar detector until it's too late.

[FJRider]

I'm very well aware of that. The current system is quite good at turning ordinary people into criminals, while many of the real criminals are set free to roam the streets.

The system is corrupt, and the war on speeding achieves nothing for road safety. That money is far better spent on driver/rider training and enforcement for serious offences that are much more likely to end in death or serious injury. You may even be surprised at the number of people who think they are a safe driver, just because they don't exceed the speed limits, even though they engage in other risky behaviour that will sooner or later cause a crash. But that's a whole different thread altogether.

Exceeding the posted Speed limit (only) is a Traffic infringement .. not a crime. Claiming criminality for that is pathetically humorous ... but you know the rules. Obey them or not.

Killing somebody while you drive under the influence/speeding is a crime. And deserve all you/they get.

People kill their children backing out their own driveway. Who can guess which of your actions might turn out to be dangerous .. ???


Whats the bet you think you are a safe rider/driver ...

[Mushu]

+1 to all of this, although I rarely speed around town since those pesky low powered Ka band speed cameras aren't easily detectable with a radar detector until it's too late.

I don't think about speed cameras much, must just be lucky. Of course I know where all the fixed speed cameras are and I tend to slow if I see a suspect van or a late model commodore.

[ruaphu]

Read that and was disgusted as well Paul.

Ive been hit by three drunk drivers in my 30+yrs of riding...I hate them with a fucking passion!
...I hope that cop meets up with that drunk driving prick in a dark ally one night...and doesn't hold ANYTHING back!

Never nice to lose a mate:no:...but when it happens right in front of you....the memory of it stays with you for the rest of your life!:bye:

And the drunken prick not ONLY left the fucken scene..but went on to drunk drive again-

"As people tended to the injured, Whalley left the scene, walking about 200 metres to his home. Whalley has six previous drink driving convictions and was also arrested after getting back behind the wheel two weeks after the crash on December 19, 2012, the day after Wilson died in hospital."

..obviously learnt from his actions :angry2:...now just watch the NZ "justice" system slap this prick with a wet bus ticket so he can go on to kill another innocent!


RIP John...loving thoughts to his family and friends...especially his mate who had to watch this horror unfold

Well said bro. Second everything said.

My better half has to deal with these drunken pricks after making a mess of everyone else, very hard to deal with and ALL fecking totally avoidable!

All drink drivers causing injury deserve nothing less than 'stoning' to death! No mercy, no trial, just dealt to!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SMOKEU]

Whats the bet you think you are a safe rider/driver ...

I'm not really a safe driver or rider since I lack experience and sufficient training. In fact, I need all the help I can get to improve my skills.

[FJRider]

Can you imagine a law for which compliance is more dangerous than making your own decision based on your own environment? Take your time, but there's plenty to choose from.

In which case the price of compliance is more than that of ignoring the law, innit?

And you'd obey that law regardless?

Should anybody come across such a law ... and make that choice. Any law enforcer may (or may not) use their discretion and not charge the offender.
If not ... the Judge may (or may not) use HIS discretion ...

Those that choose to disregard legislation better hope they get it right (or don't get caught)

[FJRider]

I'm not really a safe driver or rider since I lack experience and sufficient training. In fact, I need all the help I can get to improve my skills.

With such an admission ... exceeding posted speed limits and driving under the influence may not be a great idea.

Experience is gained (usually) just after you need it ...

[Ocean1]

Should anybody come across such a law ... and make that choice. Any law enforcer may (or may not) use their discretion and not charge the offender.
If not ... the Judge may (or may not) use HIS discretion ...

Those that choose to disregard legislation better hope they get it right (or don't get caught)

There are circumstances where every law is safer ignored.

And frankly even if the law enforcer and judge were there at the time I chose to ignore one it wouldn't affect that decision in the slightest.

My life; my choice.

[SMOKEU]

With such an admission ... exceeding posted speed limits and driving under the influence may not be a great idea.

Experience is gained (usually) just after you need it ...

I factor in my lack of experience and skill when riding, and therefore ride accordingly to my skill level rather than trying to be a hero by impressing others. I don't pretend to be fast, because any reasonably skilled rider can tell I'm a n00b by the way I ride, so I'll just be embarassing and endangering myself in a lame effort to appear "fast".

If I know I'm going to be consuming alcohol, then I choose to either get a ride with a sober driver, or ride a push bike.

[FJRider]

Some laws are just stupid and don't serve to protect anyone, except for the politicians and bureaucrats who demonise whatever they don't like or understand, so therefore I don't feel like I should comply with certain laws. The best example of this is how cannabis is illegal, yet alcohol is legal. It's not really any different from telling learner riders that they're not allowed to ride a CBR125, but they are allowed to ride a GSXR1000 "just because the government says so".





Last time I looked ... learners are NOT allowed to legally ride a GSXR1000 ... which makes that claim a little stupid. Grasping at straws and failing ...

[SMOKEU]

Last time I looked ... learners are NOT allowed to legally ride a GSXR1000 ... which makes that claim a little stupid. Grasping at straws and failing ...

No shit, dumbass. Read my fucking posts properly before making stupid comments and twisting whatever I say to suit your childish agenda. The only one here failing is you.

[FJRider]

Cops use that same word for bikers...

If law is your only benchmark, different laws, different issues. If safety is simply a binary one, why do you ride?

I ride how and when I like. If I choose to disregard any legislation ... I don't whinge about it if I get caught. I don't see it as a "Corrupt" system ... but those that continually add to treasury ... might think differently. It just amuses me the excuses that appear to justify their actions ...

And I hope they continue to add to treasury ... otherwise the TAX rate may increase ... THEN the whinging will REALLY start ..

[bogan]

I ride how and when I like. If I choose to disregard any legislation ... I don't whinge about it if I get caught. I don't see it as a "Corrupt" system ... but those that continually add to treasury ... might think differently. It just amuses me the excuses that appear to justify their actions ...

And I hope they continue to add to treasury ... otherwise the TAX rate may increase ... THEN the whinging will REALLY start ..

Exactly, you can choose to disregard some and not others cos they are different issues...

Whinging about others treating them as different issues seems rather hypocritical in light of this wouldn't you think?

[FJRider]

Exactly, you can choose to disregard some and not others cos they are different issues...

Whinging about others treating them as different issues seems rather hypocritical in light of this wouldn't you think?

I can and do ... but make no claims I am being in the right (or do it as of right) to do so. Nor do I challenge the Majority elected governments decisions on what IS legally required by way of legislation ... on our roads. Or question if that legislation is actually legal.

No traffic infringement tickets in the last six years (from memory) means I am lucky ... that .. with no prangs might suggest safe too ...

People die on the roads of NZ ... some ... riding motorcycles ... but none of those people are dead because somebody made a right decision ... and its poor decisions that kill people. That single issue covers/involves all legislation.

And how many of those dead ARE dead because somebody chose to ignore legislation .. ??? All/some/none .. ???

oh right ... "accidents happen" .. right .. ??

ALL facets of legislation is there in an attempt to keep people on the roads safer. Too strict and they lose votes. Too soft and the same result.

Some I don't agree with ... some I don't like. But I will be unable to change it. (many have tried)

Such is life.

[FJRider]

No shit, dumbass. Read my fucking posts properly before making stupid comments and twisting whatever I say to suit your childish agenda. The only one here failing is you.

Your words I quoted ... as you wrote them ... nothing twisted/changed. Is English your second language .. ??? Do you need lessons there too .. ???

Swearing and personal abuse is a sure sign you've lost any rational argument (a little childish too). SO ...That's a FAIL ... better luck on the honda forums ...

[bogan]

People die on the roads of NZ ... some ... riding motorcycles ... but none of those people are dead because somebody made a right decision ... and its poor decisions that kill people. That single issue covers/involves all legislation.

And how many of those dead ARE dead because somebody chose to ignore legislation .. ??? All/some/none .. ??? .

Exactly, you're on a roll now, it's bad decisions which kill, sometimes the bad decision is to ignore road conditions, sometimes it is to ignore road conditions and legislation. The legislation is just a guide, not an absolute safe/not criteria. The difference between the drink driving and speeding issues is simply that drink driving impairs your ability to make sound decisions across the whole journey. Speeding is a case by case decision which takes into account the road conditions at that point and time.

[Mushu]

Your words I quoted ... as you wrote them ... nothing twisted/changed. Is English your second language .. ??? Do you need lessons there too .. ???

Swearing and personal abuse is a sure sign you've lost any rational argument (a little childish too). SO ...That's a FAIL ... better luck on the honda forums ...

You missed the point, he was saying cannabis laws are stupid when compared to alcohol, basically like banning something relatively safe and allowing something dangerous, he put it in terms of a what if scenario and related it to bikes. Pretty sure smoke rides a Suzuki.


Exactly, you're on a roll now, it's bad decisions which kill, sometimes the bad decision is to ignore road conditions, sometimes it is to ignore road conditions and legislation. The legislation is just a guide, not an absolute safe/not criteria. The difference between the drink driving and speeding issues is simply that drink driving impairs your ability to make sound decisions across the whole journey. Speeding is a case by case decision which takes into account the road conditions at that point and time.

That's a good way to put it. I totally agree.

[ellipsis]

...stupidity, slow wittedness, inflated egos, dyslexia, ignorance, a lack of basic understanding, addictions, cannot be legislated against...sorry, but it's a sad fact of life that the rules and the nuances of are interpreted in a rather fucked up and totally personalised neuro processor, and they cant be legislated against either...you cant have your cake and eat it too...if they pass the test, they are on the road...gotta wake up every day knowing that the ladder may collapse, the earth may open or that the inexperienced sober euro Maui Camper has your number or that 'you' may just over extend your, invitation. There is no wish by the lawmakers to stop this stupidity, only a whitewashed, hoisted upon the public panaceac, that is legislation. 8% RTD's were banned I thought...they are back as 7%...the polis are between a rock and a hard place...lots of money in piss, ay...(eh, aye)

[TheDemonLord]

Just for reference - Speeding has never killed anyone

Sudden Deceleration exceeding 25g for extended periods of time however is Fatal

BAN SUDDEN DECELERATION!!!!!

[bogan]

Just for reference - Speeding has never killed anyone

Sudden Deceleration exceeding 25g for extended periods of time however is Fatal

BAN SUDDEN DECELERATION!!!!!

Or, mandatorialise inertial dampness!

[Ocean1]

Or, mandatorialise inertial dampness!

A policy I've spent a large part of my life selling to the fairer aspect of our population.

The success of which seems to be inversely proportionate to the quantity of internal dampness I've most recently been indulging in.




Remind me to share my recipe for Limoncello powered Margaritas.

[Akzle]

Remind me to share my recipe for Limoncello powered Margaritas.

fuken, do.

[FJRider]

A policy I've spent a large part of my life selling to the fairer aspect of our population.

The success of which seems to be inversely proportionate to the quantity of internal dampness I've most recently been indulging in.






Drink more beer ... it's been known to reduce dampness .. :calm:

[Ocean1]

fuken, do.

First you need to have invented Limecello. Using 70% premium Vodka, 10% high grade sugar and 20% lime juice.

Then you need to store the 6 Litres for a few years and move house so you find it again.

Then you have to go to Hawaii with a couple of master pissheads and sample the local cocktails.

And attempt, months later, through an alcoholic haze to remember how to make some of them.

And get it horribly wrong.

Bung one mug of Limecello, one mug of Tequila, half a mug of Cointreau, the juice of half a dozen lemons and a mug of ice into a blender.

Twice.

[Akzle]

First you need to have invented Limecello. Using 70% premium Vodka, 10% high grade sugar and 20% lime juice.

Then you need to store the 6 Litres for a few years and move house so you find it again.

Then you have to go to Hawaii with a couple of master pissheads and sample the local cocktails.

And attempt, months later, through an alcoholic haze to remember how to make some of them.

And get it horribly wrong.

Bung one mug of Limecello, one mug of Tequila, half a mug of Cointreau, the juice of half a dozen lemons and a mug of ice into a blender.

Twice.

hrm. I have a limoncellocutionist for that, as for the rest, sounds a lot like my formative years.
Ill let you know!
Doesnt sound like the mix to waste the 1800 on though.
And who the fuck buys contreau??