
Originally Posted by
damian_steele
Seems that the majority want an absolute blanket result with no room for consideration of the circumstances. Hardly a surprise there. Good job you lot aren't judges, isn't it?
A mate of mine lives well out into the sticks. There's nothing round his place for almost twenty miles. Nearest hospital is something like 35 miles. Two years ago his little girl fell off a wall and gashed her leg open quite deeply. She was pouring with blood. He'd already had a couple of cans of beer and was technically over the limit. Should he:
1. Have waited for around 30 - 45 minutes for the ambulance to arrive then subjected his girl to the long ride back to the hospital and possibly have her die.
2. Have tried to deal with this quite serious medical emergency with a couple of tea towels, some gaffer tape and a few days in bed, then probably have her die from infection.
3. Taken the risk and driven her straight to the hospital, thereby probably saving her life?
According to most of you lot he should not have done number 3 or he would then be breaking the law and immediately sentenced to a year in prison (minimum).
So, sometimes there is an excuse for drink driving and a blanket ruling regardless of circumstances is a bad idea.