Really ? You've kept that quiet...

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Sat May 22, 2021 5:04 pm

The problem being I think that will be a million miles away from being an affordable solution, I’m not sure how far away from production or what the vehicles will initially cost but long term I sincerely hope that’s the answer, I do a lot of driving & have worked with mental health before in an advisory & counselling capacity.

Electric /hybrid cars are already affordable for those who regularly purchase new cars.

The tech is nearly there for self driving and its already in the Tesla.

Couple of years and they'll be allowed on all uk roads.

Skimmed through, quality read.

My takeaway:

-Defending drink driving is insane
-Advocating for some folk to take some downers to 'calm them down' before driving is equally as insane

Hope for humanity = still in question...

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Sat May 22, 2021 8:16 pm

Electric /hybrid cars are already affordable for those who regularly purchase new cars.

The tech is nearly there for self driving and its already in the Tesla.

Couple of years and they'll be allowed on all uk roads.

I just did a quick check on the cost of new cars, because this seemed a bit unbelievable. And sure enough, the bottom-of-the-range electric Mini is £26k, its petrol equivalent £17k. I suppose someone who buys top of the range new cars could get lower spec electric cars for the same money?

A reminder to the zero tolerance brigade. Drink driving is commonly accepted as drinking over the limit. Judging from some comments on this thread this is often confused with having a beer and getting behind the wheel while obeying the law

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 1:32 am

A reminder to the zero tolerance brigade. Drink driving is commonly accepted as drinking over the limit. Judging from some comments on this thread this is often confused with having a beer and getting behind the wheel while obeying the law

& some of the very same people criticise the use of mild tranquillisers in low doses, alcohol exhibits sedative effects within itself & is a depressant, I don’t see much of a difference between somebody having a pint & somebody taking a mild tranquillisers, both pretty much do the same job the only difference being is 1 is commonly accepted & enjoyed by more of the population hence the acceptance. A low dose of a temazepam & a premium lager you are splitting hairs if anything the beer supersedes the edge.

Look Jakub , it’s best ignoring them. One minute they are all in ‘We shall overcome’ mode the next minute they are discussing with each other how they were pissheads growing up.
By the way I don’t think having a drink is the best way for a nervous driver to settle their nerves

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 2:22 am

Look Jakub , it’s best ignoring them. One minute they are all in ‘We shall overcome’ mode the next minute they are discussing with each other how they were pissheads growing up.
By the way I don’t think having a drink is the best way for a nervous driver to settle their nerves

I’ve always maintained you are better off having relaxed drivers on the roads than people hyped up & rushing about with the foot on the accelerator, I’d prefer grandads having a pint of bitter or a mild tranquilliser than coked up boy racers, I know which 1 represents most danger to me. Ideally no drug should be used whilst driving but unfortunately we aren’t living in an ideal world.

dsr wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 12:02 am

I just did a quick check on the cost of new cars, because this seemed a bit unbelievable. And sure enough, the bottom-of-the-range electric Mini is £26k, its petrol equivalent £17k. I suppose someone who buys top of the range new cars could get lower spec electric cars for the same money?

Some will do that, others will just pay the money for top end EV's, or wait for a price drop /better gov trade in deal.

I regularly see EV's when I'm out working now, plus cars like the Fiat 500 are now available as an EV so I'd expect to see a lot of those about in the next 12 mths.

9yrs left until the ban on the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles in the UK, so people who buy new cars will be switching over when their current deals end.

Deliveroo even have a deal for riders in London to get electric mopeds on a good pay weekly deal.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 7:43 am

Some will do that, others will just pay the money for top end EV's, or wait for a price drop /better gov trade in deal.

I regularly see EV's when I'm out working now, plus cars like the Fiat 500 are now available as an EV so I'd expect to see a lot of those about in the next 12 mths.

9yrs left until the ban on the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles in the UK, so people who buy new cars will be switching over when their current deals end.

Deliveroo even have a deal for riders in London to get electric mopeds on a good pay weekly deal.

Has a cash buyer I certainly won't be putting any of my money into such a depreciating asset as an electric car.

I honestly can't see myself ever buying an electric car, I couldn't be arsed with charging the bloody thing.

Just imagine Fulham away and having to charge the bugger three times and still having to push the last couple of 100 yds into cravan cottage, you would have to leave Burnley at 5pm on a Friday to make a 3pm Saturday ko

Top Claret wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 9:12 am

Has a cash buyer I certainly won't be putting any of my money into such a depreciating asset as an electric car.

I honestly can't see myself ever buying an electric car, I couldn't be arsed with charging the bloody thing.

Just imagine Fulham away and having to charge the bugger three times and still having to push the last couple of 100 yds into cravan cottage, you would have to leave Burnley at 5pm on a Friday to make a 3pm Saturday ko

Your ignorance is showing.

Battery capacity is and will continue to improve.
Charging speed is and will continue to improve.

New houses are now adding in charging points as a sales tactic.

The gov just needs to launch an overhaul of the national grid to cope with the future charging rate and we also need to create more street side charging stations.

Its all quite interesting.

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 2:22 am

...By the way I don’t think having a drink is the best way for a nervous driver to settle their nerves

Agreed, a couple of joints would work better

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 9:41 am

Your ignorance is showing.

Battery capacity is and will continue to improve.
Charging speed is and will continue to improve.

New houses are now adding in charging points as a sales tactic.

The gov just needs to launch an overhaul of the national grid to cope with the future charging rate and we also need to create more street side charging stations.

Its all quite interesting.

EV charging points are provided to all new houses as a mandatory requirement under most local planning authorities.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 10:02 am

EV charging points are provided to all new houses as a mandatory requirement under most local planning authorities.

Indeed, although the irony on my new estate is that one of the building firms is putting in the EV charging points on houses without driveways to meet the regulations - all quite comical really and highlights the issues with some rules politicians create. Before anyone asks, there are allocated parking bays for these houses (it’s all the shared ownership houses, which are usually built cheaper with no things like en-suite etc), and the parking bays are on occasion at least 100 yards away from the house, but it’s a tick in the box so that’s alright then.

Top Claret wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 9:12 am

Has a cash buyer I certainly won't be putting any of my money into such a depreciating asset as an electric car.

I honestly can't see myself ever buying an electric car, I couldn't be arsed with charging the bloody thing.

Just imagine Fulham away and having to charge the bugger three times and still having to push the last couple of 100 yds into cravan cottage, you would have to leave Burnley at 5pm on a Friday to make a 3pm Saturday ko

I'd get the train with a few tinnies

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 10:39 am

Indeed, although the irony on my new estate is that one of the building firms is putting in the EV charging points on houses without driveways to meet the regulations - all quite comical really and highlights the issues with some rules politicians create. Before anyone asks, there are allocated parking bays for these houses (it’s all the shared ownership houses, which are usually built cheaper with no things like en-suite etc), and the parking bays are on occasion at least 100 yards away from the house, but it’s a tick in the box so that’s alright then.

Yes, houses with remote parking will have a charging point on a post. It’s not just a tick in the box though, because why should people buying a house under a shared ownership scheme not be afforded the same access to a charging point?

This ensures that the house builder puts in the infrastructure to take the power supply to the remote parking bay which just wouldn’t be possible once the road is completed.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 10:47 am

Yes, houses with remote parking will have a charging point on a post. It’s not just a tick in the box though, because why should people buying a house under a shared ownership scheme not be afforded the same access to a charging point?

This ensures that the house builder puts in the infrastructure to take the power supply to the remote parking bay which just wouldn’t be possible once the road is completed.

Mate, the charging points are being installed on the houses, not remotely by the cars - that’s the problem - for the builders they’ve ticked the box “charging point installed” - tick... but the fact the charging point is nowhere near the parking space is not relevant to them and their box tick. Perhaps we need a new thread for this too, instead of hijacking the “it’s ok to drive under the influence as long as I don’t go over the target level for the substance I’m using” brigade thread

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 10:57 am

Mate, the charging points are being installed on the houses, not remotely by the cars - that’s the problem - for the builders they’ve ticked the box “charging point installed” - tick... but the fact the charging point is nowhere near the parking space is not relevant to them and their box tick. Perhaps we need a new thread for this too, instead of hijacking the “it’s ok to drive under the influence as long as I don’t go over the target level for the substance I’m using” brigade thread

Ah, got you. Yeah that’s poor from the builders and I would expect the planning authority to ensure this is rectified before the development is signed off, unless it already has been. One of the main issues with electric vehicles is the vast number of people who don’t have off-street parking, and how they will have access to charging points. Although I suspect charging pads or another solution to be found.

You’re right though, let’s not divert off the topic of nervous drivers being encouraged to take tranquillisers.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 11:05 am

Ah, got you. Yeah that’s poor from the builders and I would expect the planning authority to ensure this is rectified before the development is signed off, unless it already has been. One of the main issues with electric vehicles is the vast number of people who don’t have off-street parking, and how they will have access to charging points. Although I suspect charging pads or another solution to be found.

You’re right though, let’s not divert off the topic of nervous drivers being encouraged to take tranquillisers.

Surely the position of the charging point will have been agreed during the planning application?

Hipper wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 11:24 am

Surely the position of the charging point will have been agreed during the planning application?

It’s probably been overlooked to be honest. The information provided is generally pretty vague and not always required until before occupation of the development. Although if Zlatan has moved in then they’re beyond that point. It depends whether the condition relating to the charging points has been discharged which may not yet be the case. Like I say though it has probably just been overlooked by the planning authority.

I'm confused. A player has been charged with drink driving because he wasn't driving an electric car?

2 Bee Holed wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 2:03 pm

I'm confused. A player has been charged with drink driving because he wasn't driving an electric car?

Shocking!

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 2:27 am

I’ve always maintained you are better off having relaxed drivers on the roads than people hyped up & rushing about with the foot on the accelerator, I’d prefer grandads having a pint of bitter or a mild tranquilliser than coked up boy racers, I know which 1 represents most danger to me. Ideally no drug should be used whilst driving but unfortunately we aren’t living in an ideal world.

It isn't a binary choice between the two.

How about - taking substances that severely lowers ones reaction times & also taking uppers that make you think you're a prime Colin McRae are both non starters.

Again, if people are verging on having a nervous breakdown by getting behind the wheel of a car to the effect that they need to dope themselves out to relax into it - then I'd argue they shouldn't be driving a car in the first place.

It's a privilege, not a right.

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 2:20 pm

It isn't a binary choice between the two.

How about - taking substances that severely lowers ones reaction times & also taking uppers that make you think you're a prime Colin McRae are both non starters.

Again, if people are verging on having a nervous breakdown by getting behind the wheel of a car to the effect that they need to dope themselves out to relax into it - then I'd argue they shouldn't be driving a car in the first place.

It's a privilege, not a right.

Tranquillisers do have negatives such as reducing “reaction times” but also some positives, I simply believe the correct dosages of tranquillisers will outweigh the negatives with positives, I agree some people shouldn’t be driving if they are that anxious but the facts are we could all scream blue murder that they shouldn’t do you think our opinions will stop them driving? I don’t want people to nervous & agitated behind the wheel I’d much rather prefer the drivers to be relaxed because I believe less pressure = less mistakes.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 2:29 pm

Tranquillisers do have negatives such as reducing “reaction times” but also some positives, I simply believe the correct dosages of tranquillisers will outweigh the negatives with positives, I agree some people shouldn’t be driving if they are that anxious but the facts are we could all scream blue murder that they shouldn’t do you think our opinions will stop them driving? I don’t want people to nervous & agitated behind the wheel I’d much rather prefer the drivers to be relaxed because I believe less pressure = less mistakes.

I am sure the judge would look very favourably when presented with your argument Jakub

Bosscat wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 2:34 pm

I am sure the judge would look very favourably when presented with your argument Jakub

We are big on statistics here, I’d love some statistics regarding accidents & mental health correlation, & crucially the people involved in the accidents whether they was anxious or nervous prior to the collisions & whether medication taken beforehand could have prevented the accidents occurring. That would make for some interesting reading.

I can’t decide whether Jakubclaret says something ridiculous that surely he can’t even believe, and then simply digs in when confronted with his stupidity, or whether he actually does believe the frightening nonsense he spouts.

Either way, it’s pretty sobering to read in broad daylight.

For anyone to advocate drinking/drug taking before driving is a good idea is complete and utter lunacy

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 2:41 pm

I can’t decide whether Jakubclaret says something ridiculous that surely he can’t even believe, and then simply digs in when confronted with his stupidity, or whether he actually does believe the frightening nonsense he spouts.

Either way, it’s pretty sobering to read in broad daylight.

There's the problem, you're sober before reading

Aye aye Ashley!!!

tim_noone wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 5:49 pm

Aye aye Ashley!!!

Hows the knee Tim ...

Bosscat wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 6:03 pm

Hows the knee Tim ...

Better for painkillers....but I dont think they're the answer.

tim_noone wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 7:45 pm

Better for painkillers....but I dont think they're the answer.

You'll get there buddy ....

£13,725 fine and 12 month ban:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/15255696 ... ve-arrest/

Sean Dyche's Watch wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:27 am

£13,725 fine and 12 month ban:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/15255696 ... ve-arrest/

Obviously went to the wrong solicitor

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Sun May 23, 2021 2:41 pm

I can’t decide whether Jakubclaret says something ridiculous that surely he can’t even believe, and then simply digs in when confronted with his stupidity, or whether he actually does believe the frightening nonsense he spouts.

Either way, it’s pretty sobering to read in broad daylight.

I think we’ve just entertained the village idiot for a while that’s all.

I’d have preferred a longer ban as it would have been more appropriate. The fine is like most people paying 2 pence. He won’t notice it.

I wonder if he fell over in court when the magistrate announced the fine ?

Why do these articles always have to mention the value of the car and the value of his home in these reports.

Who cares, he's been a d1ck just say what's happened.
Doesnt matter if he was driving a 500 quid car on the way to his £75 a week 1 bed flat.

Sack him. Dickhead

MACCA wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:26 am

Why do these articles always have to mention the value of the car and the value of his home in these reports.

Who cares, he's been a d1ck just say what's happened.
Doesnt matter if he was driving a 500 quid car on the way to his £75 a week 1 bed flat.

If it was a bloke driving a £500 car living in a £75/week flat, it wouldnt have made the news .Its the very fact that its a footballer driving an expensive car and living in an expensive house that makes it newsworthy.

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:12 am

Sack him. Dickhead

He has been an idiot. I'm sure he regrets it enormously. He's been punished and I've no doubt he's punishing himself too. So sacking him would be kicking him hard while he's down which I doubt is required. I would say such severe action would only be appropriate if he didn't learn from his mistake.

Boss Hogg wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:10 am

I’d have preferred a longer ban as it would have been more appropriate. The fine is like most people paying 2 pence. He won’t notice it.

I'm just the opposite. Presuming that he was only slightly over the limit rather than rat-arsed, then for a first offence a 12 month ban would sound to be the norm; I dislike the idea of 'high profile members of society being given tougher than average treatment as 'an example to others', similarly, I get annoyed about 'celebrities' getting a free pass/slap on the wrist for poor behaviour just because of who they are - most often that seems to be politicians.

MACCA wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:26 am

Why do these articles always have to mention the value of the car and the value of his home in these reports.

Who cares, he's been a d1ck just say what's happened.
Doesnt matter if he was driving a 500 quid car on the way to his £75 a week 1 bed flat.

Simply because if he was on the bones of his arse there is no possible way he would be able to pay a £13,725.00 fine whereas it really only represents a few weeks wages.

kentonclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:39 am

Simply because if he was on the bones of his arse there is no possible way he would be able to pay a £13,725.00 fine whereas it really only represents a few weeks wages.

It represents a few days of his wage. The court has regard to a person’s income so it’s all relative.

AfloatinClaret wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:22 am

I'm just the opposite. Presuming that he was only slightly over the limit rather than rat-arsed, then for a first offence a 12 month ban would sound to be the norm; I dislike the idea of 'high profile members of society being given tougher than average treatment as 'an example to others', similarly, I get annoyed about 'celebrities' getting a free pass/slap on the wrist for poor behaviour just because of who they are - most often that seems to be politicians.

I’m not condoning what he’s done in any way but I have it on very good authority that he was only just over the limit. He’s paid for it both in the courts and at the football club.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:43 am

I’m not condoning what he’s done in any way but I have it on very good authority that he was only just over the limit. He’s paid for it both in the courts and at the football club.

I think 12 months is the minimum ban which means he was just over the limit. Like you, I’m not condoning it but it’s better than him being two or three time over the limit.

MACCA wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:26 am

Why do these articles always have to mention the value of the car and the value of his home in these reports.

Who cares, he's been a d1ck just say what's happened.
Doesnt matter if he was driving a 500 quid car on the way to his £75 a week 1 bed flat.

Agreed.

taio wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:48 am

I think 12 months is the minimum ban which means he was just over the limit. Like you, I’m not condoning it but it’s better than him being two or three time over the limit.

So if you kill somebody whilst drink driving I guess it's some sort of consolation to the family - well he was only just over the limit, remember he was also higher when he initially embarked upon his journey prior to getting pulled, it just happens when the reading got taken it had dropped.

taio wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:48 am

I think 12 months is the minimum ban which means he was just over the limit. Like you, I’m not condoning it but it’s better than him being two or three time over the limit.

There really aren't any 'levels' of acceptability for drink-driving. The whole sorry episode is utterly deplorable and always will be. Some offences are without doubt inexcusable and this is one of them.