Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3784918.ece?Submitted=true
The problem is, what happens is that people read that and go 'Yes TOO right, drink driving limit should be zero! Ban them for life etc.' but these people are niave. It's these sort of attitudes that have got our country littered with speed camera's and i'm still not convinced they've saved lives, but just prevented them in the EXACT spot where the camera is.
Some of the key comments which sum up my thinking are
quote:
What no one seems to consider is that the drunk drivers that cause accidents are not on the current limit of 80mg, but way above that. To reduce the limit will only increase the numbers who get fined without any good reason, and not reduce the accidents caused by the hardened drink drivers who drink well over the limit and who will carry on do in it.
quote:
a 50mg limit basically prevents drinking alcohol any evening if you are going to drive the next day...another nail in the coffin of the pubs! better to enforce the limit we have and ban offenders for 5 years and retake test when ban elapses.
quote:
Who are the problem drivers on the roads? It's not those who have between 50-80 mg alcohol. It's those who steal a car, drink with over 80mg, drive unlicensed and uninsured. Then they have a crash killing themselves, their passengers and the driver and passengers of the innocent victims they run into.
quote:
With a 50mg limit people will be reduced to drinking in the evening only. But then if they have several glasses of beer or wine in the evening they will be over the limit when they go to work the next morning. This is much more onerous than it sounds. Most people have a drink or two in the evening and think they are pefectly OK to drive the next morning. With a 50mg limit they will probably fail a breath test.
quote:
The 'if it saves just one life' argument is ridiculous. Perhaps one drink does impair driving ability marginally, but then so does being old, being disabled, being poorly co-ordinated, having passengers in the car and so on and so on.
Perhaps we should just ban everyone from driving, which is of course just what these anti-car 'road safety' groups, such as Brake, want.
Just winds me up... As by lowering the limit really isn't going to save many lives. Most likely the accidents which happen when people have between 50 - 80 mg in their blood are just a coicidence to the drink, not because of the drink.
For example person A crashed 0 mg blood... (put down to driver error / accident)
Person B crashes with 50mg blood... and it's put down due to the alcohol.
Don't get me wrong drink driving is bad if over 80mg ... but I don't see the point of this lowering the limit as all it's doing is penalising more 'innocent' people - plus adding the confusion of hw many drinks is 50mg.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Online
|
You're overlooking the major issue, punishing legitimate drivers actually makes great statistics, even if the risk isn't that large.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
You're overlooking the major issue, punishing legitimate drivers actually makes great statistics, even if the risk isn't that large.
and also by bringing the limit down to 50mg makes it the same level as the EU 
|
mattk
Member
Registered: 27th Feb 06
Location: St. Helens
User status: Offline
|
UI never drive after Ive had any amount of alcohol, It is awful when you wake up the following morning though and have to drive to work, which I have to admit I have done and have been over the limit
the drink driving limit doesnt interest me as it wont affect me, I dont drive these days till im completely sure Im allowed
getting done for drink driving would cut me up, Its sounds so irrisponsible
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Online
|
quote:
Originally posted by mattk
I never drive after Ive had any amount of alcohol ... I have done and have been over the limit
Make your mind up?
I think there is already a great stigma associated with drink driving but on balance of facts, there are other factors which affect your ability to drive far more.
Not to mention that there are a great many drivers on UK roads who simply don't bother with the system. Those with legitimate vehicles and legitimate licences continue to be punished in the pocket, while those who opt out are not caught by speed cameras, not caught at accidents when they leave the scene and never obligated to pay out money for anything relating to keeping their car legal.
I would far prefer efforts being made to introduce fairness and consistency in the UK system, rather than these headline stories.
If this carries on, you mark my words. The headlines in five years will be a new initiative to get the general and otherwise law abiding public driving legally again. I can no longer see the benefits of shelling out thousands per year when others get it for free, particularly when it is so easy to fall foul of the law - a few mph over the speed limit, a few mg over a lower dd limit. Neither of which is actually that dangerous.
The tit-for-tat punishments just criminalise otherwise honest people.
[Edited on 21-04-2008 by Ian]
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
Thing is, it's much like speeding.
I think everyone would admit to doing 33 mph in a 30 mph once or twice in their life! They'd feel that this was relatively safe and the risk of injuring someone would be minimal.
However, statistically you are speeding. Therefore you are in the same category (in terminology of what you have done wrong) as someone who is doing 70 mph through the same 30 mph limit.
One is more dangerous than the other, one deserves a punishment and one does not, but the people who like to get up on the high horse will simply say 'You shouldn't speed no matter what! i.e. even doing 33 in a 30 is really bad.
Despite the fact that you doing 30 mph or less may not prevent an accident any more than if you were doing 35 mph, the same car could still pull out, or you could still lose concentration and hit whatever you hit, etc - it's only a few mph limit difference but on one side you are the perfect citizen and on the other you're labelled a criminal.
I feel it's the same here with this drink driving example. The law will undoubtably get passed as people will get on their high horse saying 'Any drink is dangerous' - 'I personally never have a drink and drink' etc.
Ok, they're fair points depending on who you are and how you feeling after one drink. However, often I'll go out for the day (which requires driving), have a pint at lunch, one or two hours later I get back in a car. The effect of that amount of alcohol after even an hour will be fairly minimal on my driving if noticable at all. Yet now if I got stopped, i'd be labelled a 'drink driver'.
At the same time someone else could get out of a pub after 12 pints, stagger over to their car and struggle to drive in a straight line and get stopped and also be caught over the limit. He also is now a 'drink driver'.
Once again, 1 is fairly safe / no real difference to being legally correct, the other is dangerous and definately a wrong thing to do.
Yet both will be labled and suffer the same punishment of a 'drink driver' that would KILL people if not stopped.
I also think that raises a very valid point about the day after too! Once again, just the remaining alcohol which you'd barely notice (and therefore probably wouldn't effect your driving!) - yet your now over the limit and against the law!
|
CorsAsh
Member
Registered: 19th Apr 02
Location: Munich
User status: Offline
|
It's this politically correct zero tolerance brigade that are fuelling the situation. The ones who live in their perfectly insulated little bubbles, cut off from the world save for when they spout forth some more ridiculous legislation to make everyones' lives a little more complex.
I truly, truly hope that England will get to the point where people will say "enough is enough" (a la Poll Tax) and stand up to the government for what is tantamount to persecution of a major part of society.
At the moment the stiff upper lips are out in force, perhaps a recession and a time where the UK isn't so prosperous as it has been will provide the environment in which people start to take action.
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
p.s. this is an example of the people with their I'm up on my high horse comments.
http://www.saxosportsclub.com/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=37625/finish=30/start=0.html
It's no wonder the world is becomming so pathetic and care bear these days, as people like that (half of which blatently haven't even read the article properly) are just like 'IT SHOULD BE ZERO LIMIT! I HATE DRINK DRIVERS WITH A PASSION'
Once again going back to my category / labelling...
Is she saying she hates the people who drink 7 pints and crash killing families, or the people who are only just over the limit, barely noticable and could quite competently drive... (note i mean the new limit... i.e under the current limit).
|
Paul_J
Member
Registered: 6th Jun 02
Location: London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorsAsh
It's this politically correct zero tolerance brigade that are fuelling the situation. The ones who live in their perfectly insulated little bubbles, cut off from the world save for when they spout forth some more ridiculous legislation to make everyones' lives a little more complex.
I truly, truly hope that England will get to the point where people will say "enough is enough" (a la Poll Tax) and stand up to the government for what is tantamount to persecution of a major part of society.
At the moment the stiff upper lips are out in force, perhaps a recession and a time where the UK isn't so prosperous as it has been will provide the environment in which people start to take action.
Problem is Ash, I truely feel this country is being run by the mothers committies and old ladies who sit in their cafeteria at lunch time bitching about how bad the world is (despite them having no life and not being part of half of it).
Not to mention most laws / surveys to propose laws get spun.
For example in my local area they reduced all national speed limits to 40 mph - but the survey read:
"If reducing the national speed limits to 40 mph, meant that it would prevent hundreds of people dying each year, would you be in favour of this proposition?"
"Yes / No"
So do you think it's a good idea to prevent people dying? well I'm not going to tick 'NO' to that  So naturally my whole area is now 40 limits  I doubt v.much it'll prevent a single accident.
This is due to everyone still doing over 40 mph down those national speed limit areas (as half are just country lanes) and the other half are wide open dual carriageways no where near any civilisation and it previously being perfectly safe to do 60/70 down them anyway.
Most probably the only accidents that ever happened on the country lanes were due to people breaking the existing 60 limit / driving drunk or driving over the limit for the conditions...
Therefore, reducing the limit to 40 won't reduce any accidents at all in those 3 scenerios 
|
GT190
Member
Registered: 6th Dec 07
Location: Greater London
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by mattk
I never drive after Ive had any amount of alcohol ... I have done and have been over the limit
Make your mind up?
I think there is already a great stigma associated with drink driving but on balance of facts, there are other factors which affect your ability to drive far more.
Not to mention that there are a great many drivers on UK roads who simply don't bother with the system. Those with legitimate vehicles and legitimate licences continue to be punished in the pocket, while those who opt out are not caught by speed cameras, not caught at accidents when they leave the scene and never obligated to pay out money for anything relating to keeping their car legal.
I would far prefer efforts being made to introduce fairness and consistency in the UK system, rather than these headline stories.
If this carries on, you mark my words. The headlines in five years will be a new initiative to get the general and otherwise law abiding public driving legally again. I can no longer see the benefits of shelling out thousands per year when others get it for free, particularly when it is so easy to fall foul of the law - a few mph over the speed limit, a few mg over a lower dd limit. Neither of which is actually that dangerous.
The tit-for-tat punishments just criminalise otherwise honest people.
[Edited on 21-04-2008 by Ian]
agreed with most of the above. 
|
CorsAsh
Member
Registered: 19th Apr 02
Location: Munich
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
Essay
See my point regarding people insulated from the real world. They can't leave things alone, no one has a concept of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" anymore.
So they move from cause to cause, they next big thing comes along and when they've badgered and whinged and got their way, because let's face it, 90% of their suggestions are enforcable, fixed-penalty-suitable schemes that the Government LOVES, they just find something new to bitch about.
They clearly have too much time on their hands, I'd put them all in work camps tbh. See how much they care about a 30mg reduction in the DD limit then. Bastards.
|
James_DT
Member
Registered: 9th Apr 04
Location: Cambridgeshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
I think there is already a great stigma associated with drink driving but on balance of facts, there are other factors which affect your ability to drive far more.
Being tired, for one.
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Not to mention that there are a great many drivers on UK roads who simply don't bother with the system. Those with legitimate vehicles and legitimate licences continue to be punished in the pocket, while those who opt out are not caught by speed cameras, not caught at accidents when they leave the scene and never obligated to pay out money for anything relating to keeping their car legal.
Because these people are harder to catch than the legitimate drivers. All the new measures to combat speeding, congestion, drink driving and pollution aren't to make the world a better place, they're to keep the media and the people who pay attention to the media without engaging their own brains happy.
The drink driving law works as it is. It stops most people from drinking, and the people that drink drive are going to do so whether it's 80, 50 or 0mg/l. I'd imagine most accidents caused by drink aren't caused by those who blow a 78 or an 83, but those who blow well above that.
|
richc
Member
Registered: 24th Mar 07
Location: Ilkeston
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul_J
Thing is, it's much like speeding.
I think everyone would admit to doing 33 mph in a 30 mph once or twice in their life! They'd feel that this was relatively safe and the risk of injuring someone would be minimal.
However, statistically you are speeding. Therefore you are in the same category (in terminology of what you have done wrong) as someone who is doing 70 mph through the same 30 mph limit.
One is more dangerous than the other, one deserves a punishment and one does not, but the people who like to get up on the high horse will simply say 'You shouldn't speed no matter what! i.e. even doing 33 in a 30 is really bad.
Despite the fact that you doing 30 mph or less may not prevent an accident any more than if you were doing 35 mph, the same car could still pull out, or you could still lose concentration and hit whatever you hit, etc - it's only a few mph limit difference but on one side you are the perfect citizen and on the other you're labelled a criminal.
I feel it's the same here with this drink driving example. The law will undoubtably get passed as people will get on their high horse saying 'Any drink is dangerous' - 'I personally never have a drink and drink' etc.
Ok, they're fair points depending on who you are and how you feeling after one drink. However, often I'll go out for the day (which requires driving), have a pint at lunch, one or two hours later I get back in a car. The effect of that amount of alcohol after even an hour will be fairly minimal on my driving if noticable at all. Yet now if I got stopped, i'd be labelled a 'drink driver'.
At the same time someone else could get out of a pub after 12 pints, stagger over to their car and struggle to drive in a straight line and get stopped and also be caught over the limit. He also is now a 'drink driver'.
Once again, 1 is fairly safe / no real difference to being legally correct, the other is dangerous and definately a wrong thing to do.
Yet both will be labled and suffer the same punishment of a 'drink driver' that would KILL people if not stopped.
I also think that raises a very valid point about the day after too! Once again, just the remaining alcohol which you'd barely notice (and therefore probably wouldn't effect your driving!) - yet your now over the limit and against the law!
What he said
|
mattk
Member
Registered: 27th Feb 06
Location: St. Helens
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by mattk
I never drive after Ive had any amount of alcohol ... I have done and have been over the limit
Make your mind up?
 thats the most unfair quote ever
I never have a pint and then drive home, however I admit I have IN THE PAST drove a short trip to college when I was 17 - 18 feeling a little dizzy from the night before
|
Jay
Member
Registered: 26th Sep 04
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by bx16v on SSC
I can drive ok on 4 pints, I don't know what all the fuss is about.
|
luke85
Member
Registered: 26th Nov 07
Location: Chesterfield
User status: Offline
|
To be honest I have no idea how much it would take to put me over the limit, Sometimes I have a pint when its part of a meal deal in a pub and drive away, dont consider that to make any difference what so ever.
What im more concerned about it this morning after business. how much is 50mg in laymans terms?
|
neil h
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 06
User status: Offline
|
Bloody hell there are some real web warriors on that saxo forum.
Thing they all seem to miss is that medicines such as night nurse contain alcohol, a decent gravy can contain alcohol, (as was said) mouthwash contains alcohol alsorts of things contain alcohol. So a zero tolerance approach would be completely inpractical.
|
