Drink-drive limit to be halved.

[gIzzE]

Well I too am shocked at some comments.
Clearly some selfish people here/ Of course 'banning' alcohol would seem impossible in our society but don't believe its not possible. Just because our wayward lax and hypocritical GovTs have done very nicely from the revenue's. But sadly its just our culture and a downward spiral, I'm afraid to say. Not because people do drink, but just because now its become so 'normal' and indemic with our culture.

And those that believe a few deaths a year is acceptable, well ?? Probably without any family or loved ones to even consider losing them through a drunk driver.
Of course there are risks in all walks of life, and yes you could easily die from someone playing with a sat nav to picking there nose behind a wheel.
But put a selfish self-centred arrogant person behind the wheel after a few drinks(because that's what anyone who drives a car after taking any drug is) and its 'when' not if someone will die.

And for those that dont know or have yet to deal with someone alcohol dependant
You can tell they have 'crossed the line' when they become overtly aggressive for any trivial excuse, they will find ANY excuse to have a drink. And are very defensive for the right to. Often the phrase 'it's normal, acceptable, everyone does it' will be made to justify having a drink. What ever day of the week or reason, a drink MUST be had at some time. Although some can go without for a week or even a fortnight. All manor of excuses will prompt it. And if they cant have it woe betide anyone in their way. Of course they will suffer neglect, ultimately financial loss, usually following losing a job, and then their home and family. And of course the longer a person (enabler) partner/wife/ mother continues paying / supporting or covering up the damage caused, the longer and worse it gets.
Of course its quite normal - but why ?

Its not the old tramp with a bottle in a brown paper bag anymore that's the alcoholic or alcohol dependant. It's the respectable guy / gal, queuing in onestop at 8.30am buying a four pack or bottle of wine or cider with the morning paper. Have a look next time your in there. I used to drink, sometimes a lot and in (many) days gone by I actually rode a motorbike while absolutely plastered. I have absolutely no idea how, and thankfully without ever an incident. But I don't anymore, and that's after 'other' experiences I've had I now wouldnt ever want to. I've just seen what alcohol dependency does to people. And more to the point I dont need to. For many years now I found I dont have the insecurities that I had that I felt the need to get drunk or even have a drink when going out. I have been dancing, clubbing, bbq's have many friends, have a damn good laugh and when Im in a pub or restaurant mostly, for a meal I have one of my five a day in liquid form or I take great pleasure asking for a cup of tea. Why not. I honestly dont 'need' to drink anymore and dont feel I need to or feel pressured to.

Of course if I'm truthful, the biggest 'problem' I face sitting in a british pub and not being drunk is the boredom when everyone else is!
But then I just think of vast 'tax' Im no longer handing over and often im more relaxed, happy and enjoy myself than my drunk mates.
Of course the down side is Im the one always driving, but then at least I know it's one less drink driver on the roads.

The guy down the road beat the **** out of his wife and kid, and said it was because he was stressed at work, we should ban work.

One of my best mates at school has been inside for the last 10 years because of football hooliganism.
We should ban football.

Have you considered moving to country where alcohol is banned? Many of those countries are like a paradise because their is no alcohol, so laid back, especially for your wife.



My mate was an alcoholic big time, he was a complete ******** when drunk, he has been sober for 5 years now, and for the last 5 years he has still been an ********, the only difference is he is now a self righteous boring ********.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

he has been sober for 5 years now, and for the last 5 years he has still been an ********, the only difference is he is now a self righteous boring ********.

He's a boring *******, what's your excuse?

 

[rifiki]

Politicians with statisics "Lies, damn lies and statistics" is probably nearer the truth

 

[gIzzE]

He's a boring *******, what's your excuse?

Don't you start!!

 

[crockers]

He's a boring *******, what's your excuse?

He's from Colorado

 

[Deleted member 65149]

One of my best mates at school has been inside for the last 10 years because of football hooliganism.
We should ban football.

Yes please

 

[meeeb]

And why should I have my freedom curtailed because of people without the sense to drive intelligently?

What right do you have to stop me having a second pint with my Sunday lunch in the local? The accident statistics do not justify your unreasoning restriction of my leisurely weekend afternoon pleasure. In fact people that have drunk a little alcohol have fewer accidents than cold sober drivers.

I am very careful and know my own metabolism.

The numbers of accidents should be what sets the level of blood alcohol permitted.

My basic objection is to the tightening of law for no obvious reason. We have so many laws, so few relaxed evenings, I prefer it the way it is. I would like to see what difference the 50mg limit would make and how it would affect wider society before we change the limit.

There are so many authoritarian regulations stifling our freedoms I don't want any more unless they are clearly evidence led.

Risk is more complicated than 'drive safe'. Try driving somewhere without your seatbelt on. You drive with much more care.

Someone who has drunk two pints will take more care than someone who is confident that their reaction times are hunkydory.

UK roads are very safe. Only a small number are killed on the roads, if we lost twenty times as many we would still be safer than driving in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. All places where alcohol is rarely indulged.

Being careful is what matters.

You've answered your own question.

It's irresponsible people like you who cause the government to regulate everybody.

"Someone who has drunk two pints will take more care than someone who is confident that their reaction times are hunkydory," could have been lifted from an anti-drink driving campaign.

 

[gIzzE]

Depends if you know you alcohol limits and how it effects you.

I know that I feel a bit tiddly after a pint sometimes, but I can drink red wine non stop.
And it can't just be the amount in your blood either as I took a breathe test after a bottle and a large glass of red one night as I said I felt pretty sober. I had ordered a taxi and I said "It is strange, I have had a bottle and a third or red and don't feel ****** at all."
The guy had a breathalyzer in his car from France and so I took it, I was well under, so took another just in case and was still well under.

But there are times when I have had a quick pint after work and think "Christ, glad I'm not driving, I feel sloshed."

Some people simply don't get effected by 2 pints, I would be right wobbly.

 

[meeeb]

Depends if you know you alcohol limits and how it effects you.

I know that I feel a bit tiddly after a pint sometimes, but I can drink red wine non stop.
And it can't just be the amount in your blood either as I took a breathe test after a bottle and a large glass of red one night as I said I felt pretty sober. I had ordered a taxi and I said "It is strange, I have had a bottle and a third or red and don't feel ****** at all."
The guy had a breathalyzer in his car from France and so I took it, I was well under, so took another just in case and was still well under.

But there are times when I have had a quick pint after work and think "Christ, glad I'm not driving, I feel sloshed."

Some people simply don't get effected by 2 pints, I would be right wobbly.

I know what you mean, but unfortunately how you feel in these circumstances is not a measure of how much the alcohol is affecting you.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Alcohol depresses the activity of the parts of the brain responsible for inhibitions and coordination.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This means that after drinking, judgement and mobility are impaired, the effects increasing with each drink consumed". (University of York)
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Whatever anyone is desperate to believe in relation to the effects of their Sunday booze, your ability to drive is beginning to deteriorate from the moment you start to drink alcohol, and the more you drink the more your judgement and mobility is impaired - whoever you are.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Personally I acknowledge that anyone who wants to take risks with their own life and body is entitled to do so. What they are not entitled to do is to put other people at risk, perhaps more especially when it is so easy to avoid.
[/FONT]

 

[Bellow]

It's irresponsible people like you who cause the government to regulate everybody.

Not really. The guy was advocating responsibile driving taking all factors into account. Politicians chase votes to get elected. They garner votes by promising to invoke new laws when elected. It's people clamouring for law changes that when the government is formed and the promises have to be honoured see 'everyone regulated'. Finisterre was arguing for the law to be left as it is.

Anyway, tinkering at the edges of the limit will make so little difference if any. The real problem is with those who are several times over the limit. The ones publicans know fine well they drive after a skinfull and continue to serve them. And those who are so ****** their judgement has left them and no one can convince them they shouldn't drive.

 

[gIzzE]

Personally I acknowledge that anyone who wants to take risks with their own life and body is entitled to do so. What they are not entitled to do is to put other people at risk, perhaps more especially when it is so easy to avoid.

I totally agree. I was just saying that I can understand why some may feel 2 pints doesn't effect them enough to make them a real menace on the road. Not saying it won't, but I can see why someone may think it doesn't.


To be fair though, you could argue that many peoples reactions after 2 pints are still better than the hundreds of thousands of people over the age of 70 out there on the road.

Reaction test to be taken every 5 years to keep your license, then every 2 years when 65 and annually when you hit 75.
That imho would save more lives than reducing the drink driving limit to 50mg.

 

[Sp!ke]

This boils down to a numbers game when all is said and done.

How many lives would be saved per year if the limit was reduced - balanced against cost of enforcement and how does that stack up against other ways of saving lives such as hospital expenditure.

 

[Giantvanman]

Reaction test to be taken every 5 years to keep your license, then every 2 years when 65 and annually when you hit 75.
That imho would save more lives than reducing the drink driving limit to 50mg.

By far and above the biggest grouping that has fatal collisions is not the elderly but the young. Perhaps it's because that, with wisdom and experience, the elderly drive within their limits whilst the younger are forever either exploring theirs or misjudging them i.e. how good they think they are.

 

[gIzzE]

By far and above the biggest grouping that has fatal collisions is not the elderly but the young. Perhaps it's because that, with wisdom and experience, the elderly drive within their limits whilst the younger are forever either exploring theirs or misjudging them i.e. how good they think they are.

Don't disagree with that at all.
Maybe change it so anyone under 21 is caught speeding instant 12 month ban no matter how much over.
Under 25 years old 6 month ban.
Under 30 years old 3 months ban.

But old people are more doddery in general, I get loads of guys in my shop saying how much their reactions have fallen off as they have hit 70 odd.

My old man has even said it, he is 70 next week.

 

[Bellow]

This boils down to a numbers game when all is said and done.

How many lives would be saved per year if the limit was reduced - balanced against cost of enforcement

Two points to add to that.
Firstly, the cost of any measuring equipment required to be accurate at zero skyrockets. Huge money needed to equip the police with kit if a zero limit were introduced.
Secondly, the focus of police resources. It is said that the sexual exploitation of 1400 girls in Rochester went on for so long because the police were more concerned with prosecuting drug offences. I know which I regard as a policing priority and it aint chasing weed. That is how wrong they can get it.
Better than them focusing on a zero limit, it would be better if the police were out there watching driving. Then they'd pick up the dangerously drunk, those texting, and other bad driving that leads to accidents. Texting in particular - I see it routinely on the road. Eyes diverted so as to keep their phone below window level, it a menace as bad a drinking. Visibly, they stray over the double white lines outside my house - a NSL zone.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

It is said that the sexual exploitation of 1400 girls in Rochester went on for so long because the police were more concerned with prosecuting drug offences.

If it's Rotherham you actually meant, the nonces weren't prosecuted because the police were worried they'd be labelled as racist if they started rounding them up, drugs had nothing to do with it as far as I know.

 

[Tegs200]

I know it's a nanny state but what can you do , better off not drinking anything for the sake of it.

 

[Giantvanman]

That is how wrong they can get it.

Do you really think "The Police" get to decide what to prioritise?

Granted, they are the visible target but all the targeting, emphases and crackdowns begin in Westminster or Whitehall (via the Police Commissioner nowadays) and the political lackeys that are the officers in charge just doff their caps and pass it down.

 

[st13phil]

Reaction test to be taken every 5 years to keep your license, then every 2 years when 65 and annually when you hit 75.
That imho would save more lives than reducing the drink driving limit to 50mg.

I would postulate (with no direct evidence I might add!) that at any particular instant there are more people driving motor vehicles whose reactions times and judgement are impaired through tiredness than those that are impaired through having consumed alcohol.

Discuss...

 

[Bellow]

If it's Rotherham you actually meant, the nonces weren't prosecuted because the police were worried they'd be labelled as racist if they started rounding them up, drugs had nothing to do with it as far as I know.

I stand corrected - Rotherham not Rochester.
The race element played a part for sure, but it is also said that drug enforcement was a higher priority for them - enforcing drug laws outwith the community that was responsible for the girl's exploitation.
True or not, the possibility still remains for police to allocate their resources and focus in the wrong direction. Pursuing a zero alcohol policy in pursuit of better road safety would be just that. Hopefully, it never comes to pass.