Drink-drive limit to be halved.

[Deleted member 65149]

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.

You COULD argue that, but I'd love to see some PROOF instead. But whether or not it is true is mainly immaterial. Reaction time is only a relatively small factor in safe driving. The reaction time only comes into effect AFTER having spotted the impending danger and decided what action to take.

Many of us doddery old sods (I'm 68) spend more of our driving time concentrating on the road and evaluating relevant conditions than most younger drivers, even those sober ones. After a couple of pints, perceptions and attention to detail become blurred. The ability to handle the car in a half decent manner may still be there, but the ability to be aware of all that's going on around and make reasoned judgements becomes less effective.

Of course there are too many old folk out there at the wheel of a car when they shouldn't be. There's no argument about that. But statistically there are far more younger drivers who also shouldn't be out there. Add to that the number who have had a pint or two and the figure increases even more, because they THINK they're more than capable. In the time they've managed to divert their attention from their smartphone and realise that a child has run into the road in front of their car being driven at 40mph, the doddery old driver paying attention has already come to a stop from their 30mph. Reaction time - little round things!

 

[gIzzE]

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.

Drugs are against their religion.
Noncing kids and raping women is fair game though!

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I stand corrected - Rotherham not Rochester.
The race element played a part for sure

It was 100% the case I'm afraid, South Yorkshire Police have even admitted it, hence the local outcry.

 

[Bellow]

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.

Wherever the buck stops.

 

[meeeb]

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.

Ten out of ten to your pop for identifying and acknowledging the syndrome.
He's around my age so I can empathise.

The dangerous ones are the ones who don't recognise that their faculties are losing their edge. (Just like drinkers I suppose. )

 

[gIzzE]

He swapped for a 4x4 to give himself more of a chance.

 

[Giantvanman]

Wherever the buck stops.

Really? A trifle simplistic, don't you think?
The politicians (Home Secretary) who appoints someone 'to lead' who will tow the line whilst everyone under that (in rank) has to do what they are told or they lose their jobs.
There is a huge difference between the greasy pole climbing 'managers' and the guy who just wants to serve but has to follow orders.

 

[kinaero]

I only drink on special occasions, so probably once or may be twice a year.

Even when I did drink, it would be just one pint of Guinness shandy. After that, my face will feel warm.

Am I likely be over the limit?

 

[brucemillar]

I only drink on special occasions, so probably once or may be twice a year. Even when I did drink, it would be just one pint of Guinness shandy. After that, my face will feel warm. Am I likely be over the limit?

If you are putting lemonade in Guiness you should not be allowed out on your own.

Sent from my iPhone using MBClub UK

 

[meeeb]

He swapped for a 4x4 to give himself more of a chance.

The time to get worried is when he asks you to go with him to the local Hummer showroom!

 

[Bellow]

Really? A trifle simplistic, don't you think?
The politicians (Home Secretary) who appoints someone 'to lead' who will tow the line whilst everyone under that (in rank) has to do what they are told or they lose their jobs.
There is a huge difference between the greasy pole climbing 'managers' and the guy who just wants to serve but has to follow orders.

Not at all simplistic but very simple.
Either the edict is from above and above is accountable to the public or, the police police as they see fit in which case they are accountable.
If there's some fudgey layer between the two that muddies the water - junk it.

I doubt that I'm the only one sick to the back teeth seeing no one held to account for the myriad shambles with nothing for those affected and the public but some bvll**** 'lessons have to be learned' ******.
Perhaps the biggest disgrace is people too scared to stand up for principles for fear of being sacked. Self serving in the extreme.

 

[Bellow]

I only drink on special occasions, so probably once or may be twice a year.

Even when I did drink, it would be just one pint of Guinness shandy. After that, my face will feel warm.

Am I likely be over the limit?

Very probably not. But impaired to drive? Probably yes.
You raise a valid point. I haven't drank alcohol for several years and my tolerance to it will be gone. Thus below the legal limit I would be hazardous behind the wheel. But to legislate down to that level for a handful of us (most people will have developed a tolerance to alcohol long before passing their driving test) that would impact on the many would be absurd.
For as long as those driving way above the limit aren't being caught, and with people like ourselves sensible enough to recognise our own situation and behave accordingly - the limit is fine where it is.

 

[Giantvanman]

Not at all simplistic but very simple.
Either the edict is from above and above is accountable to the public or, the police police as they see fit in which case they are accountable.
If there's some fudgey layer between the two that muddies the water - junk it.

I doubt that I'm the only one sick to the back teeth seeing no one held to account for the myriad shambles with nothing for those affected and the public but some bvll**** 'lessons have to be learned' ******.


Perhaps the biggest disgrace is people too scared to stand up for principles for fear of being sacked. Self serving in the extreme.

You've hit the nail on the head with the first two paragraphs.
In relation to the third, have YOU ever been sacked for standing up for a principle? All credit to you if you have.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is in inherent in first two paragraphs. People do not differentiate between the decision makers (faceless management) and the followers of orders (the Bobby on the street); it is just The Police. However, it is the latter who try to get the job done despite orders from above and who seem to take the flack from all and sundry.

 

[Biglee]

This sort of idiocy really bugs me.

Over the last five years 75 people have been killed and 473 seriously injured by drivers impaired by drink or drugs.

How is reducing the limit going to change that? These people were over the limit, or on drugs. A relevant statistic would be the accidents where blood alcohol is between 50 and 80mg. Instead we get an utterly pointless fact.

Whoever thought up that was not fit to make decisions.

And why should I have my freedom curtailed because of people without the sense to drive intelligently? This is like the cars are too powerful argument. If immature drivers kill themselves in a clio why should I have to drive a sewing machine?

Darwin is always going to strike out the imbeciles, treating everybody like an imbecile is hardly fair.

I object to reducing the limit.

Best reply I have ever ran on the argument