But my goodness ( re yer man above's post ) some eminient transport type research body has decided that mobile phone usuage IS AS BAD as alcohol consumption, re hazard preceprtion REACTION times and accident causing.
I did wonder if this research is correct ( but hey it must be) then alcohol mustt be Ok in moderation
Since we ALL know the %age of drivers using hand held mobile phones
and NOT crashing as a result, otherwise the roads would be at standstill with smashed motors
I for one see them every time I am driving, using handhelds that is
cheers
M
Edited by dieseldogg on 03/12/2009 at 13:25
|
|
Ask yourself if you would like all school bus drivers to be issued with a glass of wine before they start work - presumably that would be a Yes since you think they would be as safe. Good idea there.
|
|
|
re the European drink drive laws and their execution.
When holidaying in France say prob 15 years ago
We lunched & drove & dinnered & drove, we were younger but sensible then too.
said meals involving the consumption of moderate amounts of alcohol, generally the driver consuming the small half of the bottle. no pre dinner drinkies or brandy afterwards.
Anyway, after a particularly good Sunday lunch, at a well frequented rural establishment, (where i certainly did not observe any tee total lunchers.)
We then had a reasonably long walk, to clear the head, & then I drove, about 1 kilometer up to the local cross roads, where there was a queue of traffic, I would say this traffic ALL from the establishment we had just frequented.
Bit odd i thought, then I saw the Police, crumbs i thought ( or words to that effect)
but poured down the window and rolled forward.
the police merely carefully observer each driver as they passed, and waved them on.
Hmmm?
So what was that about?
|
|
|
|
If you want to consume alcohol you make other arrangements for your travel. It is entirely irrelevant to try an quantify the effects against other distractions especially using a mobile which is not a physical impairment unlike the effects of alcohol.
I would go along with that were comparable distractions on the line - however, as the above expreessly states that they aren't, the views there constitute, at best, muddled thinking.
There is nothing worse than a drinker trying to justify it by comparing it to equally stupid things. Its still stupid to do it.
If you are calling me a drink driver, then I would like an apology, since I am not. If you are not calling me this, perhaps you will clarify the matter.
|
Its was a general point, not directed at anyone in particular FT.
Tell a drinker that drink driving in bad, they say 'look at what everyone else is doing thats just as bad' instead of facing their own behaviour.
|
Its was a general point not directed at anyone in particular FT.
Thank you for the clarification.
Tell a drinker that drink driving in bad they say 'look at what everyone else is doing thats just as bad' instead of facing their own behaviour.
People who drink to excess (in this case above 80mg/100ml) should of course face punishment. However, to amend the law in the fashion proposed, whilst leaving riskier behaviour permissible, is, I think, crackers.
There does not seem to be anything wrong with the limit as it stands, IMO - I think this is "regularisation" to the European limits.
|
>>I think this is "regularisation" to the European limits.<<
Which is kind of the point of the EU now, whether you agree with it or not.
|
|
|
|
Using a mobile can be a physical impairment, if you don't use a handsfree kit. Even then, it is a mental impairment? A lot of people have commented that children in the car, stereo usage etc. etc. etc. can all impair your driving and I agree. Drinking also does, that is true. However, I would also say that the phrase "It is entirely irrelevant to try an quantify the effects against other distractions" is not entirely true. Taking any emotion out of it, why is it entirely irrelevant? If an accident occurs, then any contributory factor counts. If it could be proved that using a phone is more dangerous than having a pint, then it wouldn't be entirely irrelevant would it? No disrespect to stunorthants26 by the way, just looking at the question from a different angle.
It's like the drugs debate: many people would argue cannabis, for example, is often less harmful than tobacco. But you cannot have a reasoned debate about it because people have it in their heads that one is a drug and the other isn't, the Daily Mail effect kicks in and bang, argument over, pushers at the school gates etc... alcohol IS a drug and would probably be banned if "invented" today.
I am not advocating drink-driving, by the way, I don't do it, not even a pint... just not ruling out reasoned debate. I don't do drugs either, but they don't scare me, and I don't see them as a whole different world, users come in all shapes and sizes, just like drinkers.
|
Yes this needs to happen and soon. Our roads are running with rivers of blood from the carnage of millions killed by a nation of habitual drunk drivers.
If there is a problem - fix it. There isnt so leave it alone.
|
...If there is a problem - fix it. There isnt so leave it alone...
AE,
So there's no problem?
The relatives of the 540 people killed in drink-related road accidents in 2006 might give you an argument on that one.
As might the 2,000 people injured by drink-drivers in the same year.
Don't have figures to hand for later years, but I'll bet you a pint they've not changed much.
Cheers.
www.roadpeace.org/documents/Drink%20drive%20inform...f
|
(AE - no problem)The relatives of the 540 people killed in drink-related road accidents in 2006
What is the precise definition of a "drink-related road accident"?
As might the 2 000 people injured by drink-drivers in the same year.
Just as I said earlier - it's the ones over the limit that are the problem.
|
|
|
...If there is a problem - fix it. There isnt so leave it alone... AE So there's no problem? The relatives of the 540 people killed in drink-related road accidents in 2006 might give you an argument on that one. As might the 2 000 people injured by drink-drivers in the same year.
I figure the relations of the 150,000 people who die of lung cancer alone might think that resources could be better diverted elsewhere.
Maybe the relatives of the 3000 people who died in accidents at home are not that bothered about road accidents either.
In the scheme of things, no there is nothing to fix.
Edited by Altea Ego on 03/12/2009 at 14:46
|
...I figure the relations of the 150,000 people who die of lung cancer alone might think that resources could be better diverted elsewhere.
Maybe the relatives of the 3000 people who died in accidents at home are not that bothered about road accidents either.
In the scheme of things, no there is nothing to fix....
AE,
You seem to be saying there's no problem because more people die of lung cancer or changing a plug.
That reasoning is just plain daft.
The drink-drive deaths are easily preventable in the sense that no one has to drink and drive, so if possible those deaths should be prevented.
Accidents in the home could be prevented if people were more careful, so that's the message there.
Falling victim to a serious illness is a different kettle of misery.
|
>The drink-drive deaths are easily preventable in the sense that no one has to drink and >drive, so if possible those deaths should be prevented
Thats the point. they are not. Arson is illegal, there are still tens of thousands of arson attempts annualy. Murder is illegal, there are still 300 of those a year.
So by changing the law, how precisley you gonna change things. Its not "easily preventable" changing the law aint gonna fix it. Enforcoing the current laws might, but hey that costs money.
see the powers that be dont really give a merde about it, its just cheap talk.
And I still maintain that current road deaths (by any cause) are statistical noise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes that 1 pint can affect your driving, but not nearly as much as driving when tired or when using a mobile."
And many of those that have drunk, are tired and capable of using mobile phones. A great cocktail. Zero tolerance in my view.
|
Zero tolerance to which bit? All of it? Some of it?
"A great cocktail" is rather an unfortunate allusion for this thread... : )
|
|
|
|
I dont know about anyone else, but I speak from drink driving experience. I drank just one Smirnoff when I was 18 and drove from Worthing up the twisting A24 to Horsham, a good half hour trip, at night. I actually notice the difference in my motor skills and while I got home all safe, I dont think there is any sense whatsoever in consuming any level of alcohol and driving. Teetotal 11 years and counting.
|
|
|
Well Ifit.. you need to be able to extract from the figures shown how many of these were killed by a drinking driver who was under the 80mg limit and whose driving ability was impaired by the drink he/she had taken.
The unfortunate thing about government figure and the figures in government who use them is the way they are manipulated to show the result wanted.
|
My understanding is that many road accidents, particularly at night, are caused by drunken pedestrians or cyclists and this can/may distort the statistics.
|
|
|
|
FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY folk killed last year as a result of drink-driving.
Reducing the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50mg wouldn't have reduced these figures much IMO.
Alcohol is a psycho-active drug (tell me about it!) ideally the drink-drive limit should be zero.
Some people can be tipsy after just one drink whereas 'seasoned' drinkers are less affected.
Even zero tolerance would not stop some people drink-driving ... There is no easy answer.
|
Seems the board is divided into two halves.
If you're totally against drink driving and agree with the changes you're all right.
If you are of a mind that the changes are unnecessary and draconian, and there are other things on the road equally dangerous, you're condoning drink-driving and are an evil to all mankind, even if you don't drink and drive, never have or will, and disapprove of anyone doing it.
Some of us need to sort out our Pharisee costumes for the fancy dress ball methinks. ;-)
|
|
There's no point in reducing the drink drive limit if they can't catch drivers who exceed the current limit. It's not a change in the law that's needed but a change in the way the current one is enforced.
|
"but a change in the way the current one is enforced"
Does that mean you are in favour of random roadblocks.
If so, think of all the other crimes that could be addressed. Gun smuggling, terrorists, drugs, tax evasion, insurance, stolen cars bail jumpers the list is endless.
It's done in other countries, so why not here. There, zero tollerance.
|
Zero tolerance would be a perfectly acceptable solution for me in many ways. There is no excuse to drink and drive at all. If you fancy a pint, get a taxi or walk. The big problem is that it would turn people who drive the day after a few beers into lawbreakers.
I think the current system is about as sensible as it can get. Most people I know who drive over the limit do so by significant amounts, do so habitually and have no regard whatsoever for the law. They do it because they can get away with it, and they will continue to do it regardless of any revision of the limit that comes into force.
Have traffic police back out on the roads catching these people, like they used to. When was the last time you saw a traffic car anywhere, particularly excluding the motorway? If whatever illegal activity you plan to do can't be detected by camera, you can pretty much get away with it on British roads at the moment.
Edited by DP on 03/12/2009 at 18:29
|
|
|
I'm in favour of random roadblocks.
I treat drinking and driving as two separate, incompatible activities. If I do one, I don't do the other. If I were to consume enough alcohol to put me above the current drink-drive limit, even if I were to then drive somewhere at driving-test standard I would expect to get nicked and punished, and it would be my own fault. I don't think I could live with myself if my judgement were impaired, however slightly, and I killed someone on the road as a result.
|
As with most crimes it's fear of detection and punishment.
The greater the fear and the greater the punishment, the fewer offenders there will be.
So if it was announced that all drink drivers will serve a minimum of one year in prison, some - not all - of those who currently offend will stop.
You will never eradicate drink driving, but that is not an excuse to do nothing, as some on here seem to think it is.
Hey, we can't stop people killing each other, so let's abolish the common law offence of murder.
Edited by ifithelps on 03/12/2009 at 18:39
|
|
|
|
|
im more worried by drivers who kill who are sober, at least a drink driver has an exuse, what was the excuse for the 2500 people run over by sober drivers?
|
Now look - I've driven a vehicle under the influence of LSD, Cannabis and a gallon of Beer, I was well aware that the beak would have thrown the book at me, but that never stopped anyone.
We all know that folk go to a licensed victualers to consume intoxicating liquor - which is fine but ... anyone intending to drive away from such establishments should be breathalyzed there & then *BEFORE* driving away, and deterred from such if need be.
|
I think a lot of you who are barking loudly are under the wrong tree!
This is not aimed at those already driving while out out of their skulls. Neither does it imply that more resource is required in stopping where there is a suspicion that the driver is over the limit.
There is plenty of evidence that driving is already impaired well below the current limit. Various tests demonstrate this whether carried out at the wheel, in a simulator or getting subjects to carry out other complex activites. My own experience is that I feel more "daring" after a small drink (aperitifs are the worst). We occasionally have a glass of wine in the office for birthdays or whatever - I'm well aware on those accasions that I'm biking to the station in a way that's more flamboyant than I'd normally chance. A glass and a bit over an hour and my judgement is impaired.
A lower limit will deter that sort of thing when done in cars. A breathtest is routine if police attend accidents, even if it's only a bumper bender. If that carries the chance of a prosecution most drivers will be less likley to chance a pint & those that chance two might cut down a bit!!
|
My own position is that I am totally against drink driving, and don't have a problem with the lower limit. I agree with most of what stunorthants26 says.
But I also believe that a change to the new lower limit will actually save very few lives - if any. And I take a very dim view of the "well, if it saves just one life, then it's worth it" argument.
So I agree with AE, and take the view that the government should leave well enough alone.
|
Which two European countries have lowest drink drive accident rates
Which two European countries have highest legal limit for blood alcohol
Answer to both questions England and Ireland
|
I don't give a damn about drink driving. What matters here is dangerous driving, for whatever reason. Including driving when seriously impaired by drink of course.
I agree with FT for once and with AE. The present limit is fine, if there must be a limit (and I suppose there must). Fiddling around with levels won't make a blind bit of difference.
Scientific evidence that even minuscule doses of alcohol 'impair' judgement and function is pretty irrelevant. Driving a car is a crude whole-body activity. It's nothing like threading a needle for example. Physical tension and anxiety cause a lot of road accidents. Some people would drive better after a drink, if they weren't being terrorised about it.
Alcohol is the only legal drug that actually has a decent effect in our society. It doesn't work the same on everyone. People have to learn it, and find their own way of coping. Like other drugs, it has its victims, those who get too dependent or hurt themselves when drunk. All right, but too bad.
I can't imagine what politicians think they are doing, trying to make us all worried about it. Responding to hysteria among the citizenry perhaps. Idiots.
|
I can't imagine what politicians think they are doing, trying to make us all worried about it. Responding to hysteria among the citizenry perhaps. Idiots.
>
>>>>>>>>
maybe they want to control us
perish the thought
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea...l
|
More pubs going to the wall then!
Then we will all be at home, most of us (but happily not me) in toybox suburbs watching crap TV with yer mobile phone on so the Bankers know where you are. They don't want us in pubs talking to each other. Dissent won't do you know.
Oarlocks to authority.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
|
We have a government that thinks legislation is the answer . .
It is not, policing the current legislation properly is the answer, but that means more real police (not PCSOs or HOs), and that costs money.
No different to the ban on hand guns or the ban on handsfree mobile phone use when driving, those in the palace of westminster think things have changed when on the ground it is no different to before.
|
We have a government that thinks legislation is the answer . .
Nail, head.
They are mostly lawyers. Jobs for the boys.
|
>> We have a government that thinks legislation is the answer . . >> Nail head. They are mostly lawyers. Jobs for the boys.
Absolutely right. Life is inherently risky and most alcohol-related accidents result from those with an alcohol problem. The rest of us suffer as a result.
The French have it about right....a leisurely evening out with a bottle of wine shared between two. That's six 125ml glasses. One quick glass before the meal as an aperitif with a bit of bread or nibbles, the other two glasses slowly with the meal. A leisurely coffee afterwards. This, over at least two hours, is unlikely to put you over even the French limit unless you are very small and the wine is very strong.
|
The French have it about right....
Dont think so, A high casualty rate on the roads with a high proportion of drink related? One of the highest rates of alchol related illness?
|
most alcohol-related accidents result from those with an alcohol problem. The rest of us suffer as a result.
Not so sure about that. People with 'an alcohol problem' are often cunning and careful, while having a high tolerance for alcohol. I believe a lot of these accidents are caused by inexperienced drinkers who have got blotto by mistake and haven't had the sense to abandon their cars or get someone else to drive. It is true of course that large doses of alcohol can have a deleterious effect on people's sense.
|
|
John F, I was only making a point about the reason for the landslide of legislation we are getting buried under. I don't think anyone should drive, even after a single alcoholic drink, until it's cleared their system.
|
"This, over at least two hours, is unlikely to put you over even the French limit unless you are very small and the wine is very strong."
Really? - half bottle of red wine say 13.5% alcohol will almost certainly put you over the current French and proposed English limit even spread out through a long lunch. The effect of food taken with a meal is to delay the entry of alcohol into the bloodstream.
|
half bottle of red wine say 13.5% alcohol will almost certainly put you over the current French and proposed English limit even spread out through a long lunch. The effect of food taken with a meal is to delay the entry of alcohol into the bloodstream.
I agree the French have problems with alcoholism - I was talking about the self-disciplined drinkers. And I agree half a bottle in a short time will probably put you over the limit - but not for very long. There will be a short-lived peak in the blood-alcohol/time graph.
The effect of the food is to flatten the curve, and the effect of the long drinking time is to reduce its height. Get these two factors together and you should be safe. Taking the drink as I suggested earlier will ensure the curve peaks round about the end of the main course!
|
"I can't imagine what politicians think they are doing, trying to make us all worried about it."
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
|
>>> H. L. Mencken <<<
Isn't he the geezer who wrote "Democracy is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses"
|
Cor
Who mentioned handguns, excellent anology there.
There are more handguns now used in crime than ever, this, oops SINCE they were banned, how VERY strange.
I remember Dunblane, & we got children too. I felt it was the wrong action to ban handguns.
Enforce the existing legistation, perhaps take an example from NI even?
However the anti handgun hysteria was that of a lynch mob.
and the Government capitulated.
Spot the same anti drink driving mob hysteria.
Yes it is terrible if one loses loved ones due to a drunk driver.
But MORE fatel accidents happen for loads of other innocous AND AVOIDABLE reasons.
The outcome is the same however.
PS
I repeat I do NOT drink drive
Edited by dieseldogg on 04/12/2009 at 10:13
|
Would it help if there was easy access to a calibrated breathalyser? Five years down the line will this be the latest app for an iphone?
OK the party line is if in doubt, don't do it. But that doesn't seem to work?
I know I have driven the morning after at times that I probably shouldn't have had - if I had access to such a machine then that would have swayed me not to drive.
And yes I know there would be legal claims if someone tested positive by police that had been negative at a machine but I am sure fancy lawyers could come up with the appropriate disclaimers.
|
|
I've no really strong feelings either way... but what I would like is the proverbial "book" throwing at those who get themslves banned and then drive again whilst still banned... Too many of those drink drivers are repeat offenders, just reading your local rag seems to prove that...
|
and will put a lot of people out of work
Sorry HJ, but thats just not true... where is your evidence that it will do that, I don't seem to remember loads of people losing their jobs when they introduced the limit and I don't see why lowering it 30mg will do it this time round...
These aren't the "poor put-upon" motorists we are talking of here, they are people who have consumed something that is known to affect their reactions and then gone and got into and driven a car... that is, as others have said, avoidable.
I think your loyalty to the motorists is clouding your judgement in this case... have you had a couple by any chance?! ;-)
Edited by b308 on 04/12/2009 at 15:58
|
You were over-exagerating the effect of such a lowering of the limit to make your point, though, HJ.
I still do not accept that many people will lose their livelyhoods by such a reduction. Those of us who HAVE to keep a clean licence to keep their job generally have more sense than risk it and those that don't deserve everything they get.
Edited by b308 on 04/12/2009 at 21:06
|
Around here it would be a blooming good idea if Plod were to deal with the Crap (underpaid) people who drive the buses. (75% complete Crap) One or two good uns but few and far between.
MD
|
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken
Glad you mentioned HOBGOBLIN. On my second pint (500ml) now.
MD
|
|
Some folk must lead such clean and boring lives.
|
Obviously not...
Well, I've discovered that I can have a good and enjoyable (but not boring!) life without having to consume vast quantities of alchohol... don't get me wrong, I like a pint or two, or three (especially Hobgoblin!), but I'm not reliant on it, nor do I see the need to drinks lots of it to "have a good time" and to end up with having a bad day after... Many kids these days seem to think that the only way people can enjoy themselves is to drink lots of alchohol, its rather a sad reflection on them if thats what they actually believe!
(PS Thats directed at no-one on this Forum, so don't anyone take it personally!)
Edited by b308 on 05/12/2009 at 09:11
|
>>> Around here it would be a blooming good idea if Plod were to deal with the Crap (underpaid) people who drive the buses. <<<
What's that got to do with drink-driving comrade, or do you mean the mini-buses that take people to their watering holes & back.
Re: HOBGOBLIN, my outlaws had one of those - made excellent tea.
|
I am not in favour of the change and consider it to be unnecessary political meddling.
The difference in driving standard(s) between someone driving now on 79mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood and remaining legal because they're below the legal limit of 80... and with the future limit in force, driving at 49 to remain legal under the new limit of 50...is not great.... i.e. the driver in the future who drives with 50-79 in their system and becomes illegal will not necessarily be driving that much more badly, albeit there can be a lessening of your skills and alertness the more you drink.
The real problem is the drinker who drives well over the current limit. Criminalising many more marginally over drivers isn't the way forward IMO...we should be targetting the reckless clowns who drive completely pie eyed (on drink or drugs), habitually drive recklessly and habitually drive with unsafe vehicles. If we did that we'd have the death rate at a considerably lower level and we have a reasonable set of figures as it is.
....and if anyone on here wishes to misinterpret my post and twist it into something akin to sympathy for drink drivers or a wish to be able to drink and drive, (perhaps to bolster their own arguement by marginalising someone else's viewpoint)....then let me cut you short early...I have been to far too many fatal accidents and knocked on enough doors in my time to realise it's an enormous 'no-no'...i'm glad that legislation and public/peer pressure has changed most people's views on the subject, inc mine.
|
A complete irrelevance.
We haven't seen a cop or a pcso or a whatever within 10 miles of my small rural village for years and we don't expect to see one anytime soon.
There will be a few high profile roadblocks (which are actually illegal but they'll do them anyway) and they will catch a few over the limit the day after out of the hundreds they will test causing a massive tailback and this will be the PR headline.
After that they'll go back to doing whatever it is they are doing when they tell us they haven't got the resources to do well frankly anything.
|
>>> we should be targetting the reckless clowns who drive completely pie eyed (on drink or drugs), habitually drive recklessly and habitually drive with unsafe vehicles <<<
But you know that can't be done really comrade - not with your present resources, it would be easier to un-invent alcohol as there are far too many of these reckless clowns from Lands end to 'up there'.
I mentioned before about breathalyzing them @ point of purchase, i.e. the boozer and the nightclub, the bouncers (sorry doormen) could take charge of this and if he sees anyone unfit to drive, he could suggest an alcohol test to them on a 'just in case' advisory basis, this could be funded by the geezer in No. 11 who makes far more than the brewery ever did.
|
Where will this end?
Will we in future see cars manufactured with a factory fitted breathalyser?
One where you have to blow in a tube before the ignition will work, and if there is any trace of alcohol, it's immobilised.I am very impressed and immensly proud of the way our younger generation have taken on board the drink and drive campaigns over the last the 15 years or so.
The campaigns have worked, and they have listened.
The problem area is those of us who remember the days when going to the pub, or a social occasion and driving home 'merry' was normal.
We always did it and nothing ever happened, did it?
So we think we can carry on doing it now.
Being a vocational licence holder for many years I tend to socialise with others of the same ilk, and of the same age, and it always amazes us that others will still drive after 5/6 drinks and more simply because they always have done.
I think the present limit is fine and should be left alone, it should be policed more and targetted in problem areas.
I'm a smoker and the current smoking ban has seen the situation where it's acceptable for non smokers to be down right rude to smokers. I've become the scourge of society.
It's also turned most traditional public houses into creches, catering for family meals with play areas in the bar as well as the beer garden.
Shouldn't we be targetting the message to those who haven't listened, rather than penalising those who have?
Pat
|
The problem area is those of us who remember the days when going to the pub or a social occasion and driving home 'merry' was normal. We always did it and nothing ever happened did it? So we think we can carry on doing it now.
Not to us, perhaps Pat, but I think most of us know people who did have something happen to them.. and boasted about it after...
Perro made a point that they don't catch the drink/drug drivers now, but I'd actually argue that they do, the problem seems to me that they DO catch them, then they get banned, then they go out and drive again, certainly the reports we see in the local rags seem to indicate that a large percentage of offenders are repeat offenders... some method of enforcing the ban so that they can't drive again until it had expired seems to be what we should be looking at?
|
|
The more I read about the evils of drink - The more I consider giving up reading.
|
|
Actually perro, its not the evils of drink its the evils of excessive drink.... just like the evils of excessive speed! ;-)
|
>>> its not the evils of drink its the evils of excessive drink.... <<<
Aye b308 - Bacchus hath drowned more men than Neptune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
