Lower drink-drive limit supported
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: JNugent on 19 Mar 2010 16:25 Dave Plowman wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> Presumably, one of the (unacceptable) effects of the variables was >>>> that people who had clearly consumed alcohol but were actually fit to >>>> drive (in an objective sense as mentioned above) were being "let off". >>> They weren't given a driving test. >> Is competence to drive an issue? > Only you could try and make such a point. I don't think so. I think that anyone with even a tiny amount of common sense would ask the same question. A driving test examines competence to drive. Had you ever passed one you would know what is says on the certificate.
From: Dave Plowman on 20 Mar 2010 05:30 In article <398cd883-3138-400a-a1d2-5d2336abed2c(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > The tests for drunkeness before the breathalyser was introduced were > walking along a straight line and picking up coins. Even then some > people where better at this than others, even when sober. So no tests > are really a measure of fitness to drive. Indeed. The only real check on a fitness to drive would be some form of driving test - so totally impracticable. Of course those who think it's ok to drink and drive like Mr Nugent will invent any excuse to justify their breaking of the law. -- *Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects * Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12
From: Derek C on 20 Mar 2010 06:50 On Mar 20, 9:30 am, Dave Plowman <d...(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote: > In article > <398cd883-3138-400a-a1d2-5d2336abe...(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > The tests for drunkeness before the breathalyser was introduced were > > walking along a straight line and picking up coins. Even then some > > people where better at this than others, even when sober. So no tests > > are really a measure of fitness to drive. > > Indeed. The only real check on a fitness to drive would be some form of > driving test - so totally impracticable. > > Of course those who think it's ok to drink and drive like Mr Nugent > will invent any excuse to justify their breaking of the law. > > -- If the puritan, nanny state Nu Labour government get their way and reduce the alcohol limit to 50mg/100ml of blood, there would be little point in visiting a pub at all, even if you have no intention of driving until the next day. You would only be able to drink about half a pint of shandy if you want to be sure of staying legal. Many pubs, effectively local meeting places, will be forced out of business. I should point out that living people have a natural level of blood alcohol of something like 20 - 30 mg/100ml as a product of metabolism, so the reduction in the proposed limit is much greater than the raw numbers suggest. Some foods and medicines contain alcohol, so you would have to watch those as well. Wine gums - forget them! Derek C
From: Bod on 20 Mar 2010 07:02 On 20/03/2010 10:50, Derek C wrote: > On Mar 20, 9:30 am, Dave Plowman<d...(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote: >> In article >> <398cd883-3138-400a-a1d2-5d2336abe...(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >> Derek C<del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> The tests for drunkeness before the breathalyser was introduced were >>> walking along a straight line and picking up coins. Even then some >>> people where better at this than others, even when sober. So no tests >>> are really a measure of fitness to drive. >> >> Indeed. The only real check on a fitness to drive would be some form of >> driving test - so totally impracticable. >> >> Of course those who think it's ok to drink and drive like Mr Nugent >> will invent any excuse to justify their breaking of the law. >> >> -- > If the puritan, nanny state Nu Labour government get their way and > reduce the alcohol limit to 50mg/100ml of blood, there would be little > point in visiting a pub at all, even if you have no intention of > driving until the next day. You would only be able to drink about half > a pint of shandy if you want to be sure of staying legal. Many pubs, > effectively local meeting places, will be forced out of business. > > I should point out that living people have a natural level of blood > alcohol of something like 20 - 30 mg/100ml as a product of metabolism, > so the reduction in the proposed limit is much greater than the raw > numbers suggest. Some foods and medicines contain alcohol, so you > would have to watch those as well. Wine gums - forget them! > > Derek C > > We'll all end up drinking at home. I and many others will not bother to go out for a meal nearly as much. I love a glass of wine with my meal, without it, the meal would be incomplete. The end to socialising? Bod
From: Adrian on 20 Mar 2010 07:10
Dave Plowman <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > That's fair enough. Now all we need is alcohol free restaurants so those > who don't drink to excess can enjoy them without the drug induced > 'merriment' from others who consider that normal behaviour. You seem to forget that it's already an offence to be intoxicated in public - and that the inevitable byproduct of somebody else's alcohol consumption cannot seriously affect the health of others in the area. |