Lower drink-drive limit supported
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Bod on 20 Mar 2010 07:21 On 20/03/2010 11:10, Adrian wrote: > 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. > > I didn't know that there was a law for being intoxicated in public, assuming that they weren't driving and appeared normal and were behaving theirselves. Bod
From: Brimstone on 20 Mar 2010 07:31 "Bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:80joapFlnoU1(a)mid.individual.net... > 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? > Indeed. Meanwhile, a different part of the nanny state is complaining that we spend too much time sitting in front of the TV etc and not enough socialising.
From: Adrian on 20 Mar 2010 07:35 Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.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. > I didn't know that there was a law for being intoxicated in public, > assuming that they weren't driving and appeared normal and were behaving > theirselves. The Licensing Act 1872, Section 12 - 'an offence for any person to be found drunk in a highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on licensed premises'.
From: Bod on 20 Mar 2010 07:49 On 20/03/2010 11:35, Adrian wrote: > Bod<bodron57(a)tiscali.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. > >> I didn't know that there was a law for being intoxicated in public, >> assuming that they weren't driving and appeared normal and were behaving >> theirselves. > > The Licensing Act 1872, Section 12 - 'an offence for any person to be > found drunk in a highway or other public place, whether a building or > not, or on licensed premises'. > > What I mean, is how does one class 'intoxication'. In my younger days, it wasn't unusual for me to consume 7 or 8 pints in an evening and still be perfectly capable of cycling home. To all intensive purposes, I was sober, yet technically I assume that I would've been classed as intoxicated. Being as there is no breathalyser (as far as I know) for pedestrians, if I were to walk home with that level of drink inside me, would I be classed as *intoxicated*? Bod
From: Brimstone on 20 Mar 2010 07:51
"Bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:80jr1dF5i1U1(a)mid.individual.net... > On 20/03/2010 11:35, Adrian wrote: >> Bod<bodron57(a)tiscali.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. >> >>> I didn't know that there was a law for being intoxicated in public, >>> assuming that they weren't driving and appeared normal and were behaving >>> theirselves. >> >> The Licensing Act 1872, Section 12 - 'an offence for any person to be >> found drunk in a highway or other public place, whether a building or >> not, or on licensed premises'. > > > > > > What I mean, is how does one class 'intoxication'. In my younger days, it > wasn't unusual for me to consume 7 or 8 pints in an evening and still be > perfectly capable of cycling home. To all intensive purposes, I was sober, > yet technically I assume that I would've been classed as intoxicated. > Being as there is no breathalyser (as far as I know) for pedestrians, if > I were to walk home with that level of drink inside me, would I be classed > as *intoxicated*? > It would need a medical opinion to confirm one way or the other. However, as long as you were walking in a normal manner and behaving sensibly, who's going to know? |