Lower drink-drive limit supported
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Bod on 20 Mar 2010 07:59 On 20/03/2010 11:51, Brimstone wrote: > > > "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? > > Agreed. So the only realistic chance of falling foul of the intoxication law (as a pedestrian), is to either create a misdemeaner or a nuisance of yourself. In other words, an offence must be seen to be committed, before this law is invoked? Bod
From: Adrian on 20 Mar 2010 08:08 Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > So the only realistic chance of falling foul of the intoxication law > (as a pedestrian), is to either create a misdemeaner or a nuisance of > yourself. Yes, for the police to charge you with being drunk in public, you must be displaying symptoms of being drunk. Who'd have thought it, eh? > In other words, an offence must be seen to be committed, before this > law is invoked? Strangely, an offence must be committed before ANY law can be "invoked".
From: Adrian on 20 Mar 2010 08:08 Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > To all intensive purposes Oh, ffs...
From: Dave Plowman on 20 Mar 2010 08:06 In article <ac21a5ea-6034-48c4-acda-849ba040ba81(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > 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. If it's a local meeting place, why do you need to drive there? -- *Remember: First you pillage, then you burn. Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12
From: Dave Plowman on 20 Mar 2010 08:10
In article <80jopdFbckU2(a)mid.individual.net>, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> 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 Given such places make their money by selling alcohol they're unlikely to police that law very well themselves. If it had the same punitive fines for smoking, they might. > - and that the inevitable byproduct of somebody else's alcohol > consumption cannot seriously affect the health of others in the area. I'm talking about enjoyment of a meal out. -- *Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?* Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12 |