Lower drink-drive limit supported
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: JNugent on 20 Mar 2010 08:39 Dave Plowman wrote: > 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. Over the period that I have been reading some of your posts, I had formed the opinion that you are a self-serving idiot. I have now modified that opin ion. You are a lying self-serving idiot.
From: JNugent on 20 Mar 2010 08:42 Adrian wrote: > Dave Plowman <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>> 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. > > Then they are at risk of losing their licence, since it's also a breach > of their licensing conditions to serve drunk people. > >> I'm talking about enjoyment of a meal out. > > Sounds like you want your enjoyment at the expense of everybody else's. Gerraway!
From: JNugent on 20 Mar 2010 08:43 Brimstone wrote: > > > "Dave Plowman" <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote in message > news:50faf28db3dave(a)davenoise.co.uk... >> 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. >> > Sensibly run places do and the punishment for failing to control > drunkenness are more severe than for allowing smoking, up to and > including loss of a licence to sell booze which means that the licencee > of a conventional pub loses both his income and his home (rather than in > one of the more recent corporately run drinking shops where they will > simply put in another manager). > > You're also overlooking the availability of cheap booze in supermarkets > etc. That's where the real problem lies, not in pubs. What "problem" is that? > But, as usual, it's easier to blame the bigger more obvious target. Especially if it might lead to more tax being raised.
From: Derek C on 20 Mar 2010 09:01 On Mar 20, 11:31 am, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "Bod" <bodro...(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.- Hide quoted text - > Did you really expect any joined up thinking from the current shower that calls itself a government? Derek C
From: Derek C on 20 Mar 2010 09:10
On Mar 20, 12:06 pm, Dave Plowman <d...(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote: > In article > <ac21a5ea-6034-48c4-acda-849ba040b...(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > Derek C <del.copel...(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? > I do most of my 'socialising' at a couple of clubs and a pub that are some distance from where I live. Well beyond easy walking or cycling distance anyway, and not connected by public transport. I do have a local pub within walking distance, but it's a complete dive mostly used by young chavs, so I wouldn't want to go there. Derek C |