Lower drink-drive limit supported
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Dave Plowman on 19 Mar 2010 11:59 In article <8pCdnbLQ6PhDDD7WnZ2dnUVZ8oOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > > An exact limit was introduced precisely because before it was up to a > > doctor to decide if you were fit to drive or not. With all the > > variables that allowed. > 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. > There were no doubt other unacceptable effects. Yes - like paralytic masons getting let off by the police surgeon... > BTW, the "exact limit" is fairly inexact. No it's not. Clearly defined. > The same quantity of the same drink will manifest itself differentially > as blood alcohol levels in different people. Oh that's true. But at the moment is set higher than many other countries. -- *A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory * Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12
From: Dave Plowman on 19 Mar 2010 12:03 In article <80bl9sFk2lU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > I personally think the limit that we have now is strict enough. Any > lower and a lot of restaurants/pubs etc will all be closing en masse, > this due to diners being terrified at having even just one glass of wine > with a meal. Given the smoking lobby used the same arguments about banning smoking why should the use of another often anti-social drug be given special treatment? Might make restaurants more pleasant for non drinkers. -- *The beatings will continue until morale improves * Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12
From: JNugent on 19 Mar 2010 12:13 Dave Plowman wrote: > Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> I personally think the limit that we have now is strict enough. Quite so. Whilst the limit may be lower in some other countries (though not many), they don't necessarily have this flat-footed one year (or longer) disqualification as the penalty. That is way OTT as a punishment for being marginally over "the limit" - so martginally that it can only be tested with scientific instruments. >> Any >> lower and a lot of restaurants/pubs etc will all be closing en masse, >> this due to diners being terrified at having even just one glass of wine >> with a meal. Exactly. In other European countries, beiong over the limit may well only attract a fine and an endorsement. > Given the smoking lobby used the same arguments about banning smoking why > should the use of another often anti-social drug be given special > treatment? Might make restaurants more pleasant for non drinkers. It might make restaurants more pleasant for people who like to dine alone.
From: JNugent on 19 Mar 2010 12:15 Dave Plowman wrote: > JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>> An exact limit was introduced precisely because before it was up to a >>> doctor to decide if you were fit to drive or not. With all the >>> variables that allowed. >> 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? >> There were no doubt other unacceptable effects. > Yes - like paralytic masons getting let off by the police surgeon... You lead a paranoid life, don't you? >> BTW, the "exact limit" is fairly inexact. > No it's not. Clearly defined. Not in terms of what you can drink and still be lawful. And that's what you actually need to know. >> The same quantity of the same drink will manifest itself differentially >> as blood alcohol levels in different people. > Oh that's true. But at the moment is set higher than many other countries. As is the penalty. Nowhere in Europe is harsher.
From: Dave Plowman on 19 Mar 2010 13:50
In article <JcudnXpgrLeMPj7WnZ2dnUVZ8tennZ2d(a)pipex.net>, 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. -- *He broke into song because he couldn't find the key* Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12 |