Jump to content
guinness

new traffic laws

Recommended Posts

Most pubs and restaurants serve 175ml of wine.  As many wines are around 14% that's 2.45 units!  Even a small wine glass at 125ml will be more than one unit for wines above 8%.  As I live in Scotland I can't drink even a pint without probably exceeding the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lost in France said:

You need to be aware that zero tolerance cannot be made to work, just as zero incidents of drink driving is also not achievable.

You forget that not only do most countries have a lower limit than us, many have a 0% limit and it works. There will always be law breakers, that's human nature 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fat Albert said:

I am sure I wasn't personally in your sights but seeing as I am one of those who has openly said I am happy to have a perfectly legal bevvy I fitted the criteria for your target selection. I can’t subscribe to the “even 1 life saved is worth it” mentality  - if that were the case we would, for example, drive everywhere at 20mph or less. 
Clearly my assessment of risk vs personal freedom is different to yours. Agreeing to disagree is probably the best thing to do ;-) 

Wow, you clearly value your drink greater than the life of others, quite an admission but true colours shown through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Durbanite said:

Rather strange legislation?  Where we lived in SA it has been known for them to have roadblocks on just about every road into or out of a town or city.  Every one would be stopped and checked.  Most towns and cities had their own independent traffic departments and were not associated with the police.

The downside of this was that drinkers carried on drinking waiting until the road blocks had moved on or a family member came to collect them.  It did make you very aware of how much you would consume.  They still do roadblocks around main cities and towns and still catch a lot of people for other offences besides being over the limit.

That's the difference between policing by consent and policing by oppression.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AJGalaxy2012 said:

Wow, you clearly value your drink greater than the life of others, quite an admission but true colours shown through.

That's not fair!  He clearly meant that he does not warrant zero tolerance to cut the annual road deaths by one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kelper said:

That's not fair!  He clearly meant that he does not warrant zero tolerance to cut the annual road deaths by one.

I know, thats what he said but in my book saving one life warrants it, it could be your son or daughter whose life was taken by someone that wanted a drink with lunch. What price for a life?

Edited by AJGalaxy2012
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJGalaxy2012 said:

I know, thats what he said but in my book saving one life warrants it, it could be your son or daughter whose life was taken by someone that wanted a drink with lunch. What price for a life?

So why don't you stop driving in case you ever were involved in a fatal accident :)

 

There's an interesting BAC calculator here https://www.drinkfox.com/tools/bac-calculator

 

And I know everyone's different.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kelper said:

So why don't you stop driving in case you ever were involved in a fatal accident :)

 

A lot of difference between an anti social glass of wine with a meal and the needs for transport.

10 minutes ago, kelper said:

There's an interesting BAC calculator here https://www.drinkfox.com/tools/bac-calculator

And I know everyone's different.

 

 

That does look interesting.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can moan and whinge all you like about the drink driving law but it ISNT going to change anytime soon. Vastly more inattentive drivers cause collisions than those who have consumed a few beers! 

 

Draconian laws don’t make problems disappear. Look at firearms licensing, It’s VERY difficult to get a firearms (not shot gun) licence these days with all sorts of checks and balances yet still people get killed by firearms, and they are not all gang or drug related deaths. 

 

We live in a liberal society and that means people have a fair bit of freedom in their actions. It’s certainly not perfect, but it’s a vast improvement on places that have strict Islamic/Sharia laws where women are not allowed to wear anything but a burka, nor are they permitted to drive a car and men who are gay are thrown off tall buildings, or a hundred and one other things that we, in our “liberal” society take for granted.  The above example is I accept a bit extreme but it does illustrate the point I am trying to get across.

 

Over the years I dealt with many fatal collisions, a very small number were directly attributable to alcohol and yet, having had that experience which very few on here will have had I STILL think the drink drive law in this country is about right, it balances the requirement to allow personal freedom of choice with the need to ensure we all stay as safe as is reasonably practicable.

 

Every year people are killed by electricity, should we ban that as well?? Yes it’s a silly example but again it demonstrates a point doesn’t it? 

 

Andy

  • Like 4
  • +1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, AJGalaxy2012 said:

Wow, you clearly value your drink greater than the life of others, quite an admission but true colours shown through.

I should have known you would interpret this completely wrongly given your previous posts. Your over emotive response is frankly preposterous.
Taking to the road at all is a risk. Someone like you, and I know you are not alone on this, who subscribes to the “even saving 1 life “ mentality logic should then also pursue a further reduction in all speed limits as it is a proven fact that going slower reduces accidents and also reduces their effect. If taken to its logical conclusion we simply ban motoring. However, if we accept there has to be an acceptable level of risk that balances against all other factors then a reasonable person with a degree of perspective would discount this approach. Now, where the line is drawn ie what risk is acceptable is open to debate. This applies to practically every aspect of modern life. 

Edited by Fat Albert
  • Like 2
  • +1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Legal Eagle said:

That's the difference between policing by consent and policing by oppression.

Not sure what you mean by oppression if it saves lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we banned all women from driving it would halve the number of road deaths.  But it would be oppressive.  :D

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr Plodd said:

You can moan and whinge all you like about the drink driving it going to change anytime soon. Vastly more inattentive drivers cause collisions than those who have consumed a few beers! 

Andy

 

Very pertinent today having followed a car with a  couple, I suspect from the silhouettes ladies circa 40 years of age, thankfully this time without an accident.

They were so intently discussing something, with the driver facing her passenger more often than facing the road.

Probably, if tested she was 0% BAC.

Following this thread's message, carrying a passenger is another thing that ought to be banned.

Edited by JTQ
typo
  • +1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kelper said:

Most pubs and restaurants serve 175ml of wine.  As many wines are around 14% that's 2.45 units!  Even a small wine glass at 125ml will be more than one unit for wines above 8%.  As I live in Scotland I can't drink even a pint without probably exceeding the limit.

Which is why I abstain in Scotland - although Brew Dog’s  Nanny State goes quite well with a nice fish supper :-)

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Durbanite said:

Not sure what you mean by oppression if it saves lives?

Oppressive policing also costs lives.

Amnesty International and others have expressed serious concerns about South African police brutality, including torture and extrajudicial killings.

I'll leave it at that, not wishing to drift this thread into a whole new area if controversy.:ph34r:

  • +1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mr Plodd said:

You can moan and whinge all you like about the drink driving law but it ISNT going to change anytime soon. Vastly more inattentive drivers cause collisions than those who have consumed a few beers! 

 

Draconian laws don’t make problems disappear. Look at firearms licensing, It’s VERY difficult to get a firearms (not shot gun) licence these days with all sorts of checks and balances yet still people get killed by firearms, and they are not all gang or drug related deaths. 

 

We live in a liberal society and that means people have a fair bit of freedom in their actions. It’s certainly not perfect, but it’s a vast improvement on places that have strict Islamic/Sharia laws where women are not allowed to wear anything but a burka, nor are they permitted to drive a car and men who are gay are thrown off tall buildings, or a hundred and one other things that we, in our “liberal” society take for granted.  The above example is I accept a bit extreme but it does illustrate the point I am trying to get across.

 

Over the years I dealt with many fatal collisions, a very small number were directly attributable to alcohol and yet, having had that experience which very few on here will have had I STILL think the drink drive law in this country is about right, it balances the requirement to allow personal freedom of choice with the need to ensure we all stay as safe as is reasonably practicable.

 

Every year people are killed by electricity, should we ban that as well?? Yes it’s a silly example but again it demonstrates a point doesn’t it? 

 

Andy

I'm not moaning or whinging about the drink / drive laws I simply feel zero would be better for the reasons I have stated. I know you have had a great deal of experience during your working life and that you don't support my views, that's absolutely fine and leads to a healthier society.

 

You made several points about banning things, a few years ago, hand guns were banned and I believe statistics will show that the ban has actually worked until about 2 years ago when it started to rise again.

  • +1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fat Albert said:

I should have known you would interpret this completely wrongly given your previous posts. Your over emotive response is frankly preposterous.
Taking to the road at all is a risk. Someone like you, and I know you are not alone on this, who subscribes to the “even saving 1 life “ mentality logic should then also pursue a further reduction in all speed limits as it is a proven fact that going slower reduces accidents and also reduces their effect. If taken to its logical conclusion we simply ban motoring. However, if we accept there has to be an acceptable level of risk that balances against all other factors then a reasonable person with a degree of perspective would discount this approach. Now, where the line is drawn ie what risk is acceptable is open to debate. This applies to practically every aspect of modern life. 

 

You are quite right, where do we draw the line?

 

Speed limits again you are correct, slower equals less deaths BUT theres also the country's economy to consider, the need for transport and the throughput of the system so of course it would be ridiculous to ban transport, cars or indeed reduce overall speed limits.

 

Comparing that to ones 'need' for a glass of wine with a meal and the 'need' to drive afterwards bears no comparison at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we will have to amicably agree to disagree :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fat Albert said:

I think we will have to amicably agree to disagree :)

Agreed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody 'needs' to overtake; should we ban overtaking?

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kelper said:

Nobody 'needs' to overtake; should we ban overtaking?

Dont be ridiculous..... of course you need to overtake if theres a caravan in front (and slow down once youve got in front) :D

  • Haha 1
  • +1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kelper said:

If we banned all women from driving it would halve the number of road deaths.  But it would be oppressive.  :D

Despite the fact that you might just have a point...I do sometimes rely on my wife to drive me after I have had a few bevies. It would by a tragedy if she couldn't. So sorry, but that idea doesn't get my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fat Albert said:

I should have known you would interpret this completely wrongly given your previous posts. Your over emotive response is frankly preposterous.
Taking to the road at all is a risk. Someone like you, and I know you are not alone on this, who subscribes to the “even saving 1 life “ mentality logic should then also pursue a further reduction in all speed limits as it is a proven fact that going slower reduces accidents and also reduces their effect. If taken to its logical conclusion we simply ban motoring. However, if we accept there has to be an acceptable level of risk that balances against all other factors then a reasonable person with a degree of perspective would discount this approach. Now, where the line is drawn ie what risk is acceptable is open to debate. This applies to practically every aspect of modern life. 

Even staying in bed carries risk, both from the health issues and from the possibility of an aircraft falling out of the sky, (ask the people of Lockerbie).

We have to minimise risks as best we can, but that requires a sense of proportion!

Regulations that are going to be ignored are worse than no regulations at all.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Stevan said:

Even staying in bed carries risk, both from the health issues and from the possibility of an aircraft falling out of the sky, (ask the people of Lockerbie).

We have to minimise risks as best we can, but that requires a sense of proportion!

Regulations that are going to be ignored are worse than no regulations at all.

Not sure about that statement Stevan, as most people break speed limits, should they be abolished?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AJGalaxy2012 said:

Not sure about that statement Stevan, as most people break speed limits, should they be abolished?

True, most people break speed limits, but they do not ignore them, they exceed them by an amount that they think they can get away with.

On a typical British motorway many people stretch the 70 to 80 or 85, but relatively few ignore the limit altogether and drive at 100+.

An alcohol limit of zero or near zero is, IMO, more likely to be ignored than either of the two UK limits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...