new drink driving laws.

Blackpool_Saver

tomstickland wrote: »

Why not? If being below the legal limit provides no greater risk that several other factors that are tolerated every day then what's the problem?

as it is impossible to predict how alcohol will affect each individual in each differing circumstance, the only safe way to proceed is a blanket ban.

What other factors were you referring to?

Blackpool_Saver

Hintza wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to shout?

Because it infuriates me that this is still in question, in a so called civilised society.

Judas

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

as it is impossible to predict how alcohol will affect each individual in each differing circumstance, the only safe way to proceed is a blanket ban.

What other factors were you referring to?

Illness; being tired; being preoccupied; medicines; energy drinks;mobile phones;mp3 players

All in my view have as much a chance as being between 50mg and 80mg as causing an accident.

The current laws are fine. 80mg definite over; below 80mg and you need to be fit to drive.

Blackpool_Saver

Judas wrote: »

Illness; being tired; being preoccupied; medicines; energy drinks;mobile phones;mp3 players

All in my view have as much a chance as being between 50mg and 80mg as causing an accident.

The current laws are fine. 80mg definite over; below 80mg and you need to be fit to drive.

You shouldn't drive when you are tired, or too ill.
You shouldn't drive when you are under the influence of certain prescription drugs.
We already have a ban on mobiles and the like, and don't get me started on those gut rotting drinks, only a fool drinks those.

Blackpool_Saver

Who decides if you are fit to drive, if you are under the influence you are not fit to decide as you could think you are fit, but not be.

I say again, a blanket ban.

Hintza

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

Because it infuriates me that this is still in question, in a so called civilised society.

Define a civilised society? Which model of civilisation should we take.

You are advocating a very black and white approach to life and if as your signature suggests you have seen everything then you should know that life is not black and white.

bigbulldog

If you drink alcohol then you should not drive no ifs or buts.:)

Judas

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

You shouldn't drive when you are tired, or too ill.
You shouldn't drive when you are under the influence of certain prescription drugs.
We already have a ban on mobiles and the like, and don't get me started on those gut rotting drinks, only a fool drinks those.

You shouldnt but none of the above incur an automatic 12 month ban; fine and increased insurance for years and years.

In my view 80MG is about right. Under 80MG it should be for driver responsibility and for prosecution when the person is not fit to drive. Once you become 80MG it is hard to argue the person is still fit.

If they do want to lower the limit then I think it needs to be brought in line with the punishment for the above offences which would have a similar effect to 50mg in the blood.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Judas wrote: »

You shouldnt but none of the above incur an automatic 12 month ban; fine and increased insurance for years and years.

In my view 80MG is about right. Under 80MG it should be for driver responsibility and for prosecution when the person is not fit to drive. Once you become 80MG it is hard to argue the person is still fit.

If they do want to lower the limit then I think it needs to be brought in line with the punishment for the above offences which would have a similar effect to 50mg in the blood.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gary Hart got 5 years for driving while tired..... and I'll bet his insurance is still a bit steep!

Judas

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gary Hart got 5 years for driving while tired..... and I'll bet his insurance is still a bit steep!

Only because of the repercussions. Of course we could make the law equal and only charge drink drivers who kill someone. a year a death fair?