new drink driving laws.

kriss_boy

I dont drink at all when I take my car to the pub, not even 1 bottle of beer.

My fear though is if they tinker with the limits then 'innocent' people might be deemed to be drunk and therefore prosecuted. For example it takes may beers for me to get drunk.... but you could innocently have a bottle of beer with your dinner or at a BBQ then drive to the supermarket 4 hours later and still be over the limit.

I think the police need to start pulling more and more people over rather than reduce the limits. Are they trying to say that many people are pulled over, apparently drunk, though are passing the alcohol tests?

Wee_Willy_Harris

It would have to be a bloody big bottle of beer!!!

jamespir

simple if you want a drink dont take your car even if its just a pint or half

ive seen first hand the effects of an accident caused by somone who drank and drove ( he was within the current legal limits) he veered of the road crashed hit another car on the way killing his passengers and both passengers in the other car hes now spending 10 years of his life inside

cyclonebri1

TiTheRev wrote: »

...but do you think that this is a good thing??

Surely we need certain rules in place to increase the consequence of abuse of the system. As you so rightly say, alcohol's effect is different for each person, so a zero tolerance policy is surely the best measure as it's absolute.

It doesn't matter if I think it is a good thing. I said, with no offense, that is as a way of life, or in the context of this topic a fact of life. People will drink and some time later drive yeah. So we need an effective system to allow the responsible people here to ensure they stay within the law, either as it is now, or when it gets changed.

Sadly the abusers will not give a !!!! anyway.
And condider the fact that if you eat a loaf of fresh bread, you will increase the alcohol content in your body???:eek:

cyclonebri1

jamespir wrote: »

simple if you want a drink dont take your car even if its just a pint or half

ive seen first hand the effects of an accident caused by somone who drank and drove ( he was within the current legal limits) he veered of the road crashed hit another car on the way killing his passengers and both passengers in the other car hes now spending 10 years of his life inside

And again with no disrespect, assuming he was copped for dangerous driving or similar, a dangerous driver is just that, being stone cold sober won't make an 'aporth of difference.

I'm with the middle faction here I think, extreme measures will not work, but then again the lunatics have taken over the assylum:o

jimbms

For me these new limits are not low enough. Only an idiot would consider drinking and driving. I have several times in the past phoned the police to let them know someone has got behind the wheel after drinking and will do so again in the future without hesitation and it did not do this secretly I was quite open about it especially to one idiot who called my bluff when I told him I would. before anyone says what about those who are tired or affected by drugs then the same goes for them. If you wish to argue don't bother with me, go argue your point with the parents of any young child murdered by these morons who drink and drive.

anewman

I barely ever drink. On the rare occasion I have drank a pint more recently, even of something with only 5%, I feel noticeably drowsier. I guess I'm just not conditioned/used to the alcohol. I am sure there are some people out there who can down 5 pints and drive as if they were sober, whereas me after one pint probably wouldn't. Whose to say who can and can't handle the booze? The easiest way IMO is zero tolerance, that way there's no arguing or ambiguity about how much, or how long after drinking you are safe to drive etc.

There is of course the opportunity for more moronic policing policies - what if there was a machine which could measure how "tired" you were and motorists were fined for driving while tired. I'm sure the stats will show tiredness is nearly as dangerous as being !!!!!!.

Oh, and why are the police allowed to stop at random and breathalise people? I thought there had to be some sort of reasonable or just cause to stop someone but seems the law changed at some point and they pull people over willy nilly (Nazi Policing? Cash grabbing?)

goldspanners

bigbulldog wrote: »

Having alcohol in your system(regardless of the amount consumed) is not quite the same logic as talking to passengers or just plain lack of attention? is it now.:eek:

Your right, in many cases its much worse and can be more dangerous.

tomstickland

bigbulldog wrote: »

Having alcohol in your system(regardless of the amount consumed) is not quite the same logic as talking to passengers or just plain lack of attention? is it now.:eek:

If you have been drinking or going for a drink....Then you dont drive.:)

It is the same logic.

With your approach if you're going for a drink, even if it's 1 sip ("regardless of the amount consumed") then "you don't drive".
That seems ridiculous - the effect of 1 sip would be unmeasurable, yet you deem that an absolute no. Meanwhile a clear risk from not paying attention is considered acceptable, or at least not worthy of comparison.

tomstickland

jimbms wrote: »

For me these new limits are not low enough. Only an idiot would consider drinking and driving.

.... If you wish to argue don't bother with me, go argue your point with the parents of any young child murdered by these morons who drink and drive.

So, because some people are way over the existing limit and crash then the existing limit should be lowered.

If someone "murders a child" and they are under the existing limits then how do you know that the collision would not have happened anyway?