NI Halves Drink Drive Limit!

absoluteutopia

Should ban smoking while driving as well, i nearly got wrote off a couple of weeks ago by a man who was so busy flicking his ash out the window that he nearly tail ended a bicycle, only seeing it at the last second causing him to come into my lane to avoid hitting it

hazelc56

absoluteutopia wrote: »

Should ban smoking while driving as well, i nearly got wrote off a couple of weeks ago by a man who was so busy flicking his ash out the window that he nearly tail ended a bicycle, only seeing it at the last second causing him to come into my lane to avoid hitting it

And start enforcing the moblie phone use.This gets to me as there are a lot of people ignoring this law and definitely not concentrating on the road.ie.talking,driving with one hand etc.Can be quite scary and hairy at times.:eek:

whiskeygalore

Please do not be misled by my email address it refers to a film which I enjoyed years ago and has stuck with me, it was a light hearted comedy with a happy ending no malice and would recommend you watch it, so you may be more understanding of others and not jump to wrong conclusions as I feel this thread Mr Attwood has. As I said ignorance do not help anyone

hazelc56

whiskeygalore wrote: »

Please do not be misled by my email address it refers to a film which I enjoyed years ago and has stuck with me, it was a light hearted comedy with a happy ending no malice and would recommend you watch it, so you may be more understanding of others and not jump to wrong conclusions as I feel this thread Mr Attwood has. As I said ignorance do not help anyone

remember i saw that film years ago but cannot remember what it was about.Was it irish?and also about smugglers?

redped

Speaking of road safety, can someone tell me when stopping at red lights became optional in Belfast? It's cars, taxis, lorries and even buses that are regularly "going for it", rather than waiting an extra minute or two.

suki1964

redped wrote: »

Any particular reason why you think this? Should all other rules be revoked as well? I'd love to drive my car at 155mph up the M2

Id like a car that could do 155mph - but I had to sell it when petrol hit £1.30

Where Im a long time non drinker I know how impaired my driving is after just one drink.(if I do have one ) However my DH has drunk all his adult life and although he will swear hes never driven over the limit ( and indeed has never failed a test) I would never allow him to drive with my GS in the car with drink on his breath

The proposed new laws - I think are just a waste of time as unless we allow random testing here and a lot more traffic police its not going to make the slightest difference

I live in the sticks. Everyone drives to the pub and everyone knows the back roads. And so far this year I know of one death and two seriously injured

alex21

hazelc56 wrote: »

remember i saw that film years ago but cannot remember what it was about.Was it irish?and also about smugglers?

No, it was set on Scottish islands (Hebridean possibly) and it was ashipwreck and the whiskey came ashore and was hidden by the inhabitants.:D

highrisklowreturn

alex21 wrote: »

No, it was set on Scottish islands (Hebridean possibly) and it was ashipwreck and the whiskey came ashore and was hidden by the inhabitants.:D

Sounds like some deals I know going on round the Shankill.....


Is driving any safer today specifically because of drink driving laws that didn't exist 50 years ago? Probably not. People not alcohol kill. Only circa 6% of road accidents to my knowledge involve alcohol as an antagonising factor. I suspect many of those would still take place were alcohol not involved, it's merely that it is present which enables people to consider it statistically relevant.

redped

highrisklowreturn wrote: »

Sounds like some deals I know going on round the Shankill.....


Is driving any safer today specifically because of drink driving laws that didn't exist 50 years ago? Probably not. People not alcohol kill. Only circa 6% of road accidents to my knowledge involve alcohol as an antagonising factor. I suspect many of those would still take place were alcohol not involved, it's merely that it is present which enables people to consider it statistically relevant.

I don't know about your figure of 6%, but according to the PSNI (http://www.psni.police.uk/10_11_reco...ury_rtcs-2.pdf):

"The most common causes of fatal and serious injury road traffic collisions in 2010/11 were ‘excessive speed having regard to conditions’ (84 collisions), ‘inattention or attention diverted’ (81 collisions) and ‘impaired by alcohol – driver/rider’ (72 collisions)"

I don't have the total number of accidents in 2010/2011 (although the figure will probably be in that document), but they reckon alcohol was the third biggest cause of collisions in that period.

RikM

redped wrote: »

Evidence of what?

(a) that Alex Attwood is trying to save lives, rather than just political point scoring? I don't have any. I wouldn't believe much of what our politicians say, but in this instance I do believe reducing the level is a good idea.

Evidence of both, but mainly the latter. It doesn't really matter if a politician is self-serving, if what they are doing is correct in spite of it.

The worry I would have is that this is an example of box ticking; choose an easy target, to please the crowd, while spending money to little effect.

(b)that reducing the legal limit will save lives? How about this document that talks about the correlation between blood alcohol and impairment in humans?

I'm afraid I wouldn't normally count something like that as evidence of anything. Given the source and the style, it reads more like propaganda. Some of the references may be interesting, given the time to chase them up, though.