Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 07:06 PM

What??? South????

I was thinking of Harvey's Bristol Cream, though I wish I hadn't. Disgusting muck it was.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 06:52 PM

Smokey, you werent brought up right, go to Lewes, There is only one Harveys, and they dont brew Sherry

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 05:18 PM

"I take the opposite view, Smokey.

If I have the legal limit of alcohol, I am perfectly capable of driving both my mouth and my car."

That is exactly my point, Murray, not the opposite view.

By the way, "Harvey's" used to be cheap sherry when I were a lad :-)

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: GUEST,BanjoRay
Date: 23 Jun 10 - 04:47 AM

If this reduction of the legal limit is implemented, more pubs will shut. Fewer pubs = fewer folk clubs. We're doomed....
Ray

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 06:34 PM

I take the opposite view, Smokey.

If I have the legal limit of alcohol, I am perfectly capable of driving both my mouth and my car.

It may be unpalatable to some, but the fact is that some people with the legal limit of alcohol in their bloodstream still have faster reactions than some people with zero alcohol in their bloodstream.

I have proved this many times, just download some of the thousands of internet reaction test programs out there and try it for yourself.

The current UK limit works out at 1.5 pints of ABV = 3.7% as far as I can work it out.

Unacceptable politically, but irrefutable logically, and totally feasible to implement, would be a scheme whereby everybody gets their own allowable bloodcount.

Me, I would guess my acceptable limit to work out at 2.5 pints of Harveys ...YMMV

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 02:07 PM

I think that below a certain level (obviously bladdered) of alcohol in the bloodstream, some sort of competence test might be more meaningful than just measuring the alcohol/blood ratio.

If I have the 'legal amount' of alcohol, I'm not fit to drive my own mouth, let alone a car. I can easily be under the limit and incapable of driving safely.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jun 10 - 08:26 AM

Re ginger beer - There are suger free ones, BWM, such as boots 'shapers', which is rather goof too! Whether suger free ones are available in pubs is a problem though:-(

Back to th emain point - I had a thought this morning. Now, I may be a cynic, but putting 2 and 2 together, and probably making 5, I see the lowering of the limit and the introduction of spot checks as a licence to print money and increase the police arrest rates. Going back to my earlier point of residual alcohol from the previous night it becomes very likely that someone having, say, between 8 and 10 units the night before becomes likely to be over the limit when driving to work at 7am. Police just lay a random 'trap' on any major road and hey presto - lots of arrests, lots of extra revenue, no extra work and no reduction in drunk driving.

Anyone else think the same or am I being too cynical?

DeG

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 08:12 PM

""I'm not totally convinced of the need for a lower limit.""

Like Leveller, I'm not convinced.

Let me emphasise that I hold no brief for drink drivers, and would like to see second offenders banned for ten years, and three strikes meaning "out for life".

However, I have reservations about this new suggestion.

We are told that the reduction from 80 to 50 will save 150 lives annually.

The implication is that 150 people die in motor related incidents where one party has an alcohol level more than 50 and less than the legal limit. What is not made clear, is whether that person actually caused the accident.

If yes, then the conclusion drawn is essentially correct. If no, then the whole argument falls apart.

Where the other party was responsible, that life would not have been saved by a lower limit, and unless we are given chapter and verse on what percentage of those with alcohol between 50 and 80 were adjudged to be culpably responsible for the incident, we can place little or no value on the conclusions drawn.

If the same knee jerk reaction is giving rise to these claims, as the one which finds drunk drivers automatically responsible for an accident, even when somebody runs into the back of them at red traffic lights, then the credibility of those operating the survey is called into question.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 11:37 AM

I didn't realise that, Ringer. if it is the case then I guess part of the 'harmonisation' will be to do away with the automatic ban for DD offences as happens in some other member states? I believe the courts have more options in some countries although I could have been misled on that! Maybe someone can point out just what everyone is going to harmonise with?

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Ringer
Date: 21 Jun 10 - 11:17 AM

I'm surprised that no-one has yet pointed out that the European Union (spit, spit) is responsible for requiring drink-driving laws to be harmonised. Both transport and elf'n'safety policies are exclusive EU "competencies" (I put the word in quotes because competency -- without quotes -- and the EU do not naturally go together; the EU redefines the word to mean "jurisdiction").

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 01:09 PM

Mix half Copella (has to be apple and elderflower) and half soda. Float vegetation in it and close your eyes and you could be drinking Pimm's. It's very nice. Especially when followed by half a bottle of Talisker.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 12:35 PM

The obsession with beer indicates many lefty alcoholics here!!

Spherical objects!

I drink beer for the taste, not for its alcohol content. I normally drink cider, again for the taste. I don't like apple juice. … and before anybody mention alcohol free beer, I put that in the same category as low fat spread, diet coke, artificial sweeteners and instant coffee – I don't do pretend.



DC

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 08:35 AM

"j20[imo] is a fairly good non alcoholic drink"

Not for a diabetic, nor Ginger Beer - delicious though they both are! So it has to be tea, coffee, water or diet fizzy.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:46 AM

Ginger beer is OK for me and I particularly enjoy a ginger beer shandy (half bitter, half ginger beer) on a warm day

I agree - super stuff especially the Old Jamaica from Sainsbury's which is on our delivery list most weeks. The obsession with beer indicates many lefty alcoholics here!!

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:34 AM

j20[imo] is a fairly good non alcoholic drink

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 05:00 AM

Ginger beer is OK for me and I particularly enjoy a ginger beer shandy (half bitter, half ginger beer) on a warm day.

DeG

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 04:45 AM

I could handle Dandelion and Burdock, but coke is simply foul and lemonade and most other soft drinks too acid to actually enjoy even if the prices were not highway robbery.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: theleveller
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:40 PM

I don't go to pubs all that often these days unless we're staying within walking distance of one as I can't go and not drink draught beer. I don't mind nursing one pint all night but if I couldn't even have that I wouldn't bother as I resent paying a fortune for bottled water, I hate soft drinks, only drink coffee in the morning...maybe if the did fresh orange juice, but apart from that.......

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:27 PM

Quote
And if coffee becomes more popular, I hope that the CAMERA could include real, fresh ground coffee in its campaign instead of expensive cups of coffee flavoured frothy milk or, heaven forbid, instant coffee.
Unquote

I would go with that Doug.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:24 PM

I could go with a lower limit, even a zero limit, if it was brought in alongside a law which prevented pubs from charging outrageous prices for miniscule measures of soft drinks.

And if coffee becomes more popular, I hope that the CAMERA could include real, fresh ground coffee in its campaign instead of expensive cups of coffee flavoured frothy milk or, heaven forbid, instant coffee.

DC

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 01:09 PM

Guinness are supposed to be bringing out a low alcohol pint. Ho
        
        
Guinness Can't Kick That Low-Alcohol Habit


The famed brewer takes another crack at getting Irish people to lay off the full-strength stuff. For 20 years, it's been an uphill battle

By Mary Catherine Fitzsimmons

Will Guinness ever be the same? The answer depends on how Limerick pub-goers react to a new low-alcohol stout being test marketing in their city by Ireland's famed brewer.

"Guinness Mid-Strength" stout is the centerpiece of a "responsible drinking" campaign being waged by Diageo Ireland, Guinness' current owner. Unlike American light beers that are marketed as being "less filling," Guinness Mid-Strength has been created mainly to offer a real drinking experience without getting people loaded. It weighs in at 2.8 proof, compared with the 4.2% proof of the classic, heavier brown stuff.

In recent times, Guinness has tripped and stumbled even more than its customers in repeat efforts to popularize lighter stouts. In 1979, it rolled out a low-calorie product called "Guinness Light." People here still talk about the advertising campaign, which used the tagline "they said it couldn't be done." Apparently it couldn't. Guinness Light flopped so sensationally it earned the title "The HMS Titanic of stout products" from The Irish Times. Later came "Breo" (pronounced Bro), a white wheat beer that cost £5million to develop, and graced the bartops of Ireland ever so briefly in the late 90s. Irish people loved to argue about Breo, but they didn't much like to drink it. It disappeared in 2000.

Half-pint glasses of stout or beer are widely viewed here as "ladies" drinks, particularly by the older generation. Guinness' best hope lies with younger drinkers, who seem a bit more open to a newfangled product, particularly once that might be seen as a "girly" drink. The recent success of "alcopops," a series of brightly colored, heavily sweetened concoctions, could provide some hope. Originally seen as a drink for women only, they've now gained some popularity with male drinkers.

Guinness Mid-Strength "might catch on all right," says Seamus McNamara, a self-proclaimed beer enthusiast from Cork. "A lot of people like to go to the pub in the middle of the week and don't want to deal with a headache on a Thursday morning." On Irish web discussion boards, contributors seem to be interested in the opportunity to avoid getting as drunk – without having to actually reduce their drinking – a classic Irish perspective.

Diageo Ireland claims the new brew is absolutely indistinguishable from the original in terms of taste, color and texture. All sorts of Irish newspaper writers and bloggers on alcohol-related sites seem to agree. What bothers them is the price. Taxation of alcoholic beverages in Ireland is directly related to alcohol content – the more alcohol in your pint, the more you pay. But Guinness Mid Strength carries the same price as the full-strength version.

Unfortunately, Guinness made an unintentional faux pas in its advertising campaign for the product earlier this year, which coincided with the Six Nations Rugby tournament being held in Dublin. What fans from England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Italy and France found on door stickers all over Dublin pubs, urging athletes to "drive" instead of "push." Not exactly the right message for a "safe drinking" campaign...

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: theleveller
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 10:13 AM

I'm not totally convinced of the need for a lower limit. I think there are other road safety measures that need to be enforced - like stamping down on white van men. I was almost knocked down by one the other day as he drove at me along the pavement. When I kicked his van and called him a silly billy :), he stopped, got out and threatened to punch my head in - until I took a video on my phone of him and his van on the pavement and told him I was reporting him to the police.

At least I learned some nice new swear words.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:39 AM

With my Polish origins I am surprised I had not seen this before -

Kwas

Looks an ideal business opportunity for someone - particularly with the number of people here from eastern Europe at the moment.

I was actualy looking up small beer when I found it - Which brings me to another question. Anyone tried small beer or even watered beer? May be another option?

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:19 AM

Emma, if you go in company, why not take turns to drive and stay off the booze on your turn? Not a complete solution, but better than losing your licence or, far worse, killing someone (maybe yourself)?

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 07:57 AM

I suppose I'm talking about going to the pub as a 'social' occasion Arthur rather than for music or a meal
It costs approximately £8 here for a taxi to even be prepared to come out to the sticks - before starting any journey!

I do go to a pub to enjoy, in company, what I am unable to have at home i.e. a good local or guest draught beer
The choice of non-alcohlic drinks are usually extremely poor, aimed at the average seven year old brought up on incredibly sweet fizzy drinks or in miniscule sixe bottles sold as 'mixers'

In all instances they are totally overpriced

Just another nail in the coffin of rural pubs

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 07:19 AM

Actually, I didn't have to pay, as each time I went to the bar, somebody else insisted on buying me a drink. Such nice people.

I found the squash Ok to drink. Much better than gassy drinks, which give me grief. I very rarely drink squash so I doubt it will do me too much harm.

I agree that living in a rural area does create a problem, in as much as "Do you drink and risk losing your licence" or "Don't drink and don't lose your licence and still thoroughly enjoy the music".
I took the second option. It was no big deal.

I don't need to go to the pub, specifically to drink. In fact I can't remember the last time I went to the pub just to drink.

If I go to a pub, it's either for the music or something to eat.

If I go to the pub for a meal, it is with the family and I always get a taxi if it is in the local area and enjoy having a few drinks. If we go outside the area, I use the car and don't drink. I still enjoy the meal.

I enjoy having a few drinks with my meal at home in the evening with my family.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Emma B
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 06:37 AM

I've nothing against pure orange juice - as said - I definately prefer it at breakfast to even the finest Hook Norton or Abbeydale

But orange squash?

"The ingredients vary, but in commercially made cordials and squashes the fruit content is generally low (less than 15 per cent of concentrated juice).
In addition to (a lot of) sugar and fruit, there are often preservatives, including sulphur dioxide (E220 which is potentially harmful for asthmatics), sodium benzoate (E211, linked to skin troubles), potassium sorbate (E202) and dimethyl dicarbonate (E242).

Colours are usually based on natural carotenes (E numbers 160-161), and are there to disguise low fruit content.
Added thickeners such as xanthan and guar gums prevent fruit-water separation but also hide low fruit content.

Note that "E number, EU-approved" additives are tested for toxins, not allergens.
Synthetic flavourings, which have no E numbers are often found in cordials.

Sorry - I don't go to a pub to drink cheap and very nasty stuff like this sold at exorbitant prices - what did you pay for a couple of pence worth of 'squash' topped up with tap water Aethur?

My main concern is that previously I knew I could have one drink of some wonderful guest beer and remain well within the legal limit - now I think that this will no longer be a certainty and, living in an area with no public transport, to lose my licence would be beyond inconvienience.

I think perhaps I'll stay at home and enjoy a glass of good wine instead

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 06:10 AM

"orange juice tastes infinitely better than beer"

It's time-and-place-dependent.
At 8am at the breakfast-table, it does.
At 8pm in the pub, it doesn't.
Those of you who still have a choice should count your blessings! :-)

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:23 AM

orange juice tastes infinitely better than beer

I think there may be millions to dispute that claim:-)

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Bernard
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:22 AM

It just occurred to me... the tabloids will love the lowering of the limit... just think, at 80mg if someone was three times the limit (as they so often love to report), the 50mg limit would put that person 'nearly five times the legal limit'!! Much more sensational!!

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Bernard
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:19 AM

More often than not it's fizzy water for me... to quote W.C. Fields: "Water? Never touch the stuff! Fish fornicate in it!"... well, almost  what he said!!

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 05:12 AM

Excellent news, orange juice tastes infinitely better than beer - not so a decent Malbec from Mendoza, but I have no problem with alchohol free outings.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 04:29 AM

It did enter my head, but I ignored it.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 03:02 AM

LOL

Well I like my beers.

However, went to a wonderful singaround last night and drank 2 pints of orange squash becuase of driving. It never entered my head to want an alcoholic drink.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Bernard
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:47 PM

A scorching remark, Richard!!

;o>

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:13 PM

Typically, vehicles with singe occupancy are between 75% and 85% of traffic.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Leadfingers
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 02:23 PM

As there are a HELL of a lot more fatal accidents on the road involving drivers who have NOT been drinking , maybe its actually safer to drive drunk ??

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 12:46 PM

Indeed cheers!

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 11:32 AM

Hehehe - Glass (of beer) half full or half empty syndrome, Steve? :-)

Good point though. It is a distinct benefit if for anyone who can see that having a good time is influenced more by internal feelings than external factors. One of the external factors being the law of course!

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 10:35 AM

I benefit from your false logic, not suffer from it.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 10:10 AM

Spot-on Dave.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:44 AM

Funnily enough I am just advising a friend on tips to not smoke and suggesting a bit of neuro-linguistic programming. Part of the artice I have sent says that the dependence on smoking is heavily linked to associating smoking with having a good time. Once you understand that link is purely a programmed construct the rest is simple.

How does that have any bearing? Well, it is the same with drinking. Once you begin to associate having a good time with alcohol it does become difficult to do one without the other. If, for instance, you are not having as good a time as you would have hoped your 'program' kicks in and says 'Hey - want a better time? Have a drink!'. Most people who act in this way are neither compulsive addictives or alcoholics - Just suffering from the same false logic as countless others - Including me! It is a struggle to remind myself at times but I have have had both good and bad times when drunk and when sober. One is not a result of the other.

Back to the subject in hand - lower limits will not stop the compulsive, the alcoholic or the criminal. Nor will they help anyone to undo that lifelong program I have described. I think money would be far better spent on education and help for those who simply want to break that cycle - Not just in terms of driving but also in terms of all drink related crime or anti-social behavior.

Enough psycho-babble from me for now anyway...

:D

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: GUEST,Silas
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:37 AM

Err... Nameless guest was actually me, I forgot to sign the 'from' box.

I fail to see just where you think I am throwing insults.

Unlike yourselves, I DO enjoy going out and getting sloshed, I enjoy the experience of being drunk in company. I am not in any way 'holier than thou', but for all that, as far as alcohol is concerned, I can take it or leave it. I would certainly not refuse to go to an event simply because I had to choose between drinking or driving.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:31 AM

Steve - it isn't puritanism. Nameless Guests throwing insults. It is the usual Trolling.
Quack!
GtD.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:20 AM

No it does not suggest a level of dependency. I have a shower every time before I go out but that does not mean I have some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Having a drink happens to be built into the way I personally choose to socialise. Not having a drink and not sticking headphones on happens to be the way I choose to do the gardening. Kicking off my shoes and putting my feet up on the settee happens to be the way I choose to watch the World Cup. I happen to find that having a drink is pleasantly relaxing and enjoyable and I don't go out to get sloshed. I'd rather do it than not do it. Implicit in your notion of dependency is that alcoholic drinks are intrinsically evil unto themselves, which they are not. There's more than a touch of puritanism in this argument.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 08:36 AM

I agree with Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 08:32 AM

It's a highly dubious logic-construct to suggest that someone who enjoys a couple of pints when they're out at a Folk-event or session "Has a drink problem". 'Enjoying' a drink is not the same thing as 'needing' one, and I'm sure Silas is well aware of that.

But I do question the logic that suggests that Fun isn't quite so much fun without alcohol. I don't drink - not because of choice, or because I'm a clever shit, but because of a serious health issue, I can't drink because it would be too damaging to my well-being. However, I've not noticed, in the five years since I stopped drinking, any degradation to the level of enjoyment I get from concerts, sessions, theatre, sporting events, whatever. In fact it's rather the opposite - I don't have to miss part of the event through having to go out half way though for a piss!

It's a question of acceptance of the status quo - once you've done that, whether the SQ be health-issues precluding booze, or drink-driving laws limiting the amount of booze one can imbibe, it's fine, life's too short to spend it wailing and moaning about a pint of ale.

IMHO. YMMV.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: GUEST,Silas
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 08:32 AM

DeG - the voice of reason.

Reading the thread, I think you have nailed it.

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 08:21 AM

I think wires may be crossed here. I don't think anyone is suggesting that people who drive to the pub and stay in safe limits have an alcohol dependency problem nor does anyone seem to be saying that they cannot have a good time without a drink. Watching this argument unfold is like seeing the proverbial blind men trying to describe an elephant by feeling different parts! You are discussing different aspects of the same issue.

Hope this helps

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK
From: Bernard
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 08:14 AM

Come on, be quack!