|
16 Jun 10 - 04:31 AM (#2928832) Subject: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus I have not put this in BS as I consider it to, or could have an impact on all people who drive to folk clubs etc in the UK Quote Lower drink-drive limit proposed By Richard Scott BBC transport correspondent A review of the drink-drive limit being published later is expected to recommend that it be nearly halved. It is expected to say that more than 150 lives a year could be saved by cutting the current limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg. Combined with the current mandatory 12-month ban, it would give the UK one of the toughest regimes in Europe. However the review was commissioned by Labour and it is not certain that the new government will adopt its findings. Unquote Whatever the decision, wouldn't it be better to just to say 0mg. At least 0mg sends a clear message out to all drivers. Whilst drivers are allowed to have a drink no matter how small, there is always that temptation. What think ye folkies?
-Joe Offer- |
|
16 Jun 10 - 04:39 AM (#2928837) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome Won't make much odds to me. If I am driving to the folk club I will have 1.5 pints of standard beer - 3 units of alcohol over the course of 3 hours. If I need to cut that down to a pint, half a pint or even none it will not detract from the enjoyment of the music and company. DeG |
|
16 Jun 10 - 04:44 AM (#2928839) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,Silas Why should anyone have a problem with this? |
|
16 Jun 10 - 04:45 AM (#2928840) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Backwoodsman Won't affect me at all - completely teetotal for the past five years. And it won't affect the piss-heads either, the ones who break the rules now will still break them if the limit's lowered - they don't care. The only ones who will be affected are those who obey the rules already, and who will continue to do so. It's not so much a lower limit that's needed, it's more coppers enforcing obedience of the existing limit. But I agree, the only safe amount to drink when driving is....none. IMHO. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 04:56 AM (#2928843) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus I agree there David, the music and enjoyment is Primary. I like this article http://brackenworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/50mgl-blood-alcohol.html |
|
16 Jun 10 - 04:59 AM (#2928844) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus Just to say that the last article I posted, does not mean I agree with it. Would a 0mg law, give an excuse for people not to go to work the next morning, in case they get nicked. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 05:07 AM (#2928848) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome he only safe amount to drink when driving is....none. And to only drive when you are in perfect health? And not distracted by emotional issues? And not under pressure from work? I understand the sentiment but to single out alcohol as the only cause of driving impairment just comes across as wrong to me. Given that the introduction and dispersal of alcohol to and from the system is very quantifyable (see this article) I think some leeway can be built in. For any of the other issues I mention, and many more, there is no way to quantify it the effects and I feel, therefore, that people are just taking the easy option of blaming alcohol. Doing this masks the real problem that some people should just not be driving whether thay have had a drink or not! Cheers DeG |
|
16 Jun 10 - 05:23 AM (#2928858) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Richard Bridge Bloody stupid. Are you incapable after two pints? I don't believe a word of it. I know of one person who was stopped ONLY because one of his brake lights was dimmer than the other - but he was nearly three times the limit. The police freely admitted that there was nothing wrong with his driving, and while he was at the police station his conduct, speech, co-ordination, judgment, and social habits were perfectly normal. It is my impresson that driving skills and habits have deteriorated to a major extent over the past 40 years: tailgating, drifting on crowded roundabouts, overtaking on the inside and pushing out, queuing and road priority failures - mostly by the "duff-duff" brigade. Irrational drink driving and speed limits encourage disrespect for laws that are necessary appropriate and proportionate. Bad law undermines good law. For my part, this reduction if adopted will pretty definitely reduce the amount I go to single evening events. Instead I shall focus more on events where I can camp and leave the following afternoon. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 05:25 AM (#2928860) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Backwoodsman I agree about the other factors Dave, but health, emotional distractions and work-related stress are very difficult to detect and quantify. Alcohol, however, is simple to detect and quantify, and it's effects are well-recognised, so it seems to make sense to deal with it (even though the other issues you mention can't be dealt with so easily). One has to start somewhere, does one not? My comment "the only safe amount to drink when driving is....none" isn't an indication that I believe the legal limit should be 0 mg/ml - that would in itself create problems around detection and quantification (e.g. where someone had taken medication containing small quantities of alcohol). It was simply my own view and was my practice when I was a consumer of alcoholic beverages. Nobody liked a few beers more than I did but, when I was driving, it was strictly no booze for me. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 05:25 AM (#2928861) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,Ian Hendrie "It's not so much a lower limit that's needed, it's more coppers enforcing obedience of the existing limit." I agree with Backwoodsman, and while they're at it they should be catching those idiots driving with mobile phones in their hand. There are so many doing this that placing a few policemen alongside main roads could be a self-financing proposition. It could even make a profit. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 05:29 AM (#2928863) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Geoff the Duck Usually the justification for "reducing the current limit" whether it is alcohol, or speed of cars, is that someone at several times the current limit killed a person. The people interviewed on telly are always someone whose family was devastated by an excessively drunken or speeding driver. It is never due to the actual current safe limit causing a problem. I have never seen any rational argument to explain that if a speed limit is reduced from 30mph to 20mph that it would suddenly make the people who drive drunk and incapable at 60pmh along that road change their behaviour. They do not go out with the principle "I will drive at exactly TWICE the posted limit, so if the limit is 20 I will reduce my usual 60mph down to 40mph". It doesn't work like that. An irresponsible idiot will drive dangerously whatever the legal limit. I can see good reasons for dynamically changing speed limits in specific locations at certain times - 30mph to 20 near a school when kids are arriving or leaving, but not permanently fixed, so someone would break the law driving at 30mph at midnight during school holidays. Anyone who tries to speak sense is shouted down with the accusation that they want to encourage the idiots by keeping existing limits, and that they are in some way condoning the behaviour of the people responsible for deaths due to inexcusable behaviour. They ignore that the reason these people have killed is that they completely ignored the existing limits, and if they had stayed within them, there would not have been a fatal accident. Just remember that someone suffering from a head cold can have considerably slower reaction time than someone driving within current UK legal limits for blood alcohol. Tiredness can also kill, even at slow speeds, as the driver asleep at a wheel has no control at all. In all I personally do not see any reason that current limits should be altered at all. Quack! GtD. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 05:51 AM (#2928871) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome Nobody liked a few beers more than I did but, when I was driving, it was strictly no booze for me. I would guess then, BWM, that after 'a few beers' you did not drive until after, say, 2pm the following day? Refering to the chart in the link I gave earlier if your BAC was .24 - Three times the legal driving limit - it would be 15 hours before you had no alcohol in your body! No criticism intended if you did but the point is that the 'no booze' rule is not as easy as it sounds! I don't have any answers either but surely a 'fit to drive' test would be a much fairer arbiter than simply measuring alcohol wouldn't it? Cheers DeG |
|
16 Jun 10 - 05:52 AM (#2928872) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Steve Shaw We have succeeded in reducing drink-drive casualties significantly in this country whilst keeping the 80mg limit. Making drink-driving socially unacceptable is by far the best way forward. We don't want to scare law-abiding people who like a few pints into thinking they daren't drive to work the next day. That would be repressive. One of the "beauties" of the limit is that no-one really knows how much they can drink before they get there. I haven't a clue, but I imagine it would be different on different days. If I go to a session and I'm driving it's two quick pints for me (nothing over 4%) then nothing for three hours before setting off home. I operate on the assumption that there's a game chance I'll be well below the limit. I know I'm compromising but, as has been pointed out above, I'm compromising when I drive tired, drive after a row, drive when I'm late, drove when the kids distracted me, drive whilst unwrapping Werthers' Originals, drive whilst changing a CD. Most of the death crashes round here seem to be caused by inexperienced young men driving fast cars. There are plenty of things we could do to get the death statistics down that we tend to ignore. We let people drive for life after passing a simple test and we put no pressure on people to improve their driving once they've passed. We assume that they will remain physically and mentally fit to drive for the rest of their lives. That's just scandalous. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 05:52 AM (#2928875) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Backwoodsman "Just remember that someone suffering from a head cold can have considerably slower reaction time than someone driving within current UK legal limits for blood alcohol" You're probably right Geoff, but there's no evidence that a head cold increases the sufferer's propensity towards reckless and unlawful behaviour, whereas there's plenty of uncontestable evidence that alcohol does (Don't believe me? Take a walk around your local town-centre pubbing/clubbing area at midnight on Friday or Saturday night). But I agree, the limit's probably OK as it stands - it's enforcement that's required, take the "I'm a better driver when I've had a few pints" nutcase-brigade off the road. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 06:02 AM (#2928879) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,Silas Well, if you really can't go out for a night and enjoy yourself without having a drink, then your problems are a bit more serious than you probably realise. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 06:10 AM (#2928883) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Steve Shaw That's way too polarised, Silas, and you know it! |
|
16 Jun 10 - 06:11 AM (#2928884) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus Are, the Americans, think this is BS. However, I do not agree. This affects all mudcatters that reside in the UK. Maybe Obama moved it below. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 06:18 AM (#2928889) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Amergin That's an asinine statement, Arthur-itus. This is a nonmusic thread....that's why it was moved below. Any amount of booze can lower your reaction time while driving, or doing anything else. If you are drinking you're best off taking a cab home, riding with one of your mates, or just putting one foot in front of the other and walking home. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 06:23 AM (#2928892) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus The purpose of this thread Amergin, was to discuss the issue with mudcatters in the UK, who go to Folk Clubs, Folk festivals or anywhere else wher they get their music fix and it affects. That is why I diodn't put it in BS. Many mudcatters do not look at the BS section. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 06:25 AM (#2928893) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus Sorry correction The purpose of this thread Amergin, was to discuss the issue with mudcatters in the UK, who go to Folk Clubs, Folk Festivals or anywhere else where they get their music fix. That is why I didn't put it in BS. Many mudcatters do not look at the BS section. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 06:27 AM (#2928895) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Amergin Oh, ok. I understand you're point, now. My apologies. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 06:29 AM (#2928898) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus No Problem Amergin. Is it now possible that some kindly elf, would put this back in the top section please.
|
|
16 Jun 10 - 06:32 AM (#2928901) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: bubblyrat I believe that they have had some quite Draconian alcohol laws in Scandinavia for some time now, and that the 0mg rules there apply not only to cars,but to boats and horse-drawn vehicles !!There has been talk recently of having an alcohol ban for pleasure-boaters on the Thames and other British waterways, but who the hell is going to enforce such a rule ?? I am,however,in favour of some sort of re-think on our existing drink-drive rules & regs ; The main problem with our existing limit is that is easy not to drink at all, whereas ,after one drink,one is more likely to have a second,and after a second drink,one is quite likely to have another,and after that,one is VERY likely to have another !! That is the nature of alcohol,and its effects on people----not ALL people,perhaps,but certainly enough for it to be a problem. So if a 0mg limit saved just ONE life,it would be worth it IMHO. Incidentally, I have only failed a breathalyser once, and that was all legal & above board, in the course of studying for my Certificate of Professional Competence in National Road-Haulage Operations !! Now then ....what's the time ?? Sun's over the yardarm, so--Nunc Est Bibendum !! |
|
16 Jun 10 - 07:00 AM (#2928916) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,Silas No Steve, I am quite serious. If you really can't go out without a drink, you really do have a problem. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 07:04 AM (#2928919) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,Girl Friday Well, it's been announced this morning that the permitted level of alcohol is to fall to almost half the current amount. Rural Folk Clubs and sessions won't survive this unless us folkies change our habits. Already pubs are suffering from lack of alcohol sales, and many have gone to the wall. If we can be persuaded to change our drinking habits, the clubs might survive. As it stands, everyone suffers because of the few stupid drink drivers. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 07:13 AM (#2928929) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,Silas If pubs could supply good quality coffee at reasonable prices, as they do in France, Italy, Belgium etc then I think that would solve much of the problem. There is not much of an 'adult' alternative to beer in most pubs, coke and lemonade don't cut it with many people and 'Low alcohol' beers are shite. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 07:13 AM (#2928930) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Richard Bridge Hand held phone users are a widespread menace. Surely phone companies could arrange to build in detection of a handsfree device, and by checking the speed at which the phone tranferred from cell to cell cut off a rapidly travelling phone that was not on such a device. Drivers who are not capable of driving safely need stopping - and I live near the A228 which has one of the worst accident records in the UK, partly thanks to "Superbike" magazine that described it as "the best bike test track in the country", partly thanks to tired truckers going to and from Thamesport (a lot of whom lie down for a rest on some of the bends) but largely due to young and incompetent loonies who seem to be able to put souped up Novas upside down and backwards into the ditch on a straight piece of road where I used to be able to get the Volvos over 100 before the cameras went in. I saw one fifteen feet up a tree once, when the road used to go by the Windmill public house. Not all young drivers are incapable. I know some who rag it vigorously but are really very safe. Some of the dangerous drivers are under the influence (I was once behind one doing 20 mph on a dual carriageway bit of the A228 near Angel Farm and I was too scared to overtake him because he was using both lanes wholly unpredictably) - but not many, afaik, although I knew of a couple of lads who would drive after 20 pints. The vital factor IMHO is not to get the people who have had two or three pints, but those who have had eight or ten. That will not be helped by lowering the limit. Indeed I suspect that a limit so far out of touch with usual expectations will encourage those who will feel they might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 07:17 AM (#2928935) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Bernard As I see it, it's just another money-generating excercise... the nutters who drink too much and cause accidents will continue to do so despite any legislation, but more people are likely to fail the breath test than before. Random roadside breath tests may be the way to go, as the current legislation only allows a breath test to be conducted if the officer has reason to believe a driver has been drinking, after an accident, or if a moving traffic offence has been committed. If a driver knew they were likely to be stopped near to the watering hole they were visiting, they just may be less inclined to drink as much, but then again, maybe not. What about those people who have been convicted of drink-driving more than once? Should they even be allowed to have a driving licence? Fines and prison sentences are all very well, but these people should not be driving. Period. The proposed legislation won't affect me, because (if I have a drink, which I often do not) I limit myself to one pint of beer over the whole evening, the effects of which have worn off long before I am likely to drive again. It's generally accepted that a unit of alcohol (roughly half a pint) dissipates in under two hours, some even claim one hour. My source for this information was a dietary leaflet I was given when I was diagnosed as type two diabetic, though there are plenty of sources on the web giving similar information. Yes, I know people sometimes fail breath tests the following morning, but these are people who've drunk fairly heavily on the previous evening and really should know better. I've not heard of anyone who truthfully claimed to have had three pints before midnight and failed a breath test the following day! What gives me far more cause for concern... I see people smoking whilst driving, and I've lost count of the number I see swerve whilst trying to light up and negotiate a roundabout, for example... and there are those who continue to use their car as an office, juggling with a mobile phone whilst overtaking on the motorway despite legislation. Some of them even think it's okay to send text messages... which actually causes you to take your eyes off the road... fiddling with a SatNav or even a laptop, too... just as dangerous as drink-driving, in the opinion of many - if not more so. The 'holier than thou' hypocrasy of some people regarding drink-driving... they will pontificate about driving under the influence, but believe they are safe whilst smoking/texting/phoning/SatNavving (have I invented a new word?!). No, I don't condone drink-driving, and accept a lot of the arguments suggested above, but lowering the legal limit isn't really going to prevent accidents, it's only wishful thinking to believe it could. When the breathalyser was first introduced there was a significant reduction in accidents for a brief period (some may say that alone justified its introduction), but it was only temporary. People started to believe they could beat the breathalyser... in some ways more dangerous. Unless the morons who believe they can drink all night and still drive safely come to their senses, no amount of legislation will stop them killing innocent people. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 07:19 AM (#2928938) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus Good point Girl Friday. However, may I also suggest that the publican makes a better effort of providing soft drinks that are appealing. As an example http://www.cocktail.uk.com/db/viewAllCocktails.asp?type=4 and Better quality Coffee and Tea. From my understanding, they make more money on soft drinks. Dutch Cafe's are very good examples of how alcohol and soft drinks are equally important. Traditionally (for me) a Uk pub is for drinking alcohol and that has never seemed to change. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 07:42 AM (#2928954) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Steve Shaw "No Steve, I am quite serious. If you really can't go out without a drink, you really do have a problem." So all those of us who much prefer to drink whilst socialising are alcoholics then. Come off it! |
|
16 Jun 10 - 07:54 AM (#2928959) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,Silas No. I like a drink as much as the next person, 31 years ago I was done for drink driving £500 fine and two year ban (£500 was a LOT of money then. If you won't go to a 'do' because you will not be able to have a drink then yes, you have a problem. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 08:04 AM (#2928965) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Geoff the Duck I see the usual red herrings have turned up - accusations of the form :- "If you can't go out and not drink - there is something wrong with you!" and "If you have one drink, then you will automatically have two/three/four/get paralytic..." The second of these is presumably a description of serious addiction and anyway irrelevant to the legal alcohol limit, as such a person would be automatically well above it. Nobody here is arguing that drunks should be behind the wheel. We are saying that there is a point below which you are not drunk, and the current limit sets that at a fairly sensible level which we seen no justification for altering. The first comment is simply insulting. I live in a country which legally allows me to drive a car as long as I restrict alcohol consumed to a safe level. That in itself means that it is legal for me to have a drink which does not take me above that legal amount. If I go in a pub, I can have a glass of beer, or not. That is my choice as long as I stay legal. I drink good real beer in a pub because it has a flavour which I enjoy and I can find it in a friendly place. I do not go there just to pour alcohol down my throat. The only places I can drink the beers I like, are ones which serve them fresh from a barrel, bottled beers do not taste the same. Once again, I will remind you that this is perfectly legal when driving as long as you remain within the official limit. Quack! GtD. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 08:10 AM (#2928970) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus >>The first comment is simply insulting<< Which one is that then Quack? |
|
16 Jun 10 - 08:10 AM (#2928971) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Steve Shaw I second that quack. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 08:14 AM (#2928973) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,Silas Insulting? Hardly. If you have alcohol dependancy problems, it is better to face them head on and do something about it than to hide behind mock outrage. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 08:14 AM (#2928974) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Bernard Come on, be quack! |
|
16 Jun 10 - 08:21 AM (#2928983) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
16 Jun 10 - 08:32 AM (#2928987) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,Silas DeG - the voice of reason. Reading the thread, I think you have nailed it. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 08:32 AM (#2928988) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Backwoodsman 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. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 08:36 AM (#2928990) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: The Sandman I agree with Steve Shaw. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 09:20 AM (#2929015) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 09:31 AM (#2929029) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Geoff the Duck Steve - it isn't puritanism. Nameless Guests throwing insults. It is the usual Trolling. Quack! GtD. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 09:37 AM (#2929034) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,Silas 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. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 09:44 AM (#2929044) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
16 Jun 10 - 10:10 AM (#2929061) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Backwoodsman Spot-on Dave. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 10:35 AM (#2929081) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Steve Shaw I benefit from your false logic, not suffer from it. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 11:32 AM (#2929131) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
16 Jun 10 - 12:46 PM (#2929181) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Steve Shaw Indeed cheers! |
|
16 Jun 10 - 02:23 PM (#2929247) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Leadfingers 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 ?? |
|
16 Jun 10 - 03:13 PM (#2929280) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Richard Bridge Typically, vehicles with singe occupancy are between 75% and 85% of traffic. |
|
16 Jun 10 - 04:47 PM (#2929360) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Bernard A scorching remark, Richard!! ;o> |
|
17 Jun 10 - 03:02 AM (#2929607) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus 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. |
|
17 Jun 10 - 04:29 AM (#2929641) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Backwoodsman It did enter my head, but I ignored it. |
|
17 Jun 10 - 05:12 AM (#2929659) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Bonzo3legs 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. |
|
17 Jun 10 - 05:19 AM (#2929663) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Bernard 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!! |
|
17 Jun 10 - 05:22 AM (#2929667) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Bernard 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!! |
|
17 Jun 10 - 05:23 AM (#2929668) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome orange juice tastes infinitely better than beer I think there may be millions to dispute that claim:-) |
|
17 Jun 10 - 06:10 AM (#2929693) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Backwoodsman "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! :-) |
|
17 Jun 10 - 06:37 AM (#2929711) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Emma B 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 |
|
17 Jun 10 - 07:19 AM (#2929741) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus 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. |
|
17 Jun 10 - 07:57 AM (#2929760) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Emma B 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 |
|
17 Jun 10 - 08:19 AM (#2929774) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Backwoodsman 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)? |
|
17 Jun 10 - 08:39 AM (#2929789) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
17 Jun 10 - 10:13 AM (#2929842) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: theleveller 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. |
|
17 Jun 10 - 01:09 PM (#2929929) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: The Sandman 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... |
|
17 Jun 10 - 03:24 PM (#2930033) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Doug Chadwick 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 |
|
17 Jun 10 - 03:27 PM (#2930035) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Arthur_itus 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. |
|
17 Jun 10 - 03:40 PM (#2930042) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: theleveller 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....... |
|
18 Jun 10 - 04:45 AM (#2930325) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Geoff the Duck 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. |
|
18 Jun 10 - 05:00 AM (#2930330) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome Ginger beer is OK for me and I particularly enjoy a ginger beer shandy (half bitter, half ginger beer) on a warm day. DeG |
|
18 Jun 10 - 07:34 AM (#2930417) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: The Sandman j20[imo] is a fairly good non alcoholic drink |
|
18 Jun 10 - 07:46 AM (#2930423) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Bonzo3legs 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!! |
|
18 Jun 10 - 08:35 AM (#2930452) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Backwoodsman "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. |
|
18 Jun 10 - 12:35 PM (#2930605) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Doug Chadwick 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 |
|
18 Jun 10 - 01:09 PM (#2930620) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Steve Shaw 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. |
|
21 Jun 10 - 11:17 AM (#2931980) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Ringer 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"). |
|
21 Jun 10 - 11:37 AM (#2931994) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
21 Jun 10 - 08:12 PM (#2932365) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
22 Jun 10 - 08:26 AM (#2932580) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
22 Jun 10 - 02:07 PM (#2932728) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Smokey. 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. |
|
22 Jun 10 - 06:34 PM (#2932908) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Murray MacLeod 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 |
|
23 Jun 10 - 04:47 AM (#2933088) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: GUEST,BanjoRay If this reduction of the legal limit is implemented, more pubs will shut. Fewer pubs = fewer folk clubs. We're doomed.... Ray |
|
23 Jun 10 - 05:18 PM (#2933516) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Smokey. "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 :-) |
|
23 Jun 10 - 06:52 PM (#2933585) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: The Sandman Smokey, you werent brought up right, go to Lewes, There is only one Harveys, and they dont brew Sherry |
|
23 Jun 10 - 07:06 PM (#2933596) Subject: RE: Lower drink-drive limit proposed UK From: Smokey. What??? South???? I was thinking of Harvey's Bristol Cream, though I wish I hadn't. Disgusting muck it was. |