scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit

[Edinburger]

sassanach0 said:

Edinburger said:

Why would you want your country to allow drivers to drink more alcohol than any other country in Europe and drive?

maybe because,if its perceived as unreasonable then it will be ignored,and the pissheads who don't give a flying f££k(who cause the vast majority of the problem)don't care.

It's true that there are some people who ignore virtually every law.

[NomduJour]

Edinburger said:

I'll say it again: it astonishes me that so many posters on a car forum argue in favour of drinking and driving.

Also - don’t drive if you have a cold, when you’re a bit tired, after you’ve had a row with the wife, with toddlers in the car, when you’re in a rush, or with the infinite number of other ongoing daily occurrences which are more likely to make you have an accident than a pint of beer with your dinner.

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

It's true that there are some people who ignore virtually every law.

I wonder how much the law change cost, and how many extra traffic police dedicated to seeking out drink drivers that could’ve covered.

Which would save more lives?

It’s not about wanting people driving about after a shandy or not, it’s about wanting dangerous drivers off our roads.

[simoid]

NomduJour said:

Also - don’t drive if you have a cold, when you’re a bit tired, after you’ve had a row with the wife, with toddlers in the car, when you’re in a rush, or with the infinite number of other ongoing daily occurrences which are more likely to make you have an accident than a pint of beer with your dinner.

Petrol/diesel in the car is the biggest cause of accidents...

[Edinburger]

NomduJour said:

Edinburger said:

I'll say it again: it astonishes me that so many posters on a car forum argue in favour of drinking and driving.

Also - don’t drive if you have a cold, when you’re a bit tired, after you’ve had a row with the wife, with toddlers in the car, when you’re in a rush, or with the infinite number of other ongoing daily occurrences which are more likely to make you have an accident than a pint of beer with your dinner.

Would you be comfortable flying if the pilot has had a pint or two or taken some other behaviour changing drug?

Do you ever drive on the continent? Or do you boycott those countries because of their attitude to drink driving?

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

It's true that there are some people who ignore virtually every law.

I wonder how much the law change cost, and how many extra traffic police dedicated to seeking out drink drivers that could’ve covered.

Which would save more lives?

It’s not about wanting people driving about after a shandy or not, it’s about wanting dangerous drivers off our roads.

Do you really think the police have deployed squads of traffic officers seeking out people who have had two or three pints?

Or are you just being simoid?

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

It's true that there are some people who ignore virtually every law.

I wonder how much the law change cost, and how many extra traffic police dedicated to seeking out drink drivers that could’ve covered.

Which would save more lives?

It’s not about wanting people driving about after a shandy or not, it’s about wanting dangerous drivers off our roads.

Do you really think the police have deployed squads of traffic officers seeking out people who have had two or three pints?

Or are you just being simoid?

Please read my post again, you have failed to understand my point.

The law change cost money. This appears to have been wasted money. I would prefer this money would have contributed to roads policing, specifically looking for drunk drivers, as I think it would be a more effective way to reduce casualties and make our roads safer.

PS I’m always Simoid.

[NomduJour]

Edinburger said:

Would you be comfortable flying if the pilot has had a pint or two or taken some other behaviour changing drug?

Silly comparison given that it’s entirely reasonable to hold a commercial airline pilot to a higher duty of care, but don’t pretend it never happens.

Set the limit to zero and, odd fluke aside, you’ll be lucky save a single life - the people drinking enough to be dangerous will still be the same ones who don’t care about the law anyway.

[Evercross]

The SNP trollbot has landed in this thread I see.

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

It's true that there are some people who ignore virtually every law.

I wonder how much the law change cost, and how many extra traffic police dedicated to seeking out drink drivers that could’ve covered.

Which would save more lives?

It’s not about wanting people driving about after a shandy or not, it’s about wanting dangerous drivers off our roads.

Do you really think the police have deployed squads of traffic officers seeking out people who have had two or three pints?

Or are you just being simoid?

Please read my post again, you have failed to understand my point.

The law change cost money. This appears to have been wasted money. I would prefer this money would have contributed to roads policing, specifically looking for drunk drivers, as I think it would be a more effective way to reduce casualties and make our roads safer.

PS I’m always Simoid.

Of course a law change costs money.

How many people decided not to have a couple of pints and then drive in the last year, as a result of the law change?

Laws are not just about avoiding crime.

[Edinburger]

NomduJour said:

Edinburger said:

Would you be comfortable flying if the pilot has had a pint or two or taken some other behaviour changing drug?

Silly comparison given that it’s entirely reasonable to hold a commercial airline pilot to a higher duty of care, but don’t pretend it never happens.

Set the limit to zero and, odd fluke aside, you’ll be lucky save a single life - the people drinking enough to be dangerous will still be the same ones who don’t care about the law anyway.

Why is it a silly comparison?

As I just posted, some law changes are to designed to change behaviours. It is better for everyone that no one drives a car after consuming alcohol. It really is as simple as that.

[Edinburger]

Evercross said:

The SNP trollbot has landed in this thread I see.

Grow up.

[NomduJour]

Edinburger said:

It is better for everyone that no one drives a car after consuming alcohol. It really is as simple as that.

It’s far better that no one drives a car at all, that way they can’t kill poor innocents. It really is as simple as that.

Get some perspective instead of wanting to regulate and control everything.

[iphonedyou]

Edinburger said:

I'll say it again: it astonishes me that so many posters on a car forum argue in favour of drinking and driving.

You're deliberately conflating arguing against reducing the limit where there's no provable associated reduction in accidents / deaths with arguing in favour of drink driving.

Why are you doing that?

[Evercross]

Edinburger said:

Grow up.

Wise up. You are attempting to argue the positives (of which there are none) of a law change that has had a negative impact diametrically opposed to what it tried to achieve.

You hand-wringing is naively stupid (as ever), so I have to surmise that once again you are defending an indefensible position simply because of your political leanings.

Not wasting my time debating with you as you have shown time and again you lack the capacity to comprehend the true consequences of the law.

[Edinburger]

NomduJour said:

Edinburger said:

It is better for everyone that no one drives a car after consuming alcohol. It really is as simple as that.

It’s far better that no one drives a car at all, that way they can’t kill poor innocents. It really is as simple as that.

Get some perspective instead of wanting to regulate and control everything.

Regulate and control?!

Isn't this change about influencing behaviour?

Seriously. Stop thinking up silly posts and think to yourself for a minute: would I prefer my wife / husband / son / daughter / loved one to be in a car with a driver who has i) had a couple of pints or ii) has had soft drinks all night.

Think before you reply.

Life is simple - if you want to drink get a taxi or if you want to drive don't drink.

[Edinburger]

iphonedyou said:

Edinburger said:

I'll say it again: it astonishes me that so many posters on a car forum argue in favour of drinking and driving.

You're deliberately conflating arguing against reducing the limit where there's no provable associated reduction in accidents / deaths with arguing in favour of drink driving.

Why are you doing that?

Because there is no justifiable reason to drink and drive. What is the point of having one or two pints, and then driving? Why, as a society, do we think people should take any behaviour changing drug and encourage them to drive?

The lower Scottish limit covers alcohol in medicine or food. That's plenty.

[untakenname]

Having spent time in Both Portugal and Poland which have low alcohol limits I can confirm that the locals just ignore it and providing there's no accidents the police do as well, a bit like here in the 70's where the drink driving adverts of the time had the slogan 'five then don't drive'.

Just setting a limit without having the public onside is counterproductive.

England has the highest limits in Europe yet we have pretty much the safest roads which shows if anything that the limit maybe set too low in England.

It's acceptable to have two medium strength beers with a meal and stay in a pub garden for a couple of hours and then drive home, how many billions would be lost to the economy plus the impact on mental health in rural areas if Scotland's limits were brought in UK wide?

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

It's true that there are some people who ignore virtually every law.

I wonder how much the law change cost, and how many extra traffic police dedicated to seeking out drink drivers that could’ve covered.

Which would save more lives?

It’s not about wanting people driving about after a shandy or not, it’s about wanting dangerous drivers off our roads.

Do you really think the police have deployed squads of traffic officers seeking out people who have had two or three pints?

Or are you just being simoid?

Please read my post again, you have failed to understand my point.

The law change cost money. This appears to have been wasted money. I would prefer this money would have contributed to roads policing, specifically looking for drunk drivers, as I think it would be a more effective way to reduce casualties and make our roads safer.

PS I’m always Simoid.

Of course a law change costs money.

How many people decided not to have a couple of pints and then drive in the last year, as a result of the law change?

Laws are not just about avoiding crime.

I don’t know how many people decided against having a couple of pints because of the costly law change.

I do know that we changed the law and more people died because of drink drivers.

Is it sinking in yet?

I think there were and are better and more cost effective ways of making our roads safer than changing the alcohol limit.

[Edinburger]

Evercross said:

Edinburger said:

Grow up.

Wise up. You are attempting to argue the positives (of which there are none) of a law change that has had a negative impact diametrically opposed to what it tried to achieve.

You hand-wringing is naively stupid (as ever), so I have to surmise that once again you are defending an indefensible position simply because of your political leanings.

Not wasting my time debating with you as you have shown time and again you lack the capacity to comprehend the true consequences of the law.

For starters, I have no definite political leanings.

Let's make it simple. Can you explain i) why our society should encourage people to drink and drive, and ii) exactly why the law change is so restrictive and bad.