Our drink limit
Discussion
Selective journalism?
I still say, it is not those who are within the old and new limits that are the major problem but those who are way over the previous (existing English) that should be targeted.
Those who were way over the old limit will still not give a toss and continue to be way over the limit and drive afterwards.
Or those such as the wagon driver in the news today - a heroin addict for 19 years, had the drugs in his wagon, didn't disclose the fact to the doctor who did his licence medical. A Killer on the loose....
Add to him the texters, tailgaters, not paying attentioners, etc etc
I still say, it is not those who are within the old and new limits that are the major problem but those who are way over the previous (existing English) that should be targeted.
Those who were way over the old limit will still not give a toss and continue to be way over the limit and drive afterwards.
Or those such as the wagon driver in the news today - a heroin addict for 19 years, had the drugs in his wagon, didn't disclose the fact to the doctor who did his licence medical. A Killer on the loose....
Add to him the texters, tailgaters, not paying attentioners, etc etc
Skyedriver said:
Selective journalism?
I still say, it is not those who are within the old and new limits that are the major problem but those who are way over the previous (existing English) that should be targeted.
Those who were way over the old limit will still not give a toss and continue to be way over the limit and drive afterwards.
Or those such as the wagon driver in the news today - a heroin addict for 19 years, had the drugs in his wagon, didn't disclose the fact to the doctor who did his licence medical. A Killer on the loose....
Add to him the texters, tailgaters, not paying attentioners, etc etc
I see the law being not so much about giving people an amount of alcohol to drink and then drive but to be as close as possible to zero tolerance without penalising those who may have a bit of alcohol in their system for whatever reason. I think not drinking any alcohol when you know you're going to be driving is the position of a responsible person and the new law encourages this.I still say, it is not those who are within the old and new limits that are the major problem but those who are way over the previous (existing English) that should be targeted.
Those who were way over the old limit will still not give a toss and continue to be way over the limit and drive afterwards.
Or those such as the wagon driver in the news today - a heroin addict for 19 years, had the drugs in his wagon, didn't disclose the fact to the doctor who did his licence medical. A Killer on the loose....
Add to him the texters, tailgaters, not paying attentioners, etc etc
I do know people who will have a pint during a meal and then drive an hour or two afterwards, in fact my dad used to do this. I know they're very good drivers with a lot of experience but alcohol will always have an impairment on your abilities, even if it's just a little.
No law is going to stop people who aren't particularly bothered if something is illegal, that's where enforcement comes in. It's a bit facile to say that you can't introduce a new law because there will be people who will break it, the real issue is putting things into law so they can then be enforced.
ModernAndy said:
I see the law being not so much about giving people an amount of alcohol to drink and then drive but to be as close as possible to zero tolerance without penalising those who may have a bit of alcohol in their system for whatever reason. I think not drinking any alcohol when you know you're going to be driving is the position of a responsible person and the new law encourages this.
I do know people who will have a pint during a meal and then drive an hour or two afterwards, in fact my dad used to do this. I know they're very good drivers with a lot of experience but alcohol will always have an impairment on your abilities, even if it's just a little.
No law is going to stop people who aren't particularly bothered if something is illegal, that's where enforcement comes in. It's a bit facile to say that you can't introduce a new law because there will be people who will break it, the real issue is putting things into law so they can then be enforced.
Well why don't they ban everything else that might impair my driving ability?I do know people who will have a pint during a meal and then drive an hour or two afterwards, in fact my dad used to do this. I know they're very good drivers with a lot of experience but alcohol will always have an impairment on your abilities, even if it's just a little.
No law is going to stop people who aren't particularly bothered if something is illegal, that's where enforcement comes in. It's a bit facile to say that you can't introduce a new law because there will be people who will break it, the real issue is putting things into law so they can then be enforced.
ModernAndy said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Well why don't they ban everything else that might impair my driving ability?
They pretty much do, don't they? They also make allowances for if you manage to distract yourself, i.e. driving without due care and attention.McWigglebum4th said:
Nothing illegal about driving while having a runny nose
There is something particularly facile and diversionary about raising that as a legitimate form of driving impairment though.Ultimately, if you feel something is impairing your driving you either deal with it or don't drive.
cardigankid said:
Craigie said:
I tried using an app called Alcodroid on my works Xmas night out last night. You input every drink you take and tell it when you finish.
Makes interesting reading the next morning!
That is a mental amount of alcohol to consume.Makes interesting reading the next morning!
Twelve drinks over seven hours along with a meal is just a good Christmas party
I think the primary reason for this change is for change itself, it is to differentiate Scotland from the rest of the UK, lets face it, it was hardly going to be rejected by the MSPs was it, the criticism from constituents would have put any off dissenting.
If had had been purely from a safety viewpoint the consultation would surely have required more than 138 respondents, of then 24% were against the change 74% in favour, 3 respondents didn't which is why they don't add up to 100%.
All the pre-referendum talk of fairer society, getting rid of food banks etc and what did they do, change the drink drive limits.
If had had been purely from a safety viewpoint the consultation would surely have required more than 138 respondents, of then 24% were against the change 74% in favour, 3 respondents didn't which is why they don't add up to 100%.
All the pre-referendum talk of fairer society, getting rid of food banks etc and what did they do, change the drink drive limits.
Corpulent Tosser said:
All the pre-referendum talk of fairer society, getting rid of food banks etc and what did they do, change the drink drive limits.
But, to be fair, the majority of those who voted in the referendum voted against the motion, therefore against the fairer society and everything that might have come with it.H.7 said:
But, to be fair, the majority of those who voted in the referendum voted against the motion, therefore against the fairer society and everything that might have come with it.
The vote was not for or against a fairer society, it was for or against independence. Are you saying that because we voted against independence it is right for SNP to change their principles?Corpulent Tosser said:
The vote was not for or against a fairer society, it was for or against independence. Are you saying that because we voted against independence it is right for SNP to change their principles?
Do you really think the SNP have changed their principles? They were the only party who stood for a fairer society, and still do. Besides, that was a referendum vote for or against independence, not for government policy. You will have an opportunity to vote for policy at the next Scottish Parliament election.H.7 said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
The vote was not for or against a fairer society, it was for or against independence. Are you saying that because we voted against independence it is right for SNP to change their principles?
Do you really think the SNP have changed their principles? They were the only party who stood for a fairer society, and still do. Besides, that was a referendum vote for or against independence, not for government policy. You will have an opportunity to vote for policy at the next Scottish Parliament election.Do I think SNP have any principles might be a better question, the answer is damn few BTW.
But to your question, they may not have changed their stated principles but waste time on changing a law that is prefectly adequate before addressing what they claimed was actually wrong with Scottish society.
I also disagree that they are the only party who stand for a fairer society, however this thread is about the drink drive limit being changed.
ModernAndy said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Nothing illegal about driving while having a runny nose
There is something particularly facile and diversionary about raising that as a legitimate form of driving impairment though.Ultimately, if you feel something is impairing your driving you either deal with it or don't drive.
Like i don't feel a pint impairs my driving but that has been made illegal
Meanwhile driving while feeling like crap isn't illegal
See my issue with this law change?
ModernAndy said:
There is something particularly facile and diversionary about raising that as a legitimate form of driving impairment though.
Ultimately, if you feel something is impairing your driving you either deal with it or don't drive.
Been loaded with cold all day, drove out of work and started to sneeze. Now I reckon on that windy, country, dark road, my eyes were closed for maybe two seconds a sneeze.Ultimately, if you feel something is impairing your driving you either deal with it or don't drive.
Dangerous, yes it was but no where to stop either.
Oh and if I'd dosed myself up medicines my driving could also have been impaired.
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff