Scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit.
Discussion
McWigglebum4th said:
Speed Badger said:
Can anyone explain why we have a drink drive limit anyway?
Why not just make it zero? You either drink or you don't, no grey areas or 'I might be ok if I just have one', or 'It will be ok if I have 2 pints as I'll be eating in a bit."
Used a hand wash in a hospital?Why not just make it zero? You either drink or you don't, no grey areas or 'I might be ok if I just have one', or 'It will be ok if I have 2 pints as I'll be eating in a bit."
12 month ban
alcohol based
Otherwise pub staff would all have driving bans.
Speed Badger said:
Can anyone explain why we have a drink drive limit anyway?
Why not just make it zero? You either drink or you don't, no grey areas or 'I might be ok if I just have one', or 'It will be ok if I have 2 pints as I'll be eating in a bit."
Why have any speed limit higher than 20mph? Why allow people to own motorbikes? Why allow people to drink at all?Why not just make it zero? You either drink or you don't, no grey areas or 'I might be ok if I just have one', or 'It will be ok if I have 2 pints as I'll be eating in a bit."
If there is no increase in danger between being stone-cold sober and having one pint, why does it need to be banned?
SteveSteveson said:
Used alcohol based mouth wash, had a bit of cake with a drop of rum in, or stew with a glass of wine in it? 12 month ban. Thats why we don't have zero. 40% of the alcohol remains in a dish after half an hour, 25% after an hour, even after 3 hours 5% can be left.
Really? I always put a bottle of wine in the family dinner. Kids haven't complained. 
thelawnet said:
SteveSteveson said:
Used alcohol based mouth wash, had a bit of cake with a drop of rum in, or stew with a glass of wine in it? 12 month ban. Thats why we don't have zero. 40% of the alcohol remains in a dish after half an hour, 25% after an hour, even after 3 hours 5% can be left.
Really? I always put a bottle of wine in the family dinner. Kids haven't complained. 
Speed Badger said:
Can anyone explain why we have a drink drive limit anyway?
Why not just make it zero? You either drink or you don't, no grey areas or 'I might be ok if I just have one', or 'It will be ok if I have 2 pints as I'll be eating in a bit."
Because we like to strike a sensible balance between personal freedom and risk.Why not just make it zero? You either drink or you don't, no grey areas or 'I might be ok if I just have one', or 'It will be ok if I have 2 pints as I'll be eating in a bit."
Because we don't like to criminalise activities which are harmless.
Because while you can be reasonably confident that enough time has passed since you consumed alcohol that you are under the limit, the point at which you are actually at zero is much harder to call.
Because there are small quantities of alcohol in all sorts of things.
Because we tolerate riskier factors than a small amount of alcohol - driving is such a fundamental part of the way we conduct our lives that people still expect to drive when they have minor illness, or a headache, or a new baby keeping them up all night, or their faculties are dulled by age, or they are young and inexperienced, or they've just had a massive row with their partner, or they are bereaved and grieving or...
The law is fine how it is. It's a good sensible compromise between private freedom and public safety.
otolith said:
Because we like to strike a sensible balance between personal freedom and risk.
Because we don't like to criminalise activities which are harmless.
Because while you can be reasonably confident that enough time has passed since you consumed alcohol that you are under the limit, the point at which you are actually at zero is much harder to call.
Because there are small quantities of alcohol in all sorts of things.
Because we tolerate riskier factors than a small amount of alcohol - driving is such a fundamental part of the way we conduct our lives that people still expect to drive when they have minor illness, or a headache, or a new baby keeping them up all night, or their faculties are dulled by age, or they are young and inexperienced, or they've just had a massive row with their partner, or they are bereaved and grieving or...
The law is fine how it is. It's a good sensible compromise between private freedom and public safety.
Save this post somewhere, keep posting it in any of this type of thread. Bob on.Because we don't like to criminalise activities which are harmless.
Because while you can be reasonably confident that enough time has passed since you consumed alcohol that you are under the limit, the point at which you are actually at zero is much harder to call.
Because there are small quantities of alcohol in all sorts of things.
Because we tolerate riskier factors than a small amount of alcohol - driving is such a fundamental part of the way we conduct our lives that people still expect to drive when they have minor illness, or a headache, or a new baby keeping them up all night, or their faculties are dulled by age, or they are young and inexperienced, or they've just had a massive row with their partner, or they are bereaved and grieving or...
The law is fine how it is. It's a good sensible compromise between private freedom and public safety.
Krikkit said:
otolith said:
Because we like to strike a sensible balance between personal freedom and risk.
Because we don't like to criminalise activities which are harmless.
Because while you can be reasonably confident that enough time has passed since you consumed alcohol that you are under the limit, the point at which you are actually at zero is much harder to call.
Because there are small quantities of alcohol in all sorts of things.
Because we tolerate riskier factors than a small amount of alcohol - driving is such a fundamental part of the way we conduct our lives that people still expect to drive when they have minor illness, or a headache, or a new baby keeping them up all night, or their faculties are dulled by age, or they are young and inexperienced, or they've just had a massive row with their partner, or they are bereaved and grieving or...
The law is fine how it is. It's a good sensible compromise between private freedom and public safety.
Save this post somewhere, keep posting it in any of this type of thread. Bob on.Because we don't like to criminalise activities which are harmless.
Because while you can be reasonably confident that enough time has passed since you consumed alcohol that you are under the limit, the point at which you are actually at zero is much harder to call.
Because there are small quantities of alcohol in all sorts of things.
Because we tolerate riskier factors than a small amount of alcohol - driving is such a fundamental part of the way we conduct our lives that people still expect to drive when they have minor illness, or a headache, or a new baby keeping them up all night, or their faculties are dulled by age, or they are young and inexperienced, or they've just had a massive row with their partner, or they are bereaved and grieving or...
The law is fine how it is. It's a good sensible compromise between private freedom and public safety.
Dog Star said:
Since we've got amongst the safest roads in the world - astonishingly so given our traffic density - shouldn't other countries (eg France) be RAISING their drink drive limit to the same as ours.
It's all soundbite politics - all made worse (you see them on PH) by the "one drink is too many" sheep.
I'll tell you what - if it was raining I'd be far more comfortable sharing the roads with people who were driving around on a set of Continentals after two pints than people who were stone-cold sober on a set of LingLongs.
It's just such a load of b
ks.
Very well said. It's all soundbite politics - all made worse (you see them on PH) by the "one drink is too many" sheep.
I'll tell you what - if it was raining I'd be far more comfortable sharing the roads with people who were driving around on a set of Continentals after two pints than people who were stone-cold sober on a set of LingLongs.
It's just such a load of b
ks.The country I work in has a zero tolerance. Although does not carry the same stigma, if you're caught over the limit your insurance is not affected, you're banned for 3 months.
Beer Man said:
From the BBC so may not be true!
Effectively 1 pint or one glass of wine COULD put you over the limit.
Is this too severe or a step in the right direction?
"He told BBC Scotland the plans to change the drink-drive limit had "broad support" "
I'm guessing they didn't ask anyone in Glasgeeee then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...
FYI a pint of beer is typically over 2 units so even with the current legislation that's very much in the realm of potentially over the limit already, as is a large glass of wine. Usual caveats, average sized person, no 'recovery' time etc.Effectively 1 pint or one glass of wine COULD put you over the limit.
Is this too severe or a step in the right direction?
"He told BBC Scotland the plans to change the drink-drive limit had "broad support" "
I'm guessing they didn't ask anyone in Glasgeeee then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...
Speed Badger said:
Can anyone explain why we have a drink drive limit anyway?
Why not just make it zero? You either drink or you don't, no grey areas or 'I might be ok if I just have one', or 'It will be ok if I have 2 pints as I'll be eating in a bit."
Serious question: If you had a shedful on a Saturday night, when would you drive next?Why not just make it zero? You either drink or you don't, no grey areas or 'I might be ok if I just have one', or 'It will be ok if I have 2 pints as I'll be eating in a bit."
The other thing to remember is that this is an idea from Kenny MacCaskill who is probably the most incompetent Justice Secretary the world has ever seen.
He is the one who let one of the convicted 'Lockerbie Bombers' go free to appease Gaddafi for political gain, just before the Libyan Revolution.
He's the one who allowed Scotland to sleepwalk into having armed Police routinely on the beat with no proper government oversight, thanks to a cost saving measure to merge Scotland's forces without actually putting anyone accountable in charge.
He's the one who passed Public Disorder laws on Sectarian chanting that actually reduced the precentage of successful convictions on cases brought for such offences. The legislation was poorly drafted and made offences harder to prove than before when there was no specific offence.
Most of what MacAskill does is legislation for the purposes of being seen to do something positive, when invariably the laws of unintended consequence take over and he makes things worse.
I can't see this being any different.
He is the one who let one of the convicted 'Lockerbie Bombers' go free to appease Gaddafi for political gain, just before the Libyan Revolution.
He's the one who allowed Scotland to sleepwalk into having armed Police routinely on the beat with no proper government oversight, thanks to a cost saving measure to merge Scotland's forces without actually putting anyone accountable in charge.
He's the one who passed Public Disorder laws on Sectarian chanting that actually reduced the precentage of successful convictions on cases brought for such offences. The legislation was poorly drafted and made offences harder to prove than before when there was no specific offence.
Most of what MacAskill does is legislation for the purposes of being seen to do something positive, when invariably the laws of unintended consequence take over and he makes things worse.
I can't see this being any different.
The Vambo said:
kambites said:
Stupid idea, IMO. The proportion of accidents caused by people who are over the existing limit but under the new limit is statistically insignificant.
How statistically insignificant?
paulwirral said:
Years ago a mate of mine was knocked of his vintage motorbike , the guy driving the truck admitted to having a drink and passed a breath test , go figure .
I can't see the point of having one pint or a glass of wine and risking having that on my conscience for the rest of my life .
There are a lot of accidents each day and the majority have not had a drink at all, do we ban all drivers, who are involved in any type of accident, what would your criteria be???I can't see the point of having one pint or a glass of wine and risking having that on my conscience for the rest of my life .
paulwirral said:
Years ago a mate of mine was knocked of his vintage motorbike , the guy driving the truck admitted to having a drink and passed a breath test , go figure .
I can't see the point of having one pint or a glass of wine and risking having that on my conscience for the rest of my life .
Have what on your conscience? What part did the drink play in your sober truck driver's accident?I can't see the point of having one pint or a glass of wine and risking having that on my conscience for the rest of my life .
J4CKO said:
Didn't they vote to stay part of the UK, where does changing Drink Drive rules fit in with that ?
I think the current rules are sensible, it isn't the person who has a glass of wine with dinner that is the problem, it is those who get bladdered and drive that are, or those that chance it after four pints.
The whole "vote" part there is a bit iffy actually. Considering polling station workers are making allegations that they were specifically told not to record bar codes of ballot boxes being sent to central counting then compounded with the allegations all over the world from the international regulators present during the vote that the hanger the counting was held in was too large, they were herded to the edges unable to survey 50% of the site, ballot boxes appearing from no where and not being signed in/ bar codes scanned as well as the postal vote scandals.I think the current rules are sensible, it isn't the person who has a glass of wine with dinner that is the problem, it is those who get bladdered and drive that are, or those that chance it after four pints.
Plus the fracking nonsense that started dys after the vote giving them the rights to start fracking anywhere in Scotland, under peoples homes etc. going against a 99% vote against fracking entirely. Someone's getting very rich off of all of that, after all, if we were Independant, it wouldn't be happening.
Anyway, the official line is it was No.
Back on topic! Scotland has a bit more of a drink problem than down south, we already have the 10pm/am rule with supermarkets stopping the sale of alcohol being 24/7 as well as much shorter licencing laws for pubs/clubs. It's another step in that direction to try and battle the fact the average life expectancy of males in Glasgow for example is lower than quite a few "third world" African nations.
I agree, people that have a beer/wine with dinner aren't the problem it's the chancers and way over the limit people causing the problems. We already have an anti drink culture up here though, doesn't suprise me this is happening. What makes it so difficult for people is that there are so many factors invovled in mg of alcohol in your blood that it's a guessing game if you have a small drink whether you are over or not.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff