Discussion
Size Nine Elm said:Here's the Borkenstein graph
IIRC the accident rate at half the drink-drive limit was down about 1% on zero alcohol, and at the drink-drive limit was 4% above the zero rate - but climbing steeply.
The increased risk of being involved in a serious accident at 80mg compared to 50mg is one tenth of the chance of winning the national lottery jackpot, measured on a daily basis. Zero limit - pointless. 50 limit - useless. 80 limit - sensible.
IaHa said:
When plod decides to pull you over to breathalise you, am I correct in thinking that he must have a reason to suspect you of drink driving first? ie having commited a driving offence, or wobbley driving, just come out of the pub, tip-off etc.
Surely a policeman doesn't have the right to pull someone over and waste their time by the roadside, just because they picked a particular vehicle out randomly? If this is the case then a bored policeman could just merrily go about ruining everyone elses' day by pulling them and making them even later for work.
We can stop you for a routine check, and if we suspect you have been drinking request a breath test, simple. We really do have beter things to do than waste people's time.
Liebchen - ist good reply. You know our feeling on drink drive und TIRED OR ILL drive! Not that am biased or anything
However, I watched episode of "Traffic Cops" und Cheshire police (und by the way Manchester paper reported that they have been literally gutted to mere handful which ist a surprise as the BBC prog showed their efficiency und professionalism und commitment...
Anyway- what I found a little surprising was the way they carried out their road side test... targetting those a touch above speed limit only und then being "pleased that none showed positive"
As I understand from my chats with the family BiB - drink drivers tend to drive below limit und wiggle a bit on drive...
Anyway- what I found a little surprising was the way they carried out their road side test... targetting those a touch above speed limit only und then being "pleased that none showed positive"
As I understand from my chats with the family BiB - drink drivers tend to drive below limit und wiggle a bit on drive...
Ok now that I have cooled off I shall explain. My original question was phrased in the 3rd person hypothetically. This was simply to explain the other side of the arguement, and the basis for my question. Obviously I have not problem with random testing, if it catches drink drivers, but I was wondering if there are any legal implications in doing it. I mean in this country we're innocent 'til proved guilty, right?
I was not in anyway complaining about the practise, nor do I believe that police would waste peoples' time in doing so.
Thank you to those who understood.
Tom
edited to say:
I do appreciate why some people may have misunderstood me having read back over my original post.
ALSO
WILDCAT, are you refering to the woman in the Mercedes who was pulled at ~35mph? If you are then coincidently that was just around the corner from my house.
>> Edited by tombaron on Thursday 29th December 21:44
I was not in anyway complaining about the practise, nor do I believe that police would waste peoples' time in doing so.
Thank you to those who understood.
Tom
edited to say:
I do appreciate why some people may have misunderstood me having read back over my original post.
ALSO
WILDCAT, are you refering to the woman in the Mercedes who was pulled at ~35mph? If you are then coincidently that was just around the corner from my house.
>> Edited by tombaron on Thursday 29th December 21:44
For all the reasons discussed you can never have a zero level. Not least because a level of 10E-51 is not zero and that limit would relate to a single molecule of alcohol in the entire world and is still greater than zero. So all those asking for zero levels are talking hollyhocks.
It's like nothing can technically ever be free from a particular substance. Obviously you can arrange where a sustance is not intentionally added or come into contact with.
Can't have a Zero tolerance, otherwise nobody would be able to drive. My main concern is how do you know when you are all right the next day. I don't think many people go out to have a drink whilst driving, its the morning after affect thats worrying, perfectly law obiding citizens who might be over the limit, but this case is not often advertised is it?
rviant said:No it's not, although here in tractor territory the local radio had something about morning after driving. Even so this brings us back to the issue of whether it should be illegal to drive when your blood gives a number on a print out, or when you would be a danger. One of the most compelling differences arises in these cases. A level of 90 is a fail, kiss your licence goodbye etc, but the same level when blood alcohol is still rising (night drive home after drinking) is a very different physiological situation to when it's falling (morning after going to work). There's plenty of research to show that the impact /impairment is much less on a falling count, so is the risk to self and others. We're back to the balance mentioned earlier between convenience, deterrence and justice for all parties. Somebody banned for a morning after 'falling 90' may well be driving as safely as someone stopped the previous evening on a 'rising 70' who is allowed on their way, with blood alcohol level on the up and a corresponding increase in danger every minute. Is this acceptable? And to keep the trolls at bay, please note that I'm not advocating drink-driving here.
Can't have a Zero tolerance, otherwise nobody would be able to drive. My main concern is how do you know when you are all right the next day. I don't think many people go out to have a drink whilst driving, its the morning after affect thats worrying, perfectly law obiding citizens who might be over the limit, but this case is not often advertised is it?
Yugguy said:
The best reason for having a zero amount limit is that it would end all speculation as to wether you'd had too much or not.
Fantastic. Can we farm these people?
Ist true - und did you know that those who are very fond of pickles und raw vegetables in diet
also produce the most natural "hooch" in body. That put many lentilists at risk too as lentils also create more than hot air in nether regions.... Und jawhohl
lieber Tommybaron - it was the one with the lady in the Merc und others in that particular programme. WildCat said:
Ist true - und did you know that those who are very fond of pickles und raw vegetables in diet
How true WC its not (pphrrappp) the smell of (prrrappphh) their breath that turns (pparrhpp)the crystals green (ppphhhraaaappp)....
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 30th December 14:42
WildCat said:Old joke: "Drink one pint, eat one pickled egg, repeat several times. If stopped and breathalised, the machine can't tell whether you're pi55ed or pickled!" I said it was old, I didn't say it was funny! - Streaky
The best reason for having a zero amount limit is that it would end all speculation as to wether you'd had too much or not.
Fantastic. Can we farm these people?
Ist true - und did you know that those who are very fond of pickles und raw vegetables in diet
in answer to the original question, you can get pulled for no particular reason.
when i got nicked for drink driving, the reason the traffic cop gave me for being pulled was that it was "an unusual car to see out, late at night, and we just wanted to make sure it wasn't stolen."
i hadn't done anything wrong or commited any other traffic offences to warrant being pulled over.
however, i have no gripe with this, and had my car been stolen, its nice to think it might have been picked up quite quickly. and on an amusing note both me and the driver of the patrol car were nearly in tears watching the other, rather lanky copper , trying to get in, and shut the door on my rather tiny car, although my comment about him not being safe to drive the car all scrunched up didn't go down to well!
when i got nicked for drink driving, the reason the traffic cop gave me for being pulled was that it was "an unusual car to see out, late at night, and we just wanted to make sure it wasn't stolen."
i hadn't done anything wrong or commited any other traffic offences to warrant being pulled over.
however, i have no gripe with this, and had my car been stolen, its nice to think it might have been picked up quite quickly. and on an amusing note both me and the driver of the patrol car were nearly in tears watching the other, rather lanky copper , trying to get in, and shut the door on my rather tiny car, although my comment about him not being safe to drive the car all scrunched up didn't go down to well!
Yugguy said:
The best reason for having a zero amount limit is that it would end all speculation as to wether you'd had too much or not.
I think we should put you in charge of everything. We would at least achieve stupidity overload by next Wednesday. Rather than having to elect several more governments over a period of years a clear thinking individual such as yourself would probably have banned everything overnight and we could have a revolution to depose you sometime in February.
Lets see,
all crimes 1 penalty, death. Ban breathing, end of, job done. Resistance is useless 
A clearer thinking society might make being shitfaced part of the driving test. Lets face it if you cant drive properly after a couple of drinks should you be driving at all? I think I would rather be driven home by Ayrton Senna hammered, than my mates wife sober. Actually, I know I would.
nonegreen said:
A clearer thinking society might make being shitfaced part of the driving test. Lets face it if you cant drive properly after a couple of drinks should you be driving at all? I think I would rather be driven home by Ayrton Senna hammered, than my mates wife sober. Actually, I know I would.
She drives worse than a dead person?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff