Lib-con looking to lower blood alcohol limit
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
In essence there is little argument against this move.
If this election has shown me anything it has shown me that voting is totally pointless as politicians seem to be compulsive liars and incapable of honour, intellignce or integrity
edited to add, if this is the emergence of a nulab policy that will get binned by this administration kindly disregard the last paragraph...carry on
Edited by The real Apache on Saturday 5th June 11:52
The real Apache said:
Derek Smith said:
In essence there is little argument against this move.
If this election has shown me anything it has shown me that voting is totally pointless as politicians seem to be compulsive liers and incapable of honour, intellignce or integrity
herewego said:
The real Apache said:
Derek Smith said:
In essence there is little argument against this move.
If this election has shown me anything it has shown me that voting is totally pointless as politicians seem to be compulsive liers and incapable of honour, intellignce or integrity
quote: "government source confirmed that Sir Peter was calling for major changes in the rules. Sir Peter is understood to have said that there is a “persuasive” case for cutting the limit. He estimated that this could save up to 168 lives in England and Wales every year".
Anyone know what this estimate of saved lives was based on? Police sources on the forum have previously said there is no record kept of drivers involved in accidents who had been drinking but were below the current limit?
Anyone know what this estimate of saved lives was based on? Police sources on the forum have previously said there is no record kept of drivers involved in accidents who had been drinking but were below the current limit?
All that altering limits (either blood alcohol or speed) does is appease the pressure groups who campaign for the reductions.
To the driver it makes no difference whatsoever. They'll do as they always do. The only time they'll worry about limits are when they've had a sherbet or two or are going a few leptons faster than they should be and see the blues and twos in their rear-view mirrors...
To the driver it makes no difference whatsoever. They'll do as they always do. The only time they'll worry about limits are when they've had a sherbet or two or are going a few leptons faster than they should be and see the blues and twos in their rear-view mirrors...
The real Apache said:
If this election has shown me anything it has shown me that voting is totally pointless as politicians seem to be compulsive liars and incapable of honour, intellignce or integrity.
To paraphrase Billy Connolly, free elections are all fine and dandy but no matter who you vote for a b@stard politician gets in. The very desire to become a politician should prevent you from becoming one.
When I finished work on a friday I would go to the pub and have a pint, to celebrate the end of the normal working week [I almost always worked for part of saturday and occasionally sunday] but it closed the week, that is pretty much the only alcohol I had during any given week.
The present limit means that 'ritual' of some 40 years standing was accommodated. It simply would not be fair to many people I know who do exactly the same.
If you want to stop drink driving then ask the police to sit outside a pub any time after 11pm and stop people there, the 'figures' would drop like a stone.
If you have a 'local' then you will know full well that more than half the people leaving the pub in cars are over he limit, you'd kill the pub trade at a stroke of course.
In short the reduction of the limit is a 'sop', to the vocal out there that want something done, if it was done the true effect would be financially catastrophic for tens of thousands. It's a further political deceit.
The present limit means that 'ritual' of some 40 years standing was accommodated. It simply would not be fair to many people I know who do exactly the same.
If you want to stop drink driving then ask the police to sit outside a pub any time after 11pm and stop people there, the 'figures' would drop like a stone.
If you have a 'local' then you will know full well that more than half the people leaving the pub in cars are over he limit, you'd kill the pub trade at a stroke of course.
In short the reduction of the limit is a 'sop', to the vocal out there that want something done, if it was done the true effect would be financially catastrophic for tens of thousands. It's a further political deceit.
- Streaky Political Pain said:
In short the reduction of the limit is a 'sop', to the vocal out there that want something done, if it was done the true effect would be financially catastrophic for tens of thousands. It's a further political deceit.
I'm not sure there are tens of thousands that will be caught by any lowering of the limit.I was my force's drink drive liaison and went on a couple of course. On one we experimented with the substantive machine measuring ourselves as we drank. I say we but I'm tea-total so had to endure the silly jokes.
The old saw about two pints is the limit is rubbish. Even the frailest of our course was well under, both the current and the suggested new limit with just two pints. But most tellingly, each had to say when they felt they had drunk too much to drive and everyone was well below the current limit at that time. Indeed, I think the highest reading we got with people first saying they were too drunk to driver was around 20 (breath).
We devised some coordination tests but enthusiasm went.
We all, that's all of us, including the Welsh rugby player (yes, they used to play rugby in Wales) came to the conclusion that 35/80, or rather 40/80 was far too high a limit. When people were blowing at that level most couldn't write their own name on the list. (Fair enough, the rugby player couldn't when he was sober, but that's another matter.)
I'm biased as I've turned up at any nubmer of RTAs only to be confronted by the guy at fault breathing fumes over me whislt some poor sod was carted off in an ambulance. But even so, I do have some evidence.
Derek Smith said:
Political Pain said:
In short the reduction of the limit is a 'sop', to the vocal out there that want something done, if it was done the true effect would be financially catastrophic for tens of thousands. It's a further political deceit.
I'm not sure there are tens of thousands that will be caught by any lowering of the limit.I was my force's drink drive liaison and went on a couple of course. On one we experimented with the substantive machine measuring ourselves as we drank. I say we but I'm tea-total so had to endure the silly jokes.
The old saw about two pints is the limit is rubbish. Even the frailest of our course was well under, both the current and the suggested new limit with just two pints. But most tellingly, each had to say when they felt they had drunk too much to drive and everyone was well below the current limit at that time. Indeed, I think the highest reading we got with people first saying they were too drunk to driver was around 20 (breath).
We devised some coordination tests but enthusiasm went.
We all, that's all of us, including the Welsh rugby player (yes, they used to play rugby in Wales) came to the conclusion that 35/80, or rather 40/80 was far too high a limit. When people were blowing at that level most couldn't write their own name on the list. (Fair enough, the rugby player couldn't when he was sober, but that's another matter.)
I'm biased as I've turned up at any nubmer of RTAs only to be confronted by the guy at fault breathing fumes over me whislt some poor sod was carted off in an ambulance. But even so, I do have some evidence.
I say that sitting outside the pub is the most in line with that simple tenet.
Political Pain said:
If you have a 'local' then you will know full well that more than half the people leaving the pub in cars are over the limit
Are you living in a time warp? This was certainly the case in the 1970s, and still seen/ heard of in the 1980s, but I haven't seen it in 20 years.That's not to say that the odd one or two still fall into your category, but to suggest "more than half are over the limt" is nonsense.
rs1952 said:
Political Pain said:
If you have a 'local' then you will know full well that more than half the people leaving the pub in cars are over the limit
Are you living in a time warp? This was certainly the case in the 1970s, and still seen/ heard of in the 1980s, but I haven't seen it in 20 years.That's not to say that the odd one or two still fall into your category, but to suggest "more than half are over the limt" is nonsense.
It seems similar to me, regarding attitude, with all the speed limit crap & scameras we are going through at present.
Lets hope they don't do it, we've had 13 years of passing laws that do f
k all except make the gobstes feel important.rs1952 said:
Political Pain said:
If you have a 'local' then you will know full well that more than half the people leaving the pub in cars are over the limit
Are you living in a time warp? This was certainly the case in the 1970s, and still seen/ heard of in the 1980s, but I haven't seen it in 20 years.That's not to say that the odd one or two still fall into your category, but to suggest "more than half are over the limt" is nonsense.
Aren't all drivers in an accident breatalyzed anyway? Can't we just have the percentage of those with a blood alcohol between 50 and 80 so we can see how many accidents this would've helped with?
rs1952 said:
Political Pain said:
If you have a 'local' then you will know full well that more than half the people leaving the pub in cars are over the limit
Are you living in a time warp? This was certainly the case in the 1970s, and still seen/ heard of in the 1980s, but I haven't seen it in 20 years.That's not to say that the odd one or two still fall into your category, but to suggest "more than half are over the limt" is nonsense.
Drinking habits have changed, in the past it seemed that drinking was confined to certain times of the week. Now the availability and cheapness has had an effect.
In the old days people got very drunk and a bit incapable on friday or saturday night, this happened because during the week it was not the way, now the same sort of people drink every day of the week, this builds a tolerance so whereas in the past a few pints gave the average chap the staggers, it doesn't happen for the most part now. But the level of drinking is pretty much the same.
In town people do use taxis, but out here they drive home, as a virtual non-drinker and an inveterate 'live and let live' kind of chap I do wonder sometimes how they manage it but they do, tolerance again I suppose.
So the half might be a bit of an upper estimate but a third is the lower.
I know everyone in my locals and I am not advocating anything in particular should be done, but I have seen some things over the last couple of years alone, a well chosen 'raid' would have netted a couple of Judges, an entire lodge, our esteemed ACC, Roundtablers, rugby club management, football club management, a world famous 'rockstar' [who drove off after at least a dozen 'VAT's in a 200mph £300k supercar] his entire entourage.
The oddest aspect though is that one local pub is regularly attended by car clubs, they never drink much, in fact the landlord thought of discouraging them as all they did was sit with cokes and chat for hours!
This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that car enthusiasts are quite good at the drink law-abiding thing and much of the rest of humanity largely ignores it.
I must live in a dipso's paradise!
Political Pain said:
. . . the entire edifice of policing by consent is surely based on the maximum benefit for the majority at the least inconvenience of the majority.
Not really what policing is based on. There's fairness and justice somewhere in there, abeit hiding. Certaily the judgement of the majority is not what it is all about. Police have to protect, for instance, squatters despite the fact that most people find them a waste of space. And protect the rights of illegal immigrants. I might have misread you but you seem to be suggesting the greatest good for the greatest number of people and that's not what it is all about.
Derek Smith said:
Political Pain said:
. . . the entire edifice of policing by consent is surely based on the maximum benefit for the majority at the least inconvenience of the majority.
Not really what policing is based on. There's fairness and justice somewhere in there, abeit hiding. Certaily the judgement of the majority is not what it is all about. Police have to protect, for instance, squatters despite the fact that most people find them a waste of space. And protect the rights of illegal immigrants. I might have misread you but you seem to be suggesting the greatest good for the greatest number of people and that's not what it is all about.
I have always seen what I wrote a bit like the Star Trek primary directive, I think it is where the entire policing thing starts from, after that all sorts of laws can be imposed and standards set. If the impositions are contradictory, then you go back to the basic tenet, a touchstone.
F i F said:
I'm rather intrigued that nobody apart from GC8 has made any adverse comment relating to the removal of the right to samples and check tests in borderline cases.
Seems as if you've all accepted that the breath test technique is accurate as accurate can be.
Where's jith?
Probably, like me most don't know much about it having never been involved. The station breath test is an evidential machine isn't it and, from seeing car wars type programmes, prosecutions only follow if above a tolerance above the legal limit. The demand for a blood/urine test is a delaying tactic isn't it?Seems as if you've all accepted that the breath test technique is accurate as accurate can be.
Where's jith?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff