Rural drink-driving
Discussion
Electrics not for me said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
DonkeyApple said:
What you seemed to be implying from earlier posts was that people have no self control so once they have a pint they're off on a session. The law makes it pretty clear where the dividing line is and most people opt to remain on a specific side. Is anyone condoning those who opt to be on the wrong line?
The current English system gives leeway not just for a pint at lunch or dinner but for residual alcohol the morning after. It's set at a pretty benign level that seems a fair compromise between vet little potential impairment and not criminalising the bulk of the country.
The actual issue is that it simply isn't cost effective to enforce the law robustly on those who make the overt decision to break it. Changing the legal limit won't change that.
There will never be the levels of police manpower or budget to clamp down on rural drunk drivers. There is no electronic policing fix. What you have is fellow drinkers and landlords who could be incentivised to grass them up but we've just had two years of lockdowns and people building pubs in their back gardens and hosting clandestine piss ups so we actually know that all that would happen is that these people would congregate where there were no witnesses etc.
But 9hours later a residual amount means you've had some fair drinking on a school night. The current English system gives leeway not just for a pint at lunch or dinner but for residual alcohol the morning after. It's set at a pretty benign level that seems a fair compromise between vet little potential impairment and not criminalising the bulk of the country.
The actual issue is that it simply isn't cost effective to enforce the law robustly on those who make the overt decision to break it. Changing the legal limit won't change that.
There will never be the levels of police manpower or budget to clamp down on rural drunk drivers. There is no electronic policing fix. What you have is fellow drinkers and landlords who could be incentivised to grass them up but we've just had two years of lockdowns and people building pubs in their back gardens and hosting clandestine piss ups so we actually know that all that would happen is that these people would congregate where there were no witnesses etc.
Again, as mentioned further up why do people need to drink.
It should be a weekend treat.
If I'm riding my motorbike I wouldn't even look at a shandy.
Same with driving. You need your concentration, all of it.
I've spotted someone who hasn't been to a tennis club for a looooong time!Fascinating contrast in social attitudes , and also on how much they can change. In the 70s almost everybody drank and drove and if caught , the attitude from peers was 'there but for the grace of God go I' and I'm not proud of the fact that I have driven when I could barely walk . Come the late 80s, attitudes hardened and now it is social suicide to drive drunk - or even to drive having had a drink at all . There's almost a puritanism about driving without even trace of alcohol , and while that arguably can make sense objectively, so does obeying every road traffic rule and limit without question. But to argue the latter would invite derision and scorn from many self confessed petrolheads (a term I loathe ) .
In 30 years time will today's speeders be regarded with the same disgust as we now treat drink/drivers I wonder ?
In 30 years time will today's speeders be regarded with the same disgust as we now treat drink/drivers I wonder ?
Hugo Stiglitz said:
But 9hours later a residual amount means you've had some fair drinking on a school night.
Again, as mentioned further up why do people need to drink.
It should be a weekend treat.
If I'm riding my motorbike I wouldn't even look at a shandy.
Same with driving. You need your concentration, all of it.
It's all the middle class cocaine and incest. Again, as mentioned further up why do people need to drink.
It should be a weekend treat.
If I'm riding my motorbike I wouldn't even look at a shandy.
Same with driving. You need your concentration, all of it.
9 hours is a relatively arbitrary number. No shortage of people who have their last drink at midnight and will be in the car by 7 for work. Or the weekend partyers who then go for some retail therapy with the kids the next morning or stand at the sports field sidelines nursing a hangover.
I'm not aware of anyone on this thread saying that drunk driving is good or acceptable. What people are generally saying is that having a legal limit at a sensible level presents a prudent balance and that this level is of no relevance to those who are choosing to willfully exceed it.
SpeckledJim said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
But 9hours later a residual amount means you've had some fair drinking on a school night.
Again, as mentioned further up why do people need to drink.
It should be a weekend treat.
If I'm riding my motorbike I wouldn't even look at a shandy.
Same with driving. You need your concentration, all of it.
So as suggested earlier, you will be banning orange juice, because it has alcohol in it. And rum-raisin ice cream (sorry kids, daddy can't be too careful).Again, as mentioned further up why do people need to drink.
It should be a weekend treat.
If I'm riding my motorbike I wouldn't even look at a shandy.
Same with driving. You need your concentration, all of it.
And car radios. And phones. And passengers.
When you set an absolutist policy like you have, you have to be serious, don't you. Even if it makes you look a nutter.
SpeckledJim said:
Electrics not for me said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
DonkeyApple said:
What you seemed to be implying from earlier posts was that people have no self control so once they have a pint they're off on a session. The law makes it pretty clear where the dividing line is and most people opt to remain on a specific side. Is anyone condoning those who opt to be on the wrong line?
The current English system gives leeway not just for a pint at lunch or dinner but for residual alcohol the morning after. It's set at a pretty benign level that seems a fair compromise between vet little potential impairment and not criminalising the bulk of the country.
The actual issue is that it simply isn't cost effective to enforce the law robustly on those who make the overt decision to break it. Changing the legal limit won't change that.
There will never be the levels of police manpower or budget to clamp down on rural drunk drivers. There is no electronic policing fix. What you have is fellow drinkers and landlords who could be incentivised to grass them up but we've just had two years of lockdowns and people building pubs in their back gardens and hosting clandestine piss ups so we actually know that all that would happen is that these people would congregate where there were no witnesses etc.
But 9hours later a residual amount means you've had some fair drinking on a school night. The current English system gives leeway not just for a pint at lunch or dinner but for residual alcohol the morning after. It's set at a pretty benign level that seems a fair compromise between vet little potential impairment and not criminalising the bulk of the country.
The actual issue is that it simply isn't cost effective to enforce the law robustly on those who make the overt decision to break it. Changing the legal limit won't change that.
There will never be the levels of police manpower or budget to clamp down on rural drunk drivers. There is no electronic policing fix. What you have is fellow drinkers and landlords who could be incentivised to grass them up but we've just had two years of lockdowns and people building pubs in their back gardens and hosting clandestine piss ups so we actually know that all that would happen is that these people would congregate where there were no witnesses etc.
Again, as mentioned further up why do people need to drink.
It should be a weekend treat.
If I'm riding my motorbike I wouldn't even look at a shandy.
Same with driving. You need your concentration, all of it.
I've spotted someone who hasn't been to a tennis club for a looooong time!Electrics not for me said:
SpeckledJim said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
But 9hours later a residual amount means you've had some fair drinking on a school night.
Again, as mentioned further up why do people need to drink.
It should be a weekend treat.
If I'm riding my motorbike I wouldn't even look at a shandy.
Same with driving. You need your concentration, all of it.
So as suggested earlier, you will be banning orange juice, because it has alcohol in it. And rum-raisin ice cream (sorry kids, daddy can't be too careful).Again, as mentioned further up why do people need to drink.
It should be a weekend treat.
If I'm riding my motorbike I wouldn't even look at a shandy.
Same with driving. You need your concentration, all of it.
And car radios. And phones. And passengers.
When you set an absolutist policy like you have, you have to be serious, don't you. Even if it makes you look a nutter.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
I think the DD limit should be zero. No exceptions, no bar room calculations. Nothing.
So there we go. You're a criminal, so am I, and so is he. Step slowly away from that brandy snap.Or when he said 'zero' did he perhaps mean 'not zero'? That would be more sensible. Very confusing presentation, but much more sensible.
coppice said:
In 30 years time will today's speeders be regarded with the same disgust as we now treat drink/drivers I wonder ?
Disgust culture against speeding has been building for many years. Plenty of evidence even on this forum.Regardless the freedom to speed to be 'solved' sooner than 30 years away, simply because your car will not permit speeding
bigothunter said:
coppice said:
In 30 years time will today's speeders be regarded with the same disgust as we now treat drink/drivers I wonder ?
Disgust culture against speeding has been building for many years. Plenty of evidence even on this forum.Regardless the freedom to speed to be 'solved' sooner than 30 years away, simply because your car will not permit speeding
The speeding analogy doesn't entirely work though.
You can speed, then......not.
Whereas, if you're over the limit and impaired, you remain so, possibly peaking, possibly declining but at very slow rate. The fact is, you're impaired for a considerable amount of time, not momentarily like speeding or arguing with the wife (either of which, if contributory and provable would be picked up in other offences).
I'd like to think we've grown up since the 70's and recognise that driving over the limit is a zero sum game, undertaken by entitled asshats.
Bear in mind, in 1975 there were 14m cars on the road. In 2022 it's 32m.
Castrol for a knave said:
The speeding analogy doesn't entirely work though.
You can speed, then......not.
Whereas, if you're over the limit and impaired, you remain so, possibly peaking, possibly declining but at very slow rate. The fact is, you're impaired for a considerable amount of time, not momentarily like speeding or arguing with the wife (either of which, if contributory and provable would be picked up in other offences).
I'd like to think we've grown up since the 70's and recognise that driving over the limit is a zero sum game, undertaken by entitled asshats.
Bear in mind, in 1975 there were 14m cars on the road. In 2022 it's 32m.
All speed impairs safety just like all alcohol. Reduction is always safer. Zero tolerance is the final solution.You can speed, then......not.
Whereas, if you're over the limit and impaired, you remain so, possibly peaking, possibly declining but at very slow rate. The fact is, you're impaired for a considerable amount of time, not momentarily like speeding or arguing with the wife (either of which, if contributory and provable would be picked up in other offences).
I'd like to think we've grown up since the 70's and recognise that driving over the limit is a zero sum game, undertaken by entitled asshats.
Bear in mind, in 1975 there were 14m cars on the road. In 2022 it's 32m.
The speeding analogy holds...
Castrol for a knave said:
The speeding analogy doesn't entirely work though.
You can speed, then......not.
Whereas, if you're over the limit and impaired, you remain so, possibly peaking, possibly declining but at very slow rate. The fact is, you're impaired for a considerable amount of time, not momentarily like speeding or arguing with the wife (either of which, if contributory and provable would be picked up in other offences).
I'd like to think we've grown up since the 70's and recognise that driving over the limit is a zero sum game, undertaken by entitled asshats.
Bear in mind, in 1975 there were 14m cars on the road. In 2022 it's 32m.
I would like to think that the majority agree. You can speed, then......not.
Whereas, if you're over the limit and impaired, you remain so, possibly peaking, possibly declining but at very slow rate. The fact is, you're impaired for a considerable amount of time, not momentarily like speeding or arguing with the wife (either of which, if contributory and provable would be picked up in other offences).
I'd like to think we've grown up since the 70's and recognise that driving over the limit is a zero sum game, undertaken by entitled asshats.
Bear in mind, in 1975 there were 14m cars on the road. In 2022 it's 32m.
And by and large the majority have also adjusted to fit within the letter of the law. And most probably reckon the level at which the law in England is set is a fair, logical and practical place.
As many have mooted, it's what to do about the habitual flaunters.
bigothunter said:
Castrol for a knave said:
The speeding analogy doesn't entirely work though.
You can speed, then......not.
Whereas, if you're over the limit and impaired, you remain so, possibly peaking, possibly declining but at very slow rate. The fact is, you're impaired for a considerable amount of time, not momentarily like speeding or arguing with the wife (either of which, if contributory and provable would be picked up in other offences).
I'd like to think we've grown up since the 70's and recognise that driving over the limit is a zero sum game, undertaken by entitled asshats.
Bear in mind, in 1975 there were 14m cars on the road. In 2022 it's 32m.
All speed impairs safety just like all alcohol. Reduction is always safer. Zero tolerance is the final solution.You can speed, then......not.
Whereas, if you're over the limit and impaired, you remain so, possibly peaking, possibly declining but at very slow rate. The fact is, you're impaired for a considerable amount of time, not momentarily like speeding or arguing with the wife (either of which, if contributory and provable would be picked up in other offences).
I'd like to think we've grown up since the 70's and recognise that driving over the limit is a zero sum game, undertaken by entitled asshats.
Bear in mind, in 1975 there were 14m cars on the road. In 2022 it's 32m.
The speeding analogy holds...
Castrol for a knave said:
bigothunter said:
Castrol for a knave said:
The speeding analogy doesn't entirely work though.
You can speed, then......not.
Whereas, if you're over the limit and impaired, you remain so, possibly peaking, possibly declining but at very slow rate. The fact is, you're impaired for a considerable amount of time, not momentarily like speeding or arguing with the wife (either of which, if contributory and provable would be picked up in other offences).
I'd like to think we've grown up since the 70's and recognise that driving over the limit is a zero sum game, undertaken by entitled asshats.
Bear in mind, in 1975 there were 14m cars on the road. In 2022 it's 32m.
All speed impairs safety just like all alcohol. Reduction is always safer. Zero tolerance is the final solution.You can speed, then......not.
Whereas, if you're over the limit and impaired, you remain so, possibly peaking, possibly declining but at very slow rate. The fact is, you're impaired for a considerable amount of time, not momentarily like speeding or arguing with the wife (either of which, if contributory and provable would be picked up in other offences).
I'd like to think we've grown up since the 70's and recognise that driving over the limit is a zero sum game, undertaken by entitled asshats.
Bear in mind, in 1975 there were 14m cars on the road. In 2022 it's 32m.
The speeding analogy holds...
Making the limits lower negatively affects the people who obey the rules, but doesn't affect the behaviour of the people who ignore the rules.
So it's largely pointless, unless the objective is to make life ever-so-slightly worse for the law-abiding masses.
Where I grew up it was the farmers you generally had to keep an eye out for when driving late at night. Pickup truck with a lightbar that hasn't turned his main beams off? Give it a wide berth. It would have been really low hanging fruit if the police wanted to do some spot breathalysing as it was the same people doing it from the same pubs every night.
There were some accidents too. Especially when it was icy in winter as the gritters don't come that far out. Thing is, farmers own plenty of machinery and look after each other, so when someone managed to find themselves upside down in the hedge, it didn't take long for all evidence to disappear.
This was only 10 years ago or so, I imagine it still goes on today just the same. I do know that the police decided to hide in a gateway with a speedgun one morning to catch the mums doing the school run - apparently the majority ended up with a ticket and the record was a lady from not far outside the village, who managed over 90mph in a people carrier. Impressive.
There were some accidents too. Especially when it was icy in winter as the gritters don't come that far out. Thing is, farmers own plenty of machinery and look after each other, so when someone managed to find themselves upside down in the hedge, it didn't take long for all evidence to disappear.
This was only 10 years ago or so, I imagine it still goes on today just the same. I do know that the police decided to hide in a gateway with a speedgun one morning to catch the mums doing the school run - apparently the majority ended up with a ticket and the record was a lady from not far outside the village, who managed over 90mph in a people carrier. Impressive.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff