scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

I couldn't give a monkey's chuff how I come across on this or any other thread.

I do have some emotional attachment to this topic as a very close family member was killed by a drunk driver a few years ago. The driver was a mid-50s respectable guy who worked in law and he was three times over the old Scottish limit, so not a totally pissed idiot.

But even before that happened, I never ever understood the need to drink (even or two) and drive. To me, if I'm drinking I'm drinking and not counting.

What the new drink drive limit did was tell people that actually one or two before driving isn't right and isn't acceptable. So when it was introduced it I welcomed it. Many of my friends did too. I think most people now either drink OR drive. And that seems sensible to me.

Anyway, crack on. Call me a berk or a wker or an idiot or whatever. I don't care. Just think about some of the points I posted earlier.

Sorry to hear you have personal experience. I have too - I got hit by a drunk and speeding driver as a pedestrian. Time off work etc but thankfully was able to limp away. Although I still get the fear crossing the road.

Would a lower limit have made a difference in our personal cases? Don’t think so.

More police and a realistic chance/genuine fear of getting caught? I think so.

[NRS]

Edinburger said:

NomduJour said:

Edinburger, should we also assume that you’re looking forward to car speed restrictors becoming mandatory?

No.

Speed certainly has a link to deaths/ severity of injuries, as does alcohol. Why do you not agree with the same sort of reasoning being applied to speed? What about making motorways/dual carriageways 55mph instead, as other countries have that. It'd reduce some injuries and deaths.

(Playing devil's advocate here more than anything, but it's the same thing - the question is where do you draw a line on acceptable death/injury versus affecting people's "living standards".)

[Brads67]

Wow, this much bullst has made me head to the pub in the car for a snifter to calm down.

In Edinburgh if anyones interested.

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

NomduJour said:

Edinburger said:

Would you be comfortable flying if the pilot has had a pint or two or taken some other behaviour changing drug?

Silly comparison given that it’s entirely reasonable to hold a commercial airline pilot to a higher duty of care, but don’t pretend it never happens.

Set the limit to zero and, odd fluke aside, you’ll be lucky save a single life - the people drinking enough to be dangerous will still be the same ones who don’t care about the law anyway.

Why is it a silly comparison?

As I just posted, some law changes are to designed to change behaviours. It is better for everyone that no one drives a car after consuming alcohol. It really is as simple as that.

It is morally, ethically and just generally wrong that the law should be used to change the behavior of people when there is essentially no practical benefit to be derived from it.

[AJL308]

NomduJour said:

Edinburger said:

It is better for everyone that no one drives a car after consuming alcohol. It really is as simple as that.

It’s far better that no one drives a car at all, that way they can’t kill poor innocents. It really is as simple as that.

Get some perspective instead of wanting to regulate and control everything.

And, to add, if we want to play the game of the poster you answered; studies have shown a trend that people are actually safer drivers who cause fewer accidents after having consumed a small amount of alcohol. Therefore, applying his logic, a low level BaC should be mandatory before getting in the car.

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

technodup said:

Edinburger said:

Reducing alcohol limits even when proven not to work? Nothing has been proven not to work, but it brings our country into line with other countries.

Why should we fall into line with other countries with higher road deaths?

Stats to prove that?

Would you get on a plane if the pilot had had a few pints?

I'm currently in Greece. Greece has an undeniably tiger level of road deaths than the UK. Have you seen how they drive? They are a bunch of fking idiots! They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near alcohol and motor vehicles. They NEED a lower limit to avoid absolute carnage on the roads.

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

Dog Star said:

Edinburger said:

You sir, are an idiot.

And you sir, come across as a holier-than-thou idiot on this thread.

Don't judge others by your pathetically low standards and tolerances.

You berk.

If I could be bothered looking for that "coffee beans" gif then I'd insert it here. But it's not worth my bother.

I couldn't give a monkey's chuff how I come across on this or any other thread.

I do have some emotional attachment to this topic as a very close family member was killed by a drunk driver a few years ago. The driver was a mid-50s respectable guy who worked in law and he was three times over the old Scottish limit, so not a totally pissed idiot.

But even before that happened, I never ever understood the need to drink (even or two) and drive. To me, if I'm drinking I'm drinking and not counting.

What the new drink drive limit did was tell people that actually one or two before driving isn't right and isn't acceptable. So when it was introduced it I welcomed it. Many of my friends did too. I think most people now either drink OR drive. And that seems sensible to me.

Anyway, crack on. Call me a berk or a wker or an idiot or whatever. I don't care. Just think about some of the points I posted earlier.

You're wrong on several levels. Firstly, three times over the old limit is a LOT. It takes a lot to get there and I think that "pissed idiot" would be a very accurate description.

Secondly, I don't follow the logic which says that reducing the limit as has been done is a logical reaction to the situation you describe; if you think that someone who is prepared to drink in the way he did (three times over) will modify his behavior because of the new limit then you are living in a fantasy land. A person who gives not a fk at being three times over will give the same amount of fks about being five or six times over.

None of your reasoning is logical justification for the lowering of the limit and it shows no mechanism by which it would actually work to reduce accident levels. Lots and lots of people said that from the outset and now have been proved correct.