-
"annual tests between 50mg (proposed new level) and 80mg (current level) were about 48000 per year. If you take all the police time that charging those people would consume, it might well be true that deploying them elsewhere would save more lives than the number advanced by proponents of a cut"
Well yes - but you'd hope that the number of drivers caught with levels in this range would drop very swiftly if this legislation was introduced and enforced.
In reality, it seems to me that drivers routinely push at the limits imposed by legislation; not just drinking but parking, speed limits, phone use etc.
Drink driving at any level is inexcusable - I'd go for a zero limit tomorrow if it was up to me. -
Unfortunately you cant legislate against being a cunt, you can against blood alcohol levels when driving...
I have to disagree with your argument about ruining people's nights. If you *need *(and can afford) to drink so much that you are still over the limit the next morning, then you *need *(and can afford) to get the bus. It is possible to have a good time without alcohol.
-
+1. Tbh if you need to get so drunk you can't drive the next morning to have a good night you may be in need of 'intervention'.
There was a case a few years back of a vicar who'd politely accepted a few slices of fruitcake, driven home, stopped by police, turned out to be over the limit (slightly). He was let off after it turned out the fruitcake was highly alcoholic and he didn't realise.
So long as it isn't zero for numerous reasons not least alcohol in medicine.
-
Didn't mean you specifically, just people generally.
At what point did I say I needed to get hammered to have a good night?
Yeah I mean it's not like it hurts anyone is it, except if they're still pissed the next morning and they total their car into another one on the motorway on the way to work and wipe out a whole family. For example. Bloody state telling us what to do all the time.
My point was more about the rights of people to get hammered if they want (even if it kills them, if that's what they want), and my dislike of the state constantly telling me and you what we should do (for example telling us we are binge drinkers for having 3 or 4 pints in a night.)
If you're not sure, don't drive. Or buy a breathalyser. If you've drunk a lot the night before you almost certainly have had very poor quality sleep, which also impairs your response times and control of the vehicle. The combination of the two things can be fatal.
You should not drive drunk whether you have had a sleep or not, but I was trying to make the point that it is quite easy to get hammered and be unsure the next mornng whether you are just over or just under the limit. The law should punish people who are clearly still drunk (say 80) but it should not be there to punish everyone who has not got every last drop of alcohol out of the system (say 50).
I'm not even totally sure it was a vicar tbh. I agree with the unfairly discriminates bit, but if we were drink driving due to eating fruit cake and could prove it I think we'd have a chance.
As for the vicar.... Rubbish. He was let off because the state unfairly discriminates against atheists and agnostics, and unfairly discriminates for religious bigotry in all its forms. There is no way you or I would have been let off. And that's despite the fact that neither of us are paedophiles but he could well have been.
Sounds good to me, but wouldn't everyone complain the state was overly intervening in/trying to run their life?
And as for not being able to legislate against cuntishness. You can. You could stop and fine drivers who do not indicate and are spotted by of the police (and heavily fine the police when they don't bother indicating). You could ban all drivers for years who are found driving cars that are not road safe or which are not insured. You could have cameras on every set of lights and fine every car that parks on the cycle box or across where the peds are trying to cross.
Those bits are guidelines intended to preserve your well being, you don't have to stick to them. I know I don't, but I don't drive the next day or commit antisocial behaviour (which is the impact on others that cheap booze causes). I hate the idea of having to pay more for booze when I don't do anything wrong when I get drunk, but unfortunately a lot of the general public aren't responsible enough to deal with it.
The fact is too many people in Britain are irresponsible and selfish. If they aren't prepared to change their ways voluntarily then Government action is needed.
But no, it is much more important to tell everyone exactly how to live their life: no more than 3 pints per night and 2 on average per night; no getting pissed and driving the following day; no buying cheap booze etc etc etc.
-
Isn't really a problem, if they want to get bladdered, just take the train the next morning instead of the car.
didn't seemed like a harsh logic, people will adapted, they never like to adapt but netherless managed, just like the smoking ban.
easy for me to says that since I don't drive though.
-
Are you going to Souths/Norths/Easts/Wests Beers this week?
Not driving, no. But if you are saying I will drink cycle, then yes, and I realise the hypocrisy in that, and that in the eyes of the law it's no different.
All I can say is I have my own personal ethics, I'm not suggesting anyone else has to follow them.
I admire that, but by your logic you would like to live in a world here those who have to drive for work are not allowed to drink 5 or even 6 days of the week. Very harsh IMHO.
Well, the 24 rule is just a personal one for me. It's possible you can have a drink or two after work and be back to 0 the next day, I don't know.
-
Possibly true! But I just can't throw my arms around a party that has showed us so little support. We got a great deal of support from the Lib Dems, Greens, Labour... it's a joke how little we got from the Tories. I do miss Lord Adonis. :o(
I'm basing my judgement on facts.
Fair enough. I thought I would pop in some thoughts.
EDMS have a nickname in Parliament as Parliamentary Graffiti and are mainly used by Lobby groups for their campaigns to say they have x number of signatures and thats about it. Now looking at the signatories, the majority of people who signed it were people who sign most EDMs e.g. backbench leftleaning Lab MPs, MPs in Marginal constituencies or Lib Dems) Alan Simpson MP for example signed nearly 1000 EDMs last year I think.
Now most of them would have signed the EDM in the safe knowledge that they would not have to implement any of the ideas and are just calling for something to be done, it pleases the constituents that write in and the campaign group that started the EDM whist also is calling for something good to be done usually. The Tories would have been put off signing from their Treasury team at the time probably because it may imply a spending commitment or some other reason.
However, a few of the Lib Dem MPs who signed it are now in positions of power, Vince Cable (sec of state, Business), Lynne featherstone (Home Office Minister) Steve Webb (DWP minister) and none other than new Minister for Transport with specific responsibility for cycling - Norman Baker MP http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/ministers/normanbaker
Now with people talking about broken promises upthread and politicians saying one thing and doing another, I hope that cycling campaigns are getting on to those MPs now in Government who signed the EDM (http://tinyurl.com/yjfwhmc) and are asking what they are doing about it. The new cycling minister seems a pretty good MP to start with.
ps. Sorry for going on. For what its worth I think the interview the thread is initially about shows that the new Sec of State for transport admits he is pretty ignorant about cycling, doesn't cycle and I hope and am sure that the cycling campaign groups are doing all they can to educate him about the realities of cycling...
-
I agree, I would be very happy with a zero limit.
I wouldn't. I don't drink, at all, haven't for nearly 25 years now, but my asthma medication is dissolved in ethanol, so if I get breathalised shortly after inhaling it, I'm going to get an non-zero reading and then have the hassle of going to the cop shop for a blood test to prove that my blood alcohol is "zero" within the meaning of the Act. It can't actually be zero, because ethanol is a species easily created as a metabolite, so we all have a few molecules of it in our blood even if we've not actually ingested any. The aircraft pilots' limit of 20 would be the actual level set if the UK Govt. opted for a "zero tolerance" approach
-
@Jimbo, well done for the post info there.Will follow up on him.
Saw a little more on the drink drive thing today, seems Hammond needs to conduct some enquiries as to the effects the proposed change on rural communities....?
could mean that the tacit acceptance is that in the country side people drink and drive more, and penalising them will result in less community cohesion or something. but thats pure conjecture. I mean country pubs have been closing at an alarming rate for years due to .... -
YouTube- Victoria Pendleton joins Parliamentary Bike Ride 2010
Victoria Pendleton, 2010 All party Parliamentary Cycling Group, police escorted ride. hmm.
-
YouTube- Victoria Pendleton joins Parliamentary Bike Ride 2010
Victoria Pendleton, 2010 All party Parliamentary Cycling Group, police escorted ride. hmm.
whats with the kooky music accompanying the video?
-
would most of them (not the pidd's, pendletons etc) ride around westminster without a police escort though...
-
Well, the 24 rule is just a personal one for me. It's possible you can have a drink or two after work and be back to 0 the next day, I don't know.
You actually metabolise alcohol pretty fast - I once had a couple of bottles of beer at seven, drove home at eleven, got stopped and breathalised and got a zero reading. I'm not proud of this, but it did happen. I know of someone who got stopped driving home at six in the morning after drinking all night, about two bottles of wine altogether, and he was under the limit. Mind you, he's about 6'3" and a tree surgeon, so he's got a lot of blood in him to dilute the alcohol.
-
tree surgeons are famous for having lots of blood.
The point is that he was a very tall, very muscular dude who spent his life outdoors climbing trees and lifting heavy weights - maybe 15 stone and not much fat on him. Muscle has more blood in it than fat; the volume of blood in your body is a function of your weight and your body fat ratio. The more blood, the lower the blood-alcohol level for a given intake of alcohol... But I was still quite startled by that story.
-
A couple of interesting stories in the last few days about the current Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and London's suburban rail services.
A letter he apparently sent to Boris Johnson:
I think Sadiq Khan will win this, but it'll take some years.
-
As a daily commuter using the Brighton mainline I find Grayling a complete waste of space.
His refusal to get involved in the industrial dispute which is creating daily misery for thousands of people just proves he's not interested in the public good, only on policy and his personal legacy.
He is a complete and utter......
fakenger35
Arducius
Fox
H-Bomb
Marco
edscoble
JimboJones
gbj_tester
deleted
alien8
pastry_bot
Mister_Baxter
Oliver Schick
mespilus
Tomo187-
Post a reply
About
New transport secretary needs a slap
Posted by
@TooTallTim
stranger things have happened I guess, after all they ditched the third runway at Heathrow... which is another discussion entirely...
In general though it just seems that the post is one that they want to get the f..k out of as soon as possible.