View Poll Results: Ban drink driving in the UK
Yes
64
59.26%
No
44
40.74%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll
Drink Driving in the UK ban or not ban?
14 October 2008, 05:38 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe there is no drink driving in Japan, or any other country with a zero limit.
I would disagree with a zero limit because you never know for certain that you are at zero. You could be driving after a meal which had alcohol in it, or you may swallow some mouthwash as just 2 examples.
A zero limit would decimate the pub industry. At a time where 5 (IIRC) pubs are closing a day, would we really want to introduce more legislation which would harm them for arguably little benefit in terms of less drink drivers on the road?
Rather than concentrate on a minority of drivers who drink and drive, how about the authorities concentrating on the 75% of deaths caused by sober drivers.
Bad driving kills. D & D is just one form of bad driving. Because it is one of the most easily detected, along with speeding, it is the main focus of the authorities.
The 25% of "drink related deaths" includes drunk pedestrians killed by sober drivers, drunk passengers killed by sober drivers etc. This means that more than 75% of deaths on the road are caused by sober drivers.
I would disagree with a zero limit because you never know for certain that you are at zero. You could be driving after a meal which had alcohol in it, or you may swallow some mouthwash as just 2 examples.
A zero limit would decimate the pub industry. At a time where 5 (IIRC) pubs are closing a day, would we really want to introduce more legislation which would harm them for arguably little benefit in terms of less drink drivers on the road?
Rather than concentrate on a minority of drivers who drink and drive, how about the authorities concentrating on the 75% of deaths caused by sober drivers.
Bad driving kills. D & D is just one form of bad driving. Because it is one of the most easily detected, along with speeding, it is the main focus of the authorities.
The 25% of "drink related deaths" includes drunk pedestrians killed by sober drivers, drunk passengers killed by sober drivers etc. This means that more than 75% of deaths on the road are caused by sober drivers.
Last edited by Jerome; 15 October 2008 at 10:38 AM. Reason: A muppet-like mistook.
15 October 2008, 12:32 AM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there's a bigger picture. I am just sick and tired of being told what to do. I am being programmed to eat properly and take sensible exercise etc etc so presumably I will end up dribbling in a home reading the telegram 
I can't smoke without someone tut-tutting. I can't smile at, let alone say hello to, at a sweet 4 year old 'cos mum will think I'm a paedo. I can't read a newspaper without being told what to eat and drink. I can't speak to a doctor in confidence 'cos it all goes down on the database. I can't clip a naughty kid around the ear or I'll be done for assault. I can't drive at 40 in a 30 limit even at 6 in the morning when the road is empty. I can't go into town shopping without being photographed 40 times without my permission. Aaaaaaaaaghhhhh.
I can't smoke without someone tut-tutting. I can't smile at, let alone say hello to, at a sweet 4 year old 'cos mum will think I'm a paedo. I can't read a newspaper without being told what to eat and drink. I can't speak to a doctor in confidence 'cos it all goes down on the database. I can't clip a naughty kid around the ear or I'll be done for assault. I can't drive at 40 in a 30 limit even at 6 in the morning when the road is empty. I can't go into town shopping without being photographed 40 times without my permission. Aaaaaaaaaghhhhh.
15 October 2008, 11:03 AM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe there is no drink driving in Japan, or any other country with a zero limit.
I would disagree with a zero limit because you never know for certain that you are at zero. You could be driving after a meal which had alcohol in it, or you may swallow some mouthwash as just 2 examples.
A zero limit would decimate the pub industry. At a time where 5 (IIRC) pubs are closing a day, would we really want to introduce more legislation which would harm them for arguably little benefit in terms of less drink drivers on the road?
Rather than concentrate on a minority of drivers who drink and drive, how about the authorities concentrating on the 75% of deaths caused by sober drivers.
Bad driving kills. D & D is just one form of bad driving. Because it is one of the most easily detected, along with speeding, it is the main focus of the authorities.
The 25% of "drink related deaths" includes drunk pedestrians killed by sober drivers, drunk passengers killed by sober drivers etc. This means that more than 75% of deaths on the road are caused by sober drivers.
I would disagree with a zero limit because you never know for certain that you are at zero. You could be driving after a meal which had alcohol in it, or you may swallow some mouthwash as just 2 examples.
A zero limit would decimate the pub industry. At a time where 5 (IIRC) pubs are closing a day, would we really want to introduce more legislation which would harm them for arguably little benefit in terms of less drink drivers on the road?
Rather than concentrate on a minority of drivers who drink and drive, how about the authorities concentrating on the 75% of deaths caused by sober drivers.
Bad driving kills. D & D is just one form of bad driving. Because it is one of the most easily detected, along with speeding, it is the main focus of the authorities.
The 25% of "drink related deaths" includes drunk pedestrians killed by sober drivers, drunk passengers killed by sober drivers etc. This means that more than 75% of deaths on the road are caused by sober drivers.
But if that 25% of all deaths is caused by 1% of all drviers, then drink driving is proven to be incredibly dangerous (which of course, it is)
Mouth wash dissapates, and anyway, even if you did test positive, it would be proven negative by a urine test. (even if you managed to swallow a tiny amount)
The "Mouth wash " argument for not having a zero limit is a complete red herring.
Alcohol in food is generally cooked out, and just refuse to have the sherry trifle.
Look at it this way - If someone ran over a member of your family, and you found out they had had a couple of pints, but were under the legal limit, would you not:
(i)Wonder if your familiy member would still be alive had the person not had a couple of pints?
(ii)Kill that person dead on account of having had a couple of pints and run over your nearest and dearest?
15 October 2008, 12:03 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if that 25% of all deaths is caused by 1% of all drviers, then drink driving is proven to be incredibly dangerous (which of course, it is)
Mouth wash dissapates, and anyway, even if you did test positive, it would be proven negative by a urine test. (even if you managed to swallow a tiny amount)
The "Mouth wash " argument for not having a zero limit is a complete red herring.
Alcohol in food is generally cooked out, and just refuse to have the sherry trifle.
Look at it this way - If someone ran over a member of your family, and you found out they had had a couple of pints, but were under the legal limit, would you not:
(i)Wonder if your familiy member would still be alive had the person not had a couple of pints?
(ii)Kill that person dead on account of having had a couple of pints and run over your nearest and dearest?
Mouth wash dissapates, and anyway, even if you did test positive, it would be proven negative by a urine test. (even if you managed to swallow a tiny amount)
The "Mouth wash " argument for not having a zero limit is a complete red herring.
Alcohol in food is generally cooked out, and just refuse to have the sherry trifle.
Look at it this way - If someone ran over a member of your family, and you found out they had had a couple of pints, but were under the legal limit, would you not:
(i)Wonder if your familiy member would still be alive had the person not had a couple of pints?
(ii)Kill that person dead on account of having had a couple of pints and run over your nearest and dearest?
- I doubt drink driving - or the accidents caused by it - will reduce by much at all.
- D & D convictions (especially the morning after the night before) will sky rocket.
- The pub industry will be decimated (in the true sense of the word) for almost no benefit to society.
- With people terrified to drink anything at all the day before driving, the non-pub drinks industry will also suffer significantly.
To answer your last question, if a loved one of mine was run over by someone who'd been drinking, but was under the limit, I probably would wonder if it would still have happened if the driver was sober. I'd also wonder if they'd still have been run over if they'd gone out later that day, looked before crossing the road etc.
Someone walked out in front of me yesterday whilst I was driving. If I had run him over and killed him, I doubt his loved ones would have found much solace knowing I was totally sober...
Last edited by Jerome; 15 October 2008 at 12:06 PM.
15 October 2008, 12:39 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair points, and I largely agree. The main points I was trying to make were (if a zero limit were introduced):
- I doubt drink driving - or the accidents caused by it - will reduce by much at all.
- D & D convictions (especially the morning after the night before) will sky rocket.
- The pub industry will be decimated (in the true sense of the word) for almost no benefit to society.
- With people terrified to drink anything at all the day before driving, the non-pub drinks industry will also suffer significantly.
- I doubt drink driving - or the accidents caused by it - will reduce by much at all.
- D & D convictions (especially the morning after the night before) will sky rocket.
- The pub industry will be decimated (in the true sense of the word) for almost no benefit to society.
- With people terrified to drink anything at all the day before driving, the non-pub drinks industry will also suffer significantly.
However, we probably need some perpesctive, I think the war against D&D, in terms of "hearts and minds" has largely been won. It is now one of the most socially unaaceptable things anyone can do, 30 years ago or so, no one would have batted an eyelid.
I agree that the morning after would be the biggest problem.
I'm not sure that keeping pubs' revenue intact is a valid reason to have a drink drive limit.
No of course not, but they would have been apoplectic if you had been drunk.
15 October 2008, 07:24 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair points, and I largely agree. The main points I was trying to make were (if a zero limit were introduced):
- I doubt drink driving - or the accidents caused by it - will reduce by much at all.
- D & D convictions (especially the morning after the night before) will sky rocket.
- The pub industry will be decimated (in the true sense of the word) for almost no benefit to society.
- With people terrified to drink anything at all the day before driving, the non-pub drinks industry will also suffer significantly.
- I doubt drink driving - or the accidents caused by it - will reduce by much at all.
- D & D convictions (especially the morning after the night before) will sky rocket.
- The pub industry will be decimated (in the true sense of the word) for almost no benefit to society.
- With people terrified to drink anything at all the day before driving, the non-pub drinks industry will also suffer significantly.
Besides, I'd hate to think drink drivers keep these industries afloat...
15 October 2008, 07:46 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not ban everyone over 70 from driving and every male under 25. This would significantly reduce the number of crashes on the roads far more than a zero limit ? Why do we just not accept that driving around on a small overcrowded island with bad roads will lead to some deaths. The attitude to risk has been completely screwed by the anti drink drive campaign. Only 3 to 4 thousand people die on the roads. Relative to the population compared to the rest of the world that is a tiny insignificant amount. There are 1.5 deaths per 10,000 cars in the UK one of the safest rates in the world why the hell do we not concentrate on REAL problems around the world.
Coco cola has probably had more of its workers killed this year (coco cola has been murdering people for joining unions) than have died on the road in the UK but plenty of people are still drinking f!"#ing coke.
Coco cola has probably had more of its workers killed this year (coco cola has been murdering people for joining unions) than have died on the road in the UK but plenty of people are still drinking f!"#ing coke.
15 October 2008, 08:32 PM
#69
What I'd be interested to know, is how many accidents are actually caused by those who have consumed alcohol, but are not above the existing limit. I think if something is going to be banned, it has to be a problem in the first place.
I'd bet, even with a ban, there would still most likely be as many drink related accidents, as by and large, I would imagine most come from those well over the limit. No matter what is in place, there will be people who choose to do what they want, and it's those attitudes that need to be changed, rather than forcing even more rules on a majority who are operating within the law as it stands.
If people are already ignoring the limit in place, then what really would an outright ban achieve?
I'd bet, even with a ban, there would still most likely be as many drink related accidents, as by and large, I would imagine most come from those well over the limit. No matter what is in place, there will be people who choose to do what they want, and it's those attitudes that need to be changed, rather than forcing even more rules on a majority who are operating within the law as it stands.
If people are already ignoring the limit in place, then what really would an outright ban achieve?
15 October 2008, 11:04 PM
#71
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 October 2008, 11:36 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do you live djmisio85? When I lived in Japan I can tell you there certainly was drink driving going on. In Aichi-ken it appeared that so long as you don't have an accident, your chance of getting stopped for drink driving was virtually zero. I was told that so long as you drive slowly, you won't get stopped. Not that I ever did drink drive, I don't think it's responsible, but J-friends certainly did drink drive. The exception was in December when the police got interested.
When at uni I had access to research papers on the effects of alcohol on the body and how it impaired driving. Below 20mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood there was basically no measurable effect on driving behaviour (hence why Sweden set this as their limit). From 20mg/100ml upwards the effect is measurable. Most of Europe has chosen the degree of impairment regarded as unacceptable equal to 50mg/100ml. The UK and Ireland has about the highest limit of 80mg/100ml.
I would be in favour of lowering the limit to match Europe, that reduction would stop many from taking the risk of having that extra pint (or two). But I would like to see staged penalties with points & fines for >50 <80 and bans for those over 80mg/100ml.
When at uni I had access to research papers on the effects of alcohol on the body and how it impaired driving. Below 20mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood there was basically no measurable effect on driving behaviour (hence why Sweden set this as their limit). From 20mg/100ml upwards the effect is measurable. Most of Europe has chosen the degree of impairment regarded as unacceptable equal to 50mg/100ml. The UK and Ireland has about the highest limit of 80mg/100ml.
I would be in favour of lowering the limit to match Europe, that reduction would stop many from taking the risk of having that extra pint (or two). But I would like to see staged penalties with points & fines for >50 <80 and bans for those over 80mg/100ml.
16 October 2008, 12:26 AM
#73
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do you live djmisio85? When I lived in Japan I can tell you there certainly was drink driving going on. In Aichi-ken it appeared that so long as you don't have an accident, your chance of getting stopped for drink driving was virtually zero. I was told that so long as you drive slowly, you won't get stopped. Not that I ever did drink drive, I don't think it's responsible, but J-friends certainly did drink drive. The exception was in December when the police got interested.
When at uni I had access to research papers on the effects of alcohol on the body and how it impaired driving. Below 20mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood there was basically no measurable effect on driving behaviour (hence why Sweden set this as their limit). From 20mg/100ml upwards the effect is measurable. Most of Europe has chosen the degree of impairment regarded as unacceptable equal to 50mg/100ml. The UK and Ireland has about the highest limit of 80mg/100ml.
I would be in favour of lowering the limit to match Europe, that reduction would stop many from taking the risk of having that extra pint (or two). But I would like to see staged penalties with points & fines for >50 <80 and bans for those over 80mg/100ml.
When at uni I had access to research papers on the effects of alcohol on the body and how it impaired driving. Below 20mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood there was basically no measurable effect on driving behaviour (hence why Sweden set this as their limit). From 20mg/100ml upwards the effect is measurable. Most of Europe has chosen the degree of impairment regarded as unacceptable equal to 50mg/100ml. The UK and Ireland has about the highest limit of 80mg/100ml.
I would be in favour of lowering the limit to match Europe, that reduction would stop many from taking the risk of having that extra pint (or two). But I would like to see staged penalties with points & fines for >50 <80 and bans for those over 80mg/100ml.
Of course, I know people drink and drive in Japan, but nowhere near as much as in the UK, and the amount of alcohol related accidents is also nowhere near the amount that there are in the uk... not saying that there are "loads", but by applying a ban, it would hopefully make this number even lower....
I went out drinking yday, and my gf drove me home, a mate of mine drank and drove, but as you say, drive slowly and carefully, and 9 times out of 10 you wont get stopped...
But this morning, after about 6 hours sleep, I must say, driving home was not as easy as some people may think....
@norman.d.landing: I was driving to my gfs yday, and using my radio, aircon, mobile, and I drove perfectly
, your argument of using the radio, navigation system etc, and comparing that to drink driving is BS, thats like saying I cant look around in my car or over my shoulder whilst driving
drink driving impairs your ability to drive, fact. and when people judge their own ability to drive after drinking, things can go wrong.
All Im saying is, a ban would probably scare quite a few people into not drinking and driving, and make our roads safer....
16 October 2008, 12:40 AM
#74
From what I was aware, the amount you can legally consume and then drive, was quite low. I can't comment on the exact amount within breath, but in terms of what it actually equates to, it's not alot. As I've said earlier, without some facts, I can't really say what impact someone who sticks to the limit/or below has.
Of course, everyone reacts differently to a set amount of alcohol, but I'd guess most people who know the limit and stick by it are fairly responsible anyhow, and would also either stick to a drink they could handle or not drive if they knew they were unfit to.
No matter what law is put in place, if someone wants to do something, they will. If they don't care about what is in place now, why would they give a toss if it was changed?
Of course, everyone reacts differently to a set amount of alcohol, but I'd guess most people who know the limit and stick by it are fairly responsible anyhow, and would also either stick to a drink they could handle or not drive if they knew they were unfit to.
No matter what law is put in place, if someone wants to do something, they will. If they don't care about what is in place now, why would they give a toss if it was changed?
16 October 2008, 12:45 AM
#75
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont give them the possibility to "get away with it", and maybe they wont drink and drive....
16 October 2008, 01:24 AM
#76
well, with the current law, you are allowed to drink (to a limit) and drive, some people, might get away with a breathalizer test some might not, depending on how much you have consumed and how long ago....
dont give them the possibility to "get away with it", and maybe they wont drink and drive....
dont give them the possibility to "get away with it", and maybe they wont drink and drive....
I'm never going to argue over people getting rat arsed and driving, my concern is, in a time where more rules are being put upon people, generally decent people, when nothing gets done about some real problems, what would this truely solve?
It's not, for me about allowing people to get away with anything, I just feel that unless there is a significant issue of people within the limit, driving, why make a fuss. This is why I wondered about how many incidents are caused by people not over the limit (not people stopped and checked, but the amount who have caused something)
16 October 2008, 11:46 AM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've made contradicting points. On the one hand you're saying D&D will not reduce by much, then you say the pub and non pub industries will suffer because people wouldn't be drinking and driving (i.e. reduced).
Besides, I'd hate to think drink drivers keep these industries afloat...
Besides, I'd hate to think drink drivers keep these industries afloat...
With the off licence industry, people may well have one beer or glass of wine with their dinner knowing they will be safe to drive in the morning. With a zero limit, people will forgo that glass of wine or a beer.
This is hardly drink drivers keeping the industry afloat! Even a 5 or 10% drop in takings may cause serious problems for the smaller operators in the drinks industry in the current climate.
16 October 2008, 02:26 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, with the current law, you are allowed to drink (to a limit) and drive, some people, might get away with a breathalizer test some might not, depending on how much you have consumed and how long ago....
dont give them the possibility to "get away with it", and maybe they wont drink and drive....
dont give them the possibility to "get away with it", and maybe they wont drink and drive....
16 October 2008, 02:35 PM
#80
That said, we aren't supposed to discuss them in the main forums, so the best advice would be for him to go to policy and request them to be looked into.
16 October 2008, 02:45 PM
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I mean is that it's quite common, for example, for people to go in a group for a pub lunch, with the driver having one pint or a small glass of wine and the non-drivers having 2 or maybe 3 drinks etc. If the driver can't even have 1 pint or a small glass of wine, people will quite possibly forgo the whole lunch altogether as no one will want to drive.
With the off licence industry, people may well have one beer or glass of wine with their dinner knowing they will be safe to drive in the morning. With a zero limit, people will forgo that glass of wine or a beer.
This is hardly drink drivers keeping the industry afloat! Even a 5 or 10% drop in takings may cause serious problems for the smaller operators in the drinks industry in the current climate.
This is hardly drink drivers keeping the industry afloat! Even a 5 or 10% drop in takings may cause serious problems for the smaller operators in the drinks industry in the current climate.
I didn't suggest it would keep the industries afloat, far from it. I was merely putting your somewhat alarmist statement into context. Seems to me there would clearly be a big market for companies to produce a decent tasting non-alcoholic beer. After all, those who want to have a beer and drive don't want it for the effects it has...
One of the biggest hang-ups people seem to have about a zero-limit is the onset of 'alcohol paranoia'. Doesn't this just show that most of us aren't quite as sure about how our bodies deal with alcohol as we think we are? When I say this, I'm talking about, for instance, the type who might have one drink early in the evening and then another later, "because the first one is out of my system".
Last edited by s1lko; 16 October 2008 at 02:54 PM.
16 October 2008, 02:51 PM
#82
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am personally struggling to understand the infractions myself. This is an interesting discussion, it's a shame to spoil it.
That said, we aren't supposed to discuss them in the main forums, so the best advice would be for him to go to policy and request them to be looked into.
That said, we aren't supposed to discuss them in the main forums, so the best advice would be for him to go to policy and request them to be looked into.
Although I think questioning them in the context they appear in is worthwhile. The infraction is obviously someone's viewpoint - however applied - on the subject. So why shouldn't it form part of the discussion?
Last edited by s1lko; 16 October 2008 at 02:54 PM.
16 October 2008, 03:13 PM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
s1lko,
Maybe I am being alarmist. Maybe I am exagerating the mentality of people in the UK. Maybe I've seen the way the UK implements this kind of legislation too many times to have any faith it will be for the better.
All I am suggesting is people will be **** scared to have alcohol in their system anywhere near the next time they drive. With the way the authorities go about things in this country, 0.00000001 units of alcohol in the blood will result in a ban.
A zero limit will, IMO, have no effect whatsover on the level of drink driving, will not improve road safety, and will not help the drinks/entertainments industry.
Lots of people will lose their licences though, and many their jobs too. Great.
Maybe I should invest in cotton wool. Because soon enough we'll all be wrapped up in the stuff.
Maybe I am being alarmist. Maybe I am exagerating the mentality of people in the UK. Maybe I've seen the way the UK implements this kind of legislation too many times to have any faith it will be for the better.
All I am suggesting is people will be **** scared to have alcohol in their system anywhere near the next time they drive. With the way the authorities go about things in this country, 0.00000001 units of alcohol in the blood will result in a ban.
A zero limit will, IMO, have no effect whatsover on the level of drink driving, will not improve road safety, and will not help the drinks/entertainments industry.
Lots of people will lose their licences though, and many their jobs too. Great.
Maybe I should invest in cotton wool. Because soon enough we'll all be wrapped up in the stuff.
16 October 2008, 03:17 PM
#84
Didn't realise we aren't allowed to discuss them in the main forums.
Although I think questioning them in the context they appear in is worthwhile. The infraction is obviously someone's viewpoint - however applied - on the subject. So why shouldn't it form part of the discussion?
Although I think questioning them in the context they appear in is worthwhile. The infraction is obviously someone's viewpoint - however applied - on the subject. So why shouldn't it form part of the discussion?
It may never answer the question of why it was given, but it would most certainly be reversed if deemed unjust by webby, and the infractor dealt with accordingly.
16 October 2008, 03:19 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 October 2008, 03:29 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It probably should, and I'd be interested as to what was so wrong in what he said. The fact is though, on this forum, the rule of dealing with infractions, is not to turn the thread into a discussion of them, but to go to policy and question it, if thought to be unjust.
It may never answer the question of why it was given, but it would most certainly be reversed if deemed unjust by webby, and the infractor dealt with accordingly.
It may never answer the question of why it was given, but it would most certainly be reversed if deemed unjust by webby, and the infractor dealt with accordingly.
I'm still new to the site and I'm completely confused by it all
16 October 2008, 03:34 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An old saying comes to mind though:
I don't drink to become more interesting, I drink to make others more interesting.
16 October 2008, 03:42 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When at uni I had access to research papers on the effects of alcohol on the body and how it impaired driving. Below 20mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood there was basically no measurable effect on driving behaviour (hence why Sweden set this as their limit). From 20mg/100ml upwards the effect is measurable. Most of Europe has chosen the degree of impairment regarded as unacceptable equal to 50mg/100ml. The UK and Ireland has about the highest limit of 80mg/100ml.
I would be in favour of lowering the limit to match Europe, that reduction would stop many from taking the risk of having that extra pint (or two). But I would like to see staged penalties with points & fines for >50 <80 and bans for those over 80mg/100ml.
I would be in favour of lowering the limit to match Europe, that reduction would stop many from taking the risk of having that extra pint (or two). But I would like to see staged penalties with points & fines for >50 <80 and bans for those over 80mg/100ml.
J.
17 October 2008, 12:57 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth is with this thread? I have been infracted 4 times for what?!?!
Trolling!?!? Trolling is a case of a newbie posting insulting threads, and winding people up.... My thread is a very serious one
and I am no newbie, who has come on here to make fun of people
The first time appears to be for bringing a thread back up to the top
In which case, anyone who digs up a thread should be infracted.....
The second time appears to be for calling chavs "scum"
Third and fourth time is beyond me, as the fourth time was answering a simple question to another poster....
The only negative things I have said, are that drink driving is to my disliking, whether it be 1 or 10 pints.
And the other being, that chavs are scum....
So from the looks of it, the person who infracted me, is most probably a drink driving chav..... I dont know if these infractions can be removed or something, but I certainly dont deserve them
Trolling!?!? Trolling is a case of a newbie posting insulting threads, and winding people up.... My thread is a very serious one
and I am no newbie, who has come on here to make fun of people The first time appears to be for bringing a thread back up to the top
In which case, anyone who digs up a thread should be infracted.....
The second time appears to be for calling chavs "scum"
Third and fourth time is beyond me, as the fourth time was answering a simple question to another poster....
The only negative things I have said, are that drink driving is to my disliking, whether it be 1 or 10 pints.
And the other being, that chavs are scum....
So from the looks of it, the person who infracted me, is most probably a drink driving chav..... I dont know if these infractions can be removed or something, but I certainly dont deserve them
17 October 2008, 01:28 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would lowering the limit to zero achieve? I would be interested to see any hard data on the number of people with alcohol levels up to but below the current limit that are involved in accidents caused by any inability. The horrific accidents are still caused by people who are rat arsed and still drive. Having the limit set to zero would not have any impact on those people. If you drink but dont drive you wouldnt know when you were clear to drive at zero.