cyclops2 Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Just read in my paper today that MP's are discussing reducing limits from 80mg per 100 mlitres to 20 or even zero. I do not condone drink driving and would not drive the same day as having a drink. However I do enjoy having a drink and would like to drive the next day. I remember working in Norway in the early 80's and being told not to drink the day before driving. MP's who are chauffeur driven dont have this problem. Neither do Police Chiefs. Another question if you are wild camping and settle down for the night with a wee half are you liable to be done for drink driving Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Momma Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 The problem is not the levels of tolerance but the punishment that Offenders get. Anyone who drinks over the legal limit and drives a car which then is involved in an accident causing the death of another person should be convicted of 'manslaughter', not given a fine and banned from driving for 3 years >:-( As for your last point on sleeping in your van after having a tipple, this topic has been widely discussed/debated on this forum previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Big Momma - 2010-12-02 6:39 PM The problem is not the levels of tolerance but the punishment that Offenders get. Anyone who drinks over the legal limit and drives a car which then is involved in an accident causing the death of another person should be convicted of 'manslaughter', not given a fine and banned from driving for 3 years >:-( QUOTE] Nooooooo.........they should be dragged screaming by the hair to a place of public execution. Kill em all! ...let GOD sort em out! :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scramblers Posted December 2, 2010 Share Posted December 2, 2010 Big Momma is right, its not the law that's wrong but the level of punishment. A friend of mine moved to America and his daughter married an American. One Christmas her husband had a few drinks, crashed his car and killed a pedestrian. Found quilty of second degree murder (manslaughter) and sentenced to 15 - 30 years. I'm not a fan of America but with regards to drink driving they have it right - you are in control of a lethal weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclops2 Posted December 3, 2010 Author Share Posted December 3, 2010 Am I missing something here? I started a thread to suggest that reducing the drink drive limit to 50mg per 100ml could mean that we wouldn't be able to have a glass of wine the night before driving. My thread appears to have been hijacked by people who want drunk drivers hung drawn and quartered. I stated that I did not drink and drive and did not condone it. Reducing the limit is likely to turn people whose faculties are not impaired into criminals Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 I think you need to chill and have a drink...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike P Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 Hi Cyclops I don't think you're in any danger with just the odd glass of wine the night before. Having spent the last half century working on the scientific side of the brewing/drinks industry I have taken a great deal of interest in this subject. When the breathalyser laws were first introduced we did lots of trials with a research doctor at Sheffield Royal Infirmary (as it was then) in order to predict the effects of drinks consumption our free trade sales people. The results varied considerably with food consumption and body weight. Generally speaking a healthy male body (the ladies' bodies are abit slower) will metabolise away one unit of alcohol (10ml of neat ethanol) each hour. A 175ml glass of wine at say 12% is 2.1 units so you should be well clear by morning. Obviously this yardstick should not be used if one has a damaged liver of any kind or if you are taking paracetamol on a regular daily dose as this can jnhibit alcohol metabolisation. Hope this helps Mike P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 To be honest reducing the limit to zero would not bother me in the slightest. If you drive simply don't drink. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 But for how long (before driving) - that's the question here. Or are you suggesting that only total abstainers should have driving licences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclops2 Posted December 3, 2010 Author Share Posted December 3, 2010 Thank you Tony thats what the thread was about Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallii Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 It's not the level of alcohol in the blood that's the problem (and I happen to think that the current level is about right) it's the driver. A bad driver is bad whether or not they have 80mg of alchol per 100 ml. If the bad drivers were tackled with the same gusto as drink drivers there would be a lot fewer accidents. You can get away with drug driving and many of us do. Anti-histamines anyone? Cough mxture? Travel sickness pills? Prescription pillls and potions? They are all a sight more potent than 80mg of alcohol. Hallii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 cyclops2 - 2010-12-02 6:24 PM MP's who are chauffeur driven dont have this problem. Just to clarify, do you mean "the MP's who are...", because most MP's are not chauffeur driven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 Tony Jones - 2010-12-03 6:29 PM But for how long (before driving) - that's the question here. Or are you suggesting that only total abstainers should have driving licences? In my opinion as your reply says, if you drive then don't drink, simples. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snailsontour Posted December 3, 2010 Share Posted December 3, 2010 hallii - 2010-12-03 7:47 PM It's not the level of alcohol in the blood that's the problem (and I happen to think that the current level is about right) it's the driver. A bad driver is bad whether or not they have 80mg of alchol per 100 ml. If the bad drivers were tackled with the same gusto as drink drivers there would be a lot fewer accidents. You can get away with drug driving and many of us do. Anti-histamines anyone? Cough mxture? Travel sickness pills? Prescription pillls and potions? They are all a sight more potent than 80mg of alcohol. Hallii Lets add the use of a mobile phone to this. Research shows that talking on a mobile phone whilst driving, regardless of whether it is hands-free or not, is as dangerous or even more dangerous than drink driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric 83 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 dropping a phone or even a drink while driving will not set fire to the vehicle but a "fag" will,smoking is the one thing that DEFINITELY should be banned.Look at the seats in a smokers car and see how many burns are in them!I dont condone drink driving or using a mobile but sometimes i and i think many others have made a mistake and by good luck have escaped the consequences . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
602 Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Hi OT ....but getting near Xmas, so forgive me. The story goes that our Hero had a had a few too many bevs, but congratulared himself on getting home without getting caught. Then there was a knock on the door. Two coppers wanted to look at his car. Gulp! So he opened his garage door, switched on the lights ..... and noticed a blue lamp on the roof of "his" white Triumph 2000. All parties agreed to say no more about the matter. Me? I have half of cooking lager and lime, then go onto coke (liquid type). 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclops2 Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 colin - 2010-12-03 7:59 PM cyclops2 - 2010-12-02 6:24 PM MP's who are chauffeur driven dont have this problem. Just to clarify, do you mean "the MP's who are...", because most MP's are not chauffeur driven. Getting a Taxi is the same thing I would have thought Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 A few years back I was rear ended by a motorbike at a junction, called the police and ambulance, but he wasn't badly hurt.......only his crown jewels 8-) The bit that surprised me was that the police breathalized both of us! We had a bbq the night before, where we had quite a bit to drink, the next day being Sunday, we stopped for lunch at a pub with a couple shandys so when the copper said he was going to breathalize both of us it was a bit of a shock, as it was only an hour after lunch 8-) Fortunatly nothing showed :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 If it makes some of the people who drink heavily and then drive the following day stop, then it can only be a good thing. A couple of my colleagues were quietly getting sozzled one night recently (a Wednesday I think), separately in their own homes, and texting each other as to what they had consumed. One got through a full bottle of wine plus a bit, the other a similar amount. The next morning (8.20 am) they were both at work laughing and giggling about the amount of alcohol they'd drunk and the texts which got less and less understandable - they had both quite happily driven to work knowing full well that they were more than likely still over the limit. I said I could see the funny side of all the daft texts but that it was extremely irresponsible of them both to then drive, pointing out that, quite apart from any injury etc they could have caused to others, if one of them had had an accident and be found to be over the limit, if their texts were then looked at they would probably have had the book thrown at them as they had 'knowingly' done it. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Brown Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Hi The original post related to drink driving. A zero limit is crazy as a reading can be obtained many hours after the 'last' drink. We have to have a buffer within the safety limit. I agree with many of the replies in relation to fags, phones etc but we have to accept that drink driving has become socially unacceptable. I look forward to the day that the use of mobile phones becomes socially unacceptable. I see inexperienced drivers with a phone stuck to their ear and negotiating roundabouts etc with one hand whilst changing gear. (Should have been in a circus) Common sense has to prevail and the people making legislation have to be aware, to ensure that the 'innocent' do not suffer. There are many, including motor home owners/drivers who endeavour not to break the law wherever they are but they would struggle, if not fail completely, should the limit become '0'. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.