puddy Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Wow, "R" plates for 2 years. I know this is mostly to slow down our more inexperienced drivers but it seems a wee bit excessive, especially for those who clock up 1,000 miles a month. But overall, me and Gertie (the car) are happy with today's news. Basically because, as far as I'm aware nothing really changes for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'm somewhat concerned by the decision to reduce the drink driving limit from 80 mils to 50 mils.... It now means you can have barely a pint but it all depends on so many other factors and you could easily fall foul. I must admit to being a bit unsure about limits anway If I start drinking my first pint of Caffreys and 7.30pm and finish my second pint at 11.00pm (it's during a meeting and not a proper drinking session), assuming I metabolise alcohol at the average rate, am I likely to be under the 80 or 50 limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The old limit was *roughly* 2 pints for the *average* man. The new limit will be five eigths of the old limit ... 1.25 pints *ish* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 The old limit was *roughly* 2 pints for the *average* man. But is that when it's all drunk at once? I'll be losing alcohol from my system during the 3.5 hours. I can't remember the rate for the average man though. If you drink one pint of average been when will the background level of alcohol return to normal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 You can't have zero as the limit, because you will invariably have some booze in your blood. Might be from cough medicin, or from mouthwash, or from a glass of wine the night before, but you couldn't realistically set a zero limit. 50's almost low enough to to bother with anything, personally I'd go for 25, but it's a step in the right direction. Regarding speed limits, I'll bet you see the speed limit zones extended after this decision.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Our MHK's really are lacking, aren't they? Do they ever do the right thing? The terrible thing is the image of the Government is so bad, that when you here they make a horrible decision like this you automatically wonder who bribed them. But that couldn't be the case here because I don't see how anybody benefits from this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Drinking to the legal limit is becoming such an inexact science, what with varying degrees of strength of beers, differing measures, different metabolisms, we'd be better off just putting it at zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 If I start drinking my first pint of Caffreys and 7.30pm and finish my second pint at 11.00pm (it's during a meeting and not a proper drinking session), assuming I metabolise alcohol at the average rate, am I likely to be under the 80 or 50 limit? The very fact that you're assuming stuff would make me err on the side of caution. Too many factors can throw it off from the room temperature, how much you've eaten, if you have any sort of cold virus, etc. With the limit at 80 I was confident that I'd never be over if I drank a single pint but now I just wont take that risk. My licence is worth more to me than a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 You can't have zero as the limit, because you will invariably have some booze in your blood. Might be from cough medicin, or from mouthwash, or from a glass of wine the night before, but you couldn't realistically set a zero limit Fair point Slim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Our MHK's really are lacking, aren't they? Do they ever do the right thing? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shimmin was dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't. How ofter do we hear that the MHKs are elected by the public to do as the public demand? Despite me opposing Mr Shimmins wish to bring in the speed limit, I do think that if he believed that he was acting in the best interest of the Manx people, then he should have stuck to his guns and done it. I am of the belief that MHKs should be of a strong enough character to stand up and govern. I sincerly hope that we will see a clamp down on errant driving standards (even though there is no excuse for letting things become as bad as they are) otherwise the whole exercise will have been a waste of time and money. I see in the paper confirmation that speed cameras *will* start appearing next year. A big mistake IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I see in the paper confirmation that speed cameras *will* start appearing next year. A big mistake IMO. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why do you think that's a mistake? I'll probably moan about them if I get caught out (not that I make a habit out of speeding, but sometimes you don't realise you're doing 40 in a 30 zone), but I don't see how there can be an argument against them on paper. Apart from Big Brother and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 There are many people of the opinion that the only thing speed cameras do is increase revenue from fines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Despite me opposing Mr Shimmins wish to bring in the speed limit, I do think that if he believed that he was acting in the best interest of the Manx people, then he should have stuck to his guns and done it. I am of the belief that MHKs should be of a strong enough character to stand up and govern. Hmm, well if that was all they cared about they would ban drinking, smoking, fatty foods, fireworks, cars, motorcycles, speedboats, jet skis, sky-gliding, climbing, cycling over 10 mph....in fact almost anything that is fun. Fine if you believe government should legislate in our "best interests" without taking on board the will of the people, quality of life or anything else, but that is far from my own beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 There are many people of the opinion that the only thing speed cameras do is increase revenue from fines. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You say that as if it is a bad thing? Look, the Government have caved into the lunatic fringe, and that isn't good enough for them they wish to escape the law when they refuse to abide by the meagre speed limits that are in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Biffo Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Black and white Declan. That's all you ever see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.