Chinahand Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I'd like to see a bit more data on the actual blood alcohol levels of DUI's, accidents etc to see if lowering the limit would make an actual difference, but the UK/IOM does seem to be bucking an international trend towards lower levels. I'm not in favour of zero alcohol - I think there is little wrong with drinking shandy, or eating liqueurs, but dropping to 0.05% from 0.08% - I think I would be infavour - that AND severer sentencing and publicity - if you drink and drive you could loose your licence, do it again you loose it for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Not sure how old the article is that I was reading, but the following countries already seem to have a zero limit: Estonia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary. So basically any country who holds Mr. Grimsdale in high esteem will not let you drive after a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I think the drink driving laws should be scrapped. They are a red herring. Dangerous driving laws should be beefed up instead to encompass bad driving per se, and result in appropriately severe penalties. There have been no definitive indications that alcohol was to blame for the incident which prompted Mr Moyle's latest comments, and yet there has been no mention of restricting totally unnecessary competition specification vehicles, or speed restriction through more draconian measures. It's lazy to select drinking and driving as a special case - but at least by doing so you can appear to be doing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I think the drink driving laws should be scrapped. They are a red herring. Dangerous driving laws should be beefed up instead to encompass bad driving per se, and result in appropriately severe penalties. There have been no definitive indications that alcohol was to blame for the incident which prompted Mr Moyle's latest comments, and yet there has been no mention of restricting totally unnecessary competition specification vehicles, or speed restriction through more draconian measures. It's lazy to select drinking and driving as a special case - but at least by doing so you can appear to be doing something. Don't you think that will encourage more people to 'chance their arm'. If they feel they can get home without driving dangerously, and let's face it, we all know people who are super human when pist. Then more might drive when drunk? If you beef up the law, what do you include under offences that are not already covered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Sufficiently draconian laws would hopefully already have weeded out the dangerous drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Considering how many people get canned up over here each night/weekend and how many accidents are caused by drink driving then would zero tolerance really achieve anything? There is always going to be a bunch of ignorant selfish people who choose to ignore the law so i dont think changing the goalposts will make a difference. True that there will always be people who flout the law, but the experience of countries who have introduced a zero tolerance approach is that the number of drink-driving related incidents and the number as a proportion of all RTAs is reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradda beast Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I not sure about zero tolerence ? Its bad enough being the des driver on a night at a restaurant somewhere, but If you cant have Beef and ale pie followed by a sherry triffle then your in for a really rubbish night. I love sherry triffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Did I get moderated? I am sure I mentioned hypocrisy in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 some posts set to invisible pending review after a report was received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Limits are one thing, being stopped is another. The really important thing if one is serious about reducing drink driving is to have an effective policing system. Knowing that you have a high probability of being stopped and breathalyzed is the real deterrent that stops drink driving. The Australian police forces are particularly effective in doing this - setting up regular road blocks and bringing along a Booze Bus to do on the spot blood tests. Two years ago when I was back in Melbourne for a few days I went out 5 nights and the booze bus was there in different places on 3 nights. Those sorts of odds make you drink a soft drink if you plan to drive afterwards. The Victoria Police also position police cars down the "escape routes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Limits are one thing, being stopped is another. The really important thing if one is serious about reducing drink driving is to have an effective policing system. Knowing that you have a high probability of being stopped and breathalyzed is the real deterrent that stops drink driving. Quite right. Thinking you are likely to be caught is the real deterrent for all crimes. At one time people could be hanged for stealing a teaspoon, but it didn't stop them because the chance of getting caught was perceived to be small. It's all about risk and reward. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Agreed. A law is only effective if it is effectively enforced and punished. Here, regular police checks and severe penalties for drink driving are attributed alongside the zero limit of reducing alcohol-related RTAs. I still think the zero limit is a good thing, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandwoman Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Zero tolerance would at least let everyone know where they were as opposed to thinking maybe just one or two drinks might be ok to drive home on when actually that may well put you over the limit.. And don't worry- beef and ale pie will be ok to eat as all the alcohol would have evaporated in the cooking. But sherry trifle will be a no-no... How are the authorities going to test cannabis users etc ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 How are the authorities going to test cannabis users etc ? Take 200 people, sit them in a room and alternatively give them a real joint and one that just looks like a joint. Then see which people preferred the real ones and which preferred the fake ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 How are the authorities going to test cannabis users etc ? Take 200 people, sit them in a room and alternatively give them a real joint and one that just looks like a joint. Then see which people preferred the real ones and which preferred the fake ones Bit of a bummer if you get the fake one though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.