HeliX Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Tell that to someone who has had a family member injured by a driver who only had a glass of wine after work. Except you'll probably struggle to find one. You were probably guaranteed to find one hereabouts. I stand by my earler point that life is full of risks and while it is painful when particular risk comes home to you, that does not mean we should bring draconian regulation down on each and every aspect of life. Harking back to another thread, I was shouted down when I raised the point of repeat offenders killing, raping etc. having been released from sentences for similar crimes. In my view they should have been executed or at least spent the rest of their days incarcerated. I consider the release of these offenders a far higher risk to society at large than a person driving WITHIN the current legal limit but that won't stop them being released to do their worst. Yet people get hot under the collar about something like this. When drink driving law came in in the '60s it was needed. It was good law. It still is good law and it does not need changing. The limit is appropriate in the overwhelming majority of cases and that is the test. Is anyone's life really going to be made worse by not being able to have a pint before driving? I doubt it. Is anyone's life going to be made better by drivers having no alcohol in their system when driving? Likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 It's the principle of state interference in every aspect of life except for where it is really needed and in those cases it's just crack on and damn the consequences. In answer to your questions: 1) Very likely, and probably the last nail in the coffin of many licensed premises. 2) In isolation, without other contributory factors (i.e. not being able to see, or not being able to drive even with nil alcohol). Very unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Is anyone's life really going to be made worse by not being able to have a pint before driving? I doubt it. Is anyone's life going to be made better by drivers having no alcohol in their system when driving? Likely. You might just as well have asked: Is anyone's life really going to be made worse by not being able to drive as fast as they want to? Is anyone's life going to be made better by drivers having to adhere to a national speed limit? But, as an opponent of a national speed limit you wouldn't ask them. Even though the answers would be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 It's the principle of state interference in every aspect of life except for where it is really needed and in those cases it's just crack on and damn the consequences. In answer to your questions: 1) Very likely, and probably the last nail in the coffin of many licensed premises. 2) In isolation, without other contributory factors (i.e. not being able to see, or not being able to drive even with nil alcohol). Very unlikely. In what way does not having a pint before driving make your life less good? I very much doubt the drivers who have one drink in a night before going home are the people propping up the licensed premises. The fact is, if you've had enough alcohol for it to make any difference to the quality of your evening, you've had enough to make a difference to the quality of your driving. And not in a good way. Is anyone's life really going to be made worse by not being able to have a pint before driving? I doubt it. Is anyone's life going to be made better by drivers having no alcohol in their system when driving? Likely. You might just as well have asked: Is anyone's life really going to be made worse by not being able to drive as fast as they want to? Is anyone's life going to be made better by drivers having to adhere to a national speed limit? But, as an opponent of a national speed limit you wouldn't ask them. Even though the answers would be the same. This isn't the thread for that discussion, and we've been down the road of pointing out that speed isn't a contributing factor in the majority of accidents over and over and over again. Enough times to know that you're not going to change your mind, so what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 This isn't the thread for that discussion, and we've been down the road of pointing out that speed isn't a contributing factor in the majority of accidents over and over and over again. Enough times to know that you're not going to change your mind, so what's the point? The point is that alcohol consumption isn't a contributory factor in the majority of accidents either. You're tying yourself in knots I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Not sure about you, but I'd rather it wasn't legal for people at roughly 2.5x the risk of a sober person of causing an accident to drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Ooh, a picture. Here's a load more pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 If you want to talk about an NSL then bump one of the many existing threads. Don't shit up this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 If you want to talk about an NSL then bump one of the many existing threads. Don't shit up this one. And that, folks, is what I shall now refer to as doing a mojo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 If you want to talk about an NSL then bump one of the many existing threads. Don't shit up this one. And that, folks, is what I shall now refer to as doing a mojo. Sometimes you post something like this that makes me think you're not actually PL. Because he wasn't this dumb. The post you linked to is a post from a member saying he never wants to read your posts again. I posted asking you to use an appropriate thread for your topic, where I will happily respond to any points you raise. Small difference yeah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Sorry, it was just the foul mouthed dismissal that I was referring to as a mojo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 HeliX: I don't expect to win over any converts because this kind of thinking is now endemic and I know my views are unfashionable. I have watched generations of people grow up accepting of ever increasing nannying from the state. They have been conditioned to expect this and boy, they have not been disappointed. This has not made the country a better place and one day it will all come back and bite very hard. People need to be treated like adults and encouraged to take responsibility for their own actions To answer you specifically: In what way does not having a pint before driving make your life less good? I very much doubt the drivers who have one drink in a night before going home are the people propping up the licensed premises. People like to gather and have a drink after a day at work or perhaps have a meal with friends or family over a glass of wine or a pint. It's a social thing. I see no good reason at all to deny it. Of course, this class of trade is not propping up licensed premises singlehandedly. But anyone who knows business also knows that it takes many swallows to make a summer and licencees can do without anything that makes hard times even harder. The fact is, if you've had enough alcohol for it to make any difference to the quality of your evening, you've had enough to make a difference to the quality of your driving. And not in a good way. I profoundly disagree with that. While I like a drink in good company in the atmosphere of a pleasant hostelry, I certainly don't like the feeling of being even slightly inebriated. It does nothing for me at all, and I can have a good time without an altered mind thank you very much. However, I do appreciate the taste of a quality beer or wine in moderation. I think I speak for a great many people on that. So to paraphrase your above quote, if you have not had enough alcohol to make any difference to the quality of your evening, you've not had enough to make a difference to the quality of your driving. I think the existing limit is about right and a good pragmatic compromise balancing safety with liberty. I believe anything strengthening it is way too far driven by the nannying agenda. I would also say that anyone on a mobile phone, hands free or otherwise is a far greater danger to others than someone within the existing alcohol limit. I would strengthen the law on that, including a ban on hands free and make sure it was enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I certainly agree on the mobile phone point, but I don't think that means we can't do both! Would you support a lower limit, then? The problem isn't the people who just have one drink in an evening (we also agree on that), but that the current rule allows people to chance a couple of drinks, or a few drinks, on a night out. Those people are the problem. Is there a solution to that that doesn't affect the one drink social drinkers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I was hoping I wouldn't have to comment but I guess I'll have to. Feel free to look through my posts and you'll find I very rarely resort to bad language. In this instance TSM is clearly trying to troll me, for whatever reason I don't know, and he has touched a nerve. I have personal experience of a family member being injured by a stupid fool who, on their way home from after work drinks, gambled on the traffic lights and ploughed into my sister's car. The driver claimed she only had a glass of wine but delayed taking her alcohol test for as long as possible. When she eventually took the test she just passed. The police were convinced she only passed because of her delaying tactics but were powerless to do anything about it. So yes, I'm anti drink driving and make no apologies for that. Personally, I cannot see why anyone would take a risk and drive after drinking. Even if you're under the legal limit and have an accident could you live with yourself? Personal choice, but I couldn't. I'm not totally for a zero limit but anyone pushing a relaxing of drink drive limits is a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Mojo: I can understand your feelings. I sympathise with anyone who has suffered in any way from the irresponsibility of others. From what you say, I'll bet that the person involved was much in excess of the limit, so was probably breaking existing law. I can think of many analogies of "not being able to live with yourself" that don't involve alcohol. It's all about judgment and happenstance and I think that fundamentally life is a risk. That's the nature of it and we can't legislate it away. I think we have a workable balance in an imperfect world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.