paswt Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 minute ago, woody2 said: do clowns have zips on their pants...... #fakenews I'm told they have pockets , whatever happened to mad uncle Ronnie? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 17 minutes ago, paswt said: I'm told they have pockets , whatever happened to mad uncle Ronnie? to busy ruining france...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 30 minutes ago, woody2 said: thats been like that for the last 30 years..... As long as that eh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck of Atholl Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, woolley said: DoA, I explained what I am getting at in my post 6.53pm yesterday half way down page 4 (do we not have post numbers on MF nowadays?) so I don't want to bloat by quoting that long post again. If you don't get it from that come back to me. In a nutshell it's to do with the way the law is presented to condition everyone that nothing short of total abstinence is acceptable and that even a drink WITHIN the law makes one a pariah. I think that this is taking it too far, that's all. The position of earlier decades was better. The irresponsible "skinful" merchants who are over or massively over the limit are the ones that need stopping. Right so let's be clear there isn't zero tolerance. You can drink as long as you stay under the limit which is the way it has been for about 50 years. I don't agree about the pariah thing for having a drink it is how it always has been...if you are law abiding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, woolley said: Of course I am all for road safety Just putting a pin in this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Bobbie Bobster said: Just putting a pin in this. Since I walk, ride and drive it's hardly surprising I'd be in favour of road safety and against everything that diminishes it, including supposed enhancements that are in reality retrograde. Edited October 13, 2017 by woolley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 minute ago, woolley said: Since I walk, ride and drive it's hardly surprising I'd be in favour of road safety and against everything that diminishes it, including supposed enhancement that are in reality retrograde. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 I was onto it..................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted October 13, 2017 Author Share Posted October 13, 2017 I think at least part of the problem is the huge amount of variation that even a set amount of alcohol has upon different individuals. One person might be ok with one pint or two glasses of wine. Another may start to display impaired judgement and reflexes with the same amount. It's just so much of a lottery that for many, it's not worth taking the risk. And so it effectively becomes zero level and people feel discriminated against? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 32 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: I think at least part of the problem is the huge amount of variation that even a set amount of alcohol has upon different individuals. One person might be ok with one pint or two glasses of wine. Another may start to display impaired judgement and reflexes with the same amount. It's just so much of a lottery that for many, it's not worth taking the risk. And so it effectively becomes zero level and people feel discriminated against? The technical terms for this are pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics. The first refers to the differing effects the same concentration of a drug will have on different individuals, and takes in things such as tolerance. We all know regular drinkers who can seemingly function well on quantities of booze that would literally floor others. It's also the case that the same concentration of alcohol will have a different effect if it's on the way up compared with on the way down, so in the morning you'll be less affected by a given concentration of alcohol in the blood than you were the night before. Pharmacokinetics refers to how a given dose of drug is distributed and metabolized by individuals. An obvious example is that a big man can take more alcohol than a small woman - he metabolises it faster and has a greater volume of distribution in the first place. Some people have enzyme deficiencies that mean they can't process alcohol very quickly such that it stays with them longer. I once did a breathalyzer test the morning after and found zero, whereas my drinking buddy who'd had a similar quantity was way over the limit. There are two logical conclusions that could be drawn from all this. The first is that the limit should be effectively zero - everyone should be as fit to drive as they can be. The second is that we should stop measuring alcohol concentration at all and instead apply a reactions test to find out how much a particular individual in impaired at the time. Both of these approaches have flaws, so we're probably stuck with 50, or 80, or whatever arbitrary blood concentration of alcohol the government of the day determines is the limit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Some people's reactions sober are shocking. And that's before you get on to the dope heads and people drugged up on medication. I don't agree with a zero limit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 minute ago, notwell said: Some people's reactions sober are shocking. And that's before you get on to the dope heads and people drugged up on medication. I don't agree with a zero limit. Unless it's you...on here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, wrighty said: There are two logical conclusions that could be drawn from all this. The first is that the limit should be effectively zero - everyone should be as fit to drive as they can be. Fine. But apply it to everything. Stop them using phones of all types for a start seeing as they are more dangerous on the road than someone under the legal alcohol level. It's the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the societal approach to different risks that bemuses me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Speaking of people who've been drinking 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 This is the Isle of Man where people know the risks. Just like speed, there shouldn't be any limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.