Annual Anti-Drink/Drug Drive Campaign

[Lightening McQueen]

For what it’s worth, spotting the local sites on the videos drew my attention to them and got me to watch them to see where and who (if anyone) I recognised, rather than just dismissing them as another campaign.so I think that got the message across. Good effort.

[Barlow]

2 hours ago, Annoymouse said:

I always find the reports quite interesting, last week there was one that was 3 times over the limit and told officers they had only had 3 pints, so by that logic even if they’d have had one pint they would be over.

When someone has been caught after drinking in a pub it would be great to go back over the CCTV and see exactly how much they were drinking.

 

And double their sentence for telling porkies to the court.

Incidentally, and relevantly, this is akin to how much alcohol people claim to generally drink. Surveys asking people on their alcohol consumption compared to the known alcohol sales duty, and it suggests that many millions of gallons of alcohol must be bought and just poured down the sink. Glug, glug, glug.

People lie with alcohol. They go out for one with the office, and have two and more. It's a mighty powerful drug. 

[quilp]

But acceptable, yes? 

[Andy Onchan]

16 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Yes because no other of us have acted unwisely many years ago. 

“ To err is human, to forgive divine”

I which case, I forgive him.

Except..... I do worry about his propensity to delve into his dressing up box far too often and go on one of his cross-dressing episodes.

[WTF]

2 hours ago, Barlow said:

And double their sentence for telling porkies to the court.

Incidentally, and relevantly, this is akin to how much alcohol people claim to generally drink. Surveys asking people on their alcohol consumption compared to the known alcohol sales duty, and it suggests that many millions of gallons of alcohol must be bought and just poured down the sink. Glug, glug, glug.

People lie with alcohol. They go out for one with the office, and have two and more. It's a mighty powerful drug. 

people can never remember what they did or didn't do and who hit who when they've had a few drinks , but they can always remember they only had a couple of drinks.

[monasqueen]

Edited December 6, 2021 by monasqueen

[Barlow]

6 hours ago, Roxanne said:

Very acceptable. 

 I have some concerns around some blogs and groups called things like ‘Mummy needs a Vodka’ and, ‘Is it time for Mummy’s Wine? 

We’re now being gently coerced into believing that looking after a baby or a child is so taxing that alcohol is the only respite. 

What happened to taking a walk or yoga? 

Listen to some of the BBC Radio 2 (women) DJs and they often have a joke about having a "cheeky prosecco" etc. Lisa Tarbuck most often but there are others. It seems to encourage and normalise drinking at home listening to the radio, and makes it just a bit of fun. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Barlow

[P.K.]

5 hours ago, Roxanne said:

We’re now being gently coerced into believing that looking after a baby or a child is so taxing that alcohol is the only respite. 

What happened to taking a walk or yoga with a child in a buggy.

Fixed!

Edited December 6, 2021 by P.K.

[hampsterkahn]

In terms of accident prevention, the setting of blood alcohol at 80mg/100ml   is a bit of a compromise:

It was set a long time ago, based on the evidence that for what was called an “average drinker” and an “average driver,the risk of having an accident was seen to rise  very sharply above 80g100ml.( see graph  variation in accident risk, Road Safety,  National Audit Office p.12 June 1988)

For an inexperienced driver/young / infrequent drinker,  the risk is higher at a level  considerably lower than 80mg.For the older / experienced driver/ experienced drinker the accident risk is somewhat lower, but still rises  very sharply after 100mg/100ml.

There are “BAC calculators “ in which you can input your weight/ gender/  time since last drink etc and arrive at a rough idea where you might be in terms of your blood alcohol level but for most of us, the risk of an accident, being arrested, the  serious inconvenience of losing your licence -and the the shame of being shown up for doing something dangerous and damn stupid, is sufficient to adopt a a zero  drink and drive approach.

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by hampsterkahn

[wrighty]

1 hour ago, hampsterkahn said:

In terms of accident prevention, the setting of blood alcohol at 80mg/100ml   is a bit of a compromise:

It was set a long time ago, based on the evidence that for what was called an “average drinker” and an “average driver,the risk of having an accident was seen to rise  very sharply above 80g100ml.( see graph  variation in accident risk, Road Safety,  National Audit Office p.12 June 1988)

For an inexperienced driver/young / infrequent drinker,  the risk is higher at a level  considerably lower than 80mg.For the older / experienced driver/ experienced drinker the accident risk is somewhat lower, but still rises  very sharply after 100mg/100ml.

There are “BAC calculators “ in which you can input your weight/ gender/  time since last drink etc and arrive at a rough idea where you might be in terms of your blood alcohol level but for most of us, the risk of an accident, being arrested, the  serious inconvenience of losing your licence -and the the shame of being shown up for doing something dangerous and damn stupid, is sufficient to adopt a a zero  drink and drive approach.

 

I’ve always thought that having a limit is a bad idea - it will encourage people to test it. Better to have such a low limit (it can’t be zero, because various natural items such as bananas, orange juice etc have a bit of alcohol in them) that even a single drink would put you over. Alternatively, scrap limits altogether and do reaction tests. I reckon I could drive better after a few pints (not that I do) than some of the people (usually elderly, sorry to be ageist) who are legitimately on the road but don’t seem to have any spatial awareness and can’t cope with Quarterbridge. 

[quilp]

Yeah, sobriety testing. Reaction-time, perceived risk, etc. Shouldn't be too hard to put a bit of software together to perform the test.

[hampsterkahn]

A few of the people who are stopped are not caught because ‘tis the season to drink more,  they drink a huge amount  every day and night throughout the year.They are alcoholics.Because of increased surveillance they get noticed and  stopped.

Little in the way of publicity , campaigns or  deterrents  will alter their behaviour.Even if threatened with summary execution at the roadside if caught, they would still continue.

Edited December 6, 2021 by hampsterkahn

[AcousticallyChallenged]

55 minutes ago, quilp said:

Yeah, sobriety testing. Reaction-time, perceived risk, etc. Shouldn't be too hard to put a bit of software together to perform the test.

Is this what you had in mind?

[Derek Flint]

12 hours ago, Annoymouse said:

I always find the reports quite interesting, last week there was one that was 3 times over the limit and told officers they had only had 3 pints, so by that logic even if they’d have had one pint they would be over.

When someone has been caught after drinking in a pub it would be great to go back over the CCTV and see exactly how much they were drinking.

 

Trust me. They had more.

[Annoymouse]

32 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Trust me. They had more.

Well they only had 3 pints in the pub, they didn’t say what they drank at home before leaving!