Yay, we're the drink drive capital of Europe.
Yay, we're the drink drive capital of Europe.
Best at handling cars after a few beers?
Yay, we're the drink drive capital of Europe.
Not strictly correct. If you get caught here then you'll probably get banned with major consequences.
In France, even with a lower limit, if you get caught you'll get 'let off' with a fine and not allowed to drive until you're 'sober' again.
the legal drink drive capital of Europe?
and again, how is it going to be enforced, like speeding out of sight of cameras, red light jumping, making phone calls, texting, passing on blind bends and tailgating.
#whataboutery
It's practice to be tested after being involved in any accident.
learned a new word scotroutes?
Making new laws is great but not providing the tools to enforce them is a waste of time. It's a nice headline but what effect will it have. It's an honest question.
Edit as the second bit didn't come up
Testing after the event doesn't stop the event.
mikewsmith - Member
and again, how is it going to be enforced, like speeding out of sight of cameras, red light jumping, making phone calls, texting, passing on blind bends and tailgating.
You seem to be under some illusion that laws can be enforced universally?
What are you after, checkpoints on every street? 😆
Testing after the event doesn't stop the event.
By the same argument our laws against murder, rape, assault, robbery etc don't work because they only punish people after a crime has already been committed.
Bring on the pre-cogs.
You seem to be under some illusion that laws can be enforced universally?What are you after, checkpoints on every street?
Nope how about an increase in police levels, more traffic officers, a removal of the no stop without reason to allow random testing, at least a basic effort to enforce the current traffic laws. They brought in laws against using phones when there was a law that would have prosecuted for that. Enforcement is more important than making laws.
Sounds expensive.
mikewsmith - Member
You seem to be under some illusion that laws can be enforced universally?
What are you after, checkpoints on every street?Nope how about an increase in police levels, more traffic officers, a removal of the no stop without reason to allow random testing, at least a basic effort to enforce the current traffic laws. They brought in laws against using phones when there was a law that would have prosecuted for that. Enforcement is more important than making laws.
Can we change your name to gestapomike? 😆
I think it's pretty clear from the thread how laws are enforced, they are generally enforced by consensus that they are correct.
You can't legislate against the liberty of the many just to catch a few, that's bloody ridiculous.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/09/the-rise-of-women-drink-drivers ]Will also potentially have a higher effect on women[/url]
You can't legislate against the liberty of the many just to catch a few, that's bloody ridiculous.
of the things I suggested the only one that may infringe the "many" is random breath testing. It would probably turn up a lot of the "only had one" crowd that the change in the law wants to stop - is that not what we are after.
"The Many" are often proven to be unable to make rational decisions and behave as society expects, so why should they not have their liberties checked.
The point as you missed it is that making laws and grabbing headlines (lower drink drive limits, deport terrorists, ban Zero Hours Contracts, stop tax evasion etc) is nothing more than headline grabbing if you don't enforce it.
It already [i]is[/i] enforced. More than 50,000 convictions every year.
It's a very emotive subject, in an ideal world we'd have a 0 limit, also applying to drugs that can effect the ability to drive, including over the counter cold remedies etc.
In addition to France, some Mediterranean countries only issue fines for DD and have much worse road safety records than the UK do.
The fall in the KSi figures aren't due to the DD laws but many other factors, road design, vehicle safety features such as ABS, seat belts and airbags.
mikewsmith - Member
of the things I suggested the only one that may infringe the "many" is random breath testing. It would probably turn up a lot of the "only had one" crowd that the change in the law wants to stop - is that not what we are after.
"The Many" are often proven to be unable to make rational decisions and behave as society expects, so why should they not have their liberties checked.The point as you missed it is that making laws and grabbing headlines (lower drink drive limits, deport terrorists, ban Zero Hours Contracts, stop tax evasion etc) is nothing more than headline grabbing if you don't enforce it.
It's not at all, I think you can clearly see from this thread that it will have a tangible effect on how people behave. The vast majority will change they way the think about a few pints then driving.
That's much more than headline grabbing.
I completely disagree with people having their liberty checked, particularly drivers, and especially without reasonable cause. I don't even drive and I'd consider drivers to be one of the most policed sections of society, the levels of police they deal with is already way beyond societal norms.
they levels of police they deal with is already way beyond societal norms.
Honestly when I started my first motorway commute I would see 2 police cars within 40 miles of each other in both directions, traffic police, policing the traffic. By the time I left the UK a 3 years ago I could go 200 miles without seeing one. Cameras are not enforcement, they are painted yellow and have advertising.
Drivers fall into a category where it is OK to kill and injure with the excuse that it's driving so it's OK. An increase in the reliance on cameras to enforce speed and less police actually stopping people for bad driving is a bad thing. I'm glad to see 50,000 convictions for drink driving but not sure where the next lot will come from. As a priority for road safety challenging bad attitude and poor driving standards would be my priority, though that would require money and effort and raise very little revenue.
a removal of the no stop without reason to allow random testing
Police in England can stop a vehicle for any reason; they can ask to see licence/registration/insurance documents; and they can administer a breath test if they have a reasonable suspicion the driver has been drinking: https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights/overview
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q723.htm
If what you're asking for is something different, I'm not sure if it makes enough of a difference to be worth doing...
I'd consider drivers to be one of the most policed sections of society, the levels of police they deal with is already way beyond societal norms.
I don't remember who said it now but I read an article that suggested the reason why drink drive laws were so controversial upon introduction in the UK was because it criminalized an activity that middle class people often did and brought them into contact with the police for the first time (other than as a complainant), which made them realize quite how beastly they could be...
It'll make no difference whatso ever
It will to me. At the moment, I'll have a beer with a lunch and then drive, or one post night ride and drive home. Not any more I won't.
...... eh ? 🙁I completely disagree with people having their liberty checked, particularly drivers, and especially without reasonable cause.
Roads are a regulated controlled environment, not a free for all, and driving is not a 'right', it is not a 'given'. People need to pass a test, maintain their vehicles and be compliant, That's what the traffic police are there to do, and to make the whole driving experience safer
I sincerely hope it doesn't get copied down here. Best pint ever that one after the ride - often before driving home.
Looks like that will put paid to our usual after work swifty on a Friday 😥
I was breatalysed straight after 2 pints of Pedigree and passed so always used 2 pints as my limit when I drove.
Edit: Phew, just realised this is just the Peoples Republic of Jockistan
I was breatalysed straight after 2 pints of Pedigree and passed so always used 2 pints as my limit when I drove.
If it was right after, your body might not have absorbed all the alcohol at the moment you were tested.
Edit: Phew, just realised this is just the Peoples Republic of Jockistan
I'd be amazed if UKIPland didn't follow suit.
[img] 
[/img]
Looks like that will put paid to our usual after work swifty on a Friday
The shared office where I work has a "Fridge Club" where everyone gets together at the end of a Friday and has a few beers before they all drive home.
😯
[img] 
[/img]
The shared office where I work has a "Fridge Club" where everyone gets together at the end of a Friday and has a few beers before they all drive home.
And my actual point is of those people how many have ever been stopped on the way home? How were they caught, changing the number may stop some from chancing it but it won't stop those who don't think it's a problem.
Something that is in use in parts of Australia to get back in a car after a drink conviction.
[img] 
[/img]
should make it clear there, that I mean beyond what exists. I'm not advocating a free for all on the roads. 😆 I just dont think more police will make people safer.iainc - Member
I completely disagree with people having their liberty checked, particularly drivers, and especially without reasonable cause.
...... eh ?
Roads are a regulated controlled environment, not a free for all, and driving is not a 'right', it is not a 'given'. People need to pass a test, maintain their vehicles and be compliant, That's what the traffic police are there to do, and to make the whole driving experience safer
I just dont think more police will make people safer.
More police and removing more bad drivers might help. Assessing somebody in their late teens for the next 60 years operating a large metal killing machine is a little optimistic.
All smacks to me of the snp falling in line with Europe rather than the rUK.
[quote=mikewsmith] changing the number may stop some from chancing it but it won't stop those who don't think it's a problem.So - it'll improve the current situation but not make it perfect? I'm failing to see the down-side.
[quote=hegdehog ]All smacks to me of the snp falling in line with Europe rather than the rUK.
This SNP?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27383267
Why dont we fit all cars with Interlock (or similar), it would stop drink driving instantly.
As such save money within the NHS, Police time and effort catching people, cost in the courts when a DD has been caught
and most importantly it would stop people getting killed by a drink driver
obviously no one would ever disengage this device.
having been hit by a hit and run, drink driver anything to stop the pain and heart ache the victim and their families go through is for the good of humanity.
Personally I think it's draconian - I don't think drink driving is right, the UK's roads are just too busy these days to allow someone to drive after 2-3 beers like they used to.
But, what difference does a few mil make? Aside from a few weeks before Xmas when the Police like to show a bit of an effort with random stops they're not going to be able to spot someone who's had 80mil per whatever over someone who's had 100mil - no this will only ever be applied in the event of an accident and how on earth are we to know - you hear it all the time - "oh pint of weakish beer and I'm okay" or "had a few glass of wine 9pm last night, I'll be okay by 10am" but really you've got no idea until the Police make you blow and hey presto - even though the alcohol is no longer effecting you and you weren't to blame causing the 5mph 'fender bender' you've been caught up in you're licence is gone and whatever else with it.
I'm not arguing against changing the limit just pointing out that the low level of traffic enforcement on UK roads is a joke. It allows a lot of really dangerous things to go unchecked. The entire attitude to driving needs changing. The Right/privilege issue needs addressing and the the punishments to drivers flouting the rules need tightening up.
mikewsmith - Member
I just dont think more police will make people safer.More police and removing more bad drivers might help. Assessing somebody in their late teens for the next 60 years operating a large metal killing machine is a little optimistic.
Maybe, but I doubt it, personally I don't think more police making up seatbelt charges will help all that much, bar create more distrust of the police.
police quotas are a terrible way to run a police service. (it's one thing(among many things) I massively disagree with the SNP on, and any police I've spoken to entirely agree with me.)
[quote=P-Jay ]
But, what difference does a few mil make?
Well, reading the posts prior to this one, it would appear that a few of the contributors are already going to change their habits.
And my actual point is of those people how many have ever been stopped on the way home? How were they caught, changing the number may stop some from chancing it but it won't stop those who don't think it's a problem.
I think if the limit was reduced here (England) then I think [i]some[/i] of those people might reconsider their position.
Plus the company itself might realise that plying clients with an illegal level of drink when you know that they drive home isn't the most sensible course of action.
Driving is dangerous, you aren't going to legislate that to no danger.mikewsmith - Member
It allows a lot of really dangerous things to go unchecked.
Personally I think it's draconian...But, what difference does a few mil make?
Well, which is it?
konabunny - MemberIf it was right after, your body might not have absorbed all the alcohol at the moment you were tested.
If it was right after, he may have blown over due to the remnants of alcohol in the mouth, which is why when breathalysed the police should ensure you haven't had a drink in the last fifteen minutes as it can give a falsely high reading.
In reality, anyone who says they lost their licence after drinking two pints is a ****ing liar.
Maybe, but doubt, personally I don't think more police making up seatbelt charges will help all that much, bar create more distrust of the police.
police quotas are a terrible way to run a police service. (it's one thing I massively disagree with the SNP on, and any police I've spoken to entirely agree with me.)
They could hit any quota on the M6 of a morning or the M60/62
Babies carried on laps - attempted murder
Applying makeup while driving - dangerous driving
reading the paper/meeting notes - dangerous driving
eating bowl of cereal - dangerous driving
tailgating - dangerous driving
overtaking on blind bends - dangerous driving
Whatever it is I could have filled any quota in a couple of hours, there is no need to make it up.
