Drink Driving

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

Drinking alcohol results in people becoming drunk to varying degrees in different individuals.  Whatever the complex science that lies behind it, no matter how eminent the biochemist explaining might be, there's a clear cause and effect that is known to everyone.



One could claim the the Earth's surface is the by far the commonest cause of fatalities in plane crashes.

[johnofgwent]

Just a thought. Alcohol affects spacial awareness, alcohol affects your ability to judge distance, alcohol affects reactions. Getting old does exactly the same thing, but old people won't be young in the morning and they won't lose their license for being old!!

And that is why the driving licence expires on your 70th birthday  and why I hold with particular contemptbthe 3ase by which you can self declare getting it back.



Of course, when I applied for it at the age of 15 and a half we had a government department in charge nitcan agency hell bent on making money from it as a cash cow

[Wiggles]

Well very soon you may get your wish but as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.



I suspect it will soon be possible to equip cars so that you have to pass a test of reactions and alertness before the engine will start.  Being overtired will also have a similar effect to alcohol.



Therefore arguably it should be the other way around - if you are impaired for any reason whether it's alcohol, drugs, lack of sleep, sickness, age, whatever, you should be stopped from driving.



Of course it won't be long after that before the car is driving itself anyway - that's when it will then be asked - is it drunk driving if you are the one giving the instructions to the car even if it has no steering wheel!

In many years to come cars will drive themselves, we will be able to drink what we want, and go to sleep in the back seat. Regrettably everyone who posts on this site will be dead, and probably for a number of years. Prior to this happening there will be an intermediate stage, which means drivers will have to sit with their hands on the wheel and be ready to take over just in case something goes wrong. Remember, plains can fly themselves but we still have pilots.

[Javert]

Well very soon you may get your wish but as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.



I suspect it will soon be possible to equip cars so that you have to pass a test of reactions and alertness before the engine will start.  Being overtired will also have a similar effect to alcohol.



Therefore arguably it should be the other way around - if you are impaired for any reason whether it's alcohol, drugs, lack of sleep, sickness, age, whatever, you should be stopped from driving.



Of course it won't be long after that before the car is driving itself anyway - that's when it will then be asked - is it drunk driving if you are the one giving the instructions to the car even if it has no steering wheel!

[Wiggles]

Just a thought. Alcohol affects spacial awareness, alcohol affects your ability to judge distance, alcohol affects reactions. Getting old does exactly the same thing, but old people won't be young in the morning and they won't lose their license for being old!!

[johnofgwent]

It's all about money. It was in the news that the few motorists on the road are taking advantage and speeding. The up cry is, "It's dangerous for pedestrians". So the cop cars I've seen hiding behind hedges with radar guns is on a major A road where there are no pavements and people.

Yes, I saw that ACPO T@@@ saying that too, and I did wonder at the time how many pedestrians were walking down the M6 ...

[Benson]

For reasons I stated earlier I absolutely agree.



Prior to the 1964 Road Traffic Act the 1815 highways act definition of impairment actually measured impairment, however imperfectly.



We do live in a world where the lawmakers have seen fit to decree that a conveniently measurable value serves as the definition of legal fitness or otherwise to sit behind the wheel.



I think it is utterly preposterous.



But I think it preposterous that a tax man be allowed to tax an unmarried couple as if man and wife, and Tony blair brought that about   ...



But to be fair I have never seen a newspaper report of a person arrested following an incident having a bloid alcohol level of 81. Most such are more like 381.

It's all about money. It was in the news that the few motorists on the road are taking advantage and speeding. The up cry is, "It's dangerous for pedestrians". So the cop cars I've seen hiding behind hedges with radar guns is on a major A road where there are no pavements and people.

[johnofgwent]

The Wind is measured by the Beaufort Scale, earthquakes by the Richter Scale, mineral hardness be the Mohs Scale.



So imagine there's a scale for driving ability, with 1 being really bad and 10 being perfect. This scale includes reaction time.



You have two people. Mavis is 79 and legally, allowed to drive. After testing, Mavis is a 5 on the scale. Dave is 33 and is a 9 on the scale. He's had a couple of beers and it's affected his driving so he's now a 6.



Dave passes Mavis on the road and gets pulled over by the cops. Dave is breathalysed and fails. Mavis drives on by.



So Dave is prosecuted for being over the limit and assumed his driving is impaired that makes him dangerous. So he's not being prosecuted on fact, but, on hypotheticals.

For reasons I stated earlier I absolutely agree.



Prior to the 1964 Road Traffic Act the 1815 highways act definition of impairment actually measured impairment, however imperfectly.



We do live in a world where the lawmakers have seen fit to decree that a conveniently measurable value serves as the definition of legal fitness or otherwise to sit behind the wheel.



I think it is utterly preposterous.



But I think it preposterous that a tax man be allowed to tax an unmarried couple as if man and wife, and Tony blair brought that about   ...



But to be fair I have never seen a newspaper report of a person arrested following an incident having a bloid alcohol level of 81. Most such are more like 381.

[DeppityDawg]

We need more deaths in the UK because we are overpopulated, and the infrastructure can't cope. At this point I have to be careful, because I get banned every time I talk about euthanasia. I find this very odd, but there you go

I bet the TV news cheers you up no end these days, eh? More people dying than you can shake a big fat fecking stick at. Mind you, you're about as compassionate as a bowl of 2 day old vomit, aren't you?

[Benson]

The Wind is measured by the Beaufort Scale, earthquakes by the Richter Scale, mineral hardness be the Mohs Scale.



So imagine there's a scale for driving ability, with 1 being really bad and 10 being perfect. This scale includes reaction time.



You have two people. Mavis is 79 and legally, allowed to drive. After testing, Mavis is a 5 on the scale. Dave is 33 and is a 9 on the scale. He's had a couple of beers and it's affected his driving so he's now a 6.



Dave passes Mavis on the road and gets pulled over by the cops. Dave is breathalysed and fails. Mavis drives on by.



So Dave is prosecuted for being over the limit and assumed his driving is impaired that makes him dangerous. So he's not being prosecuted on fact, but, on hypotheticals.

[Wiggles]

Even during the current lockdown hundreds are getting across the Channel.

Yep, and that gives the army the opportunity of some target practice, but then we would have some snowflake jumping up and down shouting something about human rights.



Anyway, back to the subject in question. It appears to me that anything we enjoy doing has to have a downside. The pub trade was on it's knees before the lock down, and it is likely they will be the last to open up after we are allowed out. My guess is July/August at best. Wouldn't it be a good idea if the government could give them a hand up by doubling the drink driving limit. People could enjoy themselves, and pubs would have increased revenue, it's win win situation

[papasmurf]

 I wonder just how many of those allowed to freely wander in and infect at will in our actual situation would have been able to if we were properly out

Even during the current lockdown hundreds are getting across the Channel.

[johnofgwent]

I actually agree with bits of that. I think there is a massive difference between someone who has had a drink, someone who is over the limit, and someone who is drunk.



I have often asked people the following question, and always had the same answer. would you

(a) be a passenger in a car with a middle aged man who has had three pints of lager

(b) be a passenger in a car with a 17 year old boy wearing a baseball cap

(c)  be a passenger in a car with a doddering 90 year old who self certificates himself to drive



We need more deaths in the UK because we are overpopulated, and the infrastructure can't cope. At this point I have to be careful, because I get banned every time I talk about euthanasia. I find this very odd, but there you go

No to all three unless (a) has just literally necked all three because if he can actually walk to the car, it will take longer than it takes to take me home for the liver to produce any ethanal.



We don't need euthanasia anything like as much as we need termination of uncontrolled immigration. Hopefully when the truth about how easily uncontrolled borders allowed COVID19 to be the euthanasing agent gets out, the problem in a United Kingdom free from European Union Dogma on freedom of movement will end. And it's woprth pointing out if Cameropn or May had actually delivered, we would be in that position and I wonder just how many of those allowed to freely wander in and infect at will in our actual situation would have been able to if we were properly out

[Wiggles]

The current 80 mg limit with more-or-less mandatory disqualification should stay as it is.  But there's the anomaly that someone who tests at 79 mg has technically not committed any offence while someone with 81 gets banned for a year.  So there should be an additional lower limit of 50 mg which should carry 9 penalty points.  



By the way, I'm a firm believer that much more use should be made of disqualification for driving offences in general.



Driving a car on the road is not a basic right, it's a privilege conferred by the authorities on people who meet certain standards.  People who fail to meet those standards should be be deprived of their driving licence in the same way as people with certain medical conditions are.



Anyway, why do we need more deaths in the UK?  And if you really think we do, would your statement apply in the case of your loved ones or yourself? Think before you open your mouth / touch the keyboard.

I actually agree with bits of that. I think there is a massive difference between someone who has had a drink, someone who is over the limit, and someone who is drunk.



I have often asked people the following question, and always had the same answer. would you

(a) be a passenger in a car with a middle aged man who has had three pints of lager

(b) be a passenger in a car with a 17 year old boy wearing a baseball cap

(c)  be a passenger in a car with a doddering 90 year old who self certificates himself to drive



We need more deaths in the UK because we are overpopulated, and the infrastructure can't cope. At this point I have to be careful, because I get banned every time I talk about euthanasia. I find this very odd, but there you go

[papasmurf]

Double post but feel free to reply.

If Wiggles wants more death he should volunteer.