Random breath tests - Christmas campain

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Sheridan:
the majority of pedestrians killed/injured are drunks who step in front of cars. Other than banning alcohol completely, one wonders what can be done about this.

---

I say let's ban alcohol and driving completely.
The present system of allowing "a few jars" is insane. Steve's calculations above are unhelpful because nobody can reliably predict their response to or metabolism of alcohol, and the legal limit still allows people to drive while impaired.
More important than the Law is societal attitude. If we all shun and despise everyone who has ANY drink when planning to drive, this would have more effect. When I hear prats at parties saying " well just one more, because I'm driving" I want to kick them.
If you have any alcohol and then drive, you are selfishly risking others for the sake of your pathetic drink.

[This message was edited by Rockingdoc on Mon 13 December 2004 at 9:10.]

Interesting – I mean that random testing isn't legal? We've had random tests with alcometers for as long as I know - been pulled over myself many a times - and never has it come to my mind that there'd be something wrong with that. And never have I read or heard public discussion stating it too intrusive. Following individual cars in trafic or surveilling car parks is not efficient. Drunk driving is a serious problem - here at least - and random testing is fine by me. And no, they don't take place during rush hours - police are public servants - not ***holes wanting to piss everyone off as much as legally possible...

- - - - -

"the recognition of facts is the beginning of all wisdom."

- J. K. Paasikivi -

The problem with alcohol limits is that too many assumptions are built in. You just can’t predict alcohol levels for a given intake from one person to another and you can’t know the central effects a given amount of alcohol will have on different individuals. Maths won’t do it. Human physiology is much more complicated. So as things stand we have a mandate to drive while pissed, even if we’re below an arbitrary level. The best course of action is to not drink and drive. I don’t drink at all, so it’s quite likely that even the smallest alcohol intake would make me a very dangerous driver – though possibly a perfectly legal one. I just wouldn’t want to go there in the first place. It’s the only way of knowing for sure.

Cheers

Harry

After forgeting everything one has been taught
education is what remains, this thread, hasn't learnt anything, innit.

Fritz Von Nosuprisetherethen

Alcoholics have a low resistance to driving.

Nime

We are having our parents over for Christmas Day. I will collect them and my wife will take them home. She is tee-total and I will be able to have a couple of glasses of wine and a few decent malts. Our folks should also be able to relax knowing that there will be transport home provided.

Why take a chance ?

I want the alcohol limits to remain as they are - for one very simple reason:

Whilst I'd NEVER drive after just one beer, I may have to drive sometime the next day. I do a bit of calculation of my unit intake and hours that have elapsed since my last drink. I ALWAYS aim to be totally clear before I get behind the wheel, and not just below the limit.

However, I regard the limit as a buffer zone just in case I've made a little miscalculation, or my metabolism hasn't quite met my expectations.

I'd never willingly, or knowingly drive when under the influence of alcohol, but losing my livelihood on account of just a detectable trace of alcohol in my bloodstream some 18 hours after finishing my last drink on my night off, would be unduly harsh.

If you disagree with my case - given the extra burdon of responsibilty I may have to shoulder being a "professional driver" and all that, just think of others with a family to feed, who've taken all the steps to ensure that they are morally and legally fit to drive (they took a taxi home the night before etc.) and they've made a miscalculation that leaves a slight trace of alcohol (the equivalent of two or three units for example) and tell me if you think that losing their license for 12 months is fair and just, if it results in them losing their source of income.

I say NO to zero tolerance for this reason only.

However, if someone has had just one pint in a pub before getting straight behind the wheel of a car, then they should face the wrath of the almighty...

Life is for living, and due compromises need to be left firmly in place.

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steve Toy on Tue 14 December 2004 at 2:12.]

Steven

The laws should be tougher for paid professionals such as taxi and lorry drivers etc.

The public are entitled to expect theses groups to be totally sober without any trace of alcohol in their system what so ever. They are on the road in charge of passengers or large vehicles for many hours a day

If they are caught then, no hesitation.........removal of their licience for 3 years.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nime:
Alcoholics have a low resistance to driving.

Nime

---

This isn't about alcoholism, it is about those who choose to drink and drive.
Alcoholism is a separate issue, which I am happy to discuss.

Maybe you can help me here Doc...

When I run wine courses, sometimes one of the things than comes up is the whole health and (red) wine thing. A statistic that I am sure is true is often quoted, which is that teetotallers have a lower life expectancy than those who drink moderately.

I suspect that much can be read into the word "moderately" in a world where more than three bottles a MONTH is considered "heavy".

But aside from that, I was teaching last Saturday and there was a GP in the room and she laughed when I quoted the above and said that it's only because 60% of self-confessed "teetotallers" are actually recovering alcoholics, whose damage, so-to-speak, has already been done.

Which rather peed on the firework, although everyone laughed.

To lurch back topic-wards...
I drink professionally (someone has to) but I never drive afterwards. It is estimated that as few as twenty-five wine samples wholly spat out still puts you over the limit, despite feeling completely sober. I do not know anyone in the booze trade who drinks and drives any more, it is now professional suicide, a good thing.


Rod

Peter Cook was once pulled over on the M4 by someone known to me in years past,
he was told in no uncertain terms (once being recognised) that he was not only
driving his xj6 rather fast, but that he was also swerving all over the place
like a bloody madman. The great man's reply resembled, "Of course I am you cunt,
I've just drunk nearly two bottles of whisky, and I'm obviously as pissed as a
fart" .The rest is history.


Fritz Von Steverespectmatebutidon'tsubscribetoyourpointofview


I drive a Tucker personally, or rather my chauffeur does, innit !!!

Going by the above logic of some, I take it that when/if a senior surgeon had to carry out life-threatening brain surgery for example on a loved one, you wouldn't mind if he she had had a little snorter or two up front ?

Me Me Me Me I I I I I ME ME ME� MOIR:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rodwsmith:
I was teaching last Saturday and there was a GP in the room and she laughed when I quoted the above and said that it's only because 60% of self-confessed "teetotallers" are actually recovering alcoholics, whose damage, so-to-speak, has already been done.

Rod

---

Correct. Complete abstinence from alcohol is not normal in our society, so abstainers are already a select population. There may be several reasons for abstinnce, but many of them are previous illness, including alcoholism. This group is therefore at higher risk of death.

However, evidence suggests it is still possible that one unit of red wine daily could be beneficial for men only. But no-one outside a clinical trial actually drinks one unit of red wine every day. They either drink more, which is worse than abstaining, or less which shows no benefit.

The point is that drinking ANY alcohol before driving (including the night before) greatly increases your and others' risk of death.

quote:

---

Complete abstinence from alcohol is not normal in our society

---

Blimey I'm not normal.

But I suppose I am one of the 60% of recovering alcoholics (among other things...), but the truth is I actually don't particularly like alcohol (a strange admission for a bloke who 10 years ago had 4 or 5 pints every night among other things) - it doesn't relax me, makes me restless and gives me sleepless nights even after just one beer. If I'm honest I feel that I don't like the way I think whilst I'm drinking...

(No alocohol units at all this year and two glasses of wine last year)

My logic tells me that if I can avoid some (not all) of the not so good feelings I get from drinking alcohol by not drinking alcohol, then I will most definitely live longer....

This is an entirely personal thing - if people want to drink that's fine, but I don't think it necessarily prolongs your life.....

As is always the case when this subject arises (generally in society) a greast denial takes place and I don't mean the classic dfrinking term, I mean the drink-driving term, excuses, reasons, self-justificatoion, on and on and on, avoiding the issue (we all do it) it's very SAD really, innit.


Fritz Von Wellthat'sallrightthen

I am reminded of two sayings -

- You are drinking too much when you drink more than your doctor

- Doctors drink because they know how awful decrepit old age is

Derek

<< >>

OK done some legal digging today whilst at work and have confirmed the following:

The police can stop you to ask you if you have been drinking - they just can't stop you and then breath test you without any suspicion - I have covered when they can breath test you elsewhere...

Also don't forget that just because you pass a breath test under section 5 of the road traffic act 1988, does not mean you could not be prosecuted for driving whilst unfit thru drink (section 4 of the same act).

An example of this would be someone who never drinks has a couple of pints of shandy, and then drives. Because this person never drinks they could pass the breath test, but due to the manner of driving, coupled with their demeanour and the obtaining of a sample be convicted of the latter offence!

this was an informal traffic legislation in put by andy c! LOL

andy c!

Andy c!

You have a PT

Regards,

Steve.

Steve,
you have mail!

regards,

andy c!

quote:

---

Originally posted by andy c:
OK done some legal digging today whilst at work and have confirmed the following:

The police can stop you to ask you if you have been drinking - they just can't stop you and then breath test you without any suspicion - I have covered when they can breath test you elsewhere...

Also don't forget that just because you pass a breath test under section 5 of the road traffic act 1988, does not mean you could not be prosecuted for driving whilst unfit thru drink (section 4 of the same act).

An example of this would be someone who never drinks has a couple of pints of shandy, and then drives. Because this person never drinks they could pass the breath test, but due to the manner of driving, coupled with their demeanour and the obtaining of a sample be convicted of the latter offence!

this was an informal traffic legislation in put by andy c! LOL

andy c!

---

The best way to avoid all this is NOT to drink and drive!

Regards


NB

quote:

---

The best way to avoid all this is NOT to drink and drive!

---

Not drinking and driving doesn't make you immune from being pulled over.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

The best way to avoid all this is NOT to drink and drive!

---

Ah yes, indeed!

But, someone somewhere is going to end up in an A & E dept or worse again this xmas due to some idiot who 'thought he/she was ok'!

andy c!

I, like others on here, don't agree with zero tollerance; apparently, some people show up as positive after eating potatoes!!!!
You could also show positive after washing out your mouth with mouthwash. I think a sensible low limit is the best option. Currently, the UK has a highter limit than, for example, Australia.
However, in Oz, if you're over the limit, I believe I'm right in saying, you lose your licence for 3 months. Here in the UK, again, I believe I'm right in saying it's a minimum 1 year ban...
If any of the above apply, you're lucky.. Lucky to have been banned and not killed someone......

Computers are supposed to work on 1's and 0's - in other words "Yes" or "No" - why does mine frequently say "Maybe"?......

.... and I still maintain the scum of the road (ie chavs, neds etc.) don't exceed alcohol limits yet break more traffic regulations and cause more danger on the road than an entire Naim Forum Party would ...........

quote:

---

However, in Oz, if you're over the limit, I believe I'm right in saying, you lose your licence for 3 months.

---

3-6 months is for the bit between the Oz limit and the UK limit on a first offence. More over the limit and you're facing longer bans and possible jail time.

Obviously any sensible law would have an allowance for "eating potatoes" etc. The point is that the current UK policy allowing fools to believe they can drive after "a few jars" is doing damage. The law moves too slowly, just show your contempt for anyone you see drinking any alcohol prior to driving. For example, never invite them to your house again.