Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News5 mins ago
What Is The Best Way Of Dealing With This Problem?
47 Answers
http://
It's that time of yer again and plod will be ramping up (quite rightly) to nab those drink driving.
Now if you go out to the pub and drive home you clearly should expect everything to be thrown at you, but just how should we deal with those who are caught often many hours and a good sleep later? How are people to know when they are safe?
Should we introduce a mandatory carrying of a breath analyser ? Perhaps vehicles should not start if the driver cannot pass a breath test?
anyone got any good ideas, as I am not convinced just prosecuting people is the answer to this problem?
It's that time of yer again and plod will be ramping up (quite rightly) to nab those drink driving.
Now if you go out to the pub and drive home you clearly should expect everything to be thrown at you, but just how should we deal with those who are caught often many hours and a good sleep later? How are people to know when they are safe?
Should we introduce a mandatory carrying of a breath analyser ? Perhaps vehicles should not start if the driver cannot pass a breath test?
anyone got any good ideas, as I am not convinced just prosecuting people is the answer to this problem?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have always been mystified by society's approach to drink-driving. Even a previous government tv campaign (Stay Low) endorsed the perception that the trick is to play accident roulette by trying to assess what the legal limit is, and staying below it.
Since alcohol impairment depends on a load of variables -age, weight, stress levels, recent food intake, and so on, surely it would be better to simply ban for life anyone who drinks and drives.
It is not - contrary to cultural perception - essential to have alcohol in order to enjoy a social occasion, and if everyone was treated the same way, then society would adapt pretty quickly to the new simple rule, which would stop alcohol-related road deaths over night.
If you wish to drive your car, then don't drink alcohol up to twenty-four hours before you wish to drive - that's the rule.
Of course, it will never happen.
No government would ever be re-elected on this platform, any more than banning smoking advertising - as the Tories have so eloquently proven recently.
Since alcohol impairment depends on a load of variables -age, weight, stress levels, recent food intake, and so on, surely it would be better to simply ban for life anyone who drinks and drives.
It is not - contrary to cultural perception - essential to have alcohol in order to enjoy a social occasion, and if everyone was treated the same way, then society would adapt pretty quickly to the new simple rule, which would stop alcohol-related road deaths over night.
If you wish to drive your car, then don't drink alcohol up to twenty-four hours before you wish to drive - that's the rule.
Of course, it will never happen.
No government would ever be re-elected on this platform, any more than banning smoking advertising - as the Tories have so eloquently proven recently.
I think it would be helpful for the driver to actually know if he's over the limit before getting behind the wheel, I'm sure responsible drivers would anyway. At least then they have the choice. Perhaps cars should be kitted out with means of testing and if over the limit the car wouldn't start. That's IF that would be technically possible of course.
I recall seeing something once (may have been Tomorrow's World, not sure) where a device fitted to the car meant that the driver had to breathalyse themselves prior to driving.
If they were over, an immobilser for the vehicle remained active until they passed.
It'll be many years before we have anything similar, if ever.
If they were over, an immobilser for the vehicle remained active until they passed.
It'll be many years before we have anything similar, if ever.
I can't really see the problem here. Surely the sooner that drunk-drivers are banned and off the road, the better. Less drivers to kill and maim innocent people...what's not to like ?
Anyway, breath analyzers are easily obtainable these days, for those that aren't sure. If in doubt, leave the car at home ( or the Pub )
Anyway, breath analyzers are easily obtainable these days, for those that aren't sure. If in doubt, leave the car at home ( or the Pub )
ummmmm....If you read my post, you will see that have addressed that point in the second paragraph. I have no time whatsoever for people whinging on after they have been caught drink-driving. Its up to every driver to make sure that they are fit to drive.
These items from ebay are cheap and portable :::
http://
These items from ebay are cheap and portable :::
http://
I am amused by andy hughes:
"Since alcohol impairment depends on a load of variables -age, weight, stress levels, recent food intake, and so on, surely it would be better to simply ban for life anyone who drinks and drives. "
right so for DD you go with the 1 strike and out but for almost every other crime it's 100+ strikes and still not out, don't BS I've read your threads on burglary!
Anyway, back to DD, we should lower the DD limit to trace only, then there is no ambiguity, then apply the law as it is.
I know a guy who drinks 4-5 pints of stella every day and drives home, been breathalysed many times and passed, tell you why? because the limit is ridiculously high, you have to be rat ar5ed to fail and to fail the next day is almost impossible. What most people forget is that it's 1 unit per hour dissipatuion + the last one doesn't register for 20 minutes. QED drink 5 pints in 3 hours you've actually had 2.5, passable.
"Since alcohol impairment depends on a load of variables -age, weight, stress levels, recent food intake, and so on, surely it would be better to simply ban for life anyone who drinks and drives. "
right so for DD you go with the 1 strike and out but for almost every other crime it's 100+ strikes and still not out, don't BS I've read your threads on burglary!
Anyway, back to DD, we should lower the DD limit to trace only, then there is no ambiguity, then apply the law as it is.
I know a guy who drinks 4-5 pints of stella every day and drives home, been breathalysed many times and passed, tell you why? because the limit is ridiculously high, you have to be rat ar5ed to fail and to fail the next day is almost impossible. What most people forget is that it's 1 unit per hour dissipatuion + the last one doesn't register for 20 minutes. QED drink 5 pints in 3 hours you've actually had 2.5, passable.
TTT...I simply don't believe your last post. Anybody who has 5 pints of Stella will fail very breath test there, on the way home from the Pub, if the test is done within a reasonable time after the last drink. Perhaps you had better query this acquaintance of yours and ask him again....sounds like bravado BS to me.
Can he change water into wine as well ?
Can he change water into wine as well ?
