Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Zero drink drive limit?
http://news.sky.com/s...C_MPs_Report_Suggests
Personally I don't want to get nicked for using mouthwash so I'd go with a trace amount but generally I think it's a good idea. You can currently drink a surprising amount and still be legal which i clearlt wrong.
Personally I don't want to get nicked for using mouthwash so I'd go with a trace amount but generally I think it's a good idea. You can currently drink a surprising amount and still be legal which i clearlt wrong.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. 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 don;t know all the answers Butch - i simply put forward one simple answer for the issue of thousands of dead and injured people on the carnage of our roads -
if you make a decision to drive a car - to take control of a potentially lethal weapon and drive it on public roads, then you are undertaking a responsibility to your fellow man by acting in a responsible and adult manner, as is appropriate for the seriousness of the consequences of impaired driving.
This means that you undertake to abstain from alcohol, because the law advises that any alcohol in your system will lead to a life-time ban from the roads.
You make a simple adult choice - you drink, or you drive, but you can no longer do both.
In the interests of not killing someone by flouting the law, you do not drink alcohol, at all - it is a pleasure you undertake to forgo in order to be able to drive safely and within the law.
It's not all the answers - it's an answer.
I find it impossible to see a valid argument against it - but I am ready to defend my proposal, so feel free ...
if you make a decision to drive a car - to take control of a potentially lethal weapon and drive it on public roads, then you are undertaking a responsibility to your fellow man by acting in a responsible and adult manner, as is appropriate for the seriousness of the consequences of impaired driving.
This means that you undertake to abstain from alcohol, because the law advises that any alcohol in your system will lead to a life-time ban from the roads.
You make a simple adult choice - you drink, or you drive, but you can no longer do both.
In the interests of not killing someone by flouting the law, you do not drink alcohol, at all - it is a pleasure you undertake to forgo in order to be able to drive safely and within the law.
It's not all the answers - it's an answer.
I find it impossible to see a valid argument against it - but I am ready to defend my proposal, so feel free ...
-- answer removed --
0 is not possible. why are those above so adamant, we are mostly agreeing really I just say that you should not be criminalised for trace amount which could be from many sources. Ok I get plastered on Saturday, how long before I can drive, Andy Hughes, it would take about a week, effectively motorists would have to be teetotal, completely impractal. I also believe that the body actually produces small amounts of alcohol. I'd say lower it to 5 from 80 that'd b effectively 0.
-- answer removed --
I disagree that it is unworkable - all it needs os for society to stop thinking that it has to have all its pleasures all the time, no matter what the cost to the lives of others, and simply decide to make a reasonable sacrifice for the greater good.
Simply to gainsay my point does not provide a reasonable argument, it simply decends into you saying "Can't!" and me saying "Can!" and that's not exactly a debate is it?
Simply to gainsay my point does not provide a reasonable argument, it simply decends into you saying "Can't!" and me saying "Can!" and that's not exactly a debate is it?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Butch - I am simply putting forward an argument, with which you are perfectly entitled to disagree, but to insult me does not deplete the reason of what i amn suggesting.
As you will now, if you have read my previous answers, i am teetotal, but i have absolutely nothing against anyone who drinks alcohol - only people who drink and drive.
I'm not a morris dancer either, but if people wish to spend their free time doing that, fine - not indulging in something does not make you automatically against it.
Dismissing ttfn in a similar manner suggests that you are the one taking the moral high ground here - that was a perfectly reasonable strand to the argument, so if you can't argue cogently, at least leave out the dismissals.
As you will now, if you have read my previous answers, i am teetotal, but i have absolutely nothing against anyone who drinks alcohol - only people who drink and drive.
I'm not a morris dancer either, but if people wish to spend their free time doing that, fine - not indulging in something does not make you automatically against it.
Dismissing ttfn in a similar manner suggests that you are the one taking the moral high ground here - that was a perfectly reasonable strand to the argument, so if you can't argue cogently, at least leave out the dismissals.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
