Reduction in Drink Drive Limit

[northernladuk]

I don't know.

I seem to remember ages ago about there being a furor by the Human Rights people about being stopped for no apparant reason and there had to be a reasonable suspicion to stop you or something daft.

Would be ironic if the do gooders have to implement a lower DD level to get around other do gooders that won't allow police to stop and enforce the old one huh.

[Churchill]

I seem to remember ages ago about there being a furor by the Human Rights people about being stopped for no apparant reason and there had to be a reasonable suspicion to stop you or something daft.

Would be ironic if the do gooders have to implement a lower DD level to get around other do gooders that won't allow police to stop and enforce the old one huh.

It's not the lowering of the DD level, but the sneaky way that random testing has to be brought in on the back of this.

They do random testing in France. By random I mean anyone driving out of Reims at 03:00

[Lockhouse]

I drink and drive. I live in the country and if we go out to the pub for dinner then I will have a pint. Just the one. If they lower the limit I won't take the risk, so actually I just won't go. It may be one pint but it's an important one.

[Not So Wise]

It's these figures they come up with; 168 lives saved in a year, or 303 after five years how can they employ such levels of exactitude? Ok, if we really want to save lives, why not cut the rate to zero? Why not ban anyone from getting behind the wheel who is not aged 25-70?

They cannot, the figures are 100% made up.

Only way they could even approximately estimate how many lives would be saved is if nobody ever died in traffic accidents where alcohol was not involved, which is obviously not the case

Basically they looked at traffic accidents where someone died, checked how many had alcohol levels between 51mg and 80mg and decided all these accidents were alcohol related and from there tried to figure out how many would lower their consumption to obey the new laws.

Correct math, wrong logic

Get really annoyed whenever I see these study’s that give figures that are based on what is very obviously very faulty logic/assumptions

[Drewster]

Get really annoyed whenever I see these study’s that give figures that are based on what is very obviously very faulty logic/assumptions

You mean pretty well any published report/study....... certainly every Gov Issued r/s..... most "Lobby"/"Vested Interest" group.......

[centurian]

It's funny you say that - I heard that bored police officers were stopping cars according to their colour like a game of snooker so the sequence would go like red car - yellow car - red car - green car - red car - brown car ... and so on. If you get my drift, you'll see that you are much more likely to get stopped if you're in a red car!

They've been doing that for decades in one form or another. A pink/black car is equally undesirable as it bags high points.

A white car is the best to have as it is a "foul shot".

[xoggoth]

Quite agree. Before the stupid breathalyser came along I used to get rat arsed and drive around in my old van with no working brakes and never killed anyone. Hardly ever anyway.

[d000hg]

Quite agree. Before the stupid breathalyser came along I used to get rat arsed and drive around in my old van with no working brakes and never killed anyone. Hardly ever anyway.

And they never complained...

[vetran]

usual gibberish, same math as applied to speeding.


Why don't they just enforce the law as it exists, oh sorry they can't because they find that they have to prosecute too many of the wrong type of people i.e. police commisioners, MPs or members of protected groups. Or that the offenders just ignore the punishment.

Oh and its EU guidelines.

At least I will be able to pick up an ex country pub cheap for the next Vetran towers.

[swamp]

It's depressing that something as simple a Drink Driving is the victim of politics. It's very simple: enforce the law as it is. Stop and breath test people (randomly) and catch people who are drunk. If people actually fear being caught then they will not drink and drive.

There are also some important questions that are being ignored:

* Where does the problem lie? Who kills/maims the most people? Properly drunk drivers or ones just over the limit?
* Is being 'hungover' (the next morning) less or more dangerous than being 'slightly tipsy' (assuming same alcohol blood level)?
* How many and what proportion of guilty drivers who killed/maimed were between 50 and 80mg/l alcohol limit?

It also seems obvious to me that if someone has no insurance, tax, or a valid MOT certificate for their car, then they are probably not going to give a flyer about having a few pints before getting behind the wheel. Use random stop and search. Impound their vehicles and throw them in gaol.