Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Certainly evidence that any amount of alcohol in your system impairs your reaction time etcI don't want to get into another drink driving thread, but do you have any evidence that people who are under the limit are causing accidents due to being drunk?
In some European countries that have reduced alcohol limits for drivers, they have seen a reduction in alcohol-related road accidents, however this effect has not yet been seen in Scotland.Certainly evidence that any amount of alcohol in your system impairs your reaction time etc
I don't know if there are details regarding incidents where people had an alcohol reading but were under the limits
The limit here is half that of the UK. What improvements do you see possible for the UK?The drink driving laws in England have, in my opinion, many faults, however nobody can dispute it has saved a lot of lives and changed attitudes to drunken driving. I would like to see changes to the law although I doubt there will any for any years, if ever, but for now it is all we have and it's better than nothing.
There has been a downward trend in fatality's but that was happening already before the limits were reducedIn some European countries that have reduced alcohol limits for drivers, they have seen a reduction in alcohol-related road accidents, however this effect has not yet been seen in Scotland.
Firstly the cliff edge, the difference between slightly under and slightly over is very little but the penalty it huge. I would like to see a scale depending on the offence and the amount of drink consumed, also I think it is wrong that someone can be prosecuted for not driving, if they are sleeping it off in a pub car park. If I had had a drink and thought I may be slightly over the limit, I have a greater chance of being prosecuted if I sleep it off, than if I risk driving home. That can't be right.The limit here is half that of the UK. What improvements do you see possible for the UK?
Firstly the cliff edge, the difference between slightly under and slightly over is very little but the penalty it huge. I would like to see a scale depending on the offence and the amount of drink consumed, also I think it is wrong that someone can be prosecuted for not driving, if they are sleeping it off in a pub car park. If I had had a drink and thought I may be slightly over the limit, I have a greater chance of being prosecuted if I sleep it off, than if I risk driving home. That can't be right.
That'll be most of the arab countries.n some countries if you are a non-resident you are automatically to blame as if you hadn't been there there would not have been an accident.
Personally I've always believed that some arbitrary limit that is affected by individuals metabolism is the wrong way to proceed.It should be a straight forward zero.Firstly the cliff edge, the difference between slightly under and slightly over is very little but the penalty it huge. I would like to see a scale depending on the offence and the amount of drink consumed, also I think it is wrong that someone can be prosecuted for not driving, if they are sleeping it off in a pub car park. If I had had a drink and thought I may be slightly over the limit, I have a greater chance of being prosecuted if I sleep it off, than if I risk driving home. That can't be right.
You can get police quality ones that are spot on.Hmmm? Missed that one!. Cannot find any similar reference on either of my current policies?.
I think I have seen somewhere that they are UN-reliable?
I never have more than 3 or 4 pints if I'm driving. But may have a couple 'for the road' if it's a nice afternoon in a nice beer garden
That'll be most of the arab countries.
Personally I've always believed that some arbitrary limit that is affected by individuals metabolism is the wrong way to proceed.It should be a straight forward zero.
Oh how naive you are! You forgot No3, he was slurping yours as well when you weren't looking!The number of times I've heard, "I've only had two pints" who then proceeded to supply a 'score' of 70. Well, If I had a Pound etc.
Said this before.
On his 18th Birthday, Son No.2 had a plateful of food and two pints of Stella.
Half an hour after his drink he was sat in front of 'The Machine'
He blew 27.
I then sat down and scored 9.
Why the difference said he.
No.1 I'm bigger than you and No.2 (The important bit) My beer was 3.4 and not 5 like your Stella.
Oh how naive you are! You forgot No3, he was slurping yours as well when you weren't looking!
No1 - not a lot going for him then!No.1 He's the Son of a Dad who in turn is from Yorkshire, (with a Scottish mother). Nuff said
No.2 He doesn't drink 3.4% BEER
No. 3 He's still breathing 23yrs later (I keep a grudge!!!)
Firstly the cliff edge, the difference between slightly under and slightly over is very little but the penalty it huge. I would like to see a scale depending on the offence and the amount of drink consumed, also I think it is wrong that someone can be prosecuted for not driving, if they are sleeping it off in a pub car park. If I had had a drink and thought I may be slightly over the limit, I have a greater chance of being prosecuted if I sleep it off, than if I risk driving home. That can't be right.
If you are stupid enough to drive whilst knowingly over the limit then you are a fool. How much over the limit may affect the outcome, eg whether you just get a fine / points / banning / prison or a combination of them.Whilst I agree with you in principle, there are just too many variables which if considered, would increase the chances of getting off! Firstly, individuals differ in their tolerance to alcohol; secondly, a driver asleep in his/her car is still 'in charge' of it, and could wake up at any time and drive off while still over the limit.
You can't win!
John
My objection to that is you are convicting someone because you think they may commit a crime, based on what you think they may do, not on what they actually do, it's worse than the thought police.The problem with someone who decides to sleep it off in their car is that when they wake up they are almost certainly going to drive and will likely still be over the limit.
Lets just suppose the police just ignored a driver sleeping it off in a pub car park, then later he/she drove off and whilst still drunk he/she had an accident and killed or injured someone. Which is worse? Is it any different to stopping someone with a knife in case he stabs someone, or do we let people openly brandish knives and only stop them when they injure or kill someone.My objection to that is you are convicting someone because you think they may commit a crime, based on what you think they may do, not on what they actually do, it's worse than the thought police.
My objection to that is you are convicting someone because you think they may commit a crime, based on what you think they may do, not on what they actually do, it's worse than the thought police.
Let's suppose the guy sleeping in his car waited until the pub opened in the morning and went in for coffee and breakfast.Lets just suppose the police just ignored a driver sleeping it off in a pub car park, then later he/she drove off and whilst still drunk he/she had an accident and killed or injured someone. Which is worse? Is it any different to stopping someone with a knife in case he stabs someone, or do we let people openly brandish knives and only stop them when they injure or kill someone.
Let's suppose the guy sleeping in his car waited until the pub opened in the morning and went in for coffee and breakfast.
I am indoors now with a glass of wine, I have the opportunity to go outside and drive off, should I be arrested?
Obviously you wouldn't just 'do' them without asking them questions first ... if they indicated they were going to drive off then it would be necessary to ask more and/or do a test, obviously it would be an ideal opportunity to 'educate' them on the consequences of their actions.My objection to that is you are convicting someone because you think they may commit a crime, based on what you think they may do, not on what they actually do, it's worse than the thought police.
I wish it was like this, but unfortunately it is not, it is wrong. If the person finds a shed to sleep in, that's ok,but the back of the car will result in a ban, whatever the intention.Obviously you wouldn't just 'do' them without asking them questions first ... if they indicated they were going to drive off then it would be necessary to ask more and/or do a test, obviously it would be an ideal opportunity to 'educate' them on the consequences of their actions.
It is scary, I am always careful if I have to drive the next day, to be honest I don't drink a lot these days anyway.Meany years ago whilst I was stationed in Germany we had a talk from the German Police regarding drinking and driving.
This was done on Monday at lunch time and they offered to check some us to prove the point of morning after. They found four of us were still over the limit and had driven into work that morning. It must have been a weekend party, all weekend.
Will it? Are you trying to tell me that the police don't ask ANY questions at all and just do the occupant regardless ... I don't think we live in a police state do we?I wish it was like this, but unfortunately it is not, it is wrong. If the person finds a shed to sleep in, that's ok,but the back of the car will result in a ban, whatever the intention.
If they have even the remotest suspicion then you are tested, no leeway if over the limit that's it. Can be stopped and tested for any infringement, brake light out, whatever.Will it? Are you trying to tell me that the police don't ask ANY questions at all and just do the occupant regardless ... I don't think we live in a police state do we?