Safe Speed Forums

Not quite – the point I was making is that I do not believe Fisherman is correct to say that he is seeing a lot of marginal fails who have genuinely consumed only 4 units or even a little bit more that that. This is especially true because, although the legal limit is 35 µg, a prosecution will not normally result unless the lower of two readings on the Intoximeter is at least 40 µg. As someone said earlier, the vast majority of people convicted know very well (or should have known) that they were either definitely breaking the law or running a serious risk of doing so.


Yes, a lot would change their behaviour. But there would be many more marginal morning-after convictions, which is something that government campaigns deliberately ignore, as it can't be distilled into a simple black and white message. And people who don't pay close attention to changes in traffic law could easily be caught out, especially as any publicity relating to the change is never going to say "you can now only have one pint of ordinary strength beer before driving", is it?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

No, otherwise they would already be doing so. My experiences of driving amongst the 30 odd million people with driving licences suggests to me that far too many of them are not as sensible and responsible as we would dearly like to believe.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Hi Rigpig,
I was trying to say that the vast majority of drivers stay within the drink drive laws. To say that a few get it wrong and then to help the few we burden the many with new un thought out laws . Which could lead to more dangerous roads. The science is very sparse and poor in this area.

Richard

I should point out (as one or two know or may have gathered) that that is my website.

The intention is to look at the wider implications of drink-driving legislation and enforcement - it is not specifically a road safety site.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Well done Peter a bit of sanity in a crazy world. I left you a message before I knew it was you

Richard

Not really ... I suppose I really just can't see the need for anyone to have to have a drink then get in a car. It's not like there aren't minicabs, buses, pavements or lots of other ways of getting home from the pub. I have no sympathy for drink drivers, but then I also have no sympathy for anyone who has a hangover ... the basic fact is, alcohol is a poison!! (I'm not a drinker, as you may have guessed, I used to drink quite a lot but I was never really that good at it, so I stopped).



Totally agree that capability is impaired by lots of things, but to not prosecute one that can be measured is not the correct thing to do. Until we can measure all types of impairment, the available measures should be used? Am I right in thinking that the swabs for drug-driving are not in common use yet?

Of course, the best detector for all kinds of impaired capability are skilled and experienced (and highly visible) traffic police ... but all they used to get - when we had them - was abuse and "haven't you got any proper criminals to arrest"!!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I think that's really just the 'bar room' version. In reality I think that our old fashioned trafpol commanded a great deal of worthy respect.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Absolutely not. Every single motorist leaves home for every journey with the intention of arriving home again with no damage to himself or his car and with no more points on his licence. So they use their judgement to drive in a manner which will acheive that aim.

Look around you. look at the RTC figures. Its clear that a significant percentage - far more than 0.00001% do not have good enough judgement.


As to the best way to improve things, thats up to the politicians as they make the laws.

I report what I see and, unlike some others, make no attempt to say that this applies nationwide. I sit in a number of courts across a big county and marginal failures are common.
Its always going to be difficult to be sure about what they drank but a fair number of them produce witness statements to show that they only had 2 drinks.




Glad someone reads my posts and agrees with them.





I agree.

I tust you will take note of my earlier post about the accuracy of the comments on that site regarding the chances of keeping your licence after a drink drive conviction.

Another factor, of course, would be if they had been drinking at lunchtime or the previous evening and all the alcohol had not yet cleared their body.


I am sure I have read of occasional cases where a claim of exceptional hardship allowed a defendent to retain their licence, although I can't recall the specific details. I accept that if it happens at all it is very rare.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I can see what you're getting at, but given that the current system can't even deal with getting most of the the truly dangerous, highly intoxicated, drivers off the road, as evidenced by the current damning figures, I don't think a lowering of the limit is actually going to improve anything. It's all very well getting stricter on the 'you mustn't's but unless they are backed up with actions, they're just words.

The cynics here, who have watched in dispair as road safety policy, and policing, have headed ceaselessly towards the sewers, might well suggest that all a lowered limit would achieve is criminalising lots of people who are not even necessarily posing an increased risk on the roads, depending on which study one chooses to cherry-pick. This would make anyone driving away from a pub or a restaurant fair game for a felt collar, massively increasing numbers of drivers convicted for drink driving, whilst actually doing very little about the truly dangerous drunk drivers who are currently at large, and who are the ones posing the biggest risk to road safety, whichever way you slice it.

Andy - I think guilty twazaks come out with that line.

I've been posting on this site since "set up". I sometimes post to PH but not often as I view it as "light weight" banter for most part and I do wonder sometimes about "commitment to road safety" on the part of some over there to be honest. My wife endeavours to "see the best in people". I try. I fail all the time though as I see the baser side of human nature more than my very nice wife who does try to see each side and tries to make me see her "logic". On PH - I am the chivalrous husband though But we agree on some things and agree to diagree on others. I think then that my wild wife and myself achieve a "mutual respect" We both happen to agree that speed cams afford little "discreet justice" and we both abhor smug injustice based on media reports without tangibel substance. Sometimes our points of views are "polarised" but our love and respect for each other over-rides this. I defend my wife's daft spelling. I usually lean to her logic. She is perhaps more astute than I am on many issues.

IG is one cop committed to improving the lot for all road users. I would sell my soul for more of his calibre. Not family loyalty but a recognition of what our IanH/Stephens/Neil Jeffries/The Man/fisherman/cam operator are really made of and they are people to look up to and take note of.

I should also remark that the PH BiB posters are all worthy of such esteem and plaudit. They give us the balanced points of view and their words are more than worthy of noteworthy common sense values.

I confess to wanting more committed cops than thousands of meaningless speed cams even though I accept that Steve believes he is doing his best to save my life and those I hold dearest to me. I know he believes this and much as I mock him in banter - I do accept he does believe in his training. But - he gave me ammo to fight lethal cycle lanes. He gave me names to address my concerns to. He asked me to confide my "results" to him too. We actually agree where we have the problem areas around our lovely tourist area. He still sees me as "enemy" because I question his ping protocol but in fairness he has met me halfway on some issues. sFor that I will PUBLICLY thank him and his JJ pals Our speedfinder generals? I think we are getting at their "hearts" sometimes Not as often as perhaps we'd like but I will give them credit where credti's due all the same as I am very very fair minded.

I think I should point out to the lurking idiots: W e do not do or condone "stupid". Our argument lies with JUSTICE and we want the book thrown at the moronic out there. We (as in the Swiss "hooligans") make no excuse or case for that type.

We do afford a very human and understanding approach to the blip errors and we will always look to see the the "plaintive's case" as we are a "fair play/justice minded" family group.


I apologise if our stance offends some people out there - but we have to put the case for the other side lest we undermine justice by prejudging a case "on the internet"

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

However - let me make it clear.

I posted up a lot of medical stuff as to dangers of having one drink and deciding to drive in the first months of this forum. I pasted this to the PH site at the time too.

My stance will always be not to drive after any booze for at least 12 hours. I cannot post different. I do not know "history or body system or amount drunk" I will assume an amount which makes one "squiffy" and my own expertise of a "so-called normal adult of normal metabolism" would suggest such a time after a binging skinfull of perhaps a 75 cl bottle of wine

I cannot predict without some history. I would not like anyone to take my post as "norm!!" either. We humans are all very different and our bodies will be prone to idiosyncrasy and metabolism - which is not necessarily related to weight or body fat either.

So - I guess I am asking for all to be careful and watch booze intake,. If in any doubt - do please choose the water with lemon or lime twist.

I try to be as fair minded as I can. I have to say I despise those who choose to drive whilst unfit/.unqualified as the lowest of the low. I admit to prejudged bias on this - but you'd have to live through my own personal ecpererience of a "serious wake up call" to fully appreciate.
Not a secret - wife and self can refer to the very painful incident but within reason all the same Both my wife and myself aspire to to rise above the "incident from hell" but I am sure most will forgive us if we want vengeance some day.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

fisherman wrote:
I think its those people who would benefit from a lower limit.
If they know that one drink is too much, some of them at least wouldn't drink.

I personally think that the place for your car when you're down the pub is on your drive , at home, keys on the mantelpiece , or wherever you keep them.

Why - because never can you say with hand on heart that you're under the limit - you hope you are - but untill you blow into the bag ,--ARE YOU SURE.
And then ,next day , i go to work , with random tests at a quarter of the limit, all because of accidents at work.
But hey - those of you that drive to the pub - carry on - just don't forget that some of us drivers are walking on the pavement.(And remember that it's my right to complain about so called safe drivers driving on or near the limit, just as i defend the right to complain about unsafe limits)At least driving at speeds close to the limit, i can (soberly ) decide that my speed is excessive. After a couple of pints, can you ????

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I agree absolutely with the above comment.

I do drink, but not much as I am required to stay off booze while on call. Which is the majority of the time.

I would never, ever, consider driving after even one drink.



I agree with this comment as well.

It is NOT possible to make an exceptional hardship plea to retain a driving licence following conviction for drink driving.

It IS possible to make a special reasons plea to retain a licence following conviction for drink driving.




This explanation of special reasons is lifted directly from the CPS website.

The bold emphasis is mine to highlight the fact that the personal circumstances of the offender do not constitute special reasons. An exceptional hardship plea has to be based on the personal circumstances of the offender.

There is a lot more explanation which you may find helpful in updating your site.
http://cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_a.html#33

A sentiment agreed with by just about everybody who has worked in a casualty department.

Can we not introduce this lower lever with an endorsement?

The general view is that .8 is safe if not exceeded although borderline.

So we bring in .5. I would suggest to exceed .5 you get a 4 point endorsement, exceed .8 - as now, a year's ban but further if someone is well in excess of these limits then the penalties to become stiffer and stiffer, culminating in automatic prison

_________________
We have a complaisant but venal judiciary and police force - all too eager to pervert the Law to satisfy their own aims

Hi All,
I have been trying to get some data together time is lacking sadly. Any death on our roads is an absolutely devastating for anybody. We have over 500 deaths a year caused by drink or drugs. I think this is a highly emotive issue for some - it certainly is for me. We all want to lower the number of deaths and injuries on our roads. Trouble is there are no zero risk options - staying in bed has a risk.

I looked at the data for 2004 in which year we had 29 million drivers and 90,000 approx drivers banned for drink/drug driving. These are horrendous figures and we should be shocked and horrified. This means 3 drivers every 1000 drank and drove over the limit. ( 0.3% ). If we take a guess at this being 1/10 th of the total. We can assume that 3% of drivers regularly drive over the limit. This figure shocks me. I thought it would be much less.

I looked for more recent and conclusive research in this area and the 1960's study seems to be about it for gathering real world data.

I can only conclude that this is a massive failure of enforcement - breath tests were down 200,000 in recent years. Staffordshire has NO dedicated traffic police. The 80mg figure was chosen as the best compromise at the time.

In my opinion reducing the limit 80 mg to 50 mg is probably not going to reduce casualities at all.

We have little data in this area and changing policy on gut feeling would be wrong.

I suppose we need to know the effect on casualities if we go to 50 mg ( or 0mg).

Are drivers more or less likely to have an accident in the 50-80mg range. Sadly we have no scientific evidence gatherered in the last 50 years - this is appalling.

In light of this enforcement has to be the priority very closely followed by quality non subjective research. Policy needs to be decided by hard headed logic to minimise the death toll.

Richard