handy wrote:
HalcyonRichard wrote:
It would be nice to see some evidence based policy. The only science I have seen on drink driving was an Horizon programme in the 1970's/1980's. At 40mg/L driving standard WENT UP. At 80mg/L driver twice as likely to have an accident. To be honest the standard of science was dodgy. But we need to enforce the policy we have BEFORE we mess about with it. Anecdotal evidence is not good enough to base a national safety policy on.
Richard
yeah, you are quite right, it's about time this government allowed drivers to use their own skill and judgement to determine how much alcohol they can consume before getting in a car and using their own skill and judgement to determine how fast the speed limit should be and use their own skill and judgement to decide that the pavement is clearly capable of supporting motor vehicle traffic, and that cyclists and pedestrians should look after their own safety and leap out of the way when they hear an engine.
Oh, and for the hard of thinking ... that was irony. For the even harder of thinking, irony means saying one thing but using it to highlight the absurdity of the argument, hence actually supporting the opposite argument.
Andy - I never drink when I drive a car. In fact, if I have even one single malt or whatever, I usually imbibe with food anyway. , I do not drive my car for 12 hours thereafter. But I do know, as a normal bloke, my body will deal with the excretion of any alcohol intake naturally and within 12 hours of the drink. Of course - I do know my body and I do know from my training in a rather specialised field how the average human will cope.
I have already posted up "essays"
on this in the past.
However, I cannot call for zero when I do know that individual body chemistry can chuck up the odd "spanner in normality"
and that various dental preparations and cosmetics can contain some alcohol content. Normally this should not even register in a blood stream but - er - some people use more cream or dental wash than they need to.
If we had "zero tolerance" - it could register in some persons who are prone to higher absorption of these chemicals than others.
We do have the "odd type" who does not conform to our norm when we test out things. You would be surprised at the statistics from the medical returns to the stat offices
I think 10% of a random sample showed this absorption trait from simple harmless creams/facial cleansers and dental rinses
That's why no EU country really dares go for "point zero"
:
As for should pedestrians and cyclists be wary when they hear an engine?
Of course they should! I do when I ride my bicycle or walk. I do not know who is in that car. They may be COAST -led. But reality dictates to me that they are not. I am thus careful as I want to live to see and spoil my grandchildren after all
Drink/drug/fatigued driving is different from the odd blip over a speed limit. Blippers are not necessarily impaired: they are watching the road but crept above the limit on a slight gradient/road polish and just did not feel the sleight of the blip creep up at the time. The impaired just cannot discern or perceive the dangers until too late
But then we run into another problem: we do not have the resources to pull these idiots under existing laws. The numbers of mobile phone law flouters does support me in this
basically - we need Road Policing Units and more blokes like Stephen/Man/IanH/In Gear/iipsg.glf/ Neil/Nevilles/ etc and all those
s posting to the PH site to be present in droves enough to be a "severe threat to these idiots"
Ah! But I forget. We solve everything with a speed camera these days and dupe the public with some spin.
Andy - like you - I want real road safety. I certainly do not want to live through a nightmare such as the one which nearly left me a widower with toddlers again
ever .
But I am a fair minded person and I want fairness for all in any case. My wife is of a similar mind set.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
