Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Drink Driving Limit

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Drink Driving Limit

Old 21st Mar 2011, 19:39
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Oxfordshire
Posts: 607
Yep, I understand that it's normal, and that most poeple do drink alcohol with meals and when they go out, but why is it almost compulsory in our minds?

Just curious (not debating the rights and wrongs of it).
Blues&twos is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 19:45
  #22 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 76
Posts: 723
B&T you are quite right. Speaking as one who does his share to keep the wine barrels empty here in Spain, I must say that when eating Indian meals in London both I and my wife usually drink something like a Mango lassi in preference to alcoholic drinks

So it's not compulsory to drink alcohol. Just habit.

BTW, here in old or rural Spain "alcohol" means spirits. Ask for a whiskey or gin or vodka in an up-country restaurant and you may hear the response "sorry, but we don't have any alcohol - only beer or wine". It's happened to me.

A further thought: near our town is a causeway crossing two rivers, typical for rural Spain, it's above the water (if any) for 50 weeks of the year and submerged under a raging torrent for the other two weeks - and after last week's downpours that's the way it is now. I have lost count of how many young people driving on their way back from an evening's carousing in Figueras or Girona take this road, wanting to avoid police roadside checks for obvious reasons, and who have been swept away and drowned.
OFSO is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 22:07
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Darwin's theory at work, then?

I like that one! Are you suggesting that checks for drink-driving are resulting in the deaths of these misguided topers? What, they are already sloshed when they reach the causeway so that when they find it flooded they simply think the Spanish equivalent of "Oh, drat! Well, since we are already here, let's go for it...." instead of turning around and taking their chances on the main road. That would make sense, to a drunk.

I knew of a fellow who had his own system for making it home to his northern Vermont village after an evening of boozing in Burlington. (We are speaking here of about 20 miles, one way, so that taking a taxi home was not really an option in that case.) He would latch onto another set of tail-lights and simply follow them to his exit on the Interstate, when from there it was just a short distance to his house in one of those villages with just a dog-catcher but no town cops.

So he was on his way home early one Sunday morning, using his system, when the car in front of him came to a very sudden stop. He stopped too, when the next thing was someone pulling him out of his car to put the cuffs on him; he had been following another drunk so that they had been making a two-car convoy northbound in the southbound passing lane of I-89, when the sudden stop of his leader was due to a head-on collision. There must be a moral to that story but I do not know what it is.

I have been startled by having fellow Americans tell me that they dislike socialist Europe with such things as strict drink-drive limits. Err, yeah, but where would you rather be driving then, the States or Europe, assuming that you are sober? (No, I don't know the stats but I bet cruising and boozing must be a bigger problem in some American states compared to most of Europe, sort of like gun crime.)
chuks is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 22:15
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 112
at present we don't have random testing, but it surely has to come eventually.
Why is that? Is erosion of rights, freedoms and civil liberties an inevitable progression in our society?
hotmetal is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 22:28
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,332
Chuks

In Montana, the last bastion of civility and human responsibility, it was lawful to drink and drive. The legal restriction is to NOT be intoxicated as defined by the legal limit. This is all about enforcing what should be responsible behavior. But, sadly, Momtana rolled over to the dark side--they even have speed limits now. Reasonable and proper, it used to say before Mrs Dole forced the Federal government on them. The inhumanity of it.

GF

Last edited by galaxy flyer; 21st Mar 2011 at 23:35.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2011, 23:19
  #26 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,572
We, de facto, have random testing in the UK. The police will use any excuse to stop you and breathalyse you if they so wish. E.g. I have been stopped for a routine check late at night where the policeman put his head almost through the open window to see if he could smell alcohol. I had committed no moving traffic offence at the time. Not that I have a problem with such 'routine checking'.

What seems to be overlooked in the clamour to further embellish legislation which appears to work well is the law of diminishing returns. People who routinely drink more than they should and then drive will do so whatever the limit.

I would like to know just how many accidents/fatalities involve drivers who have had a drink but are under the legal limit for driving. I doubt the figures are significant. We already have serious penalties for driving while over the limit and even more severe penalties, and rightly so, where death or injury is caused.

We seem to have so much legislation which achieves little except to make life more difficult and less tolerable for the law abiding. Is it not sensible, just for once, to leave the status quo on the basis that it strikes a fair balance between freedom and risk without also further accelerating the demise of that wonderful British institution 'The Pub'.

It sometimes appears as if legislatures wish to make society and life entirely risk free. We have Health and Safety legislation which was needed, prevented many accidents, injuries and deaths but has now become a self justifying monster which now prevents such things as school trips because of the 'risks' involved and cost of insurance for same.

We have data protection legislation where it has become de rigeur to refuse to discuss anything which involves another because it is applied without discretion by rule driven clerks. E.g. I pay for Private Health Insurance for my partner and I but when it was necessary I couldn't find out from our GP surgery why they had not responded to a written request and authorisation from my partner to send her notes to the Insurance Provider, she had to call them herself despite being seriously ill.

It all adds up to far too much legislation and intrusion into our everyday lives when all most of us wish to do is lead a quiet, law abiding existence with as little interference from the government as possible. I for one am glad the reduction of the drink/drive limit has been kicked into touch.

Addressing the standard of sober driving in the UK would achieve far more but then that would cost money wouldn't it?
M.Mouse is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 01:25
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 415
GF-

I believe the word you were looking for was 'prudent' vice proper.

If one is willing to give it a go, one can still use R & P as a prima facie defense in court in Texas, Utah, and Rhode Island, but the burden of proof is on the accused. I wouldn't fancy trying my luck.

In other states R & P can be used by the state to adjust speed downward for conditions.

It all comes down to highway funding.

Um... lifting... is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 01:38
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 58
Posts: 211
Eat Khat and turn that Mig 23 to your best adantage! Don't drink though!

NF
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 01:39
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Good point...

I have never driven south of Tuscany, in Italy. I used to ride a motorcycle through Lagos traffic, so that I probably wouldn't mind Naples all that terribly much. On the other hand, you do have a point, there.

Even Germany has more and more sections of the Autobahn with speed limits, but if cruising at 140 mph is your thing, well, fill your boots! The problem is, if you are at all mathematically inclined, to think of the amount of energy stored in your vehicle (and on a bike, your self) at that speed. It is four times the amount present at 70, of course, when a crash even at 70 could easily settle your hash.

Certainly the general standard of driving in Germany is much higher than that found in the States.

I used to think that our worst drivers were found in New York City, until I spent some time driving around in Boston. What is the matter with those people? There, I think a good stiff drink might help, settle them down a bit....
chuks is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 06:55
  #30 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 945
" Not that I have a problem with such 'routine checking'."

You may not but I do. If I am not comitting an RTA offence why should I be "routinely stopped" ?....for me, it's an abuse of the police officers authority and also, from personal experience, seems to be a manifestation of their ego. It's also an excellent way of alienating the police from the public and those of us who support, in the main, the police.

1. Driving home one night ( late 80's when GMP were basically a law unto themselves under "God's Cop", about 0200 in Manchester along he the M56 when up behind comes the lights and noise...pull over and out it gets, slashed peak on, and approaches the door. I opened the window and it introduces itself " where you going son ?, been drinking have you?..get out!". Alas, I am not disposed to lifes natural so I stayed put and asked, politely after confirming I had not been drinking, why I was stopped...by now it's giving the car the once over....alas, nothing amis...when it finally condescends to speak the answer?... "routine check", I think not, cretin.

2 Stoke....late night delivery 2004 ish, approaching a "T" junction with the right of way and coming in on my left down a hill and clearly driving with the "there's only us on the road..oops !" mentality as in they had to brake when they saw me, are two of Staffs not so finest...not long afterwards, on go the lights etc...usual firsr question re drinking, it's head about 1 inch from mine to make sure...I ask why the stop and get told "you seemed alarmed to see us..so a "routine check"....I point out that, as we did make eye contact at the junction, I was indeed alarmed to see them as they speed they were driving at and the sudden braking clearly showed they weren't driving with due care and attention....the ego is offended by this accurate assessment however...can't think why..and I get a long, and basically inarticulate lecture as the vehicle gets a good going over....again nothing remiss.

You were saying about "routine checks "?
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 07:21
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 397
Pubs do not help matters by charging those who are responsible and dont drink and drive extortionate prices for soft drinks.
paulc is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 07:38
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
True, then again pubs charge extortionate prices for all drinks nowadays. No wonder the fiscally ravaged man on the Clapham omnibus is indulging in that umpleasantly clinical term - 'frontloading' on cheap rubbish from Tescburys before going out to chin a copper in his drunken stupor on Saturday night.
Parapunter is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 08:15
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: korat thailand
Age: 79
Posts: 136
It appears that in the U.K. the best way to avoid being stopped late at night on the way home,is to get a gun licence. When the rossers do a computer check on your vehicle,the name of the owner is flagged as may be having a gun aboard. Thus he cannot ask you to leave the vehicle,be breathalysed,and then arrested as 'qualyfied officer' would have to be brought to take the gun off you. Too much trouble!! Ever known a farmer get 'done'?
crippen is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 11:07
  #34 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 76
Posts: 723
I like that one! Are you suggesting that checks for drink-driving are resulting in the deaths of these misguided topers? What, they are already sloshed when they reach the causeway so that when they find it flooded they simply think the Spanish equivalent of "Oh, drat! Well, since we are already here, let's go for it...." instead of turning around and taking their chances on the main road. That would make sense, to a drunk.

Chuks, that is EXACTLY right. To the alcohol-influenced decision we must also add the drug-influenced decision and the little old pensioners decision - all have been lost at the same point. One incident: car rolls up, four young guys, all on drugs, two decide the water is too deep and get out of the car, two drive in, away goes the car, one person flung out, swims to shore, makes his way home to Figueras (I don't know how) subsequently arrested for contributing to death of remaining youth by leaving the scene and not attempting his rescue or going for help. Next day two French elderlies drowned there in their car.

This picture of the road crossing was taken some days after the peak - judging by the debris in the trees the water level was about 2 metres / six foot higher...

OFSO is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 20:17
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: gone surfin'
Age: 55
Posts: 2,332
Drink and Drive if you want to......'nowt worse than having a smash when your sober.

All joking apart, it would be good to have a zero limit, but for various physiological reasons, that wouldn't work.

Still think the current limit is a bit high - the levels depend on differing variables, but I reckon if I was just under the limit, I'd be to p*ssed to drive.
gingernut is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 21:17
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,184
Although, I know a few people that I would not get in their car UNLESS they were drunk....















not true-I can't tolerate most people stupid driving-too scary
...
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 21:33
  #37 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
There should be no limit. If some one has consumed alcohol and causes an accident, into to jail they go and loses their drivers license for a very long time.

Other wise, screw it. I know people that drink and then drive home that have never been involved in an accident, I know a lot more that don't drink at all and have had numerous accidents. My youngest son never drinks and he manages to total a car about every two years.

Just more nanny state crap and is more designed to add money to public coffers than it is to protect anyone.

And don't kid yourself, it is all about the money.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 21:45
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 778
A friend of mine's sister was killed, no murdered in fact by a drunk driver who ran a red light, three times over the limit, so yeah, no limit. Good idea. Nanny state crap. Got it.
Parapunter is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 23:24
  #39 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
I believe the proposal is for more stringent enforcement of the existing limits.

The ideal would be for those over the limit to be apprehended before they crash and injure or kill anyone, rather than merely meting out punishments after the event.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 23:32
  #40 (permalink)  

Controversial, moi?
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,572
A friend of mine's sister was killed, no murdered in fact by a drunk driver who ran a red light, three times over the limit, so yeah, no limit. Good idea. Nanny state crap. Got it.
Actually you haven't 'Got it'.

Please explain how a lower limit would prevent someone who so obviously couldn't give a toss about ANY limit from committing the same heinous offence?

As I said earlier those who exceed the limit will continue to do so whatever the limit.
M.Mouse is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.