PeterE wrote:
lauren o'dare wrote:
Georgeda wrote:
There is I believe a school of thought that the drink-drive limits, like the speed limits are arbitory and should be relaxed. I'm not sure if I subscribe to that train of thought but would be very interested in other peoples views.
Well, if you're really interested in other people's views, here's a few.
I'm familiar with some of these links, but it's probably fair to say that in general they are arguing in favour of a drink-drive law that sets a "per se" prosecution threshold at around the point where significant impairment is likely (i.e. at 80 or 100 mg) rather than advocating a free-for-all.
Grrroooaaaan
Or 150.
And who's arguing for a free for all?
But, anyway, Georgeda:
It seems to be the consensus of opinion that we should carry on criminalising sober morning after drivers who happen to be technically over the limit.
And none of that policing with discretion rubbish.
You can now run back to wherever you've come from and report back that you've won this round of the battle and can concentrate on getting more sCams and lower (speed) limits.
Doh!
And when they've banned all those nasty 4x4's that everyone agrees are nasty they can get started on sports cars.
You know
All the one's that can go faster than they need to.
Cos they've got an engine bigger than 1.3.
Double Dooohhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
.
Why do I bother???????????????????????????????????????????
.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
