Safe Speed Forums

Well, so say the AA who quizzed 170,000 drivers (apparently).

Looks like we're heading inexorably towards a lower limit

_________________
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.

Well, you can always find a majority in favour of banning pretty much anything that people don't do themselves. The principle that you can only defend your own freedoms by standing up for the other man's isn't widely recognised.
And I wonder how many of those 75% are themselves habitual offenders through the morning after effect

Very possibly, but the same was said the last time it was proposed.

_________________
"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

Even if it was recognised, and people actually though of it whilst answering such questions, do you think they would actually look at an issue like this in those terms? Most will simply believe that lowering the DD limit will help improve road safety won't they?

_________________
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.

But the likelihood of people supporting a restrictive measure is inversely proportional to the likelihood of being affected themselves.

_________________
"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

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean they are wrong to think that way if they also believe it will be for the overall good.

_________________
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.

I noticed there were absolutely no facts and figures provided. Making me suspect that it's another "I think that.." rather than "the facts show that.."

You would have thought in an example like this it would be a simple matter to provide the number of accidents caused by those between 50 & 80gm, and therefore a guide to the effect of this change.

For sure lowering the limit won't stop any of those that break the current one.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

It would be worth wording a carefull FOI request to find out the number of accidents caused by those between 50 & 80gm and the fact that the government probobly dont know would make quite a good press release

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

The government's previous consultation document from 1998 stated that the proportion of accidents involving a driver in the 50-80 mg range was approximately 2%, and surveys had shown that the proportion of drivers in this range at any given time was on average approximately 2% as well. This obviously indicates no disproportionate level of accident involvement.

The government are now claiming that cutting the limit will save "up to" 65 lives a year. Given that we have about 3200 road fatalities a year, this suggests they believe it will eliminate every single fatal accident involving a driver in this range, which is patently incredible, especially given the fact that alcohol will not have been a causal factor in many of those accidents anyway.

The 1998 consultation claimed that it would save "up to" 50 lives a year. I would have thought in the intervening 10 years, given the evident increase in the number of people who will not drink anything immediately before driving, the expected savings would have diminished, not increased.

This has a strong whiff of being a figure plucked from the air without any scientific basis (just like the figures on "safe" weekly drinking levels).

_________________
"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

Basically, all this survey indicates to me is that most folk are aware that it's probably unwise to have just one drink and then drive.

Unfortunately, 75% of these will indeed have the one beer or glass of wine which will place them above the the new limit - given the large measures being served in many pubs/restaurants (BMJ was reported in the press as claiming this was also adding to the overall health problems caused by too much


Wildy aparently has some facts and figures from Switzerland. Like most Swiss laws - this one arrived via Kantonal referenda. It seems it was "successful" with an initial blitz campaign to enforce and then they found that all their accidents in which excess booze in the system began to increase ,, with most of them being above the current UK one too. These were the same who voted for the lowered limit as well in a referendum initially




Which more or less brings us back to the fact that enforcement of the current limit - never mind a lowered one, requires police to be out there to actually enforce this - with random tests if need be. Now we do test all involved in an incident to establish whether or not drink was a factor. That's a normal routine. If we have any reason to suspect any driver see driving erratically and/or we stop for any other reason is under any influence - then we are required to check them out. But that's here in an area which has a higher presence lurking around. One of the main complaints we read in the press is that the police car is the "rare checkered breed" - "the "red squirrel to the grey one" with the s/cam being the fast multiplying "grey squirrel" and has the same effect - allegedly - on the local " plods"

So even if this comes to be - it still has to be enforced and one complaint throughout all the press bib bash articles seems to be that "we are not out there copping silly s"


My own view? I will just advise all to drink orange juice or other soft drink if intending to drive a car shortly afterwards.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.