Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Sep 25, 2020 23:50

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 19:33 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
I think the limit is OK as it is.
In order to achieve fairness in the law, the limit should be set at a level at which most drivers are impaired. Lowering the limit would mean many drivers who are not impaired being convicted - particularly in so-called 'morning after' cases (look up the Mellanby Effect)

And even so, being over the limit should not be regarded as absolute evidence - drivers should have other avenues of defence open to them if they want it. After all, even if you're caught standing over a body with a smoking gun in your hand, it isn't a 100% certainty that you committed murder.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 20:13 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Pete317 wrote:
I think the limit is OK as it is.
In order to achieve fairness in the law, the limit should be set at a level at which most drivers are impaired.

What exactly do you mean by 'impaired' in this case? How significant would that level of impairment be?
I can't see many supporting a level where most would be significantly impaired to not judge, be in control or be aware.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 21:14 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Big Tone wrote:
What persona are we going to see next dcb? I don't think you have ever declared your credentials, when it come to speed kills, other than you are getting off the 'road scene' so it does not concern you anymore I think :scratchchin:


No I never said I was getting off the 'road scene'. I said I was thinking of stopping driving. But not stopping walking so I will remain part of the road scene. At least that is how I see it, though there are plenty of motorists who do not consider pedestrians to be legitimate road user. When it comes to "speed kills": well speed is a factor in 100% of road fatalities. But I don't think that a profusion of speed limits, blindly adhered to, does much for road safety.

Quote:
I don't use a shotgun but the danger is that I might be asked for my opinion on shooting, along with thousands of others whom don't shoot, and that will be the winning vote based on ignorance. :roll:


A number of people who don't shoot, - in West Cumbria, Hungerford, Dunblane - might have a legitimate opinion on the availablity of firearms :x

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 21:17 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Steve wrote:
Pete317 wrote:
I think the limit is OK as it is.
In order to achieve fairness in the law, the limit should be set at a level at which most drivers are impaired.

What exactly do you mean by 'impaired' in this case? How significant would that level of impairment be?
I can't see many supporting a level where most would be significantly impaired to not judge, be in control or be aware.


Pete has got it back to front. If we must have a blanket limit it should be set at a limit where most people are not impaired.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 22:27 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
dcbwhaley wrote:
A number of people who don't shoot, - in West Cumbria, Hungerford, Dunblane - might have a legitimate opinion on the availablity of firearms :x


After Dunblane they banned handguns, in a knee-jerk reaction, and oddly enough, handgun shootings have been on the rise ever since. It's another case of treating the symptom, not the disease, as you rightly identified earlier. It's been illegal to carry a knife in a public place without lawful excuse for ages, and yet knife crime is going through the roof; perhaps we should ban them altogether, it wouldn't stop the scrotes carrying them, but it would stop the majority of us cutting up our steaks.

Attempting to prescribe an exhaustive, black and white list of what we can and can't do does not build a healthy society, this we can look around and see. Punish behaviour which is antisocial, without the overspill affecting normal everyday life, and decency will return, largely self policing.

"John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute. "

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 22:50 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Steve wrote:
What exactly do you mean by 'impaired' in this case? How significant would that level of impairment be?
I can't see many supporting a level where most would be significantly impaired to not judge, be in control or be aware.


That was the Government's original view, as PeterE posted earlier:

PeterE wrote:
The point was made when the original breathalyser law was brought in that if you want to set a single, black-and-white standard enforced on a strict liability basis (which has great advantages in terms of clarity and public understanding), and resulting in an automatic severe punishment, then fairness and equity demand that it should be set at a level at which there is reasonable confidence that most drivers are impaired to some extent.


The level of impairment we're discussing would probably be similar to that of a driver with a cold, or tired, or upset, or even in love. I don't think many people would support a year's ban for someone driving with a cold. Neither do I think many people would still support a lowering of the limit once they, their family or friends start getting convicted as a result.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 22:57 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
RobinXe wrote:
After Dunblane they banned handguns, in a knee-jerk reaction, and oddly enough, handgun shootings have been on the rise ever since. It's another case of treating the symptom, not the disease, as you rightly identified earlier. It's been illegal to carry a knife in a public place without lawful excuse for ages, and yet knife crime is going through the roof; perhaps we should ban them altogether, it wouldn't stop the scrotes carrying them, but it would stop the majority of us cutting up our steaks.


I am in no way standing up for those restrictions. When handguns were banned after Dunblane I predicted that it would not reduce gun crime. To quote an American NRA friend - "Outlawing guns does not keep guns out of the hands of outlaws"

No, my post was to refute Tone's implied suggestion that the only people who should be consulted about gun laws are people who shoot. Whilst I don't like to see a minority activity banned by an ignorant majority - fox hunting springs to mind - I do feel that the question of gun ownership, impinging as it does on law and order, does deserve a wider public debate.

It is interesting to speculate that if we had USA style gun laws Bird would probably have been shot by one of the other drivers at the taxi rank.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 09:29 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
dcbwhaley wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
No, my post was to refute Tone's implied suggestion that the only people who should be consulted about gun laws are people who shoot. Whilst I don't like to see a minority activity banned by an ignorant majority - fox hunting springs to mind - I do feel that the question of gun ownership, impinging as it does on law and order, does deserve a wider public debate.


All I meant by that was that issues, as has been said, should be looked at on their merits and not a knee jerk reaction based on public opinion fuelled by the media’s obsession with all things ‘bad’. I used to have a shotgun licence but when they kindly asked for it back if I don't need it, would I please do so.

Like most kids when I was at school, I used to carry a penknife. But the most anyone ever did with them was sharpen a stick or play that game, I can’t remember the name of it now, where you throw it by someone’s feet and if it sticks in the ground they have to spread their legs apart further and further until they fall over. (Shame I went to a single sex school really :P ).

So you have to ask yourself what is going on in our society today that the preferred game these days is sticking it in someone’s ribs.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:02 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Al Jahoms blog does it for me. It is a must read
http://aljahom.wordpress.com/2010/06/05 ... hol-limit/
this section makes it clear to me that a cut in the limit wil make such an insignificant difference to the road toll compared to the cost as to not be worth the inconvenience.

Remember that this change in limit may stop you driving till 8pm the day after a medium session rather than 8 am
Quote:
Of motorcycle riders, in 2007:

13% of those killed had more than 50mg of alcohol/100ml of blood.

11% of those killed had more than 80mg of alcohol/100ml of blood.

In other words, 2% of those motorcyclists killed had blood alcohol levels between the existing and the proposed levels.

Of drivers, in 2007:

24% of those killed had more than 50mg of alcohol/100ml of blood.

22% of those killed had more than 80mg of alcohol/100ml of blood.

In other words, 2% of those drivers killed had blood alcohol levels between the existing and the proposed levels.

This seems to give the big fat whopping lie to the estimated reduction of 40% or more, sold by report author Sir Peter North, the former Principal of Jesus College, as the pay off for this reduction in the limit from 80mg to 50mg.

The 2% would not be "saved lives" some if not most of those accidents would the normal accident level.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 12:15 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
anton wrote:
Remember that this change in limit may stop you driving till 8pm the day after a medium session rather than 8 am

After consuming a specific quantity of alcohol, the extra time needed to get down below a 50mg limit as opposed to an 80mg limit is only in practice going to be about two hours, not twelve. However, a lower limit would mean that many more people end up being convicted on the morning after what they see as just a normal night in the pub, not a heavy drinking session.

Also, given the existence of the "Mellanby effect" – that, once your blood alcohol level has started to fall, impairment declines at a faster rate than the blood alcohol level – there would be plenty of people who end up being banned when actually they are not impaired at all. Even if the limit is cut this is a strong argument for not having mandatory disqualification for alcohol levels below 80mg.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 13:09 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Your body does utilise alcohol at a rate which varies tremendously depending on gender and weight etc. of course. Try the calculator link here for yourself. Very interesting I think and, dare I say, probably quite accurate...

I submitted this, just as an example :roll: (Day/Month opposite to ours, American style)

You are a male and weigh 90 kgs(198 lbs).
You have selected an elimination rate of 14 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood per hour.
You had 2 drinks beginning on 6/8/2010 at 6:00 PM.
You began drink 1 [Wine (13%, 750 ml)] at 6:00 PM.
You began drink 2 [Wine (13%, 750 ml)] at 7:00 PM.
You finished your last drink on 6/8/2010 at 10:30 PM.
Your BAC on 6/9/2010 at 8:30 AM will be 45 (mgs of alcohol per 100 ml of blood).

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 17:11 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
I can see , if it does come about, a similar effect on the population that speed cameras and lowered speed limits has brought about...in other words there will be more criminals and banned drivers but the number of deaths will either not fall or increase.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 21:10 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
graball wrote:
I can see , if it does come about, a similar effect on the population that speed cameras and lowered speed limits has brought about...in other words there will be more criminals and banned drivers but the number of deaths will either not fall or increase.

It would certainly lead to far more "morning after" convictions - something that even under the current limit is not widely understood.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 22:19 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
PeterE wrote:
The point was made when the original breathalyser law was brought in that if you want to set a single, black-and-white standard enforced on a strict liability basis (which has great advantages in terms of clarity and public understanding), and resulting in an automatic severe punishment, then fairness and equity demand that it should be set at a level at which there is reasonable confidence that most drivers are impaired to some extent.

I have dug out a letter I received from the DoT (as was) in 1996 on this issue, which says:

Quote:
It has always been recognised that lesser amounts of alcohol can effect driving skills. Indeed this is one reason why the earlier, less specific offence of driving while unfit through drink or drugs was never repealed. However, for a serious criminal offence to hinge on an objective measure which excludes the exercise of discretion, it was thought essential that the blood alcohol limit should be set at a level where the impairment of a driver could not reasonably be disputed.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 15:12 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Complete nonsense.

leave it exactly where it is, this move will increase prosecutions but do little to reduce accidents.....it will 'harmonise' with europe though which as we all know is a far more noble aim.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 16:04 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
“However, for a serious criminal offence to hinge on an objective measure which excludes the exercise of discretion, it was thought essential that the blood alcohol limit should be set at a level where the impairment of a driver could not reasonably be disputed.”

I think that puts it very well.

From the safety aspect 20/20 vision is ideal, so would be zero alcohol and a blanket 20mph everywhere etc. But that isn’t how it is because of, I hope, obvious reasons.

Where the speed limits have ‘lost their way’, (and to borrow slightly from that quote), is they are not being set at a level which represents a speed which can be reasonably assessed as dangerous for many or most conditions.

i.e. If it is deemed safe and legal to do 30mph in a 30mph limit on a dull and rainy day by the authorities and by law then it has to be as at least as safe, or safer, to go a little quicker on a clear and sunny day with no pedestrians around.

It’s not rocket science yet it is this irrefutable fact which so many are in denial about which always leaves me with one conclusion with this speed-lowering and obeying obsession – they are not doing it and saying it on the grounds of safety!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 09:26 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
PeterE wrote:
It would certainly lead to far more "morning after" convictions

based on nothing more than gut feeling I am not sure that it would.

The current law allows drink driving up to a specific level of alcohol in the body. It is only possible to have the level in your body measured when you have been arrested and taken to a police station. So the ordinary MOP has no way of knowing if he or she is above or below the limit until its too late. People who drive when over the current limit would not be affected by a new lower limit. People who never drink and drive would not be affected by a lower limit.

The people who would be affected are those I see in court, whose life is about to be ruined because they had a couple of drinks with a meal. Many of those drivers were breath tested after a no fault RTC or something as simple as a brake light not working. Similar comments apply to drivers who took a taxi to and from a heavy night and get caught the next day. A much lower limit, perhaps as low as the 20 used in Sweden, Norway and Poland, would send a clear message to that group and perhaps reduce the number of morning after convictions.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 09:46 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
fisherman wrote:
A much lower limit, perhaps as low as the 20 used in Sweden, Norway and Poland, would send a clear message to that group and perhaps reduce the number of morning after convictions.

I fail to see how making 'morning after' convictions more likely would reduce the number of 'morning after' convictions.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:15 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
As I have said this is based on gut feeling and concerns drivers who try to obey the law. Knowing that the current law permits driving after drinking, they limit their consumption of alcohol to a level they believe is within the law and drive believing that they are legally OK to be at the wheel. Only to find to their very considerable cost that they are not. A sunday morning conviction following a heavy saturday night is a common scenario. From what I have seen, I believe that many of these people would obey a law that says, in effect, that you can't drink and drive. That includes walking to the paper shop on sunday and not driving until monday.


A conviction for drink driving, even at a just over the limit level, can be a life changing experience. That seems to me to be unfair when it is based on a level that the offender is unable to determine for himself.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:25 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Yes, Fisherman.

Surely it must be reasonable for a citizen to be able to buy a machine to evaluate breath alcohol level to establish if they are under or over the limit. Am I right in thinking that such devices are not allowed to be sold on the grounds that it would encourage drinking right up to the limit irrespective of impairment?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.547s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]