Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Nov 26, 2020 08:24

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 02:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ink101.xml

One drink may put you over the limit

James Kirkup, Political Correspondent

Drivers could find themselves over the legal alcohol threshold after a single drink under plans being drawn up by the Government to lower the drink drive limit.

Police could also be given powers to stop and breathalyse drivers at random, even if their driving gives no cause for concern.

A Department for Transport consultation to be launched in the New Year is set to propose reducing the legal blood-alcohol limit for driving by almost half.

It is thought that the limit could be cut from 80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood to 50mg. The 80mg limit allows a man of average height and weight to drink as many as four units of alcohol, or two pints of normal-strength beer, and still remain within the law. Women can drink three units, the equivalent of a large glass of average strength wine.

Cutting the limit to 50mg could put drivers over the limit after one strong pint of lager or a glass of wine.

A reduction would bring Britain into line with most other European countries.

There is concern that the new generation of drivers has no memory of the highly effective campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s to make drink-driving socially unacceptable.

Some road safety experts believe recently qualified drivers are more likely to take the wheel under the influence of alcohol than their parents are.

Department for Transport figures show that teenage drink-driving has risen by more than a quarter. In 2005, there were 1,050 17- to 19-year-olds involved in drink-drive accidents. A decade ago, the total was 810.

Last year, 540 people died after drink-related traffic accidents. Doctors say that even small amounts of alcohol in the blood slow reaction times and increase accident risk.

Nonetheless, almost half of drivers think that it is acceptable to have at least one drink before getting behind the wheel.

Jim Fitzpatrick, the road safety minister, said yesterday that the Government would consider a lower limit.

He said: "There is always an argument for zero tolerance. We are going to be consulting early in the new year on whether to keep the limit as it stands or drop it, and whether to introduce random breath testing of motorists.

"It's difficult to assess whether you are over the limit because people's metabolisms are different and it depends on many different factors."

The plans were called "gesture politics" by Paul Smith, who heads the Safe Speed road safety campaign group. "This is completely useless," he said. "The only effective way of reducing accidents is putting more police on the roads."

However, a spokesman for the road safety charity Brake welcomed the move.

The annual pre-Christmas campaign against drink-driving was launched yesterday, with the police warning of "vigilant" patrols out on the roads.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 07:37 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
letter to the editor dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
(plain text + address and phone no. required)

heres mine... your turn.

Quote:
Sir- You drew attention to the Roads Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick plans to reduce the drink drive limit to 50mg or zero.
Quoting " in a test drivers were slower to react" It does not prove a thing. Drivers adjust their driving to their reaction time.Where is the evidence that a driver who has had 1.5 pints is having significantly more injury accidents? If the evidence was there I would support a reduction in the limit. But not to zero.
For years designated drivers have had just one or two drinks over about 3 hours. There is a limit to how much coke and orange juice you can drink.
A drastic cut in the limit would really spoil life for millions of people and their passengers especial in suburban and rural areas.
Why punish responsible drivers for failed government policy.

I believe the solution to drink drive lies in roads policing not further reduction in the limit.

Anton, Southampton, UK

_________________
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: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:51 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
SafeSpeed wrote:
Police could also be given powers to stop and breathalyse drivers at random, even if their driving gives no cause for concern.


They can do that now.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:58 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Dixie wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Police could also be given powers to stop and breathalyse drivers at random, even if their driving gives no cause for concern.

They can do that now.

I remember Mereddyd Hughes saying he could not think of any circumstances where the current powers prevented officers making a drink-driving stop where they felt it was justified or necessary.

_________________
"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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
My views on drink driving diverge a little here.

Im of the opinion that a zero drink drive limit would be a good thing because then we all KNOW what the limit is for drink driving-none.

Theres no doubts about it, drink influences your driving, and i dont think it could be reasonably argued that it improves your driving at all.

I can state with 100% certainty that having just one drink will impact neagtively on my driving, i know it to be so.
I have never driven while under the influence but judging how alcohol affects my perceptions, reactions and reasoning ( some would say it improves my dispostion. :D) i am totally convinced i would be unsafe to be driving with any alcohol in me.
The argument for me is a no brainer, no driving when alcohol has been consumed, just like youd expect your airline pilot to do.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
DeltaF wrote:
My views on drink driving diverge a little here.

Im of the opinion that a zero drink drive limit would be a good thing because then we all KNOW what the limit is for drink driving-none.

Theres no doubts about it, drink influences your driving, and i dont think it could be reasonably argued that it improves your driving at all.

I can state with 100% certainty that having just one drink will impact neagtively on my driving, i know it to be so.
I have never driven while under the influence but judging how alcohol affects my perceptions, reactions and reasoning ( some would say it improves my dispostion. :D) i am totally convinced i would be unsafe to be driving with any alcohol in me.
The argument for me is a no brainer, no driving when alcohol has been consumed, just like youd expect your airline pilot to do.


I strongly agree with the idea 'zero alcohol for driving'.

But if I drank a bottle of wine last night and woke up stone cold sober and safe to drive, I'd like to be legal to drive too. A zero limit won't allow this. An 80mg/ml limit probably does and a 50mg/ml probably doesn't.

And then there's the huge issue about how to change behaviour. Is lowering the limit an effective way to change behaviour? I don't think it is. In particular, and somewhat perversely, I believe that lowering the limit would increase the social acceptability of drink drive. People would be able to complain (in quite large numbers) that they were sober when they were nicked, and others would sympathise with that. This would gradually increase the social acceptability of drink drive - exactly the opposite of the desired effect.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 13:13 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
DeltaF wrote:
I can state with 100% certainty that having just one drink will impact neagtively on my driving, i know it to be so.


Absolutely, but you do know it to be so, and that is important.

One drink will of course marginally impair your motor functions, but it will also leave you 'with it' enough to be aware of the fact, allowing you to take steps to mitigate the effects.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 13:21 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
If you ask me it’s just a way of making things cheaper and easier for the police. Think about how much time and money is wasted when they take drivers down to the police station. As it is now if drivers are near the limit and send in their own specimens, only to find they are under the prescribed limit, then it’s been a waste of time and money for everyone. With a zero limit they know that anyone they pull who has only touched a drop of alcohol will be an easy touch, hence it’s not a waste of time or money, even if that person is quite capable of driving with such a low limit.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 13:53 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
The morning after effect is quite serious. There are many people who think they will be ok the next morning to drive to work and find they are over the old limit and don't sober up until lunch time! Current limits vary with age, weight, whether you've eaten, liver function and so many other things. At least a close to zero limit would mean 'don't drink at all if you're driving'. You can set it so that something silly like alcoholic food eg wine in gravy, sherry trifle etc didn't send people over the limit. It would take some research to set a sensible limit. If the 50mg limit is it then that is the best one. Then there isn't all the hooha over having one drink or 3 or however many. It's becomes none at all and none at all is the easiest to comply with.

The education aspect also needs to improve so that those that get tanked up on an evening are told not to drive before lunchtime the following day. Just because you don't feel impaired doesn't mean you're not.

The enforcement and prosecution should also be more sensible so those with clean driving records that were over 50mg but under 80mg maybe got a few points and some other less serious conviction code to differentiate them from the others that were properly unfit. Drivers that had been caught before should get the full force. Those with lots of previous convictions should be banned/imprisoned so they understand they can't drink and then drive.

Question is is the zero tolerance for drinking and driving the pre-cursor to zero tolerance for speeding? Get the masses to accept the concept then you can start tormenting them with all sorts of things.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 14:17 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Daily Telegraph

Quote:
Police given manual on how to spot a drunk
By Graham Tibbetts
Last Updated: 2:37am GMT 01/12/2007

It may not make it on to the best-seller list this Christmas but a Government manual offering advice on how to tell if someone is drunk could prove one of the more humorous offerings of the festive season.

From looking out for staggering or "dishevelled" pub-goers to listening for "rambling conversation" and offensive language, the Home Office publication covers it all in minute detail. The guide is being issued to thousands of police officers who will work undercover in pubs and clubs this Christmas to catch bar staff who sell alcohol to inebriated customers.

Other tell-tale signs of drunkenness, according to the guide, include being "careless with money", exhibiting inappropriate sexual behaviour, offensive language, bumping into furniture, spilling drinks and drinking quickly or competitively, "i.e down in one". Drunkenness may also cause a loss of train of thought, difficulty in paying attention, "not understanding what is said", glassy eyes or lack of focus.

But the manual was condemned yesterday as "absolute nonsense" by the pub trade, which called on the Government to focus on the supermarkets that sell cheap alcohol.

A spokesman for the Licensed Victuallers' Association said: "It seems ridiculous that a trained police officer needs help in identifying someone who is drunk. If you apply all these guidelines in the average pub any customer could be classified as drunk."

The guide is being issued to 90 police teams across the country taking part in the pre-Christmas Responsible Sales of Alcohol Campaign, which started last night and will run until Christmas Eve.

Undercover officers will mingle in pubs and issue £80 fixed penalties to staff who ''knowingly" sell alcohol to someone who is drunk. Selling to a drunk customer is an offence under the Licensing Act but confusion over what defines ''drunk" has engulfed the pub trade - until now.

A spokesman for the Home Office confirmed that undercover police officers are being taught how to spot a drunkard.

He said: ''As part of the Responsible Sales of Alcohol Campaign, plain clothes police officers have been issued guidelines on monitoring the sale of alcohol to intoxicated individuals. The Home Office does not make a secret of the guidelines it issues to police, which are aimed at protecting the public and staff working in licensed premises."

Yesterday pub landlords ridiculed the police guide.

David Wine, the licensee at the Six Bells in Felsham, Suffolk, said: "This is an absolute nonsense. So what if someone is dishevelled?

''Does that mean Bob Geldof will not be able to get served in pubs? They should be targeting supermarkets rather than the pub trade." Details of the Home Office drunk guide were leaked to pub trade journal The Publican.

Caroline Nodder, the editor, said: "Drunkenness is not something that can be measured on a scale.

"It is so subjective, so vague and open to misinterpretation as to be almost entirely useless. And surely these criteria would not stand up in court anyway."

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 15:00 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9273
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Quote:
A spokesman for the Licensed Victuallers' Association said: "It seems ridiculous that a trained police officer needs help in identifying someone who is drunk
Quote:

Like the bit of advice given to a rookie by his sergeant -

"I stand outside the pub door with my foot just off the ground. If they fall and don't get up --drunk and incapable.
If they fall,get up ready for a fight -drunk and disorderly." :lol:

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 15:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
teabelly wrote:
Just because you don't feel impaired doesn't mean you're not.


Is there any evidence to support that?

Personally I reckon I know damn well when I'm impaired. But I can't know if I'm over the limit or not on the morning after.

I appreciate that very drunk people sometimes lose the judgement, but that's not what we're talking about here.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 15:42 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
teabelly wrote:
Just because you don't feel impaired doesn't mean you're not.

Is there any evidence to support that?

Personally I reckon I know damn well when I'm impaired. But I can't know if I'm over the limit or not on the morning after.

I would say that an average person, particularly one who regularly drank alcohol, would not feel impaired until some way above the current drink-drive limit, although statistics show that they would pose a greater risk at or slightly above that figure. And, by definition, those who are most likely to be drink-drive offenders are those who regularly drink.

SafeSpeed wrote:
I appreciate that very drunk people sometimes lose the judgement, but that's not what we're talking about here.

The piece posted by Dixie was about the ludicrous Home Office guidance issued to police forces to allow them to identify "drunks" in pubs and isn't really relevant to the drink-driving issue.

_________________
"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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 15:50 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
teabelly wrote:
The morning after effect is quite serious. There are many people who think they will be ok the next morning to drive to work and find they are over the old limit and don't sober up until lunch time! Current limits vary with age, weight, whether you've eaten, liver function and so many other things. At least a close to zero limit would mean 'don't drink at all if you're driving'. You can set it so that something silly like alcoholic food eg wine in gravy, sherry trifle etc didn't send people over the limit. It would take some research to set a sensible limit. If the 50mg limit is it then that is the best one. Then there isn't all the hooha over having one drink or 3 or however many. It's becomes none at all and none at all is the easiest to comply with.

A 50 mg limit would not mean that, though, it would mean that most people could legally consume one drink before driving.

teabelly wrote:
The education aspect also needs to improve so that those that get tanked up on an evening are told not to drive before lunchtime the following day. Just because you don't feel impaired doesn't mean you're not.

But we need to bear in mind the "Mellanby Effect" which shows that the level of impairment drops more quickly than the blood-alcohol level, so someone could still be above a 50 mg limit (or even an 80 mg limit) from drinking many hours before and yet not be impaired.

If we do end up with a lower limit the authorities really need to provide people with honest information about the metabolisation of alcohol so they know when they can legally drive after drinking. If they continue to stick to a mantra such as "if you have had an alcoholic drink, do not drive for the next 24 hours" they are effectively advocating Prohibition.

_________________
"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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 15:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
PeterE wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
teabelly wrote:
Just because you don't feel impaired doesn't mean you're not.

Is there any evidence to support that?

Personally I reckon I know damn well when I'm impaired. But I can't know if I'm over the limit or not on the morning after.

I would say that an average person, particularly one who regularly drank alcohol, would not feel impaired until some way above the current drink-drive limit, although statistics show that they would pose a greater risk at or slightly above that figure. And, by definition, those who are most likely to be drink-drive offenders are those who regularly drink.


I'm not at all sure that's true. The tests of crash risk were 'whole population' tests. The regular drinker will obviously need more alcohol than the average person to reach the same level of intoxication and could very possibly be unimpaired at the 80mg/ml limit.

Not that I can find anything much better than the 80mg/ml limit. I think we got that one spot on. My only significant concern is for the stone cold sober moring after drivers who happen to be still over the technical proxy limit.

PeterE wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I appreciate that very drunk people sometimes lose the judgement, but that's not what we're talking about here.

The piece posted by Dixie was about the ludicrous Home Office guidance issued to police forces to allow them to identify "drunks" in pubs and isn't really relevant to the drink-driving issue.


I know. I wasn't referring to that.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 19:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 20:19
Posts: 306
Location: Crewe
All who read this forum need to understand that it is not as simple as making our limit match 'European limits'. There is a two stage limit in France, and I think elsewhere in Europe, where there is, indeed, a 50mg limit, but the penalty for being over this limit is far, far less than ours, being essentially a fine. The higher limit is 80 mg, the same as ours with similar penalties.

So we need to compare like with like. Matching the European 50mg limit to the draconian UK penalty would be a grotesque over-reaction, and would also make drink-driving actually more acceptable as pointed out here already, just as speeding is now acceptable because of the bovine enforcement policies we have.

When everybody is punished for something, it is no longer a crime, its a tax !!

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 19:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
Quote:
I'm not at all sure that's true. The tests of crash risk were 'whole population' tests. The regular drinker will obviously need more alcohol than the average person to reach the same level of intoxication and could very possibly be unimpaired at the 80mg/ml limit.


The thing that bothers me about all these spurious statistical analyses is that they are dealing with the probabilities of Extreamly rare events!

99.99999% (or thereabouts) of journeys made by drivers over the limit do NOT end up in fatal car crashes.

The increace in "risk" between drunk and sober is smaller than the variation between that of a poor and a competant driver.

Most DD accidents involve people who are not only intoxicated but also people who are driving realy quite badly also

After all you dont tend to hear about "Drunk Driving" incidents along the lines of "Smith was driving home carefully at 25 MPH when he suddenly lost controll on a streight stretch of road and run over a bus shelter full of nuns!. Its more aling the lines of "Jones lost controll rounding a hair pin bend at 90MPH while demontrating to his mates how to steer with his feet"

I think all it really points out is that if you are a poor/wreckless driver in the first place, drinking wont help matters. if you are competant/cautious driver then even quite high levels of intoxication probabaly wont make a great deal of difference (especially if you are a regular drinker)

Obsessing on BAC levels is frankly as irrelevent as obsessing on speed limits.

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 19:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
You make an interesting case there Dusty, one which I am drawn to, for the main impairment victim of alcohol being the attitude, not the ability.

Unfortunately, attitude is infinitely harder than BAC to measure, and there has to be a line in the sand. Some drivers would no doubt be safe with a skinfull, and some aren't even safe sober!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 21:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I quite like your argument too, Dusty, but not so much these two statements:

Dusty wrote:
The increace in "risk" between drunk and sober is smaller than the variation between that of a poor and a competant driver.


I doubt that's true. There are very real and very substantial increases in risk at higher BACs. The curve here suggests a 40x increase in serious crash risk at double the present legal limit. Obviously at still higher levels we'd expect it to be far worse.

Dusty wrote:
Obsessing on BAC levels is frankly as irrelevent as obsessing on speed limits.


I don't think so for 2 very important reasons:

- Firstly we don't need the right amount of alcohol to drive, but we do need the right amount of speed. If we can cut down on drink drive, then I'm sure we can cut down on crashes. Cutting down on speeding is actually making matters worse.

- Secondly, while speeding is hugely under-represented in the crash stats, drink drive is strongly over-represented. This alone is a significant indication of a real (as opposed to a theoretical) danger.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 22:16 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Dusty wrote:
The increace in "risk" between drunk and sober is smaller than the variation between that of a poor and a competant driver.

I doubt that's true. There are very real and very substantial increases in risk at higher BACs. The curve here suggests a 40x increase in serious crash risk at double the present legal limit. Obviously at still higher levels we'd expect it to be far worse.

Indeed, but the difference in risk for a given driver between a sub-40 BAC and a BAC of 81 or 100 is much less than the difference in risk for a given driver at age 17 and age 30. So if we are talking of marginally illegal levels Dusty does have a point.

_________________
"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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.046s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]