Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Feb 16, 2020 20:28

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2004 12:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:55
Posts: 47
Mad Moggie wrote:
cra wrote:
Personally, I'm happy to see all drink drivers jailed - say 4 weeks.


In an ideal world. But jails already full to bustin'....[quote]

Indeed. So lets work out who we need to jail, ensure that people who get community sentences actually serve them and that people who get fined do pay them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 21, 2004 23:13 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
cra wrote:
Mad Moggie wrote:
cra wrote:
Personally, I'm happy to see all drink drivers jailed - say 4 weeks.


In an ideal world. But jails already full to bustin'....


Indeed. So lets work out who we need to jail, ensure that people who get community sentences actually serve them and that people who get fined do pay them.



Ah! Now that is huge cauldron of legislation! And we have too much political correctness ... we make excuses for so-called underclass and the Blair "crones", whilst us lot in the middle cannot do anything right - slightest error in the car - wham - criminalisation of normal law-abiding, tax paying pillar of society! Day late with the council tax? :shock: (Though we (entire family policy) always pay them 5p-10p short for fiscal year - it upsets them no end! :lol: And puts those eligible out of running for tiresome jury service as we are then classed as "rebels" And anyway - they are part of the prat set up - so fair game! :wink: ) Our lot paid up and shut up - and now the crones are getting twitchy because we have woken up to most of their scams and lies (and not just the speed cams either! :roll: ) Come the next election though - it really will boil down to who is telling least porkies, and which of these cretins standing for election may at least give "some value for money." :roll: Not an easy choice - come to think of it!

So..at present in our wonderful justice system we have .... soft sap of a Mag telling young recidivist scrote charged with string of motoring offences - driving unlicenced, disqualified for x years, untaxed, uninsured, in possession of illegal substance and years of unpaid fines for previous offences to .... :roll: "Sit at the back of the court in silences for rest of its duration and we will let you off the hook!"

And let us not forget the judge who told motorist with one of UK's worst driving records "that he needs help not prison!" So with 75 motoring convictions - including 5 drink drive offences. and 25 driving whilst disqualified offences - the chap (who assaulted the BiB who pulled him for drink driving) walks free from Manchester Crown Court! Two years community rehabilitation to "tackle his drink problem!" A recidivist drinker who takes no notice of a ban set free to continue flouting the law?

We have no chance of ensuring appropriate punishments are served until we kick political correctness out of the judiciary.

But - heck! This bit is supposed to be about driver training!

The Mad Lad himself!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2004 01:46 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Mad Moggie wrote:
cra wrote:
Personally, I'm happy to see all drink drivers jailed - say 4 weeks.
Firstly, my recommendation to all and sundry is not to even touch one drop.

Maybe, in an ideal world, but this advice is no more useful or accurate than "never exceed the speed limit by even 1 mph".

The Borkenstein study has shown that there is no impairment of driving abilities at blood-alcohol levels below 50 mg (and no significant impairment below 80 mpg), and for the vast majority of drivers, 3 units of alcohol will not take them above 50 mpg.

Indeed, it is not so long ago that official road safety information stated that consuming up to 3 units of alcohol before driving, while maybe not ideal, was still acceptable. This remains true - it is public attitudes that have changed.

The dishonest claim that "even one drink is dangerous" seriously undermines an honest road safety message.

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"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: Mad Doc Himself!
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2004 14:50 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
PeterE wrote:
Mad Moggie wrote:
cra wrote:
Personally, I'm happy to see all drink drivers jailed - say 4 weeks.
Firstly, my recommendation to all and sundry is not to even touch one drop.

Maybe, in an ideal world, but this advice is no more useful or accurate than "never exceed the speed limit by even 1 mph".


True - but in ideal world punishment all punishment would fit crime, and people would be self-disciplined, understand limits, metabolic rates
and effects of over-indulgence!

Reason why I suggest zero intake if driving - People have tendency to overindulge - one leads to two and then to four!

Wifey forgot to post in the medication thread this morning that reason why we recommend taking medication with food is so that digestive system can break down the nutrients and the medication and absorb it more quickly into blood stream.

Alcohol behaves differently. It should be taken with food as food mops up and sponges in the alcohol. Bio-chemical reaction takes place as digestive acids break this down, and most of the alcohol in molecular reaction with the food goes into in simplistic term - body's "waste disposal unit!" and not 100% into blood stream.

On empty stomach - or mixed with water - total alcohol consumed permeates stomach wall and enters bloodstream within first half-hour of consumption.

Young girls in particular seem to believe that white wine spritzer contains few calories, and in conjunction with starvation diets - they are in deepest doo-dah very quickly! :roll: Also they do not know how much wine content is is spritzer so difficult to keep track of actual alhol consumed.

Same applies with alcopops! :roll: :roll:

Nun in example was copped in Manchester area 12 months ago.
She had consumed small amount of vintage champagne on empty stomach, was unused to alcohol and drank on empty stomach. Result - she ended up losing licence for 12 months and was allegedly totally mesmerised by the experience.

PeterE wrote:
The Borkenstein study has shown that there is no impairment of driving abilities at blood-alcohol levels below 50 mg (and no significant impairment below 80 mpg), and for the vast majority of drivers, 3 units of alcohol will not take them above 50 mpg.

Indeed, it is not so long ago that official road safety information stated that consuming up to 3 units of alcohol before driving, while maybe not ideal, was still acceptable. This remains true - it is public attitudes that have changed.


But again - overindulgence and lack of knowledge can cause problems. Safer to ensure one memebr of group keeps strictly within limit or take taxi!

Also metabolic rates are different.

Limit is global - based on norm - but there can be exceptions to norm - and unless, you definitely know to contrary, you may be that exception!

Even with very low consumption eye movements slow down just slightly and this can lead to delayed hazard perception. Also alcohol has individual affects on brain and attitude. Can lead to over-confidence on very little consumption for some and depression for others. Again - speed of effect does depend on food intake, medications, metabolism, individual's weight, health and normal mentality.



PeterE wrote:
The dishonest claim that "even one drink is dangerous" seriously undermines an honest road safety message.


One drink can be very dangerous if you are taking some form of medication - such as antihistamine!

People do overindulge - one drink leads to two and four. Before they have realised it - they are well over the limit! Best to take taxi then you can have a really good time with no worries!

Same with sunny days in UK. Sit for hours in the strongest sunshine - no protections despite loads of adverts on the telly! :roll:

All the more reason for basic education regarding alcohol consumption, your own body and consequences of overindulgence.

Now - Golf awaits, and the wifey will, quite naturally, pick me up in slightly merry state, win or lose, again from the 19th hole!

Cheers

The Mad Doc


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 22, 2004 18:20 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
Mad Moggie wrote:
People do overindulge - one drink leads to two and four. Before they have realised it - they are well over the limit!
That's me I'm afraid. Having one drink means I'm less likely to turn down the next one. Like most of the males in my family (and quite a few of the ladies too) I prefer to either stay stone cold sober or drink like a fish. Since non-alcoholic beers are all so bloody awful I find it easier just to stick to soft drinks, and make up for it occasionally with a bottle on a Friday night. Safer and simpler all round.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2004 00:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:55
Posts: 47
PeterE wrote:
Mad Moggie wrote:
cra wrote:
Personally, I'm happy to see all drink drivers jailed - say 4 weeks.
Firstly, my recommendation to all and sundry is not to even touch one drop.

Maybe, in an ideal world, but this advice is no more useful or accurate than "never exceed the speed limit by even 1 mph".

The Borkenstein study has shown that there is no impairment of driving abilities at blood-alcohol levels below 50 mg (and no significant impairment below 80 mpg), and for the vast majority of drivers, 3 units of alcohol will not take them above 50 mpg.

Indeed, it is not so long ago that official road safety information stated that consuming up to 3 units of alcohol before driving, while maybe not ideal, was still acceptable. This remains true - it is public attitudes that have changed.

The dishonest claim that "even one drink is dangerous" seriously undermines an honest road safety message.

Regards,

Peter


Peter

By suggesting that is is acceptable to drink up to 3 units, you play into the hands of the car-haters. Drink driving did use to be socially acceptable not so long ago, but times and attitudes have changed.

And by playing into the hands of the car-haters it means that you have less influence and they can label you as extreme.

Sometimes a pragmatic view has to be taken, as opposed to to what a piece of research suggests.

Just my 2p.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2004 16:32 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
I'm in favour of regular driving assessments (not tests). Every 5 years take a driving assessment a bit like the IAM's test.

Get feedback on how you faired and a score. Those scoring the lowest would be referred for training. Those failing to adapt would need to re-pass the test.

I'd propose the practical assessment would focus on real world driving. Much like the bikesafe courses (speed limits are not a focus).

I currently get retest every 3 years to keep my status and it keeps me sharp in between.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: regular light petting
PostPosted: Thu Jul 15, 2004 15:28 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 09:52
Posts: 14
Location: sheffield
DIY, you have hit the nub of the retesting issue. It's probably not necessary to have a wholesale retest every few years. I was shocked by how much of an impact (positive, not literal) my first hour-long session of IAM observance had on my driving. The rest of the course simply reinforced the good work. If each and every UK licence holder had (compulsory)access to such an observation and feedback hour every 5 years or so this nation would be a much safer place. Really awful Maureens could obviously be referred to further training (compulsory), but most people just need the wrinkles ironing out of their style occasionally.

The cost of such a programme? Surely the revenue from the Scamera dosh harvest would cover it? At least until nobody drove dangerously any more and the flash bulbs went off no longer. In pure math theory this is the logical conclusion of successful Scamera cash distribution (assuming, that is, that cameras are there to protect especially dangerous accident hot spots, ahem). Because right now all that lovely loot goes straight into the gaping maw of the Treasury.

Once there is no more camera cash then we'll have to look at alternative financing. But by then we'll be saving so much boodle from the health service boodle not having to patch up injured road users that there should be a healthy surplus to keep UK drivers a worldwide beacon of excellence.

What a wonderful world it could so easily become... answers on a postcard please, Safety Camera Partnership and Gordon Brown.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 23:01 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 14:14
Posts: 190
Location: Far Enough Behind, Far Enough In Front
beermatt wrote:
One thing I find scary is that these people must have passed a test at some point...

Matt.


There must be some drivers out there who HAVEN'T Taken a driving test?
When did the driving test come In? Road layouts change considerably over time. The driving test Is only a 40 minute drive & the learners are only taught the basics to get them through. Perhaps 80% keep In their head what they did learn and the others forget it altogether! ! I can honestly say I don't know what a solution would be.
:?

_________________
RoADA Member -GOLD 2008
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 01:16 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
Derick wrote:
There must be some drivers out there who HAVEN'T Taken a driving test?
When did the driving test come In? Road layouts change considerably over time. The driving test Is only a 40 minute drive & the learners are only taught the basics to get them through. Perhaps 80% keep In their head what they did learn and the others forget it altogether! ! I can honestly say I don't know what a solution would be. :?
There's probably fairly few drivers left out there who never took the test at all. I just googled and found that the test was introduced in 1935, though not the minimum age before then. If it was 17 in the pre-test days as well then everyone under 86 now would have done a test.
A full re-test every x number of years would probably be impractical. The aim should be to encourage people to improve themselves, and to check bad drivers often and good drivers infrequently. Assessments might be the answer. No pass or fail as such, with the possible exception of the very worst drivers (say Driving School Maureen on a really bad day). More like going to the dentist - your teeth are great, come back in a couple of years; your teeth are okay, come back in 12 months; your teeth are a bit iffy, come back in 6 months. At the first assessment a driver goes to after passing the L test, say five years later, the assessor would be looking to see if the driver has improved with experience or fallen into bad habits. If their driving has detiriorated they might have to have the next assessment in a year. If they've improved at a reasonable rate they might be okay for another five years. And if they do really well they might be okay for ten years. Only the very scariest would actually have to get a taxi home.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 21:10 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 00:08
Posts: 748
Location: Grimsby
Recently heard that HGV drivers are going to be re-tested/assessed every five years.
Let me see, To get to HGV 1 licence, I personally have passed THREE driving tests, car, HGV 3 and HGV 1, plus I also passed a test on driving a tank.
Now, these were passed over a 15 year period, I have been driving HGV for the last 10 years, covering 10s of thousands of miles every year.
I accept I will have got some bad practices, like palming the wheel, taking it a bit close to parked cars, got six points on my licence, but have had only three "incidents" in the hole of that time. I can even reverse park an artic into a space between two vehicles.
So why do I need testing/assessing?
Now, look at the basic car driver, passed one test twenty years ago, why are they not going to be tested/assessed as well.

I know, we'll test/assess all the professional drivers in the country, that'll create some more totally non-productive jobs for the boys and make a shed load of money for the government to trouser, and we'll not bother with all the car drivers of which only a relatively small number are driving as part of their job.

Don't get me wrong, I would agree 100% for testing/assessing a driver who has been done for DD, DUI, WDCA, but not regular retesting/assessing.

Consider this one from a friend who has just gone over to the US to drive HGVs for a while.

I hold in my hand,

A piece of plastic!
It says upon it's shiny front face:
North Dakota Drivers Licence
Class A

And should get some extra little codes on it tomorrow, like doubles/triples, and hazmat. Only a learners license for now, but I'll get the driven test in a week or so.

Will say one thing, the whole process is a LOT cheaper and more pleasant here than back in Blighty.
$5 for the car written test, $15 for the learners permit (including the 2 basic truck writtens), add $3 each for endorsments (of which there are 3 for freight, doubles/triples, tanks, and hazmat) and another $5 for the driven test! The tests were computerised, and pretty simple (tho twerp here failed her first shot at the car test), and the card was presented with only a 5 min wait, photo taken by them in the office. The DVLA could learn a thing or 3...

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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 : 0.330s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]