Safe Speed Forums

Link here.

I'm glad about this really. Its enforcement of the current laws which are needed. Cutting the limit would only benefit a small minority of people at best.

What does everyone else think?

A limit reduction means nothing if there aren't enough people who have the authority to enforce it.

It also means (next to) nothing if the vast bulk of the real-world 'dangerous events' are well over the original (higher) limit - and they are.

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

The group behind this idea really thought it through didn't they?

What would the Police do with someone who provided a sample between the two limits - arrest them until they could prove they were over 25?

Fully agree with Madroaduser, we need compliance with the current limit before we think about reducing it...

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).

If a lower limit should exist, it should be for those who have held their licence for the shortest period such as learners or those in their first few years of driving, it should not be based on age.

I don't think making an age related limit is particularly sensible as is just seems completely unfair to those who have been driving 6/7 years but are under 25.

Plus, I think 20-25 year olds may be less impaired than an older person after having drunk an equal amout of alcohol,as they'reprobably more used to drinking in large quantities and therefore the yonger generation's livers will be more effective at metabolising the alcohol

1. Purely practically, would all current hand-held breathalysers need replacing? I'm sure they could be reprogrammed, but could they be modified to be switched between two levels?

2. IMHO the problem drink drivers are those who exceed the current limit by a large margin anyway. Only extra trafpol will sort them out.

Exactly, those who 'drinkk and drive' will be well over the limit regardless of what it is.

Why do so many legislators and rule makers in all walks of life simply fail to understand and apply basic common sense?

IIRC there was some research done (in scandinavia somewhere) that showed there was no significant difference in driving performance between those at 80mg/100ml, the existing limit and those at 50mg - which had been proposed as a change in the law. The conclusion was that all it would do is increase the number of convictions without having any noticeable change in drink/drive accidents.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Another point is that a lower limit specifically for young drivers would send out a message that, once they reached 25, it was OK to drink a bit more, which is not exactly what the legislators intended

_________________
"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

I didn't think young drivers were typically the group the drink drives anyway - I thought it was mainly the over 45s?

I think a brief pr supporting ladyboy's decision would be helpful - we should not just be seen as ney sayers - it also makes it hard for ladyboy to be critical of safespeed policy.

Key points:

Wrong target - the fact that under 25s don't feature highly on drink drive stats anyway (need to check)
Limited safety benefit - most DD accident are normally well over the current limit

It does look like the DFT are still keen to lower the limit though

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 04532.hcsp

you're right, young drivers are more likely to indulge in the far 'safer' practice of drug driving instead.

More to the point. It isnt "Drinking and Driving" that is the problem! It is "Drinking, Driving and crashing" that is the problem.

Thogth we are continually reminded about the "Hard core" of middle aged DD's it is *not* generally this group that has the accidents!

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

Although I can't immediately put my hand on the references, I have seen a number of reports in the past few years showing a growing number of under-25 offenders.

If people are prepared to drive after taking all kinds of illegal substances, they're hardly going to go easy on the Blue WKDs, are they?

_________________
"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

At the end of the day (To paraphrase comment from another thread elsewhere) Darwin will have removed all the people who cannot DD "Safely" long before they reach middle age!

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

that's all well and good but what about the innocents they take with them?

Yes. Me too. Under 25 DD is definitely the 'problem' being touted. I haven't investigated the reports to verify the claim, but I don't really find much to doubt.

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

Here's one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 071120.stm

_________________
"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

If they took innocents with them they would either have died in the event or have been taken out of the equasion by the legal process! [Darwin!]

40+ DD's who have *never* had an accident are probabally good enough never to have one!

(Or at least,not to have a significantly greater risk of accident than anybody else, Drunk or sober)



Am I wrong?

Simple question! Yes or No??

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

Could be right... Not that I'm advocating anyone try to prove this empirically!

I know that anecdotal evidence isn't very good, especially as in this case it applies to only one person, in the pre-breathalyser era, but... I had an uncle (now dead from old age) who, when sober, to put it as politely as possible, was a f*cking terrible driver... He drove very fast in all the wrong places, tailgated, cut people up, his lane-discipline was positively bizarre, he used to look at whoever he was talking to - even if they were seated in the back of the car - etc etc., and he used to have a lot of bumps and scrapes. He was also a drinker, from the school of "if I haven't had 20 pints I've not had a drink!", after which he would drive, often quite long distances (he was one of those people who could give you directions from anywhere in the UK to anywhere else based purely on pub names!) in a totally different fashion. His driving was astonishingly good, appropriate speed, safe, courteous and he never had an accident when he was p*ssed... In fact his family would only travel with him when he was! Obviously he was a "rogue statistic", I'd say that he was just lucky except that his driving improved so much after drinking a lot.

Oh, and by the way...

Don't try this at home folks!.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

what you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. My question was, "what about the innocent people killed by drunk drivers" - ie not the schmucks that get in the car with them but anyone unlucky enough to be in the wrong place.