Safe Speed Forums

In the old days you would know straight away what the advert's about but now the trend is to leave you guessing until the very end.

So you get the whole info-mercial (however it's spelt), with all the bells and whistles and then right at the end a quiet unassuming "Eat Big Tone's Burgers - you know they're the best".

Well I'm off home now to buy a Vodka because I'm so impressed with the advert. (Well, it must be fooling someone or they wouldn't do it I guess...)

_________________
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.

Of course that would have to be late night on the adult channel...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Can I ask why eveyone is using the example of blood instead of breath for analysis, as the breath analysis is more accurate.

The reason I say this as when you blow on the machine at the police station and you choose blood because your reading was between 40 and 50ugs, when the blood sample is sent off for analysing the scientist's always deduct 5% from the actual reading as a matter of course, where as on the other hand the breath reading is the actual reading you get charged at if over the 50ugs limit.

The motorist in these circumstances is better off as if the request for blood is taken and the doctor takes his time then the chances are stacked for him as the longer the doctor takes the better it is for the driver.

The legal limit is 35ugs per 100ml of breath, but they dont get charged with the offence until they are over 50ugs and if they blow between 35 and 40ugs then they are released without any further action.

So, why is everyone wanting to change limits when they as far as I am concerned more than sufficient to cope under most circumstances.
Stephen

I confess I didn't know that Stephen, so thanks.

I don't so much want to change any limits but it does seem very austere to have a death or glory situation for a driver who is borderline.

Whether it's blood or breath, to use a maths analogy, X + dx and you're done with devastating consequences, X - dx and you're okay.

I say again, I'm not for drinking and driving but like most things in life we are generally trusted to act responsibly and I don't think 'responsibly' should mean complete abstinance.

The worst part of the DUI is the ban, the fine and the money for your next insurance. I don't know why essentially the same punishment should be levelled at someone who is just over the limit as someone who is, by definition, drunk.

_________________
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.

I know what you're saying and FWIW I think you're right- the punishment should relect the crime- but it's a double edged sword, many will claim (not without reason) that any lowering of the standard will make people more likely to "chance it"

my pesonal experience of the breathbag is that it errs in the drivers favour anyway, (or that the one I got on a morning after many moons ago was defective, or that my Irish ancestory gives me superhuman ability to process alcohol)

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I believe that the original theory is that to 'fail the test' you must have a blood/breath alcohol concentration which is associated with a significant increase in risk in an average member of the population. I further believe that 80mg/ml represented a doubling of average risk.

Yes, people just below only get a scare. But people just above, are, on average, posing a risk to the rest of us.

The parts that bother me are:

- non-average people (e.g.the alcoholic who is stone cold sober with 120mg/ml blood alcohol OR the non-drinker who is a danger at 50mg/ml).

- morning after events where the Mellanby effect suggests that blood alcohol may have fallen considerbly more slowly than drunkenness.

But, on the whole, you don't need a drink to drive and none is best. You can't say that about speed...

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

does such a risk exist in significant numbers? most people who drink very little probably wouldn't drink evan a little then drive, as by lifestyle choice they're quite happy to go without and usually know their limits and being tipsy is unusual to them. Habitual drinkers are the ones who'd rather not go without and will get away with what they can.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

In many European countries there are two limits. The lower one gets you a fine and points, the higher gets you a ban etc etc. The break points are 50mg, and 85 mg (or near these). So the UK only has the higher limit at which the draconian penalties kick in, and nothing below.

What is best for the UK, I do not know, except that I believe the law in certain, (many ??), United States states is that driving impairment has to be proved by a series of tests at the roadside; it's not just the breath test that decides it.

Discussion: should we use the US or European system ?

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

Safedriver,
What are you saying then that in Britain we should adopt the continental law and introduce a fine and points system for the limit between 40 and 50 which would normally allow you to get off scot free.

As I think that this is what will happen in this country if we start to debate the rights and wrongs of what the legal limits and punishments should be in this country.

I also wonder who starts these debates, perhaps it is someone who works on behalf of the government thinking of way to make more money for them by trying to introduce arguments/ debates on subjects such as this knowing fine well, we will argue for and against it.

If its not broke then dont try and fix it otherwise we will all only end up on the receiving end one way or another.
Stephen

That's a good suggestion, and it may well be true. But I was just trying to give extreme examples.

I do think that some will get away with driving intoxicated due to the effect. I agree that it probably only represents a handful (<5?) of road deaths per annum.

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

To be wicked these days is now to be cool - or if someone is bad you are really saying they're good.

So maybe the bastardisation of the English language has infected the very precious terms formally reserved for actual offences. You can't be light-headed or tipsy. You somehow leap from sober to vomiting incontinent abusive drunk in a moment, according to the law.

It's like saying just because someone slaps their child on the bum for a kicking a grannies leg, you have leapt from good loving kind parent to child abuser. (best not open that door man)

It could well be that a sobriety test would be more meaningfull than a simple blood or breath test. America doesn't allow drink anywhere in the car except the trunk, (boot), and you have to be aged 21 to drink so if the sobriety test is good for such a regulated system?...

_________________
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.

Breath analysis is not more accurate. Analysers in many measurement scenarios are notoriously unreliable. The reason that the prosecution threshold is 42% over the arbitrary limit is because of this known inaccuracy.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

I am somewhat shocked/surprised that a police officer believes the breath analysis to be more accurate than the blood. It is the blood that is pumped to the brain and the breath sample can be pushed over the limit by residual of drinks from the 30 min before and even by paint spraying and mouth wash.

As someone who does not exceed the drink drive limit I would not want to be banned for paint spraying.

_________________
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

Yes, that's correct. The view was taken in 1967 that it would be easier for the public to understand if there was a single black-and-white standard rather than a set of graduated penalties, and that if severe penalties were to be imposed, the line should be drawn at a point above which most of the population would be noticeably impaired.

There is an argument that having a level of penalty that did not involve a driving ban would lessen the seriousness of the offence in the public eye.

Of course there are already graduated penalties for offenders with alcohol levels well above the current legal limit.


AIUI you won't get charged below 40 µg, but between 40 and 50 µg you will be charged, but also have the option of a blood or urine test. Above 50 µg you no longer get that option.

_________________
"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 have to agree with Big Tone and others, I'd like to see impairment tests, preferably to a stricter standard than the American ones because if those police video shows are accurate, then you can be seriously blotto but so long as you eventually put your feet down in the right place then you are good to go. However the principle is sound.

The reasoning is simple, it avoids the problem of people under the limit who can't handle it and are seriously impaired, and it catches people who are unfit due to drugs or other causes. There isn't the camera-style argument about resources since the current regime requires you to get pulled over anyway.

I have also known people who actually drive better after a pint! they tend to be people who are perpetually nervous. It's rare but it does happen.

And then there is the sad tale of my grandad. Every sunday, he'd take his company van (self employed) to the local club for a few pints and a few games of dominoes. He'd been doing this since before I was born, and was perfectly fine to drive home. I wouldn't hesitate to get in the van with him and had done so many times in the past. He was an excellent driver and damn fit despite advancing years, as you would expect from someone whose livelihood depends on an ability to drive to customer sites and perform manual labour.
One day he gets pulled over and is found to be just over the limit. He is perfectly coherent, capable, polite to the officer but ultimately ends up getting banned from driving, becomes unable to work as a result and died a 4 or 5 months later, most likely due to his new found inactivity. He never endangered anyone on the roads!

Compare to a colleage from work who was 19 and drove an XR3i (yeah, I know, it's a stereotype, but he really did) he drove like a nutcase when he was sober, and once gave me a lift back from a *ahem* liquid lunch. 70mph down Edge Lane in liverpool weaving in between cars until he ran out of fuel and drove the last 50 yards on the starter motor. Never again. He got banned for drink driving too, ironically it was a morning-after ban when he wasn't impaired, but I didn't have too much sympathy, he'd been complaining about getting constantly tugged and breathalysed every day for the last two weeks so I think the police knew what was going on and were glad to have finally caught him.

The officer must give you the option to provide a blood or urine sample for readings between 40 and 50, or you can opt to go with the breath reading.
Although you may be asked whether you prefer to give blood or urine the actual decision lies with the officer.

In principle I don't have a problem with the impairment test. However being 6'2" and over 20 stone with two dodgy knees and a wrongly mended broken ankle joint put some great oaf like me at risk of being wrongly judged at an impairment test.
My wife has ms and cannot balance too well. She cannot look up without falling over. It is all to do with scaring on the brain from the MS.

I should also point out that quite a few racing drivers and motorcyclists have won races whilst carrying a broken bone that meant they needed to be virtually carried to their bike or car.

being able to walk or touch your nose is not a true measure of being fit to drive

What protection do we get?

_________________
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