Safe Speed Forums

Pogo - said you would not like it - but a lot of industries are penalising employees for just that "a sponfull of cough medicine, " un less they declare it at the time.
Not PC nonsence in an accident, how could you not believe that your drink had not contributed to a death.
Only way to clear your conscience - don't mix the two.


Now on the "drunk in charge " idea.

Fred hires a motor caravan, drives off and finds a nice laybye with seclusion, within walking distance of a nice pub.
That evening, fred and wife walk to the pub, and have a few, enough to make fred over limit.
As fred opens door of motorhome, he is stopped by police, being in posession of keys to a motor vehicle.(no intention of driving, he just wants to get to bed) , but technically he is "drunk in charge".
Any ideas from BIB??

Sorry, but I disagree... It is PC nonsense. If I may repeat what I said originally - "From published papers I've seen, there is no measurable difference in performance between a person with zero alcohol in his/her system and 50-60mg%... And very little between that and the current 80mg% limit." so setting a zero limit merely serves to criminalise / disqualify someone for no measurable benefit. If you wish to take that level of zero tolerance what else would you have to proscribe? A lot of prescription medicines, anything containing much caffein, Benylyn, assorted anti-histamines etc etc etc. It's nonsense - and achieves nothing, just like speed cameras really.


Didn't this one get an airing a while back? I'm sure that one of the BiB outlined the concept of "intention to drive" - which presumably wouldn't apply in your hypothetical case. Or maybe my memory's playing me up.

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

Drunk in charge is an area that you have to use your common sense at dealing with. I have dealt with many many drunk in charge cases and when you step back and weigh up the evidence,I ask myself the question will prove this offence at court.

The camper scenario is one that no have decent copper would even try and take on board although saying that,with some of the young ones these days nothing surprises me.

At the end of the day common sense should win the day even if the evidence cant.
Stephen

Nothing wrong with the current law.

We regularly conduct static checks for con and use and docs checks etc. During that check we are able to assess the driver for drink/drugs, and respond accordingly. The 80mg limit is about correct IMO, although I can see an argument for a more minor offence (perhaps fixed penalty) between 50 and 80 mg - not an argument I concur with.

The most valuable part of these static checks is watching for and catching the car which u-turns 200 yards up the road from the check.

I think the basic thrust of the drink drive legislation is that it has to be firm but fair. Something like 20-25% of our fatal accidents involve excess alcohol, so, unlike speed, there is a much more direct link between cause and effect.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Any measurement based rule needs a tolerance in order to be workable. I agree that the current tolerance level for alcohol is about right.

What we really need is more adherence to the current limit, rather than a lower limit which will simply increase the number of offences committed without actually changing anything.

Furthermore, as it is the drink driving limit has the consent of the populace, more or less. I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of right thinking people agree with it, which makes life much easier for the Police. If we tried to impose a stricter limit then agreement with it would undoubtedly reduce, apart from amongst a PC minority, and it would lose credibility in exactly the same way that speeding enforcement has now. D/D would become socially acceptable, and once that happened drivers would stop thinking in terms of complying with it and start thinking in terms of avoiding detection, in exactly the same way they do with speeding at the moment.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

And that's because only a few percent of drivers are drunk (say 2%), thereby demonstrating that the risk of drink is great - the numbers crashing (25%) are over-represented by a factor of 10 or more.

Contrast that the with the proportion of vehicles speeding (around 60% at sample sites) compared with the number of crashes involving speeding (2%) and we soon find that 'speeders' are under-represented in crashes by about 30:1.

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

a slight off topic obsevation , but when training in martial arts, we were not allowed to train against anyone , if we even smelt of drink, or known to have a tot or half a pint before training, because of the effect on control of blows and control of tequnique, (which could seriously injure / maim or kill), we were only allowed to exercise stretches and the like.

it only took one or two to be relegated to the punch bags for the message to get through, you pay for training, you drink you, you dont train, but you still payed!!

_________________
Brian of Plymouth
When will the government realise , that to err is only human, to be perfect is to be GOD.