New Drink Driving Limits

Forums › Off topic › New Drink Driving Limits

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

networkn

22899 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789475 30-Mar-2013 00:57

joker97: Certain blood concentration of Alcohol and certain amount of fatigue impair drivers to the same exact extent ... A maths test for fatigue needed?

Alcohol impairs ... But so do other stuff ... Fatigue, peers (teens way more likely to crash if other teens on board), kids, arguing couple, hot pies, rain, thinking about business, etc ... But no, just put the alcohol limit to zero and the world is cured ....

You are being completely disengenius. This isn't a discussion about those things. It's a discussion about alcohol consumption and operating a vehicle. Not one person has put forward an argument for why it is required you drink then drive.

Ask your MP to put forward a bill disallowing pies in cars, let's debate that. Separately.

networkn

22899 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789477 30-Mar-2013 01:05

Convenience, personal safety, availability.

Non of those are reasons you MUST drink and drive. Your convenience or availability isn't worth my safety, and I can't see personal safety being more important than mine? (I presume you are concerned about being attacked taking public transport or some such thing.)

By the way, the cost of two beers is effectively around $5 whereas the cost of a taxi from town to home is at least $20 (or up to $80 for a longer distance) so I don't buy the argument that 'if you can afford to drink then you can afford a taxi'. We're talking about minimal quantities of alcohol here for which the cost is bugger all. Noone is advocating that you can knock back $100 worth of piss and then take the wheel.

Not sure where you are that you can get beer for $2,50, but don't take a taxi, take a bus, get a sober driver, have drinks at home.. I'd suggest if you can't afford $25 to go for drinks, you should probably stay at home.

Of course it's not safe to consume alcohol before driving in every conceivable scenario. However if the amount consumed is very small then the individual is perfectly capable of judging whether they are within an adequate safety margin given the prevailing circumstances.

I don't agree. There are cases where alcohol could affect you more than you think regardless of quantity like a malfunctioning liver, or any other medical condition you MAY not be aware of, therefore no alcohol is a better solution since it's 100% going to prevent alcohol related driving events caused by you if you didn't drink. If everyone does it, then no alcohol related driving incidents. Seems like a reasonable goal.

I recall all the same sort of arguments when smoking was banned, businesses whining they would go out of business blah blah.I am not aware of a single business who closed their door as result of that.

I wonder if you are prepared to pay the price of being wrong 1 in 1000 times if the price you pay was the loss of someone you cared about. I suspect not.

Batman

Mad Scientist
22611 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789496 30-Mar-2013 07:42

hmmm no one should drink and drive ... easy to say hard to practice - it's embedded in the NZ culture to booze - it's taught from day zero in university ... in other places it's wine and dine ...

saying that i don't drink. so it's not possible to drink and drive. but good luck trying to convince the rest of geekzoners

having said that, no one should drink and drive. yes.

but blood alcohol of zero? as in 0.00000000000000000000000000000 ? the petite ladies will have a sip of wine, sleep for 8 hours and still have 0.0000000000000000000000001 (i'm just guessing)

i think the 0.05 is a good start ...

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

alasta

4690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#789526 30-Mar-2013 09:30

networkn:

Convenience, personal safety, availability.

Non of those are reasons you MUST drink and drive. Your convenience or availability isn't worth my safety, and I can't see personal safety being more important than mine? (I presume you are concerned about being attacked taking public transport or some such thing.)

My driving after drinking one or two beers a couple of hours earlier has no impact on your safety whatsoever.

I don't agree. There are cases where alcohol could affect you more than you think regardless of quantity like a malfunctioning liver, or any other medical condition you MAY not be aware of, therefore no alcohol is a better solution since it's 100% going to prevent alcohol related driving events caused by you if you didn't drink.

It would take an extreme scenario for one or two drinks to cause intoxication in someone who has never experienced that before. I would think that there would be obvious signs of a problem there.

It surprises me that whilst people flout the current law you seem to think that we could reasonably expect those same people to comply with a zero limit. I would much rather that the police use their resources to catch those whose alcohol consumption is actually unsafe, which is why I am pleased when I come across checkpoints when I'm out driving.

alasta

4690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#789529 30-Mar-2013 09:32

Geektastic: Scotland, Germany, France and Spain all have 50 mcg limits.

That means that one pint could put some people over the limit. That seems a workable solution to me.

Well, you've changed your tune. Before you were advocating a zero limit, but a reduction to 50mg is an initiative that I fully support.

They also deal with them somewhat more harshly than our wet lettuce judges seem to here.

Under current laws, which apply to the whole of Britain, drink-drivers face a maximum sentence of six months in prison, a fine of up to £5,000 and a 12-month ban.

That seems fair enough.

Again, I completely agree.

Batman

Mad Scientist
22611 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789542 30-Mar-2013 10:19

Alasta intoxication and impairment are different.

The guys don't want impaired drivers due to alcohol but they don't mind impairment from other causes

The discussion following should be at what blood level of alcohol causes impairment

The other argument seems to be if you eliminate drinking one eliminates needing to weed out the impaired from the not

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

Geektastic

14706 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789560 30-Mar-2013 11:34

alasta:
Geektastic: Scotland, Germany, France and Spain all have 50 mcg limits.

That means that one pint could put some people over the limit. That seems a workable solution to me.

Well, you've changed your tune. Before you were advocating a zero limit, but a reduction to 50mg is an initiative that I fully support.

They also deal with them somewhat more harshly than our wet lettuce judges seem to here.

Under current laws, which apply to the whole of Britain, drink-drivers face a maximum sentence of six months in prison, a fine of up to £5,000 and a 12-month ban.

That seems fair enough.

Again, I completely agree.

I still advocate as close to a zero limit as you could practically get. However any reduction is to be lauded.

If I was being honest, I would advocate public humiliation for drink drivers as well as the other punishments outlined above - the stocks as per medieval England would do for a start. 24 hours locked in stocks in Queen Street with a sign reading "I'm an idiot - I drink and drive" hanging around the offender's neck ought to cut repeat performances somewhat I would suggest.

networkn

22899 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789588 30-Mar-2013 12:41

joker97: Alasta intoxication and impairment are different.

The guys don't want impaired drivers due to alcohol but they don't mind impairment from other causes

The discussion following should be at what blood level of alcohol causes impairment

The other argument seems to be if you eliminate drinking one eliminates needing to weed out the impaired from the not

What a complete load of nonsense. Prove to me that one person has suggested that alcohol is the only issue on the road? Where did I say in any form that this was the case? This is a discussion on lowering the drinking limits not any other causes of impairment and your lack of cohesive arguments to defend your position has led you to try and distract from said thing by introducing other factors.

bazzer

3316 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#789618 30-Mar-2013 13:22

networkn:
bazzer:
networkn: LOL so let me get this straight. Your argument for allowing people to drink and drive is so they can blame the alcohol instead of themselves if they are in an accident? Wow.

Huh? Not at all, and I don't know where you got that idea from.

Nice selective quoting BTW.

Not selective, I quoted your entire statement. I'd certainly like clarification on what you meant if it wasn't what I thought it meant.

OK, that's weird. I thought I went on to say:

bazzer: My point was accidents happen. If you had one beer, I don't really believe that would be the cause of the accident (given how quickly it's likely metabolised. I'm all for a zero tolerance, it sends the proper message, i.e. don't drink and drive, but how long do you have to wait after having a beer before you can drive again? 1 hours? 4 hours? 24 hours?

Which I think sums up my point of view entirely. Obviously, you'll have a different view, especially given you said, I think, that you don't drink at all. It's probably hard to understand that a single beer is unlikely to cause much impairment, especially an hour after consumption. Given your stance, you obviously have a pretty black and white view of things.

There's no argument for it being a requirement to be able to drink and drive. People just want to, that's all. And sensible drinking at the low end of the scale (much lower than the current limit) probably has less effect on one's driving than any number of other factors. Having a zero limit still won't stop people that don't care any more than the cellphone laws stop people using their cellphones.

alasta

4690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#789629 30-Mar-2013 13:46

Geektastic: If I was being honest, I would advocate public humiliation for drink drivers as well as the other punishments outlined above - the stocks as per medieval England would do for a start. 24 hours locked in stocks in Queen Street with a sign reading "I'm an idiot - I drink and drive" hanging around the offender's neck ought to cut repeat performances somewhat I would suggest.

Lol! If it makes you and Networkn feel any better I would be more than willing to do that if I ever get pinged at more than 50mg, and you can hold me to that!

Geektastic

14706 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789646 30-Mar-2013 14:44

alasta:
Geektastic: If I was being honest, I would advocate public humiliation for drink drivers as well as the other punishments outlined above - the stocks as per medieval England would do for a start. 24 hours locked in stocks in Queen Street with a sign reading "I'm an idiot - I drink and drive" hanging around the offender's neck ought to cut repeat performances somewhat I would suggest.

Lol! If it makes you and Networkn feel any better I would be more than willing to do that if I ever get pinged at more than 50mg, and you can hold me to that!

Not sure you'd be keen on my prescription for your second offence - having "Drunkard" tattooed on your forehead!

alasta

4690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#789665 30-Mar-2013 16:41

Geektastic:Not sure you'd be keen on my prescription for your second offence - having "Drunkard" tattooed on your forehead!

What? You mean it's not normal to already have that tattoo?

Geektastic

14706 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#789681 30-Mar-2013 17:50

alasta:
Geektastic:Not sure you'd be keen on my prescription for your second offence - having "Drunkard" tattooed on your forehead!

What? You mean it's not normal to already have that tattoo?

Maybe in Taranaki or somewhere?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6