Tony Saprano:
What annoys me about the mobile phone debate is that within 10 years of their speedy development their hand held use was banned. Yet drivers are still allowed to consume alcohol when there is a mass of evidence supporting even small amounts affect concentration and judgement and still there isn’t a total ban.
What annoys me is so called expert’s knee jerk reactions with no REAL substance, about somebody having a pint of beer, and having 11 hours off but being labelled as a pariah for doing so, in the same category as a ■■■■ head with 10 pints on board driving home.
Worse still are those that believe it and regurgitate it quoting ‘‘mass evidence’’ and calling for a ‘Total Ban’ where there is equally ‘‘mass evidence’’ to the contrary.
In other words mate, OPINIONS,…exactly as the thread subject!
So we’ll have to disagree bud.
I don’t profess to be an expert of any kind. My point wasn’t about having a drink then resting for 11 hours then driving. My point was that you can have a pint then jump straight in your car and drive. I’m sure there are plenty of coppers that would want the same ban as they’re the ones having to knock on doors.
Look let’s get somethong straight, I deplore ■■■■ heads who drive when DRUNK, end of.
I did not mean you were the expert, but the fact that you repeated these ‘expert’s’ opinions.
Also the total ban you call for , would be a nightmare balls up of a zero tolerance policy, eg. Your pint the night before may show a miniscule amount, with let’s face it in real terms, no detramental effect to your driving…despite the ‘experts’ …so then you get a ban, you use mouthwash you get a ban, sherry trifle, ■■■■ wine gums…who knows.
Do you really want this ‘Total Ban’ now?
Surely better to police the problem.
I am partial to a nice sherry triffle. I think your point is a little extreme but yes, I would still support a ban. Like you’ve already said, it’s just my opinion so we’ll have to disagree on it.
Tony Saprano:
I am partial to a nice sherry triffle. I think your point is a little extreme but yes, I would still support a ban. Like you’ve already said, it’s just my opinion so we’ll have to disagree on it.
Yeh well I think your point of a total ban is very extreme.
The answer to every problem in this country is either to tax it or ban it.
I am a responsible adult and driver, I like a pint with my meal on a night out tramping, watch the football, relax unwind, especially in this type of weather, I sometimes have 2 pints, I have 11 to 12 hours off, some may (and do) disagree with that, I don’t give a flying one tbh, in my opinion I am safe to do so, I was tested once coming off the ferry and was ok, so that kind of proves my point, and is good enough for me.
So your ‘experts’ can go and do one tbh.
So yeh mate, we will agree to disagree on this, no damage done.
So, soon we will all be taking trucks to workshops to have passenger seats removed, because talking on the phone hands free is no different to talking to someone in the passenger seat.
The french have already banned hands free phone usage.
SEDriver:
So, soon we will all be taking trucks to workshops to have passenger seats removed, because talking on the phone hands free is no different to talking to someone in the passenger seat.
To be fair, there is a much higher degree of concentration required to talk to someone on the phone than there is to talk to a passenger. Same with listening to the radio.
The biggest problem is that there are far too many people out there who cant do both and prioritise which one is more important to focus their attention on. Some people are well aware they cant talk on the phone and drive as they get distracted so they dont do it. Some people can do both no problem. Unfortunately however, there are a huge proportion who cant do both but their ambition far outweighs their talent and its them who bring about the need for bans.
They cant bring in a law saying its ok to use a phone as long as it is safe or you can concentrate on your driving at the same time as you will always get the above mentioned who think they can, but cant.
Same with speeding. I have a big hang up about speeding as most of you probably know but id be all for a law meaning it was ok to do 100mph on the motorway at 2am if it was quiet but as usual this is a non starter due to the usual suspects who will then decide this is ok at 2 in the afternoon as well.
Alcohol is the same. It cant be “drink what you like and use your own judgment” as there are always ■■■■■■■■■ who push the limits and would think they are ok to drive even though they are seeing double. Especially robroy. He sounds like a right hooligan (only joking mate. Its good for morale. )
So unfortunately a one size fits all is needed and bans are needed. Having relaxed laws based on common sense and knowing ones own limits is not possible due to the idiots
Take your point Snowman (except the hooligan part ) but as in anything why should responsible people who obey the law be penalised for the actions of complete ■■■■ ends who abuse it or totally break it
Same with cheap drink in supermarkets, why put it up to an extortinate amounts because the same ■■■■ ends can not just have 1 or even 2 cans, but end up in casualty.
There has got to be a better system than the present ‘Tax or Ban’ policy on every aspect of ■■■■ life in the UK.
A blanket ban on any ■■■■ thing is chucking out the baby with the bathwater.
robroy:
Take your point Snowman (except the hooligan part ) but as in anything why should responsible people who obey the law be penalised for the actions of complete ■■■■ ends who abuse it or totally break it
Same with cheap drink in supermarkets, why put it up to an extortinate amounts because the same ■■■■ ends can not just have 1 or even 2 cans, but end up in casualty.
There has got to be a better system than the present ‘Tax or Ban’ policy on every aspect of [zb] life in the UK.
A blanket ban on any ■■■■ thing is chucking out the baby with the bathwater.
Dont get me wrong, I think exactly the same as you. Cant do some things because of arse holes who cant control them selves.
The minimum alcohol pricing is a perfect example. You get people who enjoy a few cans responsibly who have to pay more to “protect” the ones who dont know when enough is enough.
I used to enjoy a supersize big mac meal but they got banned because it was to blame for obesity. Apparently it was too hard to blame the fat ■■■■■■■■ who stuffed them down their face every night and didnt do any exercise. So now I cant have one
The new sugar tax as well is a joke. To protect the children apparently. So now my Irn bru is going to be more expensive because some people decide to let their kids guzzle it by the gallon.
Im like you. Banning things because of a few ■■■■ heads is using a bazooka to kill a fly but like everything else in the world, its the minority who ruin it for everyone else.
Im still all for the mobile ban when driving though. I dont care if someone wraps themselves round a lamppost because the’re not as good at multi tasking as they think they are but I do care that I might be standing at the lamppost when they do it so it could be argued it is to protect the greater good. Not sure about the hands free ban though. I think it is ok as long as it is through the car speakers but I think the main concern is people are using the tiny little earphone that comes with it which while technically legal still requires great concentration.
robroy:
Take your point Snowman (except the hooligan part ) but as in anything why should responsible people who obey the law be penalised for the actions of complete ■■■■ ends who abuse it or totally break it
Same with cheap drink in supermarkets, why put it up to an extortinate amounts because the same ■■■■ ends can not just have 1 or even 2 cans, but end up in casualty.
There has got to be a better system than the present ‘Tax or Ban’ policy on every aspect of [zb] life in the UK.
A blanket ban on any ■■■■ thing is chucking out the baby with the bathwater.
Dont get me wrong, I think exactly the same as you. Cant do some things because of arse holes who cant control them selves.
The minimum alcohol pricing is a perfect example. You get people who enjoy a few cans responsibly who have to pay more to “protect” the ones who dont know when enough is enough.
I used to enjoy a supersize big mac meal but they got banned because it was to blame for obesity. Apparently it was too hard to blame the fat [zb] who stuffed them down their face every night and didnt do any exercise. So now I cant have one
The new sugar tax as well is a joke. To protect the children apparently. So now my Irn bru is going to be more expensive because some people decide to let their kids guzzle it by the gallon.
Im like you. Banning things because of a few ■■■■ heads is using a bazooka to kill a fly but like everything else in the world, its the minority who ruin it for everyone else.
Im still all for the mobile ban when driving though. I dont care if someone wraps themselves round a lamppost because the’re not as good at multi tasking as they think they are but I do care that I might be standing at the lamppost when they do it so it could be argued it is to protect the greater good. Not sure about the hands free ban though. I think it is ok as long as it is through the car speakers but I think the main concern is people are using the tiny little earphone that comes with it which while technically legal still requires great concentration.
Ok bud, I’ve read your post, so based on what you have said in it, and to clarify, do you agree with our mate (as he appears to think that you do) about a total alchohol ban when driving?
At first I also thought that you did, but I can’t see how you can now, based on this post, as it appears that you are on the same wavelength as me.
I have always maintained that hands free are just as bad. A lot might depend on who is on the other end of the conversation. Big difference between your mate passing the time of day and your boss giving you grief because he thinks you should have been there 30 minutes ago. Much easier to tell your wife to hold on when all she wants is to know what time you’ll be home, than when she is giving you an earful for something you forgot to do.
I always used to turn the radio off when I passed the NCR in London as I needed all my wits about me. Even back in the day when it was legal, I never answered my phone on the move. A passenger will shut up when they can see something in front; the radio is usually just another background noise, and even when it is something interesting, you don’t have to think about a reply.
Tony Saprano:
My my I have annoyed you haven’t I. Obviously as a drinker I suppose you wouldn’t support a total ban.
Mate, believe me it takes more than that to get me annoyed in the true sense, especially on an internet forum.
Can only think of 2 occasions, one when a certain old ‘mate’ of mine on here attempted to personally insult me about being a ‘failed owner driver’ when he himself had dared to do ■■■■ all in his own life, another time a remark from another guy about one of my young daughters, (who went on to apologise tbf)
So no, you have not annoyed me, the clue was in my last reply to you when I said ‘no damage done’
I thought I made it clear what does ‘annoy’ me though, the policy in this country to ban everything as a first option, which you appear to go along with…
As for me being ‘A drinker’ as you describe me, yeh I like a pint socially as much as the next guy, and I am not ashamed of that, however that was not the reason that I disagreed with you.
An example of difference of the way we both think is this.
I am very anti smoking in my truck, car, house or anything else that is mine, and although I now prefer to drink in a smoke free pub, I do think it was, true to form … over the top to put a total ban on it.
Some guys like a smoke, my best mate has smoked all his life (mostly to my annoyance) but I thought it was unfair on him, and people like him who enjoy a smoke, and that a better compromise of certain rooms put aside, should have been provided INSIDE the pubs, unlike your preference for total bans
.
Live and let live I say.
Hope that explains things from my pov.
Btw…Would love to have read your post before you thought twice and edited it, presumably more polite, half an hour later.
Tony Saprano:
My my I have annoyed you haven’t I. Obviously as a drinker I suppose you wouldn’t support a total ban.
Mate, believe me it takes more than that to get me annoyed in the true sense, especially on an internet forum.
Can only think of 2 occasions, one when a certain old ‘mate’ of mine on here attempted to personally insult me about being a ‘failed owner driver’ when he himself had dared to do [zb] all in his own life, another time a remark from another guy about one of my young daughters, (who went on to apologise tbf)
So no, you have not annoyed me, the clue was in my last reply to you when I said ‘no damage done’
I thought I made it clear what does ‘annoy’ me though, the policy in this country to ban everything as a first option, which you appear to go along with…
As for me being ‘A drinker’ as you describe me, yeh I like a pint socially as much as the next guy, and I am not ashamed of that, however that was not the reason that I disagreed with you.
An example of difference of the way we both think is this.
I am very anti smoking in my truck, car, house or anything else that is mine, and although I now prefer to drink in a smoke free pub, I do think it was, true to form … over the top to put a total ban on it.
Some guys like a smoke, my best mate has smoked all his life (mostly to my annoyance) but I thought it was unfair on him, and people like him who enjoy a smoke, and that a better compromise of certain rooms put aside, should have been provided INSIDE the pubs, unlike your preference for total bans
.
Live and let live I say.
Hope that explains things from my pov.
Btw…Would love to have read your post before you thought twice and edited it, presumably more polite, half an hour later.
Not necessarily more polite just re-worded. Laws can’t make exceptions for sensible individuals so a blanket ban (to your and others annoyance) is needed. That’s the way laws/rules work. Just my opinion princess.
robroy:
Ok bud, I’ve read your post, so based on what you have said in it, and to clarify, do you agree with our mate (as he appears to think that you do) about a total alchohol ban when driving?
At first I also thought that you did, but I can’t see how you can now, based on this post, as it appears that you are on the same wavelength as me.
No,I dont support a total alcohol ban when driving. An absolute zero is probably unworkable as well as unneccessery. I think the limit is probably about right where it is.
You’ll never stop people drinking and driving but I think the limit is ok where it is just now to allow for having a few drinks the night before and still maybe having some in your system the next morning to be ok to drive.
We are on the same wave length regarding the ban or tax system in general. I just think it is a neccessery evil sometimes (mobile phone use for instance) but you’re right, it gets used far too much and too heavy handed when its not the best answer but then the best answer maybe does not raise much money!
robroy:
Ok bud, I’ve read your post, so based on what you have said in it, and to clarify, do you agree with our mate (as he appears to think that you do) about a total alchohol ban when driving?
At first I also thought that you did, but I can’t see how you can now, based on this post, as it appears that you are on the same wavelength as me.
No,I dont support a total alcohol ban when driving. An absolute zero is probably unworkable as well as unneccessery. I think the limit is probably about right where it is.
You’ll never stop people drinking and driving but I think the limit is ok where it is just now to allow for having a few drinks the night before and still maybe having some in your system the next morning to be ok to drive.
We are on the same wave length regarding the ban or tax system in general. I just think it is a neccessery evil sometimes (mobile phone use for instance) but you’re right, it gets used far too much and too heavy handed when its not the best answer but then the best answer maybe does not raise much money!
Looks like we both agree then.
But I promise not to call you ‘Princess’ as I have just bizzarely been.
Tony Saprano:
My my I have annoyed you haven’t I. Obviously as a drinker I suppose you wouldn’t support a total ban.
Mate, believe me it takes more than that to get me annoyed in the true sense, especially on an internet forum.
Can only think of 2 occasions, one when a certain old ‘mate’ of mine on here attempted to personally insult me about being a ‘failed owner driver’ when he himself had dared to do [zb] all in his own life, another time a remark from another guy about one of my young daughters, (who went on to apologise tbf)
So no, you have not annoyed me, the clue was in my last reply to you when I said ‘no damage done’
I thought I made it clear what does ‘annoy’ me though, the policy in this country to ban everything as a first option, which you appear to go along with…
As for me being ‘A drinker’ as you describe me, yeh I like a pint socially as much as the next guy, and I am not ashamed of that, however that was not the reason that I disagreed with you.
An example of difference of the way we both think is this.
I am very anti smoking in my truck, car, house or anything else that is mine, and although I now prefer to drink in a smoke free pub, I do think it was, true to form … over the top to put a total ban on it.
Some guys like a smoke, my best mate has smoked all his life (mostly to my annoyance) but I thought it was unfair on him, and people like him who enjoy a smoke, and that a better compromise of certain rooms put aside, should have been provided INSIDE the pubs, unlike your preference for total bans
.
Live and let live I say.
Hope that explains things from my pov.
Btw…Would love to have read your post before you thought twice and edited it, presumably more polite, half an hour later.
Not necessarily more polite just re-worded. Laws can’t make exceptions for sensible individuals so a blanket ban (to your and others annoyance) is needed. That’s the way laws/rules work. Just my opinion princess.
‘Needed’ in YOUR opinion but certainly not mine…honeybunch.
Tony Saprano:
Not necessarily more polite just re-worded. Laws can’t make exceptions for sensible individuals so a blanket ban (to your and others annoyance) is needed. That’s the way laws/rules work. Just my opinion princess.
Oh come on these ban all laws are the work of lazy/inept legislators. And to support my assertion I would offer the ban on hand guns after the Dunblane school massacre. Law abiding sporting shooters were bracketed in the same category as disturbed individuals prone to bearing grudges. And it seems to me that the number of handguns available for ne’er-do-wells has not reduced at all. But hey the lazy/inept have done something even though it wasn’t effective.
eagerbeaver:
Oh I don’t know Berroca Rob ■■■■■ daddy.
I reckon Princess sounds very fetching…got a nice ring to it.
Yeh ok, maybe you’re right EagerB, but what about my rough, macho, testoterone loaded trucker image, it’s already been threatened by my tassled curtains as it is
This is gonna tip me over the edge.
I think there should be a Complete Ban on feminine themed insults.
where there is equally ‘‘mass evidence’’ to the contrary.
, would be a nightmare balls up of a zero tolerance policy, eg. Your pint the night before may show a miniscule amount, with let’s face it in real terms, no detramental effect to your driving…despite the ‘experts’ 
)