ajt:
^^^Exactly, those who are ignorant and drink and drive and don’t give a…, (the problem ones) will just continue. All this new limit will do is catch out the ones from the night before the ‘‘innocent drink driver’’
Oh well,lets not bother anymore then. Your right. Some people will always drink and drive and think it acceptable. That’s why the police are out to catch the “innocent drink driver”. Lets just let them get on with it and drive with impunity while the rest of us on the road (zb) ourselves incase we are the unfortunate one they plough into.
As long as it proves to dieseldog and yourself that it’s not just about raising cash eh. Because that’s the important issue
Why would anyone need to ■■■■ themselves when they weren’t ■■■■■■■■ themselves before on the old limit?
Are Scots going to be ■■■■■■■■ themselves driving in England knowing that some could be over the legal limit in Scotland yet perfectly legal in England?
The difference between the old limit and new in terms of road safety is not going to make a jot of difference.
ajt:
Why would anyone need to [zb] themselves when they weren’t [zb] themselves before on the old limit?
Are Scots going to be [zb] themselves driving in England knowing that some could be over the legal limit in Scotland yet perfectly legal in England?
The difference between the old limit and new in terms of road safety is not going to make a jot of difference.
Id be (zb) myself a whole lot more if I thought the cops didnt bother with drink drivers “because it’ll always happen anyway”
My point wasn’t about the limit because your right,it wont make any difference in terms of road safety. My point was that the argument was made that It’ll always go on and a crackdown is nothing more than a cash cow and an excuse to make money from motorists. As if that somehow magically made it ok. But if there was no deterent of any kind then more people than at present will think it ok purely on the fact they have less chance of getting caught. And you better believe ill be (zb) myself more if I thought their was an open house for drink-as-much-as-you-want-and-then-drive (zb)holes.
There has to be some sort of limit. It can’t be absolute zero. But there is a huge mentality or belief that it’s ok to drink x amount and be legal or that you only need to leave Y hours from last drink to driving. This is a dangerous way of thinking because everyone reacts differently to alcohol. But the lower it is then the less people will think is “ok”
skypilot:
A lower limit will hopefully reduce the deaths on the road and this can only be a good thing?
But will it? I have no access to the figures but I’m guessing that those 20 deaths in Scotland involving a drink driver were caused by people over the current UK limit, so lowering that in Scotland won’t make the slightest bit of difference in real terms. If someone has got hammered and decides to drive anyway, they’re not going to think “Och Aye! I’m slightly more over the limit now than I was last week, I’m now 7.5 pints above the limit, rather than my usual 7, perhaps I’ll call a taxi”…they’re going to carry on regardless and the only people being apprehended will be those who have had such a small amount of alcohol that it wouldn’t possibly have any real bearing on the situation but can be prosecuted due to a wider net being cast. I don’t drink myself so have no vested interest in defending those that do but I think that trying to claim that someone who’s had one single pint is a danger is just the same as prosecuting someone for doing 51 in a 50 zone or claiming that a driver who had 8.59 minutes off has gone 38 hours and 59 minutes without rest, which is how the prosecution present it in such cases, but in reality its a load of boolarks.
At the end of the day it wouldn’t bother me one bit if Scotland or the UK brought in prohibition and banned alcohol completely but I just view this change in the law cynically as a means to catch a larger group of otherwise normal safe people, while doing nothing to address the issue of preventing the very small number of people who drink a lot and then drive and cause carnage. The change in the law is targeting the wrong set of people entirely in my opinion. But I happen to think that’s the whole point.
Couldn’t agree more!
I find it quite incredible that the police either won’t or can’t produce figures re the quantity of alcohol drunk by those involved in serious, and particularly fatal accidents.
If it is the case that they won’t, my cynical mind reckons that it would show that those concerned/involve weren’t a couple of mg over the limit, but 2,3, or even 4 times the limit, and so the new law in Scotland won’t make the slightest bit of difference.
If it is the case that they can’t, then it’s a disgrace that in this day and age of technology, that their reporting/recording systems are grossly inefficient and simply ‘not fit for purpose’!
ajt:
Why would anyone need to [zb] themselves when they weren’t [zb] themselves before on the old limit?
Are Scots going to be [zb] themselves driving in England knowing that some could be over the legal limit in Scotland yet perfectly legal in England?
The difference between the old limit and new in terms of road safety is not going to make a jot of difference.
Id be (zb) myself a whole lot more if I thought the cops didnt bother with drink drivers “because it’ll always happen anyway”
My point wasn’t about the limit because your right,it wont make any difference in terms of road safety. My point was that the argument was made that It’ll always go on and a crackdown is nothing more than a cash cow and an excuse to make money from motorists. As if that somehow magically made it ok. But if there was no deterent of any kind then more people than at present will think it ok purely on the fact they have less chance of getting caught. And you better believe ill be (zb) myself more if I thought their was an open house for drink-as-much-as-you-want-and-then-drive (zb)holes.
There has to be some sort of limit. It can’t be absolute zero. But there is a huge mentality or belief that it’s ok to drink x amount and be legal or that you only need to leave Y hours from last drink to driving. This is a dangerous way of thinking because everyone reacts differently to alcohol. But the lower it is then the less people will think is “ok”
Totally agree there has to be a limit and this limit needs to be Policed but this latest drop will only catch the poor sod who thought they had given it long enough before the alcohol left their system only to find they get caught out by this new law but would have been ok on the old.
Anyone who gets caught out the day after is classed as the same as someone who stuck two fingers up to the law and drove after 2 or 3 pints. IMO thats harsh.
But as someone said further back, Police doing roadblocks the day after the law came in is a bit OTT.
You would never see them blocking exits at shopping centres searching everyone for drugs or stolen goods. Motorists are just easy targets for everything. They come quietly.
We are both going out tomorrow night with friends where we shall mingle with other folk who are like minded and we’ll have just as much fun.
[/quote] like minded,mingle read ‘swingers’
[/quote] Not at all
Not at all 