Drivers face ban for drinking a pint

[Paul2412]

Totally ridiculous. I should be able to enjoy a pint and then drive home as it has precisely zero effect.

 

Are they going to ban changing the radio station next? Lowering the limit isn't going to have an effect on anything, drink drivers will continue to exceed the limit whilst law abiding drivers who ensure they aren't over the limit are now going to get punished.

[Paul2412]

Life bans for killer drivers.

 

So, you are driving at 30 MPH in a 30 limit. A person walks out between 2 parked cars. You try to stop but its impossible. The person dies.

 

You're saying the driver of that vehicle should never be able to drive again?

[Scozzie]

That is the legal limit in Australia.

 

I couldn't believe it when I came over and found that out!

 

Generally for a night out and depending on your body size and metabolism, the average females can have 2 standard drinks in the first hour with 1 drink every hour after that, alternated with non-alcoholic beverages.

average males can start with 3.

 

thats how it is worked in Aus and unless you are silly and/or irresponsible, you stay under the limit.

[Cyclone]

They should reduce it to zero.

 

 

 

That's bound to get some drink drivers gnashing their teeth.

 

Given that alcohol occurs naturally in the body that would immediately criminalise everyone. Not a sensible idea.

[Cyclone]

Good. Make it zero. Plus, any driver caught driving on a mobile phone gets the phone confiscated, no questions. Uninsured drivers have their car scrapped and a 5 year ban. More cameras everywhere, every traffic light, zebra crossing, cycle lane. Life bans for killer drivers. Start clamping down on our lawless roads, deal out some proper, harsh sentences and get these twits off the roads.

 

Yes, our dangerous lawless roads, which are the safest in Europe.

 

And how would a zebra crossing or cycle lane camera work exactly?

[spindrift]

So, you are driving at 30 MPH in a 30 limit. A person walks out between 2 parked cars. You try to stop but its impossible. The person dies.

 

You're saying the driver of that vehicle should never be able to drive again?

 

That's right. If the driver is using the speed limit as a target rather than driving at a speed at which he or she can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road (which is not illegal, the pedestrian always has the right of way) then the driver has hwon themself to be incapable of operating a vehicle safely and should never drive again.

 

The fact that you automatically try to blame the pedestrian is telling, that's why we need Strict Liability in this country, where the motorist is assumed at fault in civil claims rather than the burden of proof resting with the vulnerable party.

 

This rule would apply all the way down the line, the operator of the larger vehicle is assumed at fault so if a cyclist hit a pedestrian the cyclist would be assumed at fault.

[Paul2412]

That's right. If the driver is using the speed limit as a target rather than driving at a speed at which he or she can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road (which is not illegal, the pedestrian always has the right of way) then the driver has hwon themself to be incapable of operating a vehicle safely and should never drive again.

 

The fact that you automatically try to blame the pedestrian is telling, that's why we need Strict Liability in this country, where the motorist is assumed at fault in civil claims rather than the burden of proof resting with the vulnerable party.

 

This rule would apply all the way down the line,

 

That's a very interesting twist you have. Are you a car driver?

 

You cannot possibly suggest that if someone walks out in front of you at the very last minute and you hit them that its the drivers fault. Heard of something called the Green Cross Code?

 

the operator of the larger vehicle is assumed at fault so if a cyclist hit a pedestrian the cyclist would be assumed at fault.

 

It's a good job you aren't responsible for policing roads.

[Halibut]

Totally ridiculous. I should be able to enjoy a pint and then drive home as it has precisely zero effect.

 

Are they going to ban changing the radio station next? Lowering the limit isn't going to have an effect on anything, drink drivers will continue to exceed the limit whilst law abiding drivers who ensure they aren't over the limit are now going to get punished.

 

Not unless it's a pint of water it doesn't.

[spindrift]

Yes, our dangerous lawless roads, which are the safest in Europe.

 

More inventions.

 

Britain has fallen well down the European league table on road safety, despite being on course to meet its own targets for 2010, according to figures released by the Department for Transport.

 

A decade ago Britain had the best road safety record in Europe. By 2006 it had fallen to fifth place behind Malta, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway. Even Germany and France, countries where the road death rate was traditionally much higher, have almost caught up with Britain.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6135983.ece

 

The UK has a dreadful rate of child deaths on the roads, it's a national disgrace.

 

The countries with the lowest rate of child casualties tend to have more speed reduction measures, light-controlled crossings and play areas. Another significant factor is poverty. The estimated injury rate for child pedestrians is four times higher in the most deprived area than the least deprived.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/26/transport.world

[spindrift]

 

It's a good job you aren't responsible for policing roads.

 

 

The UK is one of only 2 European countries without Strict Liability.

 

The experience if the countries that adopt the law is the roads get safer so premiums fall. Fewer people get hurt and drivers save money.