The Scottish Government, whilst initially debating the need for a reduced limit, repeatedly cited a string of high profile, fatal car accidents in Scotland. There were three accidents in particular in 2011/12 that came in quick succession and were used by the Government to give the argument traction. All three of those accidents involved people who were pissed out of their skulls. Two of the three drivers involved were so pissed they drove the wrong way down a motorway. If memory serves me correctly, at least one of perpetrators had stolen the car he was driving and had no licence. Kenny MacAskill repeatedly told us the evidence for the reduction to 50 mg was "clear" yet could not evidence how many accidents could be attributed to the range between 50mg and 80mg. The Scottish government were reduced to a consultation on the matter and subsequent citing of a correlation between Society and Government being tough on drink-driving and the affect this has on Society's attitude to drink-driving as a whole. The measure has gone largely unopposed since any major political party advocating the higher drink drive limit would appear reckless. There may well be evidence to show that impairment really does begin at 50 mg however I would rather see the change brought about on the back of such evidence rather than the Scots Government at that time pretending that the reduction would have had an immediate influence on the three accidents above for example. The government at the time brushed over the fact the perpetrators happened to be several times over the limit in each case.
5% of RTI's are caused by drink drivers,which means that 95% of RTI's are caused by people who are sober.The stats could be made to show that its the sober ones that are more likely to cause accidents. Unashamedly nicked from Dave Allen.
Should make everyone stoned before their allowed to drive. That way everyone will be doing 20mph in 2nd gear and will politely let everyone out at junctions.
I tend to find that I drive much more carefully and slowly after a few pints..... This is a joke....I don't drink and ride or drive! I also believe that you shouldn't smoke, text, use the phone, put on make up, change CD's / MP3, use the radio, eat, drink (anything) when driving; as it is a distraction. When propelling a 1200-2500Kg mass at 20-70Mph you should consider the potential damage to those around you and their families. I had a young lady pull out on me, next door to Jack Liley's the other day, putting on make up and using the phone. She stopped 3/4 of the way in my path, I just shrugged; and got the finger....lovely...may be she attended the Sunbury finishing school for girls.
Not really very sensible, unless you are tee-total. Perhaps you mean a very low limit, like 0.2 to allow for a little residue from the day before the day before.
TBH I was nearly taken out today by a fully laden tipper lorry doing >40 in a 30 whilst he was on the phone. These people are more concern to me than someone who has had 1 pint or 1 glass of wine.
What does "zero" mean? Modern methods of chemical analysis are so sensitive that it is possible to detect just a few molecules of DNA, or alcohol, or cocaine, in blood or elsewhere. If zero really meant absolutely zero, i.e. not a single molecule, then we would all be guilty.
So am I. What really surprises me is how many people on here watch Question Time. Who'd have thought there'd be so many mixed-race, disabled, lesbian, left-wing, guardian-reading, gay-rights-activist, student, feminist agitators from London on an Italian motorcycle forum. One lives and learns.
thank you but I don't need anyone to edit my post,, certainly not you,, if you had a problem with AS last night I would suggest the problem is a lot closer to home..
