I try to avoid it, to save getting annoyed. On the other hand, if the schedule says that Dr. David Starkey is going to be on the panel it can be entertaining - he says what he thinks, unlike the politicians who could in some cases (especially Labour) simply be reading from a script. Starkey takes on a couple of audience members about 1/3 of the way through this one, in a way that no politician would dare to:
He manages to be tetchy and imperious at the same time but I can't fault his argument. The fat bloke in the audience, though was the worst. He would have been will advised to have kept quiet.
The current limits are fine as they are.As has already been said, its people who drive over the limit that are the problem.
lowering the limit will either make people who observe the current limit into criminals or kill off even more pubs far better would be to enforce the current limits properly and have a visible police presence on the roads to deter some of the appalling driving standards that are witnessed every day lowering the limit will not make 1 bit of difference to the people who currently drive around pissed - it will just affect the lives of those who currently limit themselves to 1 drink they brought in random breath testing in nz years ago - it cost the then government the next election after bob jones threw his toys out of the pram and set up another political party to split the vote and oust the government
do not take this to mean that i am an advocate of drink driving, but whilst this or any government condones the sale (and reaps huge taxes from) a substance that knowingly impairs your ability to make a rational decision (evident in the stats for violent crime, domestic abuse, common assault, vandalism, rape etc etc..) is it not a bit rich to then tell you that you are bang out of order for driving after a pint or two? most other mind altering substances are illegal but not what is probably (aside from money/greed/religion) the world over the most common factor in any crime. Now i know im going to get dislikes and what not by those that feel "they" can have a beer and behave correctly and would never dream or riding or driving after one, but the fact does remain that a vast amount of people cannot behave correctly after . Perfectly normal people too. BAN ALCOHOL. apart from malbec... my new favorite tipple... Im more scared of the countless people i see texting whilst driving in the fast lane on the m25/a40/m4 because those fucks genuinely do feel its their god given right and they have vastly superior skills to the rest of us. At least a drunk is trying to pay attention.. Use of a phone while driving (apparently it contributes more to accident fatality's than drink diving) should be an instant ban.
Jeez, I bet your average mum with kids in the back on a school rum is far more a hazard that yer average Scot with 2 pints (of fosters, not Scottish) in his belly
how go you guys feel after a pint or two, i drink the Guinness and can drink it all night. but i really don't feel safe. back in my early twenty's i got breathalyzed on the way back from the pub after a couple of pints and i passed.
Depends how long it too you to drink them. How long ago you drank them. If you had food. I can see how a limit of any kind above zero (or nearly zero, amazing what can be in a trifle) can be hard to gauge as humans are unique, each and every one of us. Bit we do and we need them. 2 pints may impair some concentration a little, who knows, but is it more than the radio?! And if you have a pint, do you concentrate more on the road and less on the radio, so net affect the same? Mind you, if you're hammerred you dont care either way
I'm glad I stopped drinking years ago so this doesn't effect me. But when I used to drink there were always the same old arguments about drink effecting different people in different ways and whether or not someone had eaten and how people were supposed to judge whether they were still over the limit the next morning. But nowadays personal breathalysers are cheap and freely available. It cannot be impossible for scientists to determine a level of blood/alcohol content above which judgement for the average person is unacceptably impaired. Set the drink/drive limit just below that level and let people test themselves before driving and take personal responsibility. This is compulsory in some countries. Every drinker will soon learn the limits of their personal metabolism, there need be no confusion and no excuses. Leave the law alone, stop chopping and changing it according to political whim and throw the book at those who refuse to comply.
The key phrase there is "unacceptably impaired". There have been numerous studies that show any level of alcohol does have a negative effect upon driving, despite what people may claim, but at the current limit is it any worse than all of the other distractions of the modern world. I think not.
After you have had a few drinks, you may reach the stage when you start to believe that the effects of the alcohol actual improve the quality of your driving. And that is the point when you have definitely had too much to drink, and should call a taxi.
I think that the ambiguity ought to be removed by having a zero alcohol law. Alcohol affects performance, therefore why should there be a law that basically says that it accepts loss of performance up to a certain degree? Put it this way, would 99% of people readily accept people openly doing drugs, and then getting behind the wheel or riding a bike? If the answer is as I suspect a resounding no, then why should alcohol be treated any different? if you need to drink don't drive.
Really? So what exactly do you mean by zero? If you mean "not a single molecule of alcohol in your body" then we will all be guilty all the time.
