Zero Tolerance

[Oakie]

Undecided.
My concern is for those poor schmucks who would get busted having sucked down some cough mixture or similar preparation containing alcohol. (It has happened apparantly). Hell, even my 6 month old grandaughter's teething spray contains alcohol ... not that she's going to be driving anytime soon.
Personally I'd be quite happy with a level that allowed for a glass of wine or a beer with a meal.

[scumdog]

Undecided.
My concern is for those poor schmucks who would get busted having sucked down some cough mixture or similar preparation containing alcohol. (It has happened apparantly).

Hmmmm, when has THAT ever happened? Like REALLY when have you heard of it actually happening???

[avgas]

Now where is that basket........I know I put it somewhere

Now thats the one with my washing in it right? Its also got the wiring for my car and the 'save up and buy a NEW bike'

Funny how no one mentions smoking and swimming here. It should be in same context.
Not to mention running and eating.
Or running with scissors.

Undecided.
My concern is for those poor schmucks who would get busted having sucked down some cough mixture

I had 6 beers in 1 hour, then was breathalized (local cop doing a demonstration)......Im not a big person - but according to the test i was still legal. I would not have driven in my current state (instead i waited another 2 hours) - but it was an eye opener as too how much some people get away with.
I have no sympathy for those who get done for DIC. You dig your own hole with alcohol.

[scumdog]

Re Avgas response above, I have 'experimented' by drinking three large bottles on an empty stomach in one and a half hours.

Blew 320mgm - BUT felt so bad I would NEVER have driven/ridden.

(Had trouble getting down steps/through door-ways)

[bikemike]

I never used to parked in disabled parking bays...

Parkaplegic, "one who has lost the ability to use a regular carpark through lack of spine". (Listener, Wordsworth - May 5-11)

I'm of the hue that agrees in general with the current limits, and that the punishments seem insufficient.

Whilst it might be true that someone under the limit would choose not to drive, and someone over the limit might be too impaired - not just to judge - but even to consider their fitness to drive, it only highlights that this is a problem of respect and responsibility. Whether you have had none or one and you are still 'fit to drive' and fit to judge your ability to drive and you then choose to have another, it is then that you fail to exercise your responsibility to look after yourself, your friends and family and the wider community.

A sufficient message is given with the current limits: drinking in moderation is benign or beneficial to most members and aspects of society, but DO NOT overstep the mark if you are in charge of a motor vehicle...(amongst other things)

Unfortunately, as many have said here, those caught who are not dead in the process are not punished enough.

You can't go making the laws tighter and tighter, always looking to save one more life. Somewhere along that road other liberties and niceties are lost to the common good, and it becomes less and less efficient/effective anyway.

You also can't ignore the fact that having a non-zero tolerance also recognises that intoxicated driving is only one of many factors affecting our ability, our actions, and hence our risk to others whilst in charge. Fatigue obviously, the simple fact of being on night shifts, or rotating shifts - even if you don't feel tired - can reduce your ability to do anything, illness, stress, pain, in car distractions, competence with the vehicle and with the road code, emotional maturity, hunger, dehydration, bladder..., visual acuity, and so on.... the list is endless.

Some of these factors are more critical than others, obviously, and some can be more critical than sub-illegal intoxication.

The changes needed are in education. Yes, the attitude, respect, ability, competence, responsibility side of things. That's what's in the too-hard basket. I think a zero tolerance policy is taking the too-hard basket option; an easy action without tackling the problem, and moreover, which risks removing that level of faith and compliance that there is in the current message and threshold, beyond which we go too far. As others have said.

I personally vary my drinking and driving, sometimes none, sometimes one - depends on overall status / total load. However, I never drink and ride.
Interesting debate is whether that is selfish, naive, or a realistic comparison on the requirements of driving vs riding...

[spudchucka]

Re Avgas response above, I have 'experimented' by drinking three large bottles on an empty stomach in one and a half hours.

Blew 320mgm - BUT felt so bad I would NEVER have driven/ridden.

(Had trouble getting down steps/through door-ways)

I've done the same experiment several times. 7 - 8 pints in two hours and still under, just (380 - 390). A mate about the same size as me did the same experiment and got the same results. Both of us were pissed as maggots though and there was no way either of us would have driven.

[ceebie13]

I've done the same experiment several times...

It's all very well doing experiments but at the end of the day I could never be certain - and I'm not prepared to risk - that I may be "over the limit".

All thoughts of traffic accidents aside for a moment, if I "thought" I was OK to drive after a few beers and I came upon a Highway Patrol Breath Test check point whilst driving home I'd shit myself. Even if I thought I could drive perfectly well, it's still that worry that I might just have had enough to register a positive test that I hate. I think it's this concern, this conscience if you like, that drives home the decision in me that it 'ain't worth it. I'm not prepared to run the guantlet hoping not to meet a cop on the way home.

I know I can have a good time without needing an alcoholic drink to "loosen me up". Sure, I enjoy a drink, and I can have one (maybe two) beer(s) - and I would pass a breath test, but I voted to endorse zero tolerance because regardless of whether it's impinging on my rights or not, it's an easy step not to drink alcohol at all if I want to drive.

Which leads me to wonder if some of those who voted not to endorse zero tolerance would actually find it difficult to go to a pub or restaurant and not have a beer/glass of wine?

Eat all the mashed potato you like...drink as much milk as you like to line your stomach beforehand, but I don't think any of us are 100% qualified to know exactly how much you can drink before being over the limit. As the roadside speed signs say..."It's not a target". Well that can be applied to drink too. So what is the problem with not drinking at all if you want to drive?

As for punishment...sod the three strikes approach...I quite like the "one strike and you're out" idea... the thought of losing your licence and having your vehicle confiscated for a year or more might just deter some people...but then again, it might not!

[Finn]

Statistics prove that more people are killed on the road by sober drivers than by drunk drivers. So if you want to stay safe on the road, alway make sure you've had a few before getting behind the wheel.

Statistics don't lie.

[ceebie13]

Statistics prove that more people are killed on the road by sober drivers than by drunk drivers. So if you want to stay safe on the road, alway make sure you've had a few before getting behind the wheel.

Statistics don't lie.

Furthermore...keep death off the roads...drive on the pavement!

[Squeak the Rat]

Which leads me to wonder if some of those who voted not to endorse zero tolerance would find it difficult to abstain from the amber nectar at any time if they wish to drive or ride.

Blah blah blah. This leads me to wonder why people who vote no are so happy to use cheap and insulting tactics of saying people who voted no are alcoholics or drive drunk.

I was going to argue rationally, genuinely surprised by scum and spuds posts but can't be arsed now. But if you're questioning mental stability, how many of those who posted no can't go a day without obsesive thoughts of an entity that they've no proof exists.

[Hitcher]

I don't think that "zero tolerance", for the purpose of this thread, has been clearly defined.

There are two possible alternatives:

1. The blood alcohol level for people driving/riding should be zero.
2. The threshold level set for blood alcohol level should be stringently applied: no exceptions.

And there is a big difference between these two. Which are we talking about?

[ceebie13]

This leads me to wonder why people who vote no are so happy to use cheap and insulting tactics

a) I think you meant to say "people who vote yes", Squeak?

b) Just my thoughts...no inference intended. Sincere apologies if you take offence. I include myself amongst those who drink, but I'm not an alcoholic and I'm not suggesting anyone is. I merely can't see why it should be a problem to not drink at all if you wish to drive.

c) Methinks thou couldst protest too much!

[Ixion]

,,,
I was going to argue rationally, genuinely surprised by scum and spuds posts,,,

I'm not surprised. The figures they quote are pretty much what my own experience suggests.

I've said before, I'll say again, the present limit is quite reasonable, and anyone over it has been drinking heavily (not a social glass or two), and certainly will know that they are affected (unless of course they are so sodden they don't know their arse from their elbow any more).

There are no problems with the "glass of wine with dinner " people. Calls for zero tolerance are fixing a problem that doesn't exist an ignoring the one that does, the hard core recidivist drunk driver.

[ceebie13]

I don't think that "zero tolerance", for the purpose of this thread, has been clearly defined.

There are two possible alternatives:

1. The blood alcohol level for people driving/riding should be zero.
2. The threshold level set for blood alcohol level should be stringently applied: no exceptions.

And there is a big difference between these two. Which are we talking about?

Sorry... my originating post should have made it clearer... I'm talking No.1

My comments have been based on zero alcohol in the blood. As we've seen in this debate, No.2 leaves too much open for conjecture in my view. Witness the posts about how much we think we can all "absorb" before reaching the limit etc etc.

[Squeak the Rat]

c) Methinks thou couldst protest too much!

Whether some one has the capacity to have dinner at a restaurant without a glass of wine is completely irrelevant. The argument is whether it is a good idea to make it illegal for them to drive home afterwards.

Am I protesting too much? No it's not as you imply that I have an alcohol problem - it's that I'm genuinely sick of the sheep in this country thinking that the way to solve problems is by the use of restrictive laws targetted at the lowest denominator.