Turn on thread page Beta

Drink Driving, Your Opinion! watch

  • View Poll Results: Would you ban drinking and driving?
    Yes
    67.50%
    No
    26.67%
    Meh
    5.83%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSownRose)
    The point of an alcohol limit isn't so people who just can't not drink for a night can have a few shots and still be fine. It's because everyone, even people who have never drunk alcohol, has some amount in their blood. Some medications, mouth wash, if you use enough alcohol rub hand gel... If you have it at zero tolerance, no one would ever drive.
    This point has been covered already.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gbduo)
    To save the other legitimate thread from turning into a massive argument and helping no one, I thought I would make a poll in here on whether you think that drinking and then driving should be completely banned?

    Personally, I think it should, I cannot see the point in the alcohol limit and I think, like drugs, you should not be allowed to drive if you have drunk anything alcoholic.

    This is mostly because units are confusing and no one really knows how many units it takes to cause an effect on their driving ability. Therefore, a complete blanket ban will eliminate this confusion and make our roads safer.

    So what do you think?
    No offense Graham, but your argument is pretty ridiculous. It's almost impossible to tell if all of the alcohol you have ingested has been processed by your liver; It could be two mornings after a night out and you still have a trace of alcohol in your blood. Not to mention the fact that anyone who uses mouthwash would get a driving ban.
    The simple science of it completely rules out 'zero-tolerance' as an option.
    I agree that drink driving is a serious problem and that the punishments for it should be dear, but banning people from driving even on a 'near-zero' basis (e.g. allowing a 1/2 unit equivalent) would be fairly ridiculous considering that people would have absolutely no way of knowing when they were safe to drive, since those kind of doses are unlikely to have any effect on state of body/mind whatsoever.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elementric)
    No offense Graham, but your argument is pretty ridiculous. It's almost impossible to tell if all of the alcohol you have ingested has been processed by your liver; It could be two mornings after a night out and you still have a trace of alcohol in your blood. Not to mention the fact that anyone who uses mouthwash would get a driving ban.
    The simple science of it completely rules out 'zero-tolerance' as an option.
    I agree that drink driving is a serious problem and that the punishments for it should be dear, but banning people from driving even on a 'near-zero' basis (e.g. allowing a 1/2 unit equivalent) would be fairly ridiculous considering that people would have absolutely no way of knowing when they were safe to drive, since those kind of doses are unlikely to have any effect on state of body/mind whatsoever.
    Fair enough, if that is your opinion

    I agree anyway, I think theoretically a zero-tolerance is brilliant and it is my opinion that it should be brought in, but Graham's head and world is very different to reality where it will never work as it will be impossible to enforce. I just wanted to see other people's views on the topic.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by gbduo)
    Well, I suppose so, but the limit would be so low it would only allow for remnants of alcohol from the night before.
    Surely then you leave it open to people saying well what is a limit where people who are not drunk and who drunk the night before is placed?

    Surely it would cause as many problems logistically as there would be answers?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Surely then you leave it open to people saying well what is a limit where people who are not drunk and who drunk the night before is placed?

    Surely it would cause as many problems logistically as there would be answers?
    Yes it would. I never said it wouldn't. And I admit that.

    This thread was to see various different people's opinions, rather than a flame war. I don't like massive arguments, I used to, but I really can't be arsed anymore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Actually did this in a pub with my dad and his mates, half of them were quicker at catching a beer mat dropped above there hand than me when they had a pint in them. And I don't drink and drive.

    If you can take it then whats the problem?

    :facepalm2: I don't care what your 'dads mates' might have done in a pub, we are talking generally here. The fact is that drink drivers knowingly operate machines capable of killing innocents whilst intoxicated, it is scientific fact that even small amounts of alcohol affect reflexes, judgement etc..

    Your alchy dad might be able to take his drink, whatever, that doesn't take away from the fact that he is knowingly and voluntarily driving a car under the influence. If he never has an accident then fair enough. But if he does, then he should take the responsibility that comes with every act of free will, and he should be punished severely.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't want to see a zero limit as that's asking for trouble (mouthwash, food cooked in wine, etc will all take you over the limit). I'm also not convinced that the limit needs lowering.

    If I'm driving, I won't bother having anything and will just stick to soft drinks. But, some of my mates will have a drink (still under legal limit) and when they drive afterwards, they seem to be paying much more attention to 'compensate'. Granted they should be paying that much attention whether they've had a drink or not, but I'm sure some of them drive better after a beer.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :facepalm2: I don't care what your 'dads mates' might have done in a pub, we are talking generally here. The fact is that drink drivers knowingly operate machines capable of killing innocents whilst intoxicated, it is scientific fact that even small amounts of alcohol affect reflexes, judgement etc..

    Your alchy dad might be able to take his drink, whatever, that doesn't take away from the fact that he is knowingly and voluntarily driving a car under the influence. If he never has an accident then fair enough. But if he does, then he should take the responsibility that comes with every act of free will, and he should be punished severely.
    Generally people who are older can handle their drink far better, and telling them they cannot drink after half a pint is a ******* insult.

    Yeah having 2 pints is an alchy, ******* hell, so 95% of the country are?

    He is not under the influence, he is under the legal limit, and so therefore is not under the influence.

    He would be under the limit if he crashed, which he never has had after drinking, so what punishment?

    Your whole post is full of stuff that is illogical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Generally people who are older can handle their drink far better, and telling them they cannot drink after half a pint is a ******* insult.
    Im not telling them they can't drive. by all means be my guest. I am arguing that the punishment for having a car accident with alcohol in your system should be extremely harsh.

    He is not under the influence, he is under the legal limit, and so therefore is not under the influence.
    I believe the legal limit should be lowered.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Im not telling them they can't drive. by all means be my guest. I am arguing that the punishment for having a car accident with alcohol in your system should be extremely harsh.



    I believe the legal limit should be lowered.

    So should anyone who has poor reactions and crashes be charged with dangerous driving because they have got in a car knowing they cannot react quick enough?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    So should anyone who has poor reactions and crashes be charged with dangerous driving because they have got in a car knowing they cannot react quick enough?

    No, because those people have not knowingly intoxicated themselves. Also how would someone know if they cannot react quickly enough? If it is a medical condition they will usually be informed by a doctor or given an order that they should not drive. If they do so then yes of course they should be punished. Especially if a young child is killed as a consequence. Rights mean responsibility.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, because those people have not knowingly intoxicated themselves. Also how would someone know if they cannot react quickly enough? If it is a medical condition they will usually be informed by a doctor or given an order that they should not drive. If they do so then yes of course they should be punished. Especially if a young child is killed as a consequence. Rights mean responsibility.

    Well if your braking too late etc you generally know about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like the idea of a 'limit' on how much alcohol you can have in your bloodstream to drive as it fails to take into account the fact that drink has different effects on different people. Its just a silly numbers game in my view, I would prefer an impairment test similar to the one they use for suspected drug driving cases. I still think that a younger driver who's had a pint is going to have quicker reactions than an oldie. And the 'random' checks on drivers that some have suggested would really annoy me, if somebody is driving erratically then pull them over and check, if not, leave them alone and don't waste their time.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    "Don't knock it 'till you've tried it" is my motto in life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Well if your braking too late etc you generally know about it.

    But how is anybody else going to know about it? I really don't see your point here.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's fine as it is.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But how is anybody else going to know about it? I really don't see your point here.
    If a 70 year old gets in a car knowing they have slow reactions.

    They hit someone.

    When tested it is found out.

    They should have the same punishment, you would agree?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Well if your braking too late etc you generally know about it.
    By then you're already in the car and it's too late. I don't see how you can conceivably argue that having a pint or two up-to-the-limit is less risky than not drinking at all. That is clearly not the case, and a lower limit would remove this idea you seem to have that the current limit is a "safe" limit, because it is not. The only safe limit is zero and they only way to attain this is to not drink at all. In putting your argument you are actually proving that there is a case for lowering the limit closer to zero.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aw crap, i voted no because i didn't read the question for the poll. I think that it should be banned. There should just be a no tolerance, or a very very very low tolerance policy (which will take into account some medical reason for someone having alcohol in their blood that i haven't thought of/don't know!). I make it a policy when i'm going to drive to not drink at all.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Carl)
    By then you're already in the car and it's too late. I don't see how you can conceivably argue that having a pint or two up-to-the-limit is less risky than not drinking at all. That is clearly not the case, and a lower limit would remove this idea you seem to have that the current limit is a "safe" limit, because it is not. The only safe limit is zero and they only way to attain this is to not drink at all. In putting your argument you are actually proving that there is a case for lowering the limit closer to zero.
    I'm on about people with generally slow reactions, which will have come with time.

    So because driving at 30mph has a risk of killing someone if there hit, we should all drive at 5mph?

    If your going to try take the whole risk out of everything then you cant stop with alcohol.

    No radios in cars
    No smoking in cars
    No passengers
    No hands free phone
    No drinking

    They can all be just as much of a distraction
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: February 19, 2010
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.