TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

happytorq wrote:

Couldn't agree more with that, every time I am drawn into a conversation about drink driving I express the same point of view, have a "0" drink drive limit, then no grey area's, you drink you can't drive simple.

I believe sweden and possibly Norway have such drink drive limits.Could be wrong.

Edit found it here, it would appear we have one of the higest limits in europe, some do have zero limits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6920720.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brilliant, so you have a night out, and 24 hours later you still have 1 or 2 microgrammes in 100 millilitres of breath (limit is presently 35), and you're banned for a year. If you have a glass of wine at lunch and drive home from work at 5, again, you'll blow 3 or 4, but at that concentration, how should you know it's still in you. A zero limit basically means that, in life, you either drink or you drive, because it simply would not ever be worth the risk. That is no way to force people to live. The present system is far too arbitrary as it is, but it's the best we have, so we're stuck with it. Aside from the mandatory 12 month DQ (I'll never agree with mandatory sentencing, at any level, we need to allow our Judges the discression they enjoy with the majority of decisions), the system works perfectly well.
Do none of you realise the massive, MASSIVE damage losing your driving license does to the lives of most people?

There is presently no 'grey' area. If you blow 34, you walk, if you blow 35, you're charged, simple.

Matt.

Surely there are grey area's though Matt, how many times have I heard some one say, how much can I drink before being over the limit, 1/2 a pint , I pint, how many peole can tell you how many units of alcohol are there in each individual drink, trouble is no two poeple are same, 1 person can be under after 2 pints , the next over after 1/2 a pint.

Make the limit "0" nothing to work out, no risk, drink you can't drive, so if you have a glass with the lunch get a lift or walk home, if you want a heavy night on Wednesday, arrange for a lift , take the bus, or walk to work on Thursday, drink driving is a proven killer, wreck lives, not just of the victim either.

ferrarilover wrote: There is presently no 'grey' area. If you blow 34, you walk, if you blow 35, you're charged, simple.

Matt.

Matt, if you blow 35 you will NOT be charged as you are not over the limit.

Southampton Gull wrote:Matt, if you blow 35 you will NOT be charged as you are not over the limit.

desperately searching for a gag involving "Matt" and "blow 35" but I...just....can't...think....of....one.

And in any case - if you go out on a friday night and drink...i dunno, 5 pints before 10pm - your liver will have got rid of all of the alcohol by 8am. if you want to go out and get totally blasted, then fine. Just don't drive anywhere the next day.

I know there are people who depend on their license for work. So why do they risk it simply for a some drinks? How hard is it to *not* have an alcoholic drink. It's about time we got past the culture of drinking because it's sociable, or because you feel you should. It's bollocks. Drink if you absolutely certain that you don't need to be absolutely sober - which should include the need to drive. The limit is entirely arbitrary, anyway - first, they've proven that any level of alcohol impairs you (even if it is only slightly) and given that different people are affected differently, choosing a number seems pointless.

If you drink and drive, don't squeal went you're caught over the limit.

The Luke McCormick case should be a sober reminder of what can happen when drink driving.

My own position ?

Drive and work. Most times it's drink and walk.

happytorq wrote: desperately searching for a gag involving "Matt" and "blow 35" but I...just....can't...think....of....one.

And in any case - if you go out on a friday night and drink...i dunno, 5 pints before 10pm - your liver will have got rid of all of the alcohol by 8am. if you want to go out and get totally blasted, then fine. Just don't drive anywhere the next day.

I know there are people who depend on their license for work. So why do they risk it simply for a some drinks? How hard is it to *not* have an alcoholic drink. It's about time we got past the culture of drinking because it's sociable, or because you feel you should. It's bollocks. Drink if you absolutely certain that you don't need to be absolutely sober - which should include the need to drive. The limit is entirely arbitrary, anyway - first, they've proven that any level of alcohol impairs you (even if it is only slightly) and given that different people are affected differently, choosing a number seems pointless.

There are lots of things that can impair your ability to drive, drinking alcohol is just one. Partners often argue when driving, should we stop all spouses from being allowed in the same car together?

Southampton Gull wrote:There are lots of things that can impair your ability to drive, drinking alcohol is just one. Partners often argue when driving, should we stop all spouses from being allowed in the same car together?

You're right. That's exactly the same thing....

so you're saying you see no difference between something that chemically makes you less alert and have slower reactions and simply being distracted. Nobody should get into a car if they know they're likely to have an argument, or if they're in an emotional state (in the stuff they give new drivers here, the specifically say "dont drive if you're emotional"). That's just common sense; similarly you shouldn't be driving if your ability to react to potentially dangerous situations has been diminished.

Honestly, I find it hard to credit that there's a limit. UK limit is currently 0.08%. At 0.03% your concentration is impaired...ok if you're watching TV, a problem if you're driving home late at night. Add to that the issue with your blood alcohol being affected by your weight...how soon is it that a defence for a charge will be "Well, your honour, I used to be a fat bastard but after a year on Atkins my BAC was a lot higher after 3 pints than I thought it might be". Granted, this is an extreme - and silly - example, but as soon as you bring in the concept of a 'unsafe' level of alcohol to have in your system, you naturally bring in a 'safe' amount. And that's bollocks too.

Is everybody so desperate for a beer that they're willing to jeopardise the safety of themselves and other people every time they drive home from the pub?

SteveDeckchair wrote:My issue with this actually has nothing to do with the sentence, woefully inadequate as it is.

I take offence to a football club presenting him to their fans as a role model, because that is ultimately what you are as a footballer.

Kids and families clapping and cheering someone who has killed 2 children. It is morally and ethically wrong in my opinion and I wouldn't be comfortable doing it.

Again, Society gone wrong really. Why are footballers role models? They are genuinely lads that have been blessed to have a talent that's been harnessed but they are often lads that have underperformed at school, left school early to play football and turn out to be bored thick chavs with far too much money and free time on their hands for playing a game.

I find the hero worship footballers get pretty grotesque actually. I don't see how a lot of their lifestyles, actions on and off the pitch and morals are those fitting of 'role models'.

It is said, to generalise is to be an idiot. Here goes then, in general those who play and watch football come from all walks of life.


QED

happytorq wrote: You're right. That's exactly the same thing....

so you're saying you see no difference between something that chemically makes you less alert and have slower reactions and simply being distracted. Nobody should get into a car if they know they're likely to have an argument, or if they're in an emotional state (in the stuff they give new drivers here, the specifically say "dont drive if you're emotional"). That's just common sense; similarly you shouldn't be driving if your ability to react to potentially dangerous situations has been diminished.

Honestly, I find it hard to credit that there's a limit. UK limit is currently 0.08%. At 0.03% your concentration is impaired...ok if you're watching TV, a problem if you're driving home late at night. Add to that the issue with your blood alcohol being affected by your weight...how soon is it that a defence for a charge will be "Well, your honour, I used to be a fat b*****d but after a year on Atkins my BAC was a lot higher after 3 pints than I thought it might be". Granted, this is an extreme - and silly - example, but as soon as you bring in the concept of a 'unsafe' level of alcohol to have in your system, you naturally bring in a 'safe' amount. And that's bollocks too.

Is everybody so desperate for a beer that they're willing to jeopardise the safety of themselves and other people every time they drive home from the pub?

No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm making the point that there are a lot of things other than small amounts of alcohol that can impair your ability to drive safely. I saw some statistic somewhere that accidents caused by drink driving made up less than 5% of all accidents, How much do we need to be controlled by big brother? Mind you, that's a whole other debate...........

happytorq wrote:

...how soon is it that a defence for a charge will be "Well, your honour, I used to be a fat b*****d but after a year on Atkins my BAC was a lot higher after 3 pints than I thought it might be"

The thing with driving (sober, pissed up, in a mood, etc) is the overlooked "auto pilot" mode.

You know precisely what I mean and regular well known routes are when "auto pilot" is predominant.

You safely get to your destination then realise you remember nothing of your journey.

So what was it then ? Pissed up or in a mood ? It certainly wasn't sober otherwise you would've remembered every fork, twist and turn in the road.

Before you go to bed, say thank you to your "auto pilot" for looking where it's going when you're not.

ferrarilover wrote:I imagine his five grand a week will soothe his fevered brow somewhat.

He's served his time in jail, he can't be condemned to a whole life sentence, good luck to him, we should all be so fortunate.

Matt.

Bo**ox
Sorry, but I see you ain't worried that the parents of the kids Killed by him have been condemned to a lifetime sentence. The loss of thier loved ones. Sometimes you really do take the biscuit.

ferrarilover wrote:Brilliant, so you have a night out, and 24 hours later you still have 1 or 2 microgrammes in 100 millilitres of breath (limit is presently 35), and you're banned for a year. If you have a glass of wine at lunch and drive home from work at 5, again, you'll blow 3 or 4, but at that concentration, how should you know it's still in you. A zero limit basically means that, in life, you either drink or you drive, because it simply would not ever be worth the risk. That is no way to force people to live. The present system is far too arbitrary as it is, but it's the best we have, so we're stuck with it. Aside from the mandatory 12 month DQ (I'll never agree with mandatory sentencing, at any level, we need to allow our Judges the discression they enjoy with the majority of decisions), the system works perfectly well.
Do none of you realise the massive, MASSIVE damage losing your driving license does to the lives of most people?

There is presently no 'grey' area. If you blow 34, you walk, if you blow 35, you're charged, simple.

Matt.

Do you know the MASSIVE MASSIVE damage that killing a kid does to the family of that Child. No question. DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE.
AND BEFOR YOU WANT TO PONTIFICATE. My Grandfather was coming home from the farm one night. HE was hit by a drunk driver coming home from a party. I lost my Grandfather. I have had a sentence passed I have no chance of parole from. unlike McCormick who walks away lightly with a 3 1/2 year served jail term. I bet he doesn't suffer anywhere near as much as that Family.
That's why I am so happy to act as Chauffeur for anyone if we have a night out. It's about the only advantage I can find for my illness but it serves well. I don't want anyone to suffer what I have lost.