# Alcohol Limit (not drivers)



## JamesMorgan (5 Jul 2010)

There has been quite a lot of press recently about the problems of binge drinking in our society. Potential solutions seem to be based around either education or increasing the price of alcohol. I have teenage children and suspect that neither of these approaches will have much effect.

I was wondering whether an alternative approach would be to have an alcohol limit for any person in a public place. Such a limit would need to be higher than the current drink-drive limit (of 80mg). I'm not sure what the right level would be - possibly 200mg.

I know there are current laws around being drunk and disorderley but these are a little subjective, and once you are drunk you typically believe your behaviour is fine. Having a fixed limit would make it clear to everyone what is acceptable.

As well as the health benefits and removing drunked yobs from the streets it could also cut down on the number of car accidents involving alcohol (interesting feedback from my kids is that out of their friends hurt in car accidents the majority involved drunken pedestrians rather than drunken drivers).

What do others think, and if in favour where would you set the limit?


----------



## theclaud (5 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> What do others think





No! No no no no no no no no no. Absolutely not!


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (5 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan, a man after my own heart.I have been saying for a long time now that there should be an alcohol level introduced for the non driving fraternity (YES INCLUDING CYCLISTS).Anti social behaviour is fueled by booze of all types and for that matter can also be as a result of drugs.Out on the streets is a particular problem with a catalogue of potential booze fuelled altercations etc.Happy & Safe Riding & an occasional drink to You All.


----------



## theclaud (5 Jul 2010)

Why not a crackdown on public puritanism instead? Immediate fines for anyone caught frowning at the sight of other people enjoying themselves...


----------



## User169 (5 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> Why not a crackdown on *pubic puritanism *instead? Immediate fines for anyone caught frowning at the sight of other people enjoying themselves...



Deffo not in favour of _that_.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (5 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> No! No no no no no no no no no. Absolutely not!



+1. Only with a stronger emphasis on the "No" element.


----------



## theclaud (5 Jul 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> Deffo not in favour of _that_.



Ha! It does sound a formidable variation. I shall make the correction in the original...


----------



## Dan B (5 Jul 2010)

So having legally drunk more than 200mg's worth in your friend's home, you are unable to leave their house until it's worn off?

Great idea when your "friend" turns out to be a date rapist


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> Immediate fines for anyone caught frowning at the sight of other people enjoying themselves...



Oo, what about for people muttering disapprovingly under their breath? Good grief, it'd bankrupt me!


----------



## guitarpete247 (5 Jul 2010)

My dad would be bankrupt. He disapproves of almost everything unless it's him that's doing it.
But he does get drunk from time to time both at home and when away in his caravan.


----------



## ianrauk (5 Jul 2010)

Take out the hysterical press and there is no problem.

Anyone for a beer or 10?




JamesMorgan said:


> *There has been quite a lot of press recently about the problems of binge drinking in our society. * Potential solutions seem to be based around either education or increasing the price of alcohol. I have teenage children and suspect that neither of these approaches will have much effect.
> 
> I was wondering whether an alternative approach would be to have an alcohol limit for any person in a public place. Such a limit would need to be higher than the current drink-drive limit (of 80mg). I'm not sure what the right level would be - possibly 200mg.
> 
> ...


----------



## CopperBrompton (5 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> What do others think, and if in favour where would you set the limit?


Your proposal doesn't go nearly far enough. Ok, people wouldn't be allowed to get merry from alcohol, but what are you intending to do to address other forms of pleasure? We need to ban laughter in public, for a start. When having sex, you shouldn't be allowed to leave your partner's home until there is no longer any trace of a satisfied smile on your lips. And cycling should be permitted only uphill, into a headwind during a thunderstorm.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (5 Jul 2010)

ianrauk said:


> Anyone for a beer or 10?



I'm quite parched - get us one* in please. 


*for starters


----------



## Davidc (5 Jul 2010)

Just enforce the 'drunk and disorderly' rules.

The driving limit is well justified, if too high. So are alcohol rules covering using other machines and some jobs. A general one would be just another unnecessary piece of legislative nonesense.


----------



## theclaud (5 Jul 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> cycling should be permitted only uphill, into a headwind during a thunderstorm.



I live in Swansea. It's news to me that there's any other kind...


----------



## mark barker (5 Jul 2010)

I have no problem with people enjoying themselves, but I'll never understand the need to get drunk... If your life is that bad that the only way to have fun s to get drunk, then surely thats a good indication that you need to look at changing your lifestyle so you don't need to "escape"! 

As for a limit, if the current laws were implemented then there would be no need for a limit.... Its illegal for a pub to serve alcohol to someone they believe is drunk.


----------



## e-rider (5 Jul 2010)

A limit of 10 pints would be a good idea - I usually regret everything I do after that anyway!


----------



## CopperBrompton (5 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> I live in Swansea.


Blimey, how much had you had to drink when you made _that_ decision?!


----------



## CopperBrompton (5 Jul 2010)

tundragumski said:


> A limit of 10 pints would be a good idea


I'm not sure I could manage 10 pints of Pinot Noir, but I'll give it my best shot sometime.


----------



## theclaud (5 Jul 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Blimey, how much had you had to drink when you made _that_ decision?!



Yes I was completely shitfaced. But it's worked out OK .


----------



## Bromptonaut (5 Jul 2010)

The idea is barking but in the interest of science 200 seems rather high. Admittedly my research has not gone beyond Wikpedia but over 200 is approaching stupor. 

Drunk & unconscious = problem gone?


----------



## Mark_Robson (5 Jul 2010)

That has got to be the daftest idea ever. 
Since it sounds like something from 1984 lets banish it to room 101.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (5 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> Yes I was completely shitfaced. But it's worked out OK .



By never sobering up?


----------



## theclaud (5 Jul 2010)

threebikesmcginty said:


> By never sobering up?



You have to admit it's a faultless plan...


----------



## MartinC (5 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> There has been quite a lot of press recently about the problems of binge drinking in our society. Potential solutions seem to be based around either education or increasing the price of alcohol. I have teenage children and suspect that neither of these approaches will have much effect.
> 
> I was wondering whether an alternative approach would be to have an alcohol limit for any person in a public place. Such a limit would need to be higher than the current drink-drive limit (of 80mg). I'm not sure what the right level would be - possibly 200mg.
> 
> ...



I think it's perfectly fine for you to do whatever you like on your own planet.


----------



## montage (5 Jul 2010)

unenforcable


----------



## User169 (5 Jul 2010)

montage said:


> unenforcable




Priceless! You couldn't make it up etc., etc....


----------



## montage (5 Jul 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> Priceless! You couldn't make it up etc., etc....



The idea that the OP's suggestion, although a nice idea, is unenforcable?
Mabye I should have said extremely impractical....breathalizing every customer etc for a start


----------



## User169 (5 Jul 2010)

montage said:


> The idea that the OP's suggestion, although a nice idea, is unenforcable?
> Mabye I should have said extremely impractical....breathalizing every customer etc for a start



Well of course it's unenforceable. Much in the same way that prohibitions on consumption of substances currently considered illegal in the UK are unenforceable (aside from being an affront to civil liberties).


----------



## theclaud (5 Jul 2010)

montage said:


> unenforcable



...in ev'ry way


----------



## JamesMorgan (5 Jul 2010)

Many thanks for the replies so far. The concensus has suprised me a little. I thought it would be about 50:50 between those that think you should be able to do whatever you like in public and those that think alcohol is the root of all evil and banned completely. We clearly have more of the former.

Some more data that may help promote further discussion. 200mg indicates a serious drinking session after which you are likely be be pretty incoherant. For a 13 stone male they will probably have drunk around 8 pints. However, a wander around any city centre late at night will find many people in this state.

For road accident deaths for over 16 year olds, 41% of pedestrians will have a blood alcohol over 80mg. For deaths between 10pm and 4am this rises to 92%. Out of the 41%, 66% will have alcohol levels over 200mg. OK, I hear you say, if you get drunk and get run over it's your own fault. I am not so convinced that it is a victimless crime. How does the driver feel after they have just killed someone? Even if stone sober and driving within speed limits they are llikely to be wraught with guilt.

As for enforceability, the current drunk and disorderley laws are very difficult to enforce due to their subjectivity. Instead I foresee a situation where a police offer sees a drunk (or more likely group of drunks) staggering in the street. He whips out a breathaliser and issues a £100 on the spot fine to any offenders. Clearly it won't stop all offenders but it attempts to draw a line as to what is acceptable and what isn't.


----------



## theclaud (5 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> For road accident deaths for over 16 year olds, 41% of pedestrians will have a blood alcohol over 80mg. For deaths between 10pm and 4am this rises to 92%. Out of the 41%, 66% will have alcohol levels over 200mg. OK, I hear you say, if you get drunk and get run over it's your own fault. I am not so convinced that it is a victimless crime. How does the driver feel after they have just killed someone? Even if stone sober and driving within speed limits they are llikely to be wraught with guilt.



Eh? The problem isn't how pissed a pedestrian is, but the ton of metal ramming into them at speed whilst they're minding their own business and wobbling their way home. In my observation, hardly anyone driving around at night obeys the speed limit, except the ones who are trying to cover up how pissed they are.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (5 Jul 2010)

Come on TC haven't you got a pub to go to?


----------



## Dan B (5 Jul 2010)

In the offence of "drunk and disorderly", it is the "disorderly" that causes trouble, not the "drunk".


----------



## theclaud (5 Jul 2010)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Come on TC haven't you got a pub to go to?



Nope. I have a back yard bathed in evening sunshine, a few letters to write, and several litres of Ralph's Badlands Hereford Dry, which I picked up from the Aberaeron Festival of Seafood yesterday. Yes - I know cider isn't seafood, but it went very well with a mussel dish that was on offer. I intend to get langered before somebody passes a law against it...


----------



## threebikesmcginty (5 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> I intend to get langered before somebody passes a law against it...





These ITV4 ad. breaks are hideously long but they do allow time for a quick CC post!


----------



## gavintc (5 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> I live in Swansea. It's news to me that there's any other kind...



But there are always the bars on Wind St if you give up.


----------



## User169 (5 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> Instead I foresee a situation where a police offer sees a drunk (or more likely group of drunks) staggering in the street. He whips out a breathaliser and issues a £100 on the spot fine to any offenders. Clearly it won't stop all offenders but it attempts to draw a line as to what is acceptable and what isn't.



I predict a riot....


----------



## dragon72 (5 Jul 2010)

I believe people should be free to do what they want to themselves as long as it doesn't impact on others.
However, rather than get the law involved, I'd prefer it to become culturally embarrassing to be seen to be trolleyed. 
While they're partial to a drink or two, my mates in France and Italy would rather die than brag about drinking 10 pints and spewing on the way home, yet here it's actually a source of amusement if not pride. A bit sad really.


----------



## marinyork (5 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> For road accident deaths for over 16 year olds, 41% of pedestrians will have a blood alcohol over 80mg. For deaths between 10pm and 4am this rises to 92%. Out of the 41%, 66% will have alcohol levels over 200mg. OK, I hear you say, if you get drunk and get run over it's your own fault. I am not so convinced that it is a victimless crime. How does the driver feel after they have just killed someone? Even if stone sober and driving within speed limits they are llikely to be wraught with guilt.



Why shouldn't they be wrought with guilt, it's their fault (or very likely)?

I'm intrigued by this idea of a limit for everybody, why not just have less liberal licensing instead?


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

OK - I've now done a bit more research on this idea. It seems that it is being seriously considered already in a number of countries. 

The University of Adelaide published some research that suggested this approach would be the most effective way of reducing the number of pedestrians killing themselves on the roads. They recommended a limit of 150mg. Perhaps not suprisingly, 82% of Australians were opposed to this idea.

The Dutch government announced last year that they were investigating the feasibility of such a law. An obstacle appears to be the European Human Rights laws that prevent breathalisers being used on non-drivers.

Of course we could continue with the status quo and try to penalise everyone, for example, with high alcohol prices, restrictive licencing laws etc. I would much rather go for a liberised approach, but then clamp down hard on people who step over the line. The same applies to so called 'illegal drugs', but that is another thread!


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2010)

Pedestrians killing themselves? This a wind-up, surely?


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> Pedestrians killing themselves? This a wind-up, surely?



Jumping in front of a tonne of metal travelling at 30mph is going to have similar consequences to jumping off a tall building. We could of course blame the car (or the ground) for the death but ultimately some people need to take responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## User169 (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> Jumping in front of a tonne of metal travelling at 30mph is going to have similar consequences to jumping off a tall building. We could of course blame the car (or the ground) for the death but ultimately some people need to take responsibility for their own actions.




I wouldn't normally advise this at 8-30 in the morning, but I can't help feeling you need a drink (an alcoholic one that is)!


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> Jumping in front of a tonne of metal travelling at 30mph is going to have similar consequences to jumping off a tall building. We could of course blame the car (or the ground) for the death but ultimately some people need to take responsibility for their own actions.



Good Lord. You appear to be in earnest. Have you run someone over or something?


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> *I wouldn't normally advise this *at 8-30 in the morning, but I can't help feeling you need a drink (an alcoholic one that is)!



Hey DP - that reminds me. I found the Fat Cat. It's all good.


----------



## User169 (6 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> Hey DP - that reminds me. I found the Fat Cat. It's all good.




Very good - all this talk of banning booze is making me feel thirsty!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Jul 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> I wouldn't normally advise this at 8-30 in the morning, but I can't help feeling you need a drink (an alcoholic one that is)!



Sheems ferpectly reasonable to me ... thud.

Actually pedestrian deaths are on the decline and have been for decades.
The last thing we need are new laws when there are existing and perfectly adequate ones already on the books.


----------



## Dan B (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> Jumping in front of a tonne of metal travelling at 30mph is going to have similar consequences to jumping off a tall building. We could of course blame the car (or the ground) for the death but ultimately some people need to take responsibility for their own actions.


I can't remember the last time I saw a car travelling at 30 mph _all by itself_ - far more often there is a human agency involved, in the form of a driver in control (or at least, in notional control) of it. In those cases, I am willing to bet that the majority of car crashes involving drunken pedestrians occur in places and at times where drunken pedestrians are numerous - and if I am correct, the car drivers really ought to observe there are people around and slow down.

Obviously if the car really _is_ unoccupied then this doesn't apply


----------



## ianrauk (6 Jul 2010)

Blimey coruskate, how dare you counter sensationalism with common sense




coruskate said:


> I can't remember the last time I saw a car travelling at 30 mph _all by itself_ - far more often there is a human agency involved, in the form of a driver in control (or at least, in notional control) of it. In those cases, I am willing to bet that the majority of car crashes involving drunken pedestrians occur in places and at times where drunken pedestrians are numerous - and if I am correct, the car drivers really ought to observe there are people around and slow down.
> 
> Obviously if the car really _is_ unoccupied then this doesn't apply


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

I can see that two of the key frustrations are never likely to be addressed, namely;

a) People not taking responsibility for their own actions (ie it is always someone else's fault)

 The government (probably mainly in response to the group above) acting as a nanny state and passing completely ineffective laws that do nothing to address the problem but stop normal people enjoying their lives.

So we have a problem with binge drinking. Nothing to do with the binge drinkers - they say alcohol is too cheap or too widely available, so laws are passed that address these points stopping me from enjoying a few cheap pints at 2am (or even 8:30am) but do nothing to stop binge drinking.

So we have large numbers of drunks getting semi-comatosed and being hit by cars. Can't be the drunks fault as the car has a driver. So perhaps we should ban all cars from town centres (or you could ensure all cars have a man walking in front of them waving a red flag warning of their arrival).

So a few people kill themselves taking heroin overdoses. Nothing to do with them - they say the problem is that it is too widely available, so laws are passed making it hard drugs illegal (and soft drugs as well just in case). So I can no longer enjoy a joint of cannabis, but I also have to face all the society issues associated with the illegal drug trade (and of course the number of overdoses isn't addressed).

I am just waiting for my next pleasure to be abolished by the nanny state. Cycling on a hot summer day with the cool wind in my hair (and yes, no helmet!).

Ultimately, until everyone starts to take responsibility for their actions the govenment is never going to pass laws that address the real problems.

And yes, I am probably a grumpy old man. When I was younger I probably enjoyed getting rat-arsed and sitting in the road playing chicken with the cars, but as I've aged, I've changed (probably something to do with life experience).


----------



## User169 (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> I can see that two of the key frustrations are never likely to be addressed, namely;
> 
> a) People not taking responsibility for their own actions (ie it is always someone else's fault)



That is indeed a frustration, but it's not entirely clear why you think that motorists shouldn't take responsibility for their actions.


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> That is indeed a frustration, but it's not entirely clear why you think that motorists shouldn't take responsibility for their actions.



Of course they should. In fact, motorists are one of the worst groups in blaming everyone else for their misdeeds. That doesn't mean they should be treated as a pariah and at fault in all cases.


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> perhaps we should ban all cars from town centres (or you could ensure all cars have a man walking in front of them waving a red flag warning of their arrival).



Now you're talking!


----------



## Dan B (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> I can see that two of the key frustrations are never likely to be addressed, namely;
> 
> a) People not taking responsibility for their own actions (ie it is always someone else's fault)
> 
> The government (probably mainly in response to the group above) acting as a nanny state and passing completely ineffective laws that do nothing to address the problem but stop normal people enjoying their lives.


I am at a loss to see how introducing new laws is going to fix the problem that we have too many laws.


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

coruskate said:


> I am at a loss to see how introducing new laws is going to fix the problem that we have too many laws.



Get rid of the countless laws that do nothing to address the real problem and introduce a few key laws that really sort things out. If the problem is some people drink too much alcohol, pass a law saying that it is illegal to drink more than a certain amount. Then get rid of all the other laws around pricing, licencing hours etc etc.


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> Get rid of the countless laws that do nothing to address the real problem and introduce a few key laws that really sort things out. * If the problem is some people drink too much alcohol*, pass a law saying that it is illegal to drink more than a certain amount. Then get rid of all the other laws around pricing, licencing hours etc etc.



It isn't though, is it? It would help if you put your cards on the table. Is your aim to reduce pedestrian casualties, or to stop people getting a bit too pissed?


----------



## ianrauk (6 Jul 2010)

I can drink more then my mate Matt but not as much as my mate Adam.
How much is too much? It's unworkable nonsense to legislate.




JamesMorgan said:


> Get rid of the countless laws that do nothing to address the real problem and introduce a few key laws that really sort things out. *If the problem is some people drink too much alcohol, pass a law saying that it is illegal to drink more than a certain amount. * Then get rid of all the other laws around pricing, licencing hours etc etc.


----------



## ianrauk (6 Jul 2010)

So you had your fun. But now you want to stop others doing so?



JamesMorgan said:


> And yes, I am probably a grumpy old man. When I was younger I probably enjoyed getting rat-arsed and sitting in the road playing chicken with the cars, but as I've aged, I've changed (probably something to do with life experience).


----------



## User169 (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> Of course they should. In fact, motorists are one of the worst groups in blaming everyone else for their misdeeds. *That doesn't mean they should be treated as a pariah and at fault in all cases*.



On the contrary, I think that's a pretty sound starting point.


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> It isn't though, is it? It would help if you put your cards on the table. Is your aim to reduce pedestrian casualties, or to stop people getting a bit too pissed?



My primary aim is neither - it is mainly to avoid the government passing a whole set of legislation that impact on my lifestyle on the false premise that it prevents binge drinking.

I would have thought from society's view, stopping binge drinking would be good from a number of perspectives, including;

a) reducing anti-social behaviour in the streets
 reducing crime
c) reducing NHS costs
d) reducing road traffic accidents

There is a lot of difference between getting a bit too pissed and completely inebriated. If you want to achieve the latter, do it in your own home so the public are not affected.


----------



## marinyork (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> Get rid of the countless laws that do nothing to address the real problem and introduce a few key laws that really sort things out. If the problem is some people drink too much alcohol, pass a law saying that it is illegal to drink more than a certain amount. *Then get rid of all the other laws around pricing, licencing hours etc etc.*



I think that's actually the problem in this country. We have liberal laws in terms of how many shops sell alcohol, offers and how prominently it is displayed at the entrances to shops. Then there are crackdowns, usually on the quieter and less troublesome people drinking to make it look like they are doing something when business as usual continues elsewhere.


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

ianrauk said:


> I can drink more then my mate Matt but not as much as my mate Adam.
> How much is too much? It's unworkable nonsense to legislate.



I agree it isn't perfect but then neither are the drink-driving laws. We could throw them out as unworkable nonsense because your mate Adam is fine to drive with 80mg (and he probably is, but it's just his tough luck that that is where the line is drawn)


----------



## marinyork (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> I agree it isn't perfect but then neither are the drink-driving laws. We could throw them out as unworkable nonsense because your mate Adam is fine to drive with 80mg (and he probably is, but it's just his tough luck that that is where the line is drawn)



The drink driving laws aren't nonsense. It's catching people that's the problem.


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

marinyork said:


> I think that's actually the problem in this country. We have liberal laws in terms of how many shops sell alcohol, offers and how prominently it is displayed at the entrances to shops. Then there are crackdowns, usually on the quieter and less troublesome people drinking to make it look like they are doing something when business as usual continues elsewhere.



I am not convinced that liberal laws are the problem. As an individual I make a conscious decision to get inebriated. I have to take ownership for that decision. I shouldn't blame other parties for my decisions. The current drink-driving laws have influenced people's decisions on drinking. After one or two drinks they (largely) stop drinking. My sugestion is that for non-drivers in public they should also make a decision to stop after 6 or 7 drinks (or wherever the line is drawn).


----------



## Dan B (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> I would have thought from society's view, stopping binge drinking would be good from a number of perspectives, including;
> 
> a) reducing anti-social behaviour in the streets
> reducing crime
> ...


And as I said earlier, the problem in "drunk and disorderly" is "disorderly", not "drunk". That's the cause of (a), ( and (d) in your list, and as far as (c) goes I am not convinced your proposal will do much to fix it - it'll just move the problem drinkers into their own homes (or more likely their mates' parents' homes)


----------



## Rhythm Thief (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> My sugestion is that for non-drivers in public they should also make a decision to stop after 6 or 7 drinks (or wherever the line is drawn).



Er, no: your suggestion is that our wonderful government legislate to make people stop after 6 or 7 drinks. Which is a different thing. Would it be illegal to have six pints over the course of a relaxed day's pub crawling? Or would there be a time limit, so that six drinks in four hours was ok, but six drinks over three and a half hours wasn't? Would a double Laphroaig count as two? Would a measure of Highland Park count the same as a Vodka Mule? Or ... oh, it's unworkable. Another piece of toothless, absurd and utterly unnecessary legislation of the kind you professed yourself against earlier in the thread.


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Er, no: your suggestion is that our wonderful government legislate to make people stop after 6 or 7 drinks. Which is a different thing. Would it be illegal to have six pints over the course of a relaxed day's pub crawling? Or would there be a time limit, so that six drinks in four hours was ok, but six drinks over three and a half hours wasn't? Would a double Laphroaig count as two? Would a measure of Highland Park count the same as a Vodka Mule? Or ... oh, it's unworkable. Another piece of toothless, absurd and utterly unnecessary legislation of the kind you professed yourself against earlier in the thread.



The same set or arguments can (and frequently do) get used for the current drink-driving laws. Whatever we think about the drink-driving laws they have reduced drink-driving.


----------



## marinyork (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> I am not convinced that liberal laws are the problem. As an individual I make a conscious decision to get inebriated. I have to take ownership for that decision. I shouldn't blame other parties for my decisions. The current drink-driving laws have influenced people's decisions on drinking. After one or two drinks they (largely) stop drinking. My sugestion is that for non-drivers in public they should also make a decision to stop after 6 or 7 drinks (or wherever the line is drawn).



I'm all for people taking responsibility and not turning major towns into some small village shop in terms of alcohol sales but I do think it is in a fair part due to how liberal the licensing is. By that I mean not the pub end of things but the shop/supermarket end of things.

I think where you're really going wrong is placing too much emphasis on it being drunken pedestrians' fault in terms of road collisions. 

I would say that the regular drink drivers are rather more hazy than that about how much they should drink. Many people don't even understand the units system.


----------



## marinyork (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> The same set or arguments can (and frequently do) get used for the current drink-driving laws. Whatever we think about the drink-driving laws they have reduced drink-driving.



Historically. More recently I think it's quite harder to say. The problem with the drink driving laws is that if you do drink and have an accident you're very, very, very likely to get caught. If you don't have an accident you're very unlikely to get caught.


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

coruskate said:


> And as I said earlier, the problem in "drunk and disorderly" is "disorderly", not "drunk". That's the cause of (a), ( and (d) in your list, and as far as (c) goes I am not convinced your proposal will do much to fix it - it'll just move the problem drinkers into their own homes (or more likely their mates' parents' homes)



I don't disagree with this, and if the current drunk and disorderley laws were effective none of us would be having this discussion. One of the problems with 'disorderley' is that is is very subjective. To one person it is just a few mates having a laugh, to someone else it is anti-social behaviour. The other problem is that once you are completely inebriated yuo tend to have little control over your behaviour. To say you can get inebriated but don't do anything disorderley is unlikely to be effective. The only decision you can reliably make is not to get inebriated. Re c), I also agree with you in part, but some NHS costs eg from fights, RTA's would be reduced.


----------



## sunnyjim (6 Jul 2010)

Most amusing thread. Next time I want to get out of my mind, I think I'll forget drinking & try whatever mindbending substance the OP is on.


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

marinyork said:


> Historically. More recently I think it's quite harder to say. The problem with the drink driving laws is that if you do drink and have an accident you're very, very, very likely to get caught. If you don't have an accident you're very unlikely to get caught.



Certainly true. In 2008, there were a total of 430 fatalaties from drink-driving RTA's. This has been steadily falling from 1979 when there were 1640. We know that in 2008, 22% of drivers killed in RTA's had excess blood alcohol. As far as the percentage of the total driving population who are over the limit it is very difficult to say with any accuracy as you quite rightly highlight that unless you have an accident (and stay around long enough to be breathalised) you won't get caught. All we can presume is that falling casualty rates probably suggest lower incidences of drink-driving.


----------



## marinyork (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> Certainly true. In 2008, there were a total of 430 fatalaties from drink-driving RTA's. This has been steadily falling from 1979 when there were 1640. We know that in 2008, 22% of drivers killed in RTA's had excess blood alcohol. As far as the percentage of the total driving population who are over the limit it is very difficult to say with any accuracy as you quite rightly highlight that unless you have an accident (and stay around long enough to be breathalised) you won't get caught. *All we can presume is that falling casualty rates probably suggest lower incidences of drink-driving.*



It could mean several things. It's not just percentages. It could be distances. I'm sure that drink driving goes on on quite a scale, much larger than people think but that the drink driving laws have constrained this behaviour down to driving 3 or 4 miles or less in most cases. There's very little chance of catching these people due to no go areas for the police and that police tend to drive on the same roads for many of their journeys. What makes it worse it that the few breathalising crack downs that go on are usually in the same places and in incredibly predictable places.


----------



## Origamist (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> Certainly true. In 2008, there were a total of 430 fatalaties from drink-driving RTA's. This has been steadily falling from 1979 when there were 1640....All we can presume is that falling casualty rates probably suggest lower incidences of drink-driving.



Possibly, but we also need to factor in the considerable improvement in trauma care in the last 30 years or so.


----------



## JamesMorgan (6 Jul 2010)

Origamist said:


> Possibly, but we also need to factor in the considerable improvement in trauma care in the last 30 years or so.



Agreed, although the total number of casualties (including minor injuries) in drink-drive RTA's fell from 31,000 to 13,000 in the same period. It does tend to suggest a reduction in drink-driving, but I fully accept other factors may be at play here.


----------



## Origamist (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> Agreed, although the total number of casualties (including minor injuries) in drink-drive RTA's fell from 31,000 to 13,000 in the same period. It does tend to suggest a reduction in drink-driving, but I fully accept other factors may be at play here.



I'm sure the casualty trend is downward, but the figures deserve closer scrutiny. For example, another factor to consider is the improvement in car safety for occupants.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (6 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> The same set or arguments can (and frequently do) get used for the current drink-driving laws. Whatever we think about the drink-driving laws they have reduced drink-driving.



The difference being that I don't think many people have a problem with reasonably draconian laws being introduced and enforced to prevent people being in charge of a motor vehicle while drunk. Draconian laws to prevent folk walking home after an all dayer or even a couple of bottles of wine with friends are a very different matter.


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (6 Jul 2010)

The question of the degree of being pissed or not pissed would be a very good one to argue with the lawyers when the happily alcohol fuelled ped' is wobbling/wandering home and misses his/her footing and ends up in the road and gets walloped by a car,van or motorcycle driver/rider,or for that matter a very rapid cyclist that just might have had a drink but proves to be below the present 80mg limit.Then the degree of fault is argued and it is deemed that he was entirely responsible for his own death by his failure to look after his own person.If the level for persons in charge of motor vehicles,motorcyles,scooters and yes, cycles was set to zero and there was a level set to be seen as responsible drinking intake for ped's then there would be very little to argue against after the relevant blood & urine samples & levels are determined.Happy & Safe Riding to You All.
PS. Soft drinks do not cloud the mind & glaze the eyes.


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2010)

^ I tried to read this. I'm either too mullered or TCR needs to work on his punctuation...


----------



## marinyork (6 Jul 2010)

The first sentence is quite long.


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2010)

marinyork said:


> The first sentence is quite long.



Indeed it is. If this is the standard of prose displayed by the teetotal lobby on this thread, then we should all get shedded as quickly as possible, if only for the sake of coherence. I've since read Mr Morgan's contributions to a thread on speed limits, and he is clearly a Safespeed troll. Which could be fun...


----------



## JamesMorgan (7 Jul 2010)

theclaud said:


> Indeed it is. If this is the standard of prose displayed by the teetotal lobby on this thread, then we should all get shedded as quickly as possible, if only for the sake of coherence. I've since read Mr Morgan's contributions to a thread on speed limits, and he is clearly a Safespeed troll. Which could be fun...



I'm beginning to realise that you have no real interest in this debate (or others), but enjoy attempting to wind up other forum users. That is fine - everyone contributes to forums for different reasons. If you had actually understood (rather than simply read) my contributions on speed limits you would have realised that my arguments were to introduce and enforce 20 mph speedlimits as this was the only safe way to encourage drivers to drive at that speed. If I make a unilateral decision to drive at that speed I am more likely to cause an accident. However, I am not particularly interested in playing forum games so will probably drop out of this thread now.


----------



## theclaud (7 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> I'm beginning to realise that have no real interest in this debate (or others), but enjoy attempting to wind up other forum users. That is fine - everyone contributes to forums for different reasons. If you had actually understood (rather than simply read) my contributions on speed limits you would have realised that my arguments were to introduce and enforce 20 mph speedlimits as this was the only safe way to encourage drivers to drive at that speed. If I make a unilateral decision to drive at that speed I am more likely to cause an accident. However, I am not particularly interested in playing forum games so will probably drop out of this thread now.



If you think I'm not taking your thread seriously, then you're absolutely right. That's because it proposes an alcohol limit for pedestrians for the benefit of motorists - an outrageous suggestion that doesn't even deserve a moment's serious consideration. I'm all for 20mph speed limits, but I dispute the notion that individuals choosing to drive at 20 in a 30 zone is dangerous. I'm also baffled by why anyone on a cycling forum would treat Safespeed as a serious source of information - it's an idiotic motorists' lobby group thinly veiled as a safety campaign.


----------



## marinyork (7 Jul 2010)

JamesMorgan said:


> I'm beginning to realise that you have no real interest in this debate (or others), but enjoy attempting to wind up other forum users. That is fine - everyone contributes to forums for different reasons. If you had actually understood (rather than simply read) my contributions on speed limits you would have realised that my arguments were to introduce and enforce 20 mph speedlimits as this was the only safe way to encourage drivers to drive at that speed. If I make a unilateral decision to drive at that speed I am more likely to cause an accident. However, I am not particularly interested in playing forum games so will probably drop out of this thread now.



It's not that, it's that campaign is generally regarded as a serious area so if anybody comes along and starts what is deemed victim blaming it doesn't really go down well. Being campaign, there are quite a few people in here that er, well campaign.


----------

