# Lowering the Limit



## StuartG (17 Jun 2010)

Has anybody else read the reports behind these drink limit proposals?

OK I have just skimmed them but it was enough to worry me. My overall impression is this is a politically led proposal. Harmonisation with Europe - it will save lives (yes but how many?). It is not evidence led.

There is evidence but it does look awfully cherry picked and does not include the very heavy provisos of the original research. And then on the radio I actually heard one proponent claim it could save more lives than are currently lost through drink driving.

Do I want to oppose these proposals? Not sure. But what I am sure about is there are other bits of legislation we can be fairly sure will save far more lives - stand up the residential 20mph limit!

The trouble is the 20mph limit effects every driver whereas the drink limit affects only driving drinkers - a much reduced population as the empty and closed pubs of England demonstrate. Politically drink laws are easier than speed laws.

We may be in danger of lowering the wrong limit!


----------



## mark barker (17 Jun 2010)

I've always thought it'd be far easier to reduce the limit to zero. It'd clear up the confusion that a lot of drivers seem to have about how much they can drink because of their metabolism etc. I find it hard to accept that pubs would be forced to close if the limits were reduced, unless all drinkers are so lazy that they'd rather stay at home than walk down the road to have a drink.


----------



## PK99 (17 Jun 2010)

mark barker said:


> *I've always thought it'd be far easier to reduce the limit to zero*. It'd clear up the confusion that a lot of drivers seem to have about how much they can drink because of their metabolism etc. I find it hard to accept that pubs would be forced to close if the limits were reduced, unless all drinkers are so lazy that they'd rather stay at home than walk down the road to have a drink.




Have you thought that through? Do you *really* mean *zero* : granny has a liqueur chocolate? Mouthwash? Minimal but non zero residual alcohol the morning after.....


----------



## StuartG (17 Jun 2010)

Well the report is helpful there. Zero is actually interpreted as 20mg so the odd mouthwash or yesterday's pint will not trouble the prosecutors.

But again - which limit, drink or speed, is going to save more lives? Which should we campaign for first?


----------



## mark barker (17 Jun 2010)

StuartG said:


> But again - which limit, drink or speed, is going to save more lives? Which should we campaign for first?


I'm sure that reducing the speed limit could save more lives, but only if people stuck to the speed limits. How many people on here can honestly say they've never driven over the speed limit? That doesn't make it right, but realistically how are the authorities going to enforce a reduced speed limit given that they can't enforce the current limits? 

I guess the same argument could be made about drinking, but I genuinely believe that a lot of drivers don't realise they are over the limit.


----------



## Dan B (17 Jun 2010)

I like to have a few pints when I go out, and I'm happy to walk back or get public transport or a cab. But the trouble with a zero limit is knowing how long _the next day_ I'll be over the limit for. It's already quite possible to be over the limit the morning after a night out, and there's little way to be sure because usually you don't feel drunk any more

I support the existing drink drive laws, but as for reducing the limit I think there are more important things to worry about. I'd like to see many more people done for actual crap driving, instead of just for having things in their system or environment that could potentially lead to crap driving. Are you going to legislate against driving while tired or driving with arguing kids in the back or driving while the satnav is going mental? It could end up being a very long list of specifics that really should be covered by a general "driving badly" rule


----------



## 661-Pete (17 Jun 2010)

StuartG said:


> Well the report is helpful there. Zero is actually interpreted as 20mg so the odd mouthwash or yesterday's pint will not trouble the prosecutors.


I hope so. I use an asthma inhaler, which contains a trace amount of alcohol. I understand that the Police have a set procedure when breathalyzing someone, they are supposed to ask them if they have used an inhaler within the past few minutes. I have never had this put to the test!

As to the set limits: well I am positive that they are needlessly high, _for me_. I honestly do not know what the relationship is, between my intake of alcohol and my blood-alcohol level. Is there a quick and ready way to determine this, short of buying a breath-testing kit myself?! 

What I *do* know, is how much I would allow *myself* to drink (which is seldom). One glass of 1% beer (about 0.25 units) would be safe for driving, for me. One 250 ml glass of normal-strength beer (about 1 unit), I would not drive but would feel able to cycle. One *pint* of normal-strength beer (about 2.5 units) I would feel *unsafe to either drive or cycle*. But all these intakes would probably leave me below the legal limit (0.08%). And these limits are what I set myself: they may not suit others.


----------



## Ravenbait (17 Jun 2010)

Oh, I dunno. I'd quite like to see it happen just because it would make the ABD cry like a toddler with a skinned knee 

Sam


----------



## Ravenbait (17 Jun 2010)

Oh, about a couple of years, maybe more. I missed Patrick and wondered if Macleach was hanging around here.

Sam


----------



## Dave Davenport (17 Jun 2010)

coruskate said:


> I like to have a few pints when I go out, and I'm happy to walk back or get public transport or a cab. But the trouble with a zero limit is knowing how long _the next day_ I'll be over the limit for. It's already quite possible to be over the limit the morning after a night out, and there's little way to be sure because usually you don't feel drunk any more
> 
> I support the existing drink drive laws, but as for reducing the limit I think there are more important things to worry about. I'd like to see many more people done for actual crap driving, instead of just for having things in their system or environment that could potentially lead to crap driving. Are you going to legislate against driving while tired or driving with arguing kids in the back or driving while the satnav is going mental? It could end up being a very long list of specifics that really should be covered by a general "driving badly" rule



What he said.


----------



## marinyork (18 Jun 2010)

What stuartg and coruskate said plus I think there's much more scope for getting far more breath tests than currently happen. I regard this as much more important than lowering the limit but of course it's not any glamorous new law but plod on the ground that will have to do this time consuming and boring work.


----------



## StuartG (18 Jun 2010)

Just to say again zero is interpreted as 20mg - the level applied to commercial airline pilots. So that has worked fine all over europe and america.

We could do that if we wished. But how many lives would be saved? Not many I think - the claims and evidence in the report look very unconvincing to me whether it be 20 or 50mg. The big drops are more to do with enforcement than levels. Jut check back to the research papers selectively cited ...

The residential 20mph limit give a better and surer return. Sorry to be repetitious.


----------



## numbnuts (18 Jun 2010)

Ban the lot of it......I’m teetotal  sometime I go mad and have a coffee


----------



## gavintc (18 Jun 2010)

I support the move to lower the limit. It may make some people realise that they cannot have a few and still drive.


----------



## StuartG (18 Jun 2010)

User said:


> The 20mg limit for commercial pilots is just that - the limit for pilots. It's not a zero limit..


Do please read the thread before commenting. Zero is used IN THE REPORT ON LIMITS IN THE UK to be 20mg. It happens to be the same as commercial airline pilots.

You also implicitly connect the 25/30% drink related deaths with the lower limits. Does that also include those over 80mg and what percentage is this? The question of whether limits or enforcement is the main issue here.


----------



## Bruce (18 Jun 2010)

StuartG said:


> Just to say again zero is interpreted as 20mg - the level applied to commercial airline pilots. So that has worked fine all over europe and america.
> 
> We could do that if we wished. But how many lives would be saved? Not many I think - the claims and evidence in the report look very unconvincing to me whether it be 20 or 50mg. The big drops are more to do with enforcement than levels. Jut check back to the research papers selectively cited ...
> 
> The residential 20mph limit give a better and surer return. Sorry to be repetitious.


Even better make Jay walking illegal and enforce it, thus keeping the peds on the pavement and out of the roads, even better return on lives saved as they wont be there to get killed, rather simplistic I know but we really do need to start attacking the routes cause not just a contributaory factor, which is all speeding. Bu tthen that wont allow road policing by speed camera, Easy work and Nice economic returns how silly of me


----------



## Will1985 (18 Jun 2010)

numbnuts said:


> Ban the lot of it......I’m teetotal B) sometime I go mad and have a coffee


+1. Prohibition sounds good to me 

I'd prefer a move to lower speed limits in residential areas - sadly Norwich city council has had to abandon this plan because apparently it would cost too much (£0.55m) to replace all the 30 signs with 20 signs.


----------



## StuartG (18 Jun 2010)

User said:


> The problem is that we tell people that there is a 'safe limit' when all the evidence points to the fact that there isn't.


Nope - we only tell people the limit that makes them safe from prosecution.

Some people do continue to ignore this and some do outrageously. The effect, so says the report, is exponential on intake. So the real problem appears to be with these people and greater enforcement rather than limit lowering is the only way to get those deaths off the road.

As for those under 80mg - the report has no hard statistical evidence to relate the number of deaths that would be averted. Yes, there would be some. A lot less than lowering the speed limit.

Why not lower both?

The answer may lie with the Transport Secretary (and his predecessor in opposition) alarm over the "War on Motorists". Maybe a myth to us but a solid perception to the majority(?) of motorists. Either change is going to attract a lot of flack. Going for both is just too dangerous IMHO.

To get one would still be a result. Do we go for the easiest (Alcohol) or the one that will save most lives particularly amongst the most vulnerable (who are not about at closing time)?


----------



## Bromptonaut (19 Jun 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> Oh, about a couple of years, maybe more. I missed Patrick and wondered if Macleach was hanging around here.
> 
> Sam



Did you used to be on the Topica Urban cyclist list?


----------



## John the Monkey (19 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> Easy work and Nice economic returns how silly of me


How to avoid speeding fines;

1) Know what the posted limit is. (HINT: It's usually on those signs every so often at the side of the road).

2) Make the number the needle on your speedometer points to match, or EVEN be lower than that limit.

HTH, HAND.


----------



## rusky (19 Jun 2010)

IMO, zero is the most reliable way to go. 

I know people who would have a cople of (large) glasses of wine & claim that they'll be ok as they aren't driving for a couple of hours.

The same people have also been to the Czech republic & haven't touched a drop as the limit there is zero & thhr would be driving.

If people have alcohol in their blood the foolowing morning then they are drinking too much.


----------



## StuartG (19 Jun 2010)

What if it it could be shown that putting, say, a 50mg limit on pedestrians would save more lives than dropping the limit for drivers? Not an unreasonable assumption as drunk pedestrians wandering out in front of vehicles is not an uncommon occurrence around here plus some research I vaguely remember.

Or are we really just waging a war on motorists ;-)


----------



## PK99 (20 Jun 2010)

StuartG said:


> Just to say again zero is interpreted as 20mg - the level applied to commercial airline pilots. So that has worked fine all over europe and america.
> 
> .



just to say again, a 20mg limit is not zero, it is a 20mg limit. some people mean zero when they say zero


----------



## PK99 (20 Jun 2010)

User said:


> The problem is that we tell people that there is a 'safe limit' when all the evidence points to the fact that there isn't. If we are serious about cutting drink-driving deaths then we should take the bold step that other countries have done and say it is not acceptable to have *any* alcohol and drive.
> 
> That plain and simple message will mean an end to confusion about how much is too much...




there is a further problem here:

If, the argument is that by objective measure the consumption of alcohol reduces driving competence to below an acceptable standard, then the same logic applies to many prescription medications. I was on antidepressants years ago, one they tried me on left me spaced out and drowsy - far less competent at *anything* than after 3 or 4 pints.

Certain prescription medications should come with a mandatory driving ban?


----------



## snorri (20 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> Even better make Jay walking illegal and enforce it, thus keeping the peds on the pavement and out of the roads,


Yes, these jay walkers are killing hundreds every year, ruthless action is necessary.


----------



## Davidc (20 Jun 2010)

I want to see a zero limit. Backed up by greatly increased random testing and higher penalties.

Yes - I do drive, and I'm not teetotal.

The report claims there wouldn't be enough public support for a zero limit. It doesn't include any evidence for this absurd assertion. Whenever this is discussed and I'm around I hear the same overwhelming opinion - zero. That includes at the three pubs I sometimes frequent. The view I often hear (nothing to do with safety sadly) is that it's the only way to have an unambiguous rule so everyone knows exactly where they stand.

I'm in trouble if it applies to bikes though - shouldn't but I'll ride after up to a pint of beer or cider.


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (21 Jun 2010)

Hi to all of you out there.What about this for a resolve of the drink drive situation.With pubs closing faster than the last orders bell can ring.Remove all (public use)car parks from pubs(leave only sufficient gated space for staff to park,change them to landscaped gardens.This would promote a stroll to the local or benefit the local taxi operators.It will stop/reduce driving too out of the district pubs and the risk of P*S* HEADS driving home(or wherever !!!??),it might also encourage the locals to intergrate/interact more readily.It might well begin to rebuild the lost community spirit & respect that was present a long time ago between the younger & older members/residents throughout the country.The likelyhood of drink related RTA's would reduce in a flash and we might even see a slight reduction in our insurance premiums (Ooooh Ye).Think of the overall short & longer term benefits to the NHS.Redeploy/convert some of the speed cameras to scan the walkable distances from the pubs to catch the Smart Arses that might park around the corner in an attempt to evade detection & taxi fares.The alternative is ZERO TOLERANCE,ZERO BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL,not even a whiff of the devils brew !!.Happy & Safe Riding to You All.


----------



## Bruce (22 Jun 2010)

snorri said:


> Yes, these jay walkers are killing hundreds every year, ruthless action is necessary.


Its called root cause analysis, ie why are peds getting run over, because they in the area designerd for motor vehicles!

We may have greater succes if we treat the cause rather than just one conttibutory factor!


----------



## Bruce (22 Jun 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> How to avoid speeding fines;
> 
> 1) Know what the posted limit is. (HINT: It's usually on those signs every so often at the side of the road).
> 
> ...


Pointless and predictable post missed the point again!

Hint remove the problem ie peds out of the road


----------



## Dan B (22 Jun 2010)

rusky said:


> If people have alcohol in their blood the foolowing morning then they are drinking too much.



Rearrange the following five words to get my response to this: "none", "business", "your", "of" and "damn".

Make your case on safety grounds, not on your disapproval of other peoples lifestyles.


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> Pointless and predictable post missed the point again!


Indeed you did. 

I'm addressing your "point" that speed cameras are a revenue making exercise. If you genuinely believe this, it's spectacularly easy to avoid further enriching their operators if you can;

a) See.
 Drive.

HTH, HAND.


----------



## Dave Davenport (22 Jun 2010)

coruskate said:


> Rearrange the following five words to get my response to this: "none", "business", "your", "of" and "damn".
> 
> Make your case on safety grounds, not on your disapproval of other peoples lifestyles.



Well said that man. It's my liver and I'll do what I bloody well like with it thank you very much!


----------



## StuartG (22 Jun 2010)

User said:


> .. but if you put your hammered liver behind the wheel of a car, with excess alcohol in your bloodstream, then it is my business.


The question is "what is excess?". The report cannot substantiate how many lives would be saved if the level was below 80gm. Below 20mg on their hypotheses of exponential link with alcohol levels must thus be near zero.

You thus have to counter the seemingly justified criticism that you wish to restrict other people's lifestyles when it has little or no effect on you. You have moved away from a safety argument. At least in many people's eyes.

Meanwhile we have cogent reasons to restrict other lifestyles that do have a much more significant effect to the more vulnerable road and pavement users.


----------



## Dan B (22 Jun 2010)

User said:


> Simple - and bugger all to do with 'disapproving of someone's lifestyle'...


I'd believe this more readily if you hadn't inserted the snarky parenthetical about expecting the NHS to pay. Yes - just as I expect them to pay for the consequences of eating too much, smoking too much and climbing mountains for fun then falling off them - irrespective of whether I personally enjoy these activities. But these threads on drink-drive limits always seem to attract the "you shouldn't need to get drunk to have fun" neo-Puritan crowd and it's frankly not all that pleasant to read. You shouldn't need to have sex outside marriage either, I daresay. That's no basis for legislation


----------



## Dan B (22 Jun 2010)

To whom is excessive alcohol or smoking harmful?


----------



## Dan B (22 Jun 2010)

User said:


> So you believe that any expression of disapproval of something that is known to be harmful


Hang on, didn't you say earlier that it had nothing to do with disapproval?

Make your mind up. Which is it? And how do you feel about rock climbing?


----------



## StuartG (22 Jun 2010)

User said:


> To be blunt - what bollocks!
> 
> Alcohol is a significant, causative factor in a large percentage of the deaths and serious injuries on the roads in the UK (if you google you'll find heaps of statistics around this). Cut out alcohol and you'll dramatically reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries.


I presume abuse is a substitute for facts. Please point to some evidence of the number of lives that may be saved by moving a limit from 20mg to zero. Nobody else can AFAIK.

Hence you are arguing to curb other lifestyles because you don't like them. Trying to cover that prejudice with different statistics of real known risks of people with substantially more alcohol and exponentially more risk is, frankly, disgraceful and an insult to road safety.

The evidence, such that it is, points towards enforcement being the way to reduce alcohol induced road casualties. That is difficult since we are largely addressing a portion of the driving public that currently gives a two fingered salute to existing legislation.

More cops, more stops. Except that is expensive and intrusive ... and show me that even that will match what a 20 mph residential speed limit will do.

Till then you are just blowin' in the wind if I dare be so impolite.


----------



## Bruce (22 Jun 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> Indeed you did.
> 
> I'm addressing your "point" that speed cameras are a revenue making exercise. If you genuinely believe this, it's spectacularly easy to avoid further enriching their operators if you can;
> 
> ...


Yep u did it again, I shant bother with you any further until you have had an intellect transplant


----------



## wafflycat (22 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> Its called root cause analysis, *ie why are peds getting run over, because they in the area designerd for motor vehicles!*
> 
> We may have greater succes if we treat the cause rather than just one conttibutory factor!



So tell me... those of who live in places where there are no separate footpaths and we wish to get somewhere, by foot, how are we supposed to do it? Levitate? 
The public highway: roads are NOT designated for motor vehicles, unless they are motorways (clue in the name, there), they are 'designated' for all road users


----------



## TheDoctor (22 Jun 2010)

And we'll have a bit less of the abuse, Bruce.
[/Mod hat]


----------



## Dave Davenport (22 Jun 2010)

User said:


> I don't care what you do to your liver in the privacy of your own home (although if you bugger it, I bet you'll want the NHS to provide treatment) but if you put your hammered liver behind the wheel of a car, with excess alcohol in your bloodstream, then it is my business.
> 
> If you want to hammer your liver then fine - but don't be so zarking selfish as to put my life at risk by driving.



I actually think I'm a safer driver when I've had 2 or 3 pints 'cos I'm a lot more carefull. I wouldn't have more than 3 though.


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> I shant bother with you any further until you have had an intellect transplant


That, I find to be an entirely satisfactory state of affairs; do enjoy the rest of your evening.


----------



## jonesy (22 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> Yep u did it again, I shant bother with you any further until you have had an intellect transplant



The irony...


----------



## Bruce (24 Jun 2010)

TheDoctor said:


> And we'll have a bit less of the abuse, Bruce.
> [/Mod hat]




What abuse you idiot?

I added the you idiot bit to validate your claim now if you swap the order of the posts about you wont look so silly!


----------



## Bruce (24 Jun 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> That, I find to be an entirely satisfactory state of affairs; do enjoy the rest of your evening.



AT least you understood that, must have been pitched at a lower enough level for you, continue to enjoy road policing by camera.


----------



## Ravenbait (25 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> AT least you understood that, must have been pitched at a lower enough level for you, continue to enjoy road policing by camera.



Ooooh! Do we feed the trolls around here? I have some kitchen scraps and a bag of stale crisps going spare.

Sam


----------



## Bad Company (28 Jun 2010)

If anybody seriously believes they can drive better or ok after a little alcohol I would suggest trying an every day activity after a drink or 2. 

A mate of mine suggested a game of tennis after we had 2 pints each in the pub. We are both ok players but the co-ordination all went badly wrong. Worse was the confidence was there. I felt like I could hit the ball like Federer but fell woefully short. Apply that to driving and the consequences are obvious.

Having said I like the limit as it is. Being breathalysed the morning after is a bit of a worry though I carry my own breathalyser in the car now and check before driving if I had a drink the night before.


----------



## Bad Company (28 Jun 2010)

> If you can't remember if you had a drink the night before, I don't think you need a breathaliser to tell you that you shouldn't be driving.



I have a rule that I always stop drinking by 10 pm if I am driving to work the next morning. My 8 am departure gives me 10 hours which is enough. I still check with the breathalyser though.


----------



## Bruce (30 Jun 2010)

wafflycat said:


> So tell me... those of who live in places where there are no separate footpaths and we wish to get somewhere, by foot, how are we supposed to do it? Levitate?
> The public highway: roads are NOT designated for motor vehicles, unless they are motorways (clue in the name, there), they are 'designated' for all road users


Read the highway code
"
*Browse by subject*


Crime and justice
Education and learning
Employment
Environment and greener living
Government, citizens and rights
Health and well-being
Home and community
Money, tax and benefits
Motoring
Pensions and retirement planning
Travel and transport 
The Highway Code

*Browse by people*


Young people
Britons living abroad
Caring for someone
Disabled people
Parents
*The Highway Code*







*Rules for pedestrians (1-35)*


*General guidance*

*1*

Pavements (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided. Where possible, avoid being next to the kerb with your back to the traffic. If you have to step into the road, look both ways first. Always show due care and consideration for others.
*2*




Therefore yo uagree that they should be prosecuted if found wanderign into th e road where a footpath exists! The word is SHOULD as you say clue in the name


----------



## Bruce (30 Jun 2010)

TheDoctor said:


> And we'll have a bit less of the abuse, Bruce.
> [/Mod hat]



You have double standards, read back through this thread there are people accusing others of talking and I quote "Bollocks" others telling people to mindf there own damn business.
Didnt you Mod hat fit when you were readin those or was it selective blindness CLOWN


----------



## Shaun (30 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> You have double standards, read back through this thread there are people accusing others of talking and I quote "Bollocks" others telling people to mindf there own damn business.
> Didnt you Mod hat fit when you were readin those or was it selective blindness CLOWN



Bruce, please be civil.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## Dan B (30 Jun 2010)

Bad Company said:


> If anybody seriously believes they can drive better or ok after a little alcohol I would suggest trying an every day activity after a drink or 2.


I agree with you in general, but wish merely to note that, curiously, this does not work for pool.


----------



## Dave Davenport (30 Jun 2010)

coruskate said:


> I agree with you in general, but wish merely to note that, curiously, this does not work for pool.



Know what you mean, I'm usually rubbish at pool but seem to hit a zone at about 3 - 4 pints when it all clicks. Doesn't last long though, it all goes pear shaped again around 6 - 7.

Bye the way, my previous post about drinking 3 pints and driving better was (obviously) just a failed attempt at getting a rise out of that regulator bloke.


----------



## wafflycat (30 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> R
> Therefore yo uagree that they should be prosecuted if found wanderign into th e road where a footpath exists! The word is SHOULD as you say clue in the name



Err.. Bruce, sweetie...

Read my post again - I asked what we pedestrains are supposed to do if we live where there are no footpaths.. Are we supposed to levitate? You've ignored that. 

And has been pointed out to you - in the HC the word used to indicate a *requirement* is MUST, not SHOULD. The word SHOULD is only providing *advice*, not a legally binding requirment. So perhaps it's you that needs to acquaint yourself with the HC? 

Here you go..

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236

_"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words *‘MUST/MUST NOT’*. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'."_

Where SHOULD is used, this can be taken into account in determining liability, but to ignore it is not an offence.


----------



## Bruce (30 Jun 2010)

Admin said:


> Bruce, please be civil.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shaun



Another one who cant read back!


----------



## Bruce (30 Jun 2010)

snorri said:


> Yes, these jay walkers are killing hundreds every year, ruthless action is necessary.



Yes they probabaly kill as may as motorcyclists would if they didnt wear crash helmets, but they still have to wear one by law GO FIGURE


----------



## theclaud (30 Jun 2010)

> If you have a problem with other posts, there's a report button, and it will be dealt with.
> 
> *You can't blame others for your posting style.*



Quite. But you can understand why he might want to try...


----------



## marinyork (30 Jun 2010)

User said:


> Your attempt failed...
> 
> Although I will point out that there is significant and substantive evidence, from highly respected organisations such as the Transport Research Laboratory, which shows that even one unit of alcohol can significantly impair perceptive, cognitive and reactive skills in drivers.
> 
> What alcohol does do is make you _think_ that you're doing something better...



Which is funnily enough why a lot of people don't drink and drive. That said I don't think it's particularly interesting in getting wound up about different people's denials or convincing ourselves falsely that one can have more 'clarity' at both ends of the scales with a reduced limit. Much better just to get out there and catch them.


----------



## Shaun (30 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> Another one who cant read back!



Bruce, I only have to read your post to see _you_ are being rude.

Please debate the points and stop being rude to people.

If you are concerned that other people's rudeness is being ignored - simply report their posts.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## Bad Company (30 Jun 2010)

User said:


> What alcohol does do is make you _think_ that you're doing something better...



That's exactly what I felt during my tennis match after a couple of beers. In my mind I could hit the ball as hard and accurately as a professional. The reality was very different.


----------



## snorri (30 Jun 2010)

Bruce said:


> We may have greater succes if we treat the cause rather than just one conttibutory factor!


You mean like creating a lot more space for peds and a lot less space for motor vehicles and changing the law to bring us into line with the rest of europe where strict liability applies?


----------



## Bruce (2 Jul 2010)

> And your evidence is where?...




Exactly the same response could have been posted to you, but do please enlighten me as to how you would be hurt if I were not to wear a helmet whilst motorcycling ?????????


----------



## Cycling Naturalist (5 Jul 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> Oh, about a couple of years, maybe more.* I missed Patrick*




Only because I ducked.


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (5 Jul 2010)

Hi to you all out there.Is it me or has the ORIGINAL POST by StuatG been HIJACKED by a number of Ped' aphobics.The issue of Ped's on roadways with no footpaths is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.Walk facing the oncoming traffic at or near the edge of the road,wear something Hi-Vis or bright.If in a group or are two only reduce to single file untill the traffic has passed.Keep your wits about you by not getting pissed which takes me back to the start of the post in the first place.Pedestrians that get hurt or killed under the influence of FALLING DOWN WATER are the Architects of their own rewards.Happy & Safe Riding (and walking if need be) to You All.


----------

