What are your opinions?

[Greedyfly]

Do you agree with this suggested 'shake up' of not being allowed to have even one drink before driving?

http://www.mirror.co....ives-115875-22339139/

Discuss...

[joggerjayne]

>> My statement was "oddly un JJ like" ?

Does that mean I have stopped being dull and predictable ?

[Sqad]

JJ....yes I am sure somebody has these statistics......but theses will be of "accidents" and will probably show that more accidents are caused by speeding( I guess), but I have given you figures for DEATHS associated with alcohol levels which clash with your comments concerning alcohol levels 2-3* over the legal limit.

The questioner is concerned with alcohol related deaths..NOT speeding related deaths.

[joggerjayne]

No ... the question is ... do we agree with the "shake up" ?

My answer is no, and I have been offering reasons for my view ...

Including the possibility that they should target speeders, and high volume drinkers ...

... not target the "one or two drink, slow drivers" ... who I do not believe cause as many deaths as speeders.

[Sqad]

JJ...the question IS to do with the "shake up".....but of drink driving. You have given your reasons which I have queried with mine.
It has nothing to do with "speeding drivers" which you have unilaterally introduced.

[jake-the-peg]

The NICE report estimates 145 fewer fataities a year from a lower drink drive level

Based on moddeling methods developed at the University of Sheffield

http://www.nice.org.u...ngDrinkDriveLimit.jsp

It's about 3000-4000 a year at the moment I think

[joggerjayne]

So only about 4% ?

That sort of level can be put down to coincidence.

I would have expected a finding along the lines of ... "33% reduction in fatalities"

If they are only looking at 4%, they should target a different group of motorists.

Like I say ... automatic 1 year ban for speeding, and suddenly ... the roads are safe!

[DrFilth]

this is from a few years back

Less than 4% of accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit according to new data (page 41) published by the Department of Transport. This destroys the government's claim that 1/3 of accidents are speed related. The facts publicised by Safespeed shows the breakdown of the causes of accidents from 13 police forces from 2001:

Cause of Accident % of Accidents
Inattention: 25.8%
Failure to judge other person's path or speed: 22.6%
Looked but did not see: 19.7%
Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless: 18.4%
Failed to look: 16.3%
Lack of judgment of own path: 13.7%
Excessive speed: 12.5%

[ChuckFickens]

EH???

"Less than 4% of accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit"

"Excessive speed: 12.5% "

Last time I checked I'm sure 12.5% was higher than 4%

[ummmm]

Yes Chuck but just because we have a speed limit doesn't mean the roads are suitable for that spend.

[Old_Geezer]

More Draconian suggestions. It is fine as it is.
Every year more stuff to comply with, we should string up all politicians and lawmakers.

[ChuckFickens]

Thats true ummmm (i can normally get a good 20mph more with no problems) :) (joke BTW)

[rd14962]

It isn't just drink driving that is a concern. I know of people who think nothing of smoking joints and then driving or even smoking one behind the wheel. Zero alcohol tolerance is so difficult, even mouth wash contains it. The police should have the power to arrest and prosecute they feel is not capable of driving. Common sense must prevail.

[Greedyfly]

Seems to be mostly a sweep. I don't really drink either Garmard.

I couldn't trust myself to drive safe after even just one drink. I personally do not see why people do.

Thanks guys.