Drink Driving

[TW]Fox;17210833 said:
Shock as TangoSixteen posts more rubbish :rolleyes:

A lot of what he has said you have said in the past.

He does seem "pro" drink driving but everyone knows their limits, if people choose nil, that is fine by me, but someone who drinks 1 or 2 pints and feels safe is fine as far as i am concerned, although they have to accept the consequences if they are over the limit.

I think 10% of fatal accidents is pretty high and obviously it cannot be argued it is a good thing, but life is full of risks and it more a case of managing them.

For example lowering the limit is unlikely to save many lives, i would rather spend the money tackling those drivers who will drive regardless of the limit i.e. those that are more likely to kill someone.

Over the last 10 years many things have been sensationalised and issues such as drink driving and speeding risks have been overstated.

Drink driving, speed, poor driving can all kill, education and training will have a more positve outcome in the long term than scaring the majority who use their common sense anyway.
 
Well yes, obviously.

You are at point A.
Ambulance is at point B.
You must travel A-->B.
Ambulance must travel B-->A-->B.

I regularly drive after a pint with colleagues on Friday lunch times. Maybe it makes me 0.1% more likely to have an incident but so does having a bad night's sleep or changing the track on my radio.

Also remember the Ambulance doesn't have to worry too much about speed limits and traffic, you do.

Plus as said A to B in your own car, there is no professional treatment what so ever.

Once the Ambluance is there you can then start getting treatment.

Again it's not going to be ideal for every situation, but I'm willing to bet that most times people think omg I need to drive them to the hospital an Ambulance would be perfectly adequate.

As for drinking an ddriving, personally I don't drink when I've got to drive (infact I don't really drink at all anymore) but I don' thave aproblem with people having one, being below the limit, and driving. Not something I'd choose to do though.
 
Last edited:
I believe that the problem with the idea of "zero tolerance" is that there are certain conditions that can result in a very small positive reading?

However, I do agree that when driving, you should do everything possible to ensure that you do not have ANY alcohol in your system - that seems a much safer and responsible approach - i.e. if you drink alcohol (or take drugs come to that) - don't drive.

Evenin' all.

Stockhausen in sensible post shocker!
 
Well I have to make some assumptions, or should I list every potential scenario?

No, but your assumptions are nonsense in the first place. Unless you happen to know where your nearest ambulance station is relative to your nearest hospital, as well as privy to the location of every ambulance, RRV and community responder, you can't just assume that waiting times between treatment would be the same either way. The only reason you've done so is because not doing so would destroy your argument in the first place.
 
I believe that the problem with the idea of "zero tolerance" is that there are certain conditions that can result in a very small positive reading?

I've been told before that the body naturally produces trace amounts of alcohol; not sure how true this is but if so, it would lead to people being over the limit naturally.
 
No, but your assumptions are nonsense in the first place. Unless you happen to know where your nearest ambulance station is relative to your nearest hospital, as well as privy to the location of every ambulance, RRV and community responder, you can't just assume that waiting times between treatment would be the same either way. The only reason you've done so is because not doing so would destroy your argument in the first place.

The rather easy counter-argument to that is that ambulances, community responders etc could be further away than the nearest hospital thereby increasing their response time. Or they could all be busy. Or several other scenarios. Which then ruins your argument.

The better point of attack is that treatment can begin as soon as the ambulance arrives not the round trip journey :p
 
No, but your assumptions are nonsense in the first place. Unless you happen to know where your nearest ambulance station is relative to your nearest hospital, as well as privy to the location of every ambulance, RRV and community responder, you can't just assume that waiting times between treatment would be the same either way. The only reason you've done so is because not doing so would destroy your argument in the first place.

"Unless you happen to know"...some people, seriously :o.

The rather easy counter-argument to that is that ambulances, community responders etc could be further away than the nearest hospital thereby increasing their response time. Or they could all be busy. Or several other scenarios. Which then ruins your argument.

Well yes that's the obvious response. Obvious to some, anyway.
 
I refuse to have even one drink and drive, I'm sure there's many on here who have lost a friend/loved one due to drink-driving.

Snap.

I stick to water when I'm at the pub. If I drink, I drink to get merry or full blown ratted. I enjoy a nice cider in the summer but if I'm driving I don't go near the stuff.

I wouldn't want there to be even the slightest doubt in my mind that any accident/fatality I should *touch wood, never ever* cause is down to poor vision/awareness/reaction because of a 'harmless' pint.
 
are you retarded????

:D Thanks for the laugh, needed that.

Having lost a good mate to an incredibly drunk driver, I personally have very strong feelings about the matter. Somebody who drinks & drives knows what they're doing, and they should be treated as such.

It's a risk, and you accept the outcome.

To be clear, there's a big difference between somebody having a couple of pints in the evening and getting caught out the following morning (in my opinion), and somebody who goes out and gets tanked, and then drives home. One is stupidity and ignorance, the other is just completely wreckless. What's worse is it's wreckless with other people's lives, not their own.
 
By the way, the point about drink driving & ambulances etc. does have some statute. Essentially if you break the law in order to mitigate a threat to life and limb you can be deemed to be in the right.

The problem you have is that you absolutely have to prove you had no other choice and that it was the best choice available.

When I was in the states a few years ago (as a side note, I think they have explicit laws about such things) there was a case going on about a father who had taken his daughter to hospital after having too much to drink. He'd also given her a DIY tracheotomy after find her chocking on something she'd decided to eat.

He was discharged after an awful lot of public wrangling. While he did the *wrong* thing legally he did the *right* thing for his daughter. There was also the side-issue of the point & reasoning for punishing somebody for something that absolutely saved his daughter's life. No public interested there is there?
 
I believe that the problem with the idea of "zero tolerance" is that there are certain conditions that can result in a very small positive reading?

However, I do agree that when driving, you should do everything possible to ensure that you do not have ANY alcohol in your system - that seems a much safer and responsible approach - i.e. if you drink alcohol (or take drugs come to that) - don't drive.

Evenin' all.

lolhausen.... oh wait hang on, I am in full agreement with this post. :eek::)


Seriously though you are quite correct, if driving don't drink.
 
Back
Top Bottom