I see in the news that Northern Ireland plans to bring its drink drive limit into line with the European limit. How long before that spreads to the rest of the UK?
The sooner the better as far as I am concerned, with better enforcement too.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 26 Sep 11 at 14:35
|
|
Plan seems to bring NI into line with Eire.
|
Our relatively generous limit makes hook-wriggling arguments of the 'it was my toothpaste' sort harder to run.
|
>> Plan seems to bring NI into line with Eire.
"However, there have recently been discussions about dropping the drink-driving limit in the Republic of Ireland."
>>
Does Eire and the EU have the following additional clause?
"There would be another, lower, limit of 20mg/100ml for young drivers and people who earn their living from driving. "
No real details of this addition.
Other plans include:
* A new graduated penalty regime that will allow for fixed penalties for first offences at lower limits and court prosecution for high level first offences or any second or subsequent offences
* Automatic referral of offenders to an approved drink-drive rehabilitation scheme.
Some more info
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15053560
|
A bit of googling suggests the republic legislated for a 20mg limit for professionals in 2009. Whether it's been broyght inot force I don't know.
www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/theglobe/globe201002/gl201002_p12.html
|
|
I think that the different blood alchohol levels for different classes of driver are well intentioned but add confusion
|
|
About time.I can't walk in a straight line after 2 pints in quick succession, let alone drive a car or HGV. Just to check, professional drivers in the UK are still subject to the 0.8 level, right? Believe the 0.2 limit is designed to protect someone from being over the limit due to their toothpaste but make it clear that even one drink is unacceptable.
|
Should be done on weight. Fat happy people should clearly be allowed to drink more. Small mean-minded miserable people shouldn't be allowed to drink at all.
This discussion could be dangerous. The last one on the same subject ended in a controlled flounce!
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 26 Sep 11 at 17:15
|
>> The sooner the better as far as I am concerned,
why? they cant enforce the limit they have now.
Do you also support reducing the sentences to the same as europe?
|
Exactly Z, the problem is not lots of accidents involving drivers who are just under, or even just over, the limit, it's drivers who are two or more times the existing limit.
I have no sympathy whatever with drunk drivers but this sort of meddling is change for change's sake and will not reduce the problem at all
|
My opinion is that the vast majority of drivers who are involved in major accidents seem to be well over the existing limit, quite often see 2, 3 or 4 times the limit quoted in court cases, for these drivers it wouldn't make a jot of difference where the limit was set.
I would be quite happy however to see a lower limit, say 50mg, introduced which may well reduce some of the lesser poor judgement type accidents. As to penalties I think that there should be points and fine for being between 50 and 80 but still retain the automatic ban for over 80 and possibly add an automatic re-test to the penalty for over 80.
I might be swayed more towards the 50 still carrying a ban if the figures demonstrated that there are still deaths being caused by drivers over 50 but under 80 but I've never seen any published figures for that. Possibly they're just not collated as obviously any driver involved in an accident would be roadside tested anyway but don't know whether the result would be recorded other than 'negative'.
|
Yes there is one thing bringing the limit into line with the rest of the EU, but I presume they arent going to bring the penalties into line aswell?
In much of Europe a fine and a short ban is the penalty
|
I don't understand, that while our death toll remains lower than the rest of Europe, they think we need to bring in the same laws?
The death toll is low, the laws are fine, leave the damn things alone.
|
The one unmentioned detail concerns me. If I, holding an HGV licence, were to be breathalysed as a result of someone knocking me off my motorcycle, incident proven not my fault, and was found to have, say, 30mg of alcohol or whatever, would I risk a ban even though I was not driving an HGV at the time? In other words, would I be treated differently to a biker who did NOT hold an HGV?
And more to the point, could the insurers use it as an excuse to get out of paying?
One other thing; I agree with Zero for a change. Statistics of course can prove many things, but I'm willing to bet a fair amount of cash that a sizeable proportion of those convicted of drink driving don't have any sort of licence at all. As with any other form of well-meaning legislation (SORN being a classic example) it won't make a hoot of difference to the real villains, it'll just make life far more difficult for Mr. Average.
Finally; anyone holding an HGV or PSV licence, who gets done for drink drive, already has to go before a Traffic Commissioner to get the vocational licence returned; and it's frequently the case that they have to wait a while even after their car licence is returned to them. It happened to me when I was stupid enough to get caught in 1992, and it was only the fact that by that time I was driving a desk and had a decent boss that allowed me to keep my job and not lose everything. Needless to say I've not done it since.
|
>> I don't understand, that while our death toll remains lower than the rest of Europe,
>> they think we need to bring in the same laws?
>>
That's because you are thinking logically and rationally. Remember, that is not how the EU works. This is the organisation that gives seats on the Fisheries Committee to landlocked places like Austria.
Everyone has to be treated the same - regardless of circumstances.
|
>> >> I don't understand, that while our death toll remains lower than the rest of
>> Europe,
>> >> they think we need to bring in the same laws?
>> >>
>> That's because you are thinking logically and rationally. Remember, that is not how the EU
>> works. This is the organisation that gives seats on the Fisheries Committee to landlocked places
>> like Austria.
>> Everyone has to be treated the same - regardless of circumstances.
>>
Imagine if Johnny Foreigner gets nicked at 0.07? he could then argue in the European Courts of Whatever that, as a European Citizen, he is being discriminated against, because the RosBifs can have more booze than he can.
Yep, silliness indeed.
|
Drink drive limit reduction? - Bromptonaut
