British Politics Thread.

[Psychosplodge]

I stick to no more than one, and no motorway driving.

[CoffeeGrunt]

The thing is, Just One Is Fine is too vague. One what? A pint can range between a piddly 3.5%VOL, up to 8%VOL+. There's clearly a big difference in how much you're drinking in terms of alcoholic content. What's sensible? Everyone has different opinions: one pint of whatever is fine, so long as it's one. One pint of weak stuff, nothing strong. Or nothing, nothing at all.

Are you a relative lightweight, or could you drink George Best under the table?

Nothing is the safest move because there's too many variables at play with Just One Pint to make it at all safe or reliable.

[Psychosplodge]

That's true, but you'd hope people would exercise reasonable judgement, I mean I wouldn't consider it if I was the sort to be falling down drunk after two or three pints.
Most pubs will have something at about 4% on that's just about drinkable?

[CoffeeGrunt]

That's true, but you'd hope people would exercise reasonable judgement, I mean I wouldn't consider it if I was the sort to be falling down drunk after two or three pints.
Most pubs will have something at about 4% on that's just about drinkable?

People don't exercise reasonable judgement, and part of alcohol's effect is that it makes you worse at reasonable judgement. It's kinda well-known for it.

If people could be relied upon to exercise judgement, we wouldn't have people exceeding speed limits, knife crime talks in schools, or smoking bans. Having it at zero is reliable, because the alternative is giving a vague count in pints which can vary in effect and potency, or asking everyone to be able to measure their own personal blood alcohol threshold and have the presence of mind to stop drinking when they reach it.

[Haighus]

The thing is, just one (weak) pint is enough to slow a person's reaction times and affect their judgement, even if they feel fine and normal. With driving, it isn't just the driver who is at risk too, as they are on the road with other road users and members of the public. So I think we should have a limit like Germany's, which is effectively zero, but has a very low limit because, in practice, someone could have a small amount of alcohol in their blood through a variety of means. However, a single drink of just about anything alcoholic would take someone over Germany's limit.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup.

I usually feel right as rain until my fifth pint of the evening - but that would make me even more of a danger on the roads, simply because I don't think my judgement etc is at all impaired. Sure I can walk in a straight line, haven't started talking bollocks yet (well, no more than usual) and can still build models with accuracy, but none of those compare to driving a car, a task which after so many years of having a licence to do so has become largely second nature. And it's that unconscious competence that makes drink driving so dangerous.

[Psychosplodge]

People don't exercise reasonable judgement, and part of alcohol's effect is that it makes you worse at reasonable judgement. It's kinda well-known for it.

If people could be relied upon to exercise judgement, we wouldn't have people exceeding speed limits, knife crime talks in schools, or smoking bans. Having it at zero is reliable, because the alternative is giving a vague count in pints which can vary in effect and potency, or asking everyone to be able to measure their own personal blood alcohol threshold and have the presence of mind to stop drinking when they reach it.

But that's ignoring the vast majority that don't ignore the drink drive limit. The current limit obviously works as we don't have vast numbers of deaths caused by people just under the limit - because if we did you know someone would be campaigning about it and we'd see the figures.
As I said before the idiots that go out and drink three or five or eight pints and get behind the wheel will do that regardless of the limit. All a zero limt would do is get the poor *******s that have been and had three or four friday night and would be under the current limit by the time they drive saturday.

Speed limits are completely arbitrary and sometimes its perfectly reasonable to ignore them.

[Wolfshade]

Perhaps if we took the slaughter of people by drunk drivers more seriously then it might be a deterrent. Now, if you want to kill someone, run them over, the odds are that you would be unlucky to lose your licence for a year, and even more unlucky to see gaol time.

Speed limits were originally set at the 85% of speeds on a road, unless their is a "safety" concern. So engineering a 20 zone for instance. A lower speed limit is a down and dirty (but very cheap an effective) method of making a bad junction safer, the real solution is to redesign but obviously a couple of signs are cheaper than reordering.

[Psychosplodge]

Perhaps if we took the slaughter of people by drunk drivers more seriously then it might be a deterrent. Now, if you want to kill someone, run them over, the odds are that you would be unlucky to lose your licence for a year, and even more unlucky to see gaol time.

That's the point though isn't it. The people that currently ignore the current law and drive well over the limit are probably the same people to some extent that will ignore their twelve/twenty four month ban.

Speed limits were originally set at the 85% of speeds on a road, unless their is a "safety" concern. So engineering a 20 zone for instance. A lower speed limit is a down and dirty (but very cheap an effective) method of making a bad junction safer, the real solution is to redesign but obviously a couple of signs are cheaper than reordering.

The ones that are really pissing me off are the 50 mph ones on pretty decent country A roads, where they've left the winding country lanes at national speed limit, because you know the 50 is only there to allow them to catch more people(Those still doing 60), and ban more motorcyclists (as they're now exceeding the limit by even more so end up in court). I've been told by a motorcyclist friend that derbyshire police will sit and turn back motorcyclists preventing them riding on some roads completely.

[Haighus]

I always felt the 60 on country lanes was more because it was a waste of resources to make signs for it all, when very few people speed anyway, because you have to be a lunatic to go down country lanes fast. It is technically 60 through the hamlet I grew up in, but there are several jinks in the village dodging barns and houses, so anyone going at that speed would likely crash into a wall, never-mind not be able to see oncoming vehicles (like tractors, blocking the entire road).