I feel for this couple after Luke McCormick wrecked their lives, but I don't agree with a total drink-drive ban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7659892.stm

I will often have a drink and drive only one or two but I have always done it and for now will continue to.

Just wondering what your thoughts are. I know this will have been done before but I am interested in thoughts after this particular event.

I don't think a complete ban would have changed these events anyway.

 

Blown out of all proportion because it was a footballer.

Having a total ban is a bit daft - the law is fine as it is! The guy was twice over the limit anyway!

Whats to say that Luke McCormick crashed not only because he had a drink, but because he was a cocky b4st4rd who thought he could drive?

I'd hedge my bets on that one.

 

Unfortunate (to say the least) but people who've lost loved ones often, understandably, lose objectivity and rationality on these sort of things.

Mitchell & Webb sketch:
For an immediate reaction to todays events, I think we can talk to Tom Hilton. Tom?
Err, Hello
Chris Powell here from radio 4, thanks for speaking to us. Can I ask what your response is from today's announcement that rail north east will not be funding the laser assisted train early warning system?
Err, yeah, I personally think it's a shame
So it's shame on the management, shame on the government?
Well, I suppose, but look, can I just say I'm really not the best person to speak to about this. I mean, it's weird you even happen to call me. By spooky co-incidence, I actually lost my wife in a train crash
Yes, we know
One that could have been prevented by exactly this sort of system
That's why we got in contact with you Tom
Oh, oh right, blimey, that does seem, actually a bit ghoulish
Well, no, it's that you've got personal experience of a rail tragedy that's why your views are so important
Really? I thought that because I have personal experience of a rail tragedy that my views should be dismissed out of hand
No, look, no, would you say that, to you, safety is by far the most important issue facing the rail network?
Well, of course I would, my wife just died in a train crash
Thank you
Really, you really should talk to someone else. It's impossible for me to have any objectivity at all.
Right, but if spending the

 

A problem is that lots of people rely on the '2 pints is OK' thing.

Well, if you're a 6' 6" and 18 stone, and you sip 2 pints during the course of an evening, you're probably OK, but if you're a 4' 6" and 6 stone, and you pop in to the pub on the way home from work, neck 2 pints of Stella in half an hour, then jump in your car, you're probably over the limit and not fit to drive.

The point being, we're all different, all drinks are different and they affect each of us differently depending on, health, medication, tiredness etc., plus not many people really understand what a 'unit' of alcohol is, or how long it takes to get into and out of your system.

So, although this isn't necessarily my opinion, but just to play devil's advocate, you could argue that zero tolerance takes away that variability, stops generally well meaning people from inadvertantly drink driving without actually realising it and makes those deliberate drink drivers more obvious.

You'll always get idiots like that footballer though. Zero tolerance is totally irrelevant in his case - it won't give scum like that a sudden regard for the law or the decent people of the world that his actions affect so devastatingly.

 

What I'd like to know is how much you have to drink to be on par with an OAP behind the wheel...

 

I wouldn't have 2 pints and drive. I have, but I wouldn't now.

I think the system is fine as it is. It'd be a bit ridiculous if you couldn't have a half and then drive 2 hours later.

I feel a bit of sympathy for this footballist. We've all done stupid things, but fortunately 99.9% of the time there aren't such terrible consequences. And the law the way it is means we're sometimes harsher on the stupid than the deliberate criminals, and that seems a bit wrong to me.

 

I think it's difficult to have such a thing in a rules based system, maybe if the law was partially principles based? But then that assumes the majority of people have a modicum of intelligence.

 

I'll happily admit to drinking two pints and then driving. It probably happens once every 2-3 months. I'll also happily admit to having a single pint of beer after playing squash every week and then driving home.

I'll drink 2 pints of the lowest strength bitter or ale that they have on tap over the course of an evening, ie 3-4 hours. I'll have a pint at the start, followed up with a half pint an hours or so later, and then maybe a another half an hour or so later after that. It'll be with food, because i don't drive to the pub just to drink or to meet with friends who are drinking because our social life doesn't work that way.

I'm pretty confident that i'm fine to drink after that amount of alcohol in two ways, one that i'm under the limit because i've tested myself a few times with diy breathalysers, and secondly because at that level of consumption or low strength beer i don't feel any effects.

I'm this current PC world i expect a few people to jump on me and say that the alcohol is impairing my reactions without me knowing, and the fact that i don't feel any effects doesn't mean that there aren't any.

However, what i do is perfectly within the law and in my opinion is perfectly safe. I'm not deliberately sailing close to the limit, i'm not necking two pints of strong lager (eg stella) in half an hour and then jumping in my car, i'm not doing anything that i perceive to be risky.

The footballer that killed these people was over the limit. He had broken the law, had more alcohol in his blood than is considered safe and had had only 2 hours sleep. So all in all he was doing something pretty stupid and something well outside what our current rules consider to be safe. So considering that he'd already ignored the rules, how would changing them have any effect?

 

why not have a total ban.

takes away all the guesswork.

 

A total ban would not stop people (possibly like Kerslake) who don't care or don't have the intelligence to be safe - a "ban" on murder also applies, people still do it don't they.

A total ban would however prevent all those people who had 1 or 2 or whatever and thought they were OK. Arguably they would feel the consequences more.