Alcohol Limit (not drivers)

[JamesMorgan]

Possibly, but we also need to factor in the considerable improvement in trauma care in the last 30 years or so.

Agreed, although the total number of casualties (including minor injuries) in drink-drive RTA's fell from 31,000 to 13,000 in the same period. It does tend to suggest a reduction in drink-driving, but I fully accept other factors may be at play here.

 

[Origamist]

Agreed, although the total number of casualties (including minor injuries) in drink-drive RTA's fell from 31,000 to 13,000 in the same period. It does tend to suggest a reduction in drink-driving, but I fully accept other factors may be at play here.

I'm sure the casualty trend is downward, but the figures deserve closer scrutiny. For example, another factor to consider is the improvement in car safety for occupants.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

The same set or arguments can (and frequently do) get used for the current drink-driving laws. Whatever we think about the drink-driving laws they have reduced drink-driving.

The difference being that I don't think many people have a problem with reasonably draconian laws being introduced and enforced to prevent people being in charge of a motor vehicle while drunk. Draconian laws to prevent folk walking home after an all dayer or even a couple of bottles of wine with friends are a very different matter.

 

[TheCyclingRooster]

The question of the degree of being pissed or not pissed would be a very good one to argue with the lawyers when the happily alcohol fuelled ped' is wobbling/wandering home and misses his/her footing and ends up in the road and gets walloped by a car,van or motorcycle driver/rider,or for that matter a very rapid cyclist that just might have had a drink but proves to be below the present 80mg limit.Then the degree of fault is argued and it is deemed that he was entirely responsible for his own death by his failure to look after his own person.If the level for persons in charge of motor vehicles,motorcyles,scooters and yes, cycles was set to zero and there was a level set to be seen as responsible drinking intake for ped's then there would be very little to argue against after the relevant blood & urine samples & levels are determined.Happy & Safe Riding to You All.
PS. Soft drinks do not cloud the mind & glaze the eyes.

 

[theclaud]

^ I tried to read this. I'm either too mullered or TCR needs to work on his punctuation...

 

[marinyork]

The first sentence is quite long.

 

[theclaud]

The first sentence is quite long.

Indeed it is. If this is the standard of prose displayed by the teetotal lobby on this thread, then we should all get shedded as quickly as possible, if only for the sake of coherence. I've since read Mr Morgan's contributions to a thread on speed limits, and he is clearly a Safespeed troll. Which could be fun...

 

[JamesMorgan]

Indeed it is. If this is the standard of prose displayed by the teetotal lobby on this thread, then we should all get shedded as quickly as possible, if only for the sake of coherence. I've since read Mr Morgan's contributions to a thread on speed limits, and he is clearly a Safespeed troll. Which could be fun...

I'm beginning to realise that you have no real interest in this debate (or others), but enjoy attempting to wind up other forum users. That is fine - everyone contributes to forums for different reasons. If you had actually understood (rather than simply read) my contributions on speed limits you would have realised that my arguments were to introduce and enforce 20 mph speedlimits as this was the only safe way to encourage drivers to drive at that speed. If I make a unilateral decision to drive at that speed I am more likely to cause an accident. However, I am not particularly interested in playing forum games so will probably drop out of this thread now.

 

[theclaud]

I'm beginning to realise that have no real interest in this debate (or others), but enjoy attempting to wind up other forum users. That is fine - everyone contributes to forums for different reasons. If you had actually understood (rather than simply read) my contributions on speed limits you would have realised that my arguments were to introduce and enforce 20 mph speedlimits as this was the only safe way to encourage drivers to drive at that speed. If I make a unilateral decision to drive at that speed I am more likely to cause an accident. However, I am not particularly interested in playing forum games so will probably drop out of this thread now.

If you think I'm not taking your thread seriously, then you're absolutely right. That's because it proposes an alcohol limit for pedestrians for the benefit of motorists - an outrageous suggestion that doesn't even deserve a moment's serious consideration. I'm all for 20mph speed limits, but I dispute the notion that individuals choosing to drive at 20 in a 30 zone is dangerous. I'm also baffled by why anyone on a cycling forum would treat Safespeed as a serious source of information - it's an idiotic motorists' lobby group thinly veiled as a safety campaign.

 

[marinyork]

I'm beginning to realise that you have no real interest in this debate (or others), but enjoy attempting to wind up other forum users. That is fine - everyone contributes to forums for different reasons. If you had actually understood (rather than simply read) my contributions on speed limits you would have realised that my arguments were to introduce and enforce 20 mph speedlimits as this was the only safe way to encourage drivers to drive at that speed. If I make a unilateral decision to drive at that speed I am more likely to cause an accident. However, I am not particularly interested in playing forum games so will probably drop out of this thread now.

It's not that, it's that campaign is generally regarded as a serious area so if anybody comes along and starts what is deemed victim blaming it doesn't really go down well. Being campaign, there are quite a few people in here that er, well campaign.