Lowering the Limit

[Bruce]

Just to say again zero is interpreted as 20mg - the level applied to commercial airline pilots. So that has worked fine all over europe and america.

We could do that if we wished. But how many lives would be saved? Not many I think - the claims and evidence in the report look very unconvincing to me whether it be 20 or 50mg. The big drops are more to do with enforcement than levels. Jut check back to the research papers selectively cited ...

The residential 20mph limit give a better and surer return. Sorry to be repetitious.

Even better make Jay walking illegal and enforce it, thus keeping the peds on the pavement and out of the roads, even better return on lives saved as they wont be there to get killed, rather simplistic I know but we really do need to start attacking the routes cause not just a contributaory factor, which is all speeding. Bu tthen that wont allow road policing by speed camera, Easy work and Nice economic returns how silly of me

 

[Will1985]

Ban the lot of it......I’m teetotal B) sometime I go mad and have a coffee

+1. Prohibition sounds good to me

I'd prefer a move to lower speed limits in residential areas - sadly Norwich city council has had to abandon this plan because apparently it would cost too much (£0.55m) to replace all the 30 signs with 20 signs.

 

[StuartG]

The problem is that we tell people that there is a 'safe limit' when all the evidence points to the fact that there isn't.

Nope - we only tell people the limit that makes them safe from prosecution.

Some people do continue to ignore this and some do outrageously. The effect, so says the report, is exponential on intake. So the real problem appears to be with these people and greater enforcement rather than limit lowering is the only way to get those deaths off the road.

As for those under 80mg - the report has no hard statistical evidence to relate the number of deaths that would be averted. Yes, there would be some. A lot less than lowering the speed limit.

Why not lower both?

The answer may lie with the Transport Secretary (and his predecessor in opposition) alarm over the "War on Motorists". Maybe a myth to us but a solid perception to the majority(?) of motorists. Either change is going to attract a lot of flack. Going for both is just too dangerous IMHO.

To get one would still be a result. Do we go for the easiest (Alcohol) or the one that will save most lives particularly amongst the most vulnerable (who are not about at closing time)?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Oh, about a couple of years, maybe more. I missed Patrick and wondered if Macleach was hanging around here.

Sam

Did you used to be on the Topica Urban cyclist list?

 

[John the Monkey]

Easy work and Nice economic returns how silly of me

How to avoid speeding fines;

1) Know what the posted limit is. (HINT: It's usually on those signs every so often at the side of the road).

2) Make the number the needle on your speedometer points to match, or EVEN be lower than that limit.

HTH, HAND.

 

[rusky]

IMO, zero is the most reliable way to go.

I know people who would have a cople of (large) glasses of wine & claim that they'll be ok as they aren't driving for a couple of hours.

The same people have also been to the Czech republic & haven't touched a drop as the limit there is zero & thhr would be driving.

If people have alcohol in their blood the foolowing morning then they are drinking too much.

 

[StuartG]

What if it it could be shown that putting, say, a 50mg limit on pedestrians would save more lives than dropping the limit for drivers? Not an unreasonable assumption as drunk pedestrians wandering out in front of vehicles is not an uncommon occurrence around here plus some research I vaguely remember.

Or are we really just waging a war on motorists ;-)

 

[PK99]

Just to say again zero is interpreted as 20mg - the level applied to commercial airline pilots. So that has worked fine all over europe and america.

.

just to say again, a 20mg limit is not zero, it is a 20mg limit. some people mean zero when they say zero

 

[PK99]

The problem is that we tell people that there is a 'safe limit' when all the evidence points to the fact that there isn't. If we are serious about cutting drink-driving deaths then we should take the bold step that other countries have done and say it is not acceptable to have any alcohol and drive.

That plain and simple message will mean an end to confusion about how much is too much...

there is a further problem here:

If, the argument is that by objective measure the consumption of alcohol reduces driving competence to below an acceptable standard, then the same logic applies to many prescription medications. I was on antidepressants years ago, one they tried me on left me spaced out and drowsy - far less competent at *anything* than after 3 or 4 pints.

Certain prescription medications should come with a mandatory driving ban?

 

[snorri]

Even better make Jay walking illegal and enforce it, thus keeping the peds on the pavement and out of the roads,

Yes, these jay walkers are killing hundreds every year, ruthless action is necessary.

 

[Davidc]

I want to see a zero limit. Backed up by greatly increased random testing and higher penalties.

Yes - I do drive, and I'm not teetotal.

The report claims there wouldn't be enough public support for a zero limit. It doesn't include any evidence for this absurd assertion. Whenever this is discussed and I'm around I hear the same overwhelming opinion - zero. That includes at the three pubs I sometimes frequent. The view I often hear (nothing to do with safety sadly) is that it's the only way to have an unambiguous rule so everyone knows exactly where they stand.

I'm in trouble if it applies to bikes though - shouldn't but I'll ride after up to a pint of beer or cider.

 

[TheCyclingRooster]

Hi to all of you out there.What about this for a resolve of the drink drive situation.With pubs closing faster than the last orders bell can ring.Remove all (public use)car parks from pubs(leave only sufficient gated space for staff to park,change them to landscaped gardens.This would promote a stroll to the local or benefit the local taxi operators.It will stop/reduce driving too out of the district pubs and the risk of P*S* HEADS driving home(or wherever !!!??),it might also encourage the locals to intergrate/interact more readily.It might well begin to rebuild the lost community spirit & respect that was present a long time ago between the younger & older members/residents throughout the country.The likelyhood of drink related RTA's would reduce in a flash and we might even see a slight reduction in our insurance premiums (Ooooh Ye).Think of the overall short & longer term benefits to the NHS.Redeploy/convert some of the speed cameras to scan the walkable distances from the pubs to catch the Smart Arses that might park around the corner in an attempt to evade detection & taxi fares.The alternative is ZERO TOLERANCE,ZERO BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL,not even a whiff of the devils brew !!.Happy & Safe Riding to You All.

 

[Bruce]

Yes, these jay walkers are killing hundreds every year, ruthless action is necessary.

Its called root cause analysis, ie why are peds getting run over, because they in the area designerd for motor vehicles!

We may have greater succes if we treat the cause rather than just one conttibutory factor!

 

[Bruce]

How to avoid speeding fines;

1) Know what the posted limit is. (HINT: It's usually on those signs every so often at the side of the road).

2) Make the number the needle on your speedometer points to match, or EVEN be lower than that limit.

HTH, HAND.

Pointless and predictable post missed the point again!

Hint remove the problem ie peds out of the road

 

[Dan B]

If people have alcohol in their blood the foolowing morning then they are drinking too much.

Rearrange the following five words to get my response to this: "none", "business", "your", "of" and "damn".

Make your case on safety grounds, not on your disapproval of other peoples lifestyles.