Drink Driving

[Maguire01]

Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.

And again I'll repeat ad finitum (or at least til one of the 0% brigade acknowledges this) that if you want to go down this route, then we must apply a 0% tolerance with speeding too, especially in built-up areas.

For you know what, the 30mph speed limit wasn't just written down on the side of a feg packet one morning. It's a scientifically reached number that allows for the movement of traffic, while reducing stopping distances to almost nothing in good weather, and even failing that, most people will survive being hit at this speed. At 40mph your chances of survival plummet.

I really wish this message would get though to the  pontificating masses. And I don't mean on this board, I mean in general. Drink driving is very wrong, but to repeat my earlier sentiment, I would much rather get hit by a drunk driver (let alone a drink driver) than someone who is speeding.

That makes no sense. Either scenario could leave you dead.

[annapr]

Lots of prevarication on here. Do people really need the pint(s) that much that they are prepared to risk life, limb and livelihood of themselves and others by drinking and driving (regardless of quantities!). In my opinion the law should be 0mg that way there is no back of the envelope calculations about what equates to over the limit. Leave the car at home, get a taxi or organise a lift if you want to drink.

And again I'll repeat ad finitum (or at least til one of the 0% brigade acknowledges this) that if you want to go down this route, then we must apply a 0% tolerance with speeding too, especially in built-up areas.

For you know what, the 30mph speed limit wasn't just written down on the side of a feg packet one morning. It's a scientifically reached number that allows for the movement of traffic, while reducing stopping distances to almost nothing in good weather, and even failing that, most people will survive being hit at this speed. At 40mph your chances of survival plummet.

I really wish this message would get though to the  pontificating masses. And I don't mean on this board, I mean in general. Drink driving is very wrong, but to repeat my earlier sentiment, I would much rather get hit by a drunk driver (let alone a drink driver) than someone who is speeding.

What an idiotic statement to make.

[Tony Baloney]

I think thewobbler is pished.

[thewobbler]

No it's not idiotic, nor is it cause I'm pished.

There is some chance that a drunk driver will be doing the speed limit or less.

There's absolutely no chance that someone speeding will be doing less than the speed limit.

That folks is simple maths, and if you try to argue with it, then you are an imbecile.

[Bingo]

I didn't reply earlier cause this thread is about the lose of that young life caused by a drink/drunk driver.

Speeding is another matter. I don't see why they should be discussed together.

[Clov]

No harm to you Wobbler but this is a completely false dichotomy. Nobody is arguing for zero tolerance on drink driving but at the same time turning a blind eye to speeding because speeding is exactly one of the means through which individuals under the influence of alcohol are likely to cause an accident. People even with moderate levels of drink on board have impaired decision making and take more risks.

There are literally hundreds of scientific papers documenting the link between drinking and risk taking, across a whole variety of scenarios - including driving. Moreover, the neuropsychological mechanisms for this are very well known (essentially reduced activity in the frontal lobes of the brain). That your intuitions about this are so out of synch with the reality show what a dangerous combination moderate amounts of drinking with driving is. People who think they can drive as safely after a couple of pints are simply wrong.

[Tony Baloney]

No it's not idiotic, nor is it cause I'm pished.

There is some chance that a drunk driver will be doing the speed limit or less.

There's absolutely no chance that someone speeding will be doing less than the speed limit.

That folks is simple maths, and if you try to argue with it, then you are an imbecile.

Read the first post in this thread. Then go to bed.

[Clov]

No it's not idiotic, nor is it cause I'm pished.

There is some chance that a drunk driver will be doing the speed limit or less.

There's absolutely no chance that someone speeding will be doing less than the speed limit.

That folks is simple maths, and if you try to argue with it, then you are an imbecile.

The correct comparison is this: (1) the proportion of sober drivers speeding out of the total number of sober journeys vs. (2) the proportion of non-sober drivers speeding out of the total number of non-sober journeys.

Everything we know about drinking, decision making and risk taking should tell us that the figure for (2) is greater than (1).

[thewobbler]

Cike, regardless of scientific theory on alcohol and its effects, and the effects are undoubted, any attempts to quantify how much quicker it makes people drive is based on supposition.

My argument is based on fact. Every person who drives a car over the speed limit has simultaneously increased their chances of killing another human being. Unfortunately, as every person who has car has also driven it over the speed limit, it's one of those subjects that people don't want to make taboo; it makes them feel all wrong when it's pointed out to them that they're being reckless and would have no recourse if this led to killing someone. Well I'm asking the world to wake the duck up. Speeding is the single biggest problem on our roads. It's the one that always ends lives, and 100 times out of 100, it's preventable.

Tony, you've decided to pull an emotional card when it's not yours to play. Perhaps me and you could spend the rest of our lives swapping stories found on the internet, with you raising me a drink driving story and me re-raising a speeding story? Actually let's not. We both know it's neither an enjoyable argument nor one that can be won.

[Clov]

Cike, regardless of scientific theory on alcohol and its effects, and the effects are undoubted, any attempts to quantify how much quicker it makes people drive is based on supposition.

My argument is based on fact. Every person who drives a car over the speed limit has simultaneously increased their chances of killing another human being. Unfortunately, as every person who has car has also driven it over the speed limit, it's one of those subjects that people don't want to make taboo; it makes them feel all wrong when it's pointed out to them that they're being reckless and would have no recourse if this led to killing someone. Well I'm asking the world to wake the duck up. Speeding is the single biggest problem on our roads. It's the one that always ends lives, and 100 times out of 100, it's preventable.

Tony, you've decided to pull an emotional card when it's not yours to play. Perhaps me and you could spend the rest of our lives swapping stories found on the internet, with you raising me a drink driving story and me re-raising a speeding story? Actually let's not. We both know it's neither an enjoyable argument nor one that can be won.

This is just wrong.

Do yourself a favour and have a look at the evidence
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.384/abstract

[thewobbler]

Cike, regardless of scientific theory on alcohol and its effects, and the effects are undoubted, any attempts to quantify how much quicker it makes people drive is based on supposition.

My argument is based on fact. Every person who drives a car over the speed limit has simultaneously increased their chances of killing another human being. Unfortunately, as every person who has car has also driven it over the speed limit, it's one of those subjects that people don't want to make taboo; it makes them feel all wrong when it's pointed out to them that they're being reckless and would have no recourse if this led to killing someone. Well I'm asking the world to wake the duck up. Speeding is the single biggest problem on our roads. It's the one that always ends lives, and 100 times out of 100, it's preventable.

Tony, you've decided to pull an emotional card when it's not yours to play. Perhaps me and you could spend the rest of our lives swapping stories found on the internet, with you raising me a drink driving story and me re-raising a speeding story? Actually let's not. We both know it's neither an enjoyable argument nor one that can be won.

This is just wrong.

Do yourself a favour and have a look at the evidence
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.384/abstract

Do yourself a favour and simply accept that 100% of people who are speeding are dramatically increasing the chances of killing anyone they happen to hit. You can't get higher than 100%.

[thewobbler]

No it's not idiotic, nor is it cause I'm pished.

There is some chance that a drunk driver will be doing the speed limit or less.

There's absolutely no chance that someone speeding will be doing less than the speed limit.

That folks is simple maths, and if you try to argue with it, then you are an imbecile.

The correct comparison is this: (1) the proportion of sober drivers speeding out of the total number of sober journeys vs. (2) the proportion of non-sober drivers speeding out of the total number of non-sober journeys.

Everything we know about drinking, decision making and risk taking should tell us that the figure for (2) is greater than (1).

Clov unless there's a roughly equal number of people driving every day with drink in their system as without, then this comparison is about as relevant as the price of coal in China.

Every person who drives with drink in them has increased their chances of harming another person. Every person who speeds has increased their chances of harming another person. There are infinitely more people in the second group. That's the key figure. But hi keep hammering the man who drinks two pints of it help your misplaced social conscience.

[Clov]

Cike, regardless of scientific theory on alcohol and its effects, and the effects are undoubted, any attempts to quantify how much quicker it makes people drive is based on supposition.

My argument is based on fact. Every person who drives a car over the speed limit has simultaneously increased their chances of killing another human being. Unfortunately, as every person who has car has also driven it over the speed limit, it's one of those subjects that people don't want to make taboo; it makes them feel all wrong when it's pointed out to them that they're being reckless and would have no recourse if this led to killing someone. Well I'm asking the world to wake the duck up. Speeding is the single biggest problem on our roads. It's the one that always ends lives, and 100 times out of 100, it's preventable.

Tony, you've decided to pull an emotional card when it's not yours to play. Perhaps me and you could spend the rest of our lives swapping stories found on the internet, with you raising me a drink driving story and me re-raising a speeding story? Actually let's not. We both know it's neither an enjoyable argument nor one that can be won.

This is just wrong.

Do yourself a favour and have a look at the evidence
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.384/abstract

Do yourself a favour and simply accept that 100% of people who are speeding are dramatically increasing the chances of killing anyone they happen to hit. You can't get higher than 100%.

And it is precisely because of that (blindingly obvious) fact that people who drink and then drive are such a risk.

[Clov]

No it's not idiotic, nor is it cause I'm pished.

There is some chance that a drunk driver will be doing the speed limit or less.

There's absolutely no chance that someone speeding will be doing less than the speed limit.

That folks is simple maths, and if you try to argue with it, then you are an imbecile.

The correct comparison is this: (1) the proportion of sober drivers speeding out of the total number of sober journeys vs. (2) the proportion of non-sober drivers speeding out of the total number of non-sober journeys.

Everything we know about drinking, decision making and risk taking should tell us that the figure for (2) is greater than (1).

Clov unless there's a roughly equal number of people driving every day with drink in their system as without, then this comparison is about as relevant as the price of coal in China.

Every person who drives with drink in them has increased their chances of harming another person. Every person who speeds has increased their chances of harming another person. There are infinitely more people in the second group. That's the key figure. But hi keep hammering the man who drinks two pints of it help your misplaced social conscience.

This is complete nonsense. I can only infer from this that you don't know what a proportion is.

[Orior]

If you compare the possible outcome of one speeding driver against the action of one drunk driver on the same piece of road then Wobbler is right.