Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

Bobtheman

I realise we have to have laws on this but to be honest I wonder if the checkpoints in the morning should be done way with ? Or perhaps less checkpoints overall?

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink heavily which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

No I dont drive drunk. Never have.

suicide_circus

you the man, bob

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bobtheman wrote: »

I realise we have to have laws on this but to be honest I wonder if the checkpoints in the morning should be done way with ? Or perhaps less checkpoints overall?

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

No I dont drive drunk. Never have.

Who's drinking the three pints, though?

I know people who are fine on four or five pints. I know people who are twisted after one and a half. And that's before we start taking into account the strength of what they're drinking. The range can be anything from 4% to 7% alcohol on some of the stuff you can buy in the supermarket.

There has to be some universal denominator.

super_furry

Ah Jackie, tis yourself. How's the bauld Michael?

Sonics2k

IMO there should be more checkpoints until all the selfish, irresponsible drunk drivers are locked up.

I've lost too many friends over the years as the result of drunk drivers, so to hell with anyone who makes up their phoney excuse.

Skylinehead

What does virtue signalling have to do with anything here OP?

People who overuse this American ****e should be shot into the sun.

vandriver

'...I've lost too many friends over the years as the result of drunk drivers...'

Really?

Bobtheman

Sonics2k wrote: »

IMO there should be more checkpoints until all the selfish, irresponsible drunk drivers are locked up.

I've lost too many friends over the years as the result of drunk drivers, so to hell with anyone who makes up their phoney excuse.

Really?

Pissartist

Bobtheman wrote: »

I realise we have to have laws on this but to be honest I wonder if the checkpoints in the morning should be done way with ? Or perhaps less checkpoints overall?

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink heavily which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

No I dont drive drunk. Never have.

I agree, speed and stupidity cause Most crash's

Bobtheman

We lose people in all sort of ways. Why hammer drink drivers in particular?

Balanadan

I remember the old days, about 5 years ago, when you could go down the pub on a Friday after work, have four or five pints, and drive home not a bother. Simpler times.

CoBo55

Nixonbot wrote: »

What does virtue signalling have to do with anything here OP?

People who overuse this American ****e should be shot into the sun.

Em... What does virtue signalling mean?

Now it's virtue signalling to object to drunk driving? It's right up there with snowflake as both an overused and ill-advisedly used term.

suicide_circus

until they come up with a conclusive test of a persons actual impairment we have to go with the blunt tool blood level test

CoBo55

suicide_circus wrote: »

until they come up with a conclusive test of a persons actual impairment we have to go with the blunt tool blood level test

They have, it's used regularly in the US, walk a straight line, count backwards etc etc.

Steve

Disable all mobile data if the user is travelling over 5kph...

Watch the road deaths drop.

Timberrrrrrrr

Bobtheman wrote: »

I realise we have to have laws on this but to be honest I wonder if the checkpoints in the morning should be done way with ? Or perhaps less checkpoints overall?

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink heavily which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

No I dont drive drunk. Never have.

And if someone did this and killed a member of your family you would be ok with them not being prosecuted because they had only had the 3 pints and driving a short distance?

suicide_circus

CoBo55 wrote: »

They have, it's used regularly in the US, walk a straight line, count backwards etc etc.

yeah not sure how conclusive it is, why is it not used here?

CoBo55

Steve wrote: »

Disable all mobile data if the user is travelling over 5kph...

Watch the road deaths drop.

Not great for the passengers though..

Triceratops Ballet

Bobtheman wrote:

Really?

I would think even 1 friend lost to the actions of a selfish gob$hite who puts their desire to have a pint or three above the lives of others is too many friends lost to drink drivers.

Drink driving is selfish, and if anything there should be more checkpoints on rural roads especially.

Sleeper12

Bobtheman wrote:

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink heavily which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

Why only 1-3 miles? Why not 10 to 30 miles? What is the difference. You could easily walk 1-3 miles.

Steve

CoBo55 wrote: »

Not great for the passengers though..

Really?

Less crashes = less passengers dead... How is that not good?

lalababa

Bobtheman wrote: »

I realise we have to have laws on this but to be honest I wonder if the checkpoints in the morning should be done way with ? Or perhaps less checkpoints overall?

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink heavily which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

No I dont drive drunk. Never have.

If one is over the .05 limit and they are bagged and sanctioned so be it. BTW checkpoints are few and far between.
If one is under the .05 but has had a few pints so be it.. they are grand. It's these fools who see a person having a few pints and driving concluding 'aah sure he's a terrible drunk driving sub human'
And that idiotic phrase 'drink driving' being used instead of drunk driving or over the limit.
I'm amazed given this country's drink history and culture that the general public AND the powers that be have been brainwashed in this area.

Timberrrrrrrr

Steve wrote: »

Really?

Less crashes = less passengers dead... How is that not good?

What about people on buses?

Sonics2k

Bobtheman wrote: »

Really?

Yup. Each one would have been avoided had the drivers been sober.

sk8erboii

Incredibly low IQ op

Steve

To be clear, I do not condone driving whilst incapacitated either by alcohol, narcotics, or sheer stupidity, however the political drive to be seen to be doing something by reducing the limits and increasing penalties is total and utter bo11ix while the other hand is taking away the ability to enforce the existing laws. Sorry for the rant, so sick of this crap from Ross & co.

Uncharted

Steve wrote: »

Disable all mobile data if the user is travelling over 5kph...

Watch the road deaths drop.

Nice notion but also a ridiculously impractical one.

You've obviously not had stroppy teenagers with you on a 3 hour car journey.

Trigger Happy

Insurance cost are steep enough without people driving around with three pints in them.

Steve

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What about people on buses?

Does their 'need for internet' outweigh someones life in the event of an accident?

I'm not trolling, there is a genuine case to be made for any data (other than maybe nav guidance) to be disabled over a certain speed.

Yes some will lose out on some facebook or instagram posts but is the benefit of people not dying worth the cost?

CoBo55

Steve wrote: »

Really?

Less crashes = less passengers dead... How is that not good?

Because I'd like to use my phone when someone else is driving, ridiculous post tbh.

AndrewJRenko

Bobtheman wrote: »

I realise we have to have laws on this but to be honest I wonder if the checkpoints in the morning should be done way with ? Or perhaps less checkpoints overall?

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink heavily which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

No I dont drive drunk. Never have.

Why would you think that the law of the land should be based around your personal amateur opinion?

Steve

CoBo55 wrote: »

Because I'd like to use my phone when someone else is driving, ridiculous post tbh.

Just an idea - there are far more ridiculous laws that aren't enforced.

So - you are saying passengers having internet is more important than all the lives lost every year??

Markcheese

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Why only 1-3 miles? Why not 10 to 30 miles? What is the difference. You could easily walk 1-3 miles.

No you can't in country areas...
The roads too dangerous cos of all the lads having 3 pints and then driving 3 miles home...

Amirani

Steve wrote: »

Does their 'need for internet' outweigh someones life in the event of an accident?

I'm not trolling, there is a genuine case to be made for any data (other than maybe nav guidance) to be disabled over a certain speed.

Yes some will lose out on some facebook or instagram posts but is the benefit of people not dying worth the cost?

Let's ban driving so, then nobody dies. Does your right to drive outweigh the right of pedestrians etc to not be killed by drivers? Your blocking of mobile data above certain speeds isn't even going to reduce road deaths by much anyway, might as well go all the way in the name of safety.

Your logic is amazing...

SEPT 23 1989

The rural dwellers will bury FG in the next election over issues like this

Uncharted

Steve wrote: »

Does their 'need for internet' outweigh someones life in the event of an accident?

I'm not trolling, there is a genuine case to be made for any data (other than maybe nav guidance) to be disabled over a certain speed.

Yes some will lose out on some facebook or instagram posts but is the benefit of people not dying worth the cost?

Absolute rubbish. Have you thought your suggestion through whatsoever?

Passengers on a bus are not allowed use the internet in case the driver is distracted somehow?? Wtf?

AndrewJRenko

Amirani wrote: »

Let's ban driving so, then nobody dies. Does your right to drive outweigh the right of pedestrians etc to not be killed by drivers? ...

What right to drive? There is no right to drive. Drivers drive under licence, not by right.

AndrewJRenko

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The rural dwellers will bury FG in the next election over issues like this

All the polls suggest otherwise.

Steve

Amirani wrote: »

Let's ban driving so, then nobody dies. Does your right to drive outweigh the right of pedestrians etc to not be killed by drivers? Your blocking of mobile data above certain speeds isn't even going to reduce road deaths by much anyway, might as well go all the way in the name of safety.

Your logic is amazing...

I agree, but people need to get around.

They do not, however need to be online and posting to FB instagram etc while doing so.

My point is, while it would inconvenience some people, it would benefit more.

As a kid,I traveled on buses and trains - there was no internet or mobile phones... none of us died because of it. We looked out the window and saw interesting stuff.

Amirani

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What right to drive? There is no right to drive. Drivers drive under licence, not by right.

Your right to drive under licence, obviously. Fairly pointless pedantry as I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain cell would understand that's what someone meant when they talked about a driver's right to drive.

pablo128

Bobtheman wrote: »

I realise we have to have laws on this but to be honest I wonder if the checkpoints in the morning should be done way with ? Or perhaps less checkpoints overall?

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink heavily which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

No I dont drive drunk. Never have.

Can you define where a rural area begins and ends? Under your idea, could I drink drive from a rural area to a built up area, or vise versa?

And finally could I have 2 pints in the pub and a can on the way home?

K.Flyer

Bobtheman wrote: »

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it.

Come back and let us know how you feel about people driving with "only a few pints" on them after they smash their car into a family members car putting an adult and two children in hospital.
These days anyone drinking and driving is a selfish fcuking retard, so fcuk them, their car, their license, their income and anyone else who condones it.

Steve

Uncharted wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. Have you thought your suggestion through whatsoever?

Passengers on a bus are not allowed use the internet in case the driver is distracted somehow?? Wtf?

No, people moving over a certain speed aren't allowed... for the common good.

Guy:Incognito

Bobtheman wrote: »

I realise we have to have laws on this but to be honest I wonder if the checkpoints in the morning should be done way with ? Or perhaps less checkpoints overall?

I honestly think its ok to drive a short distance (1-3 miles) with 3 pints. There I said it . We allow people to drink heavily which is always a health risk but seem hell bent on persecuting people with a few pints? Im talking about rural areas.

No I dont drive drunk. Never have.

People are free to drink themselves to death if they want. It's when you try to take others with you the law steps in.

Steve

Steve wrote: »

Yes some will lose out on some facebook or instagram posts but is the benefit of people not dying worth the cost?

What about streaming music, podcast, radio stations and books or using sat nav? Then passengers etc. also with CarPlay etc you can have your messages read to you and reply etc without ever looking at the phone and all these make those of us who do long drives have a much nicer experience.

It’s an absolutely crazy suggestion to ban data you might as well say we should ban driving.

I also agree with the op, the limit is too low should be set up allow the average man to have 3 pints or so and drive home and morning bagging is a disgrace.

Sleeper12

Uncharted wrote:

Passengers on a bus are not allowed use the internet in case the driver is distracted somehow?? Wtf?

Ban all children from cars unless they are sedated. They can be the biggest distraction for any driver.

jjpep

If there wasn't so much drink driving people would probably feel safe enough to walk or cycle home after the pub.

the beer revolu

It beggars belief that some people seem to condone driving over the alcohol limit dependant on the time of day.

What fcuking blind difference does it make what time of day it is ? If you are over the limit, you are over the limit. Why is that OK just because it's the morning?

It's stupidity beyond belief to think this way.

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

It beggars belief that some people seem to condone driving over the alcohol limit dependant on the time of day.

What fcuking blind difference does it make what time of day it is ? If you are over the limit, you are over the limit. Why is that OK just because it's the morning?

It's stupidity beyond belief to think this way.

Well firstly the limits are too low which is why people are over in the morning and secondly you are in a totally different frame of mind. You have slept, had your breakfast and are awake and ready for the day not on a buzz from a night out etc. Sure it’s only in the last few years anyone even mentioned the morning after, everyone just drove the next day afte a sleep and never even considered it an issue. It’s nanny state stuff as usual.

pablo128

the beer revolu wrote: »

It beggars belief that some people seem to condone driving over the alcohol limit dependant on the time of day.

What fcuking blind difference does it make what time of day it is ? If you are over the limit, you are over the limit. Why is that OK just because it's the morning?

It's stupidity beyond belief to think this way.

It also beggars belief that some people think it's ok for boggers to drive around with drink on them but not Dubs.