Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

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?

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?

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.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

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

All the polls suggest otherwise.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

Amirani wrote: »

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.

There is no 'right to drive' with or without a licence. Rights are set out in the constitution or in law. There is no 'right to drive' full stop.

It's not pedantry. It is an important distinction for discussions like this.

10pennymixup

vandriver wrote: »

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

Really?

Bobtheman wrote: »

Really?

I've only lost the one..........my little brother..............I feel one is more than enough to have an opinion on the selfish gob****ery that's coming out of some posters holes.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

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.

What about the lad out drinking till 4.30 am and then falls out of the bed for work at 7. Late. Then stumbles out to the car without so much as a cup of tea in him and drives 20 miles to work.

That is why there are drink driving checks in the mornings. For idiots like him, and there are plenty of them.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

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.

Sat nav is the only exception I'd make.

I've done long distance driving, I agree it's incredibly boring, I did it before there was sat nav, had to pull over somewhere to look at a map to figure out where you were and where to go next..
The biggest danger back then was people trying to read a map while driving...

Do I really want to be able to see or comment on the dress my sister is planning on wearing while manipulating 1500kg of steel at 120kph?

If passengers on a bus are slightly inconvenienced before I kill them all in a crash because I was uploading a snapchat is it not a price worth paying?

Steve wrote: »

Sat nav is the only exception I'd make.

I've done long distance driving, I agree it's incredibly boring, I did it before there was sat nav, had to pull over somewhere to look at a map to figure out where you were and where to go next..
The biggest danger back then was people trying to read a map while driving...

Do I really want to be able to see or comment on the dress my sister is planning on wearing while manipulating 1500kg of steel at 120kph?

If passengers on a bus are slightly inconvenienced before I kill them all in a crash because I was uploading a snapchat is it not a price worth paying?

I’d rather live with the tiny risks for the massive advantages of having data in the car. I very much enjoy my long drives as I enjoy listening to various different things that involve data.

As I said you might as well say ban driving, ban radios, ban heaters sure they distract you setting the heat, ban kids in cars etc etc

Bigmac1euro

I wonder will driving bans rocket now because of the lower limit automatically making most people over the limit the morning after. It would be quite embarrassing to get done for drink driving and possibly losing your job because you're over the limit by .01

TheChizler

Steve wrote: »

Sat nav is the only exception I'd make.

I've done long distance driving, I agree it's incredibly boring, I did it before there was sat nav, had to pull over somewhere to look at a map to figure out where you were and where to go next..
The biggest danger back then was people trying to read a map while driving...

Do I really want to be able to see or comment on the dress my sister is planning on wearing while manipulating 1500kg of steel at 120kph?

If passengers on a bus are slightly inconvenienced before I kill them all in a crash because I was uploading a snapchat is it not a price worth paying?

Do you have any stats on the numbers of deaths due to data usage? Is it comparable to drink driving? I'm struggling to see how it's relevant here.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I’d rather live with the tiny risks for the massive advantages of having data in the car. I very much enjoy my long drives as I enjoy listening to various different things that involve data.

Could you not download them before the journey?

Steve wrote: »

Could you not download them before the journey?

Sometime yes, sometimes I listen to live radio not available here or change what I’m listening to along the way, feel like something different in Spotify etc etc. I also reply to WhatsApp messages etc using CarPlay or dictating to my Apple Watch and generally use data quite a lot while driving. It would be a massive inconvenience for me but look it’s never ever going to happen so not worth worry about.