It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Drink Drive Limt: Why?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Hello all,

I was thinking about something yesterday and I can't come up with any clear answer so I was wondering if you guys could share your thoughts?

Why do we have a drink drive limit?

Surely it would be more straight forward to create a law that stated no person is allowed to drive a vehicle if they have consumed any amount of alcohol, no matter how little.

This would help curb peoples temptation to drive after they had consumed an alcoholic beverage. All too often we see cases of people who have drunk and drove because they thought "I'll just have another" or "I'm okay to drive, I don't feel drunk"

Lets face it, if there wasn't a drink drive limit (simply an all out ban on driving after having consumed alcohol) the government would lose thousands of pounds on missing out punishing people with fines?

Thoughts?




posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Why not just do the opposite? There are laws in place to deal with reckless driving and about anything else you can do with a vehicle.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 



There are many other products that have alcohol in that are not related to drinking it.

So what would happen to them people if you a 0% limit?

Food for thought.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I would have thought having a blood alcohol content limit as far as driving goes was a safety issue, tho I'm sure you'll see people in this thread saying its a conspiracy of some description, which I don't believe it is...If there is some conspiracy involved, I'd like to hear it...

I do agree there should be a zero BAC level for people driving motor vehicles and bicycles...

Agreed the govt would lose out on fines if there was no BAC level, but could you imagine the carnage ? The amount of fines recovered by punishing people who exceed the allowable BAC level does not even come remotely close to covering the cost of road trauma caused by accidents where a driver(s) has exceeded the allowable BAC level...

Zero alcohol in your blood when driving is the go as far as I'm concerned...

[edit on 4/4/2010 by Retrovertigo]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   
If I went to the bar, had a double Jack and coke on the rocks... and then left to drive home, would I be a DWI?
If I went to the bar, had a Jack and coke, sat 20 minutes, had a jack and coke, then drove home, would I be a DWI?
Double the alcohol in the above scenarios, would I be DWI?
Under any af the above situations, where would I be most likely to be DWI: if I weighed 120 lbs, or 240 lbs?



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Why are you asking us those questions?

Also also all im know is the rule is 1 unit takes around 1 hour to leave your system, so since your talking about waiting 20 minutes, i'm pretty sure that won't matter much at all.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheDon
reply to post by Death_Kron
 



There are many other products that have alcohol in that are not related to drinking it.

So what would happen to them people if you a 0% limit?

Food for thought.


That's a fair call...

In that case, make the allowable BAC .01% or .02% tops....That should cover any scenario that might come up as a result of consuming a product that has alcohol in it as an ingredient...



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retrovertigo

Originally posted by TheDon
reply to post by Death_Kron
 



There are many other products that have alcohol in that are not related to drinking it.

So what would happen to them people if you a 0% limit?

Food for thought.


That's a fair call...

In that case, make the allowable BAC .01% or .02% tops....That should cover any scenario that might come up as a result of consuming a product that has alcohol in it as an ingredient...


So you have answered the OP's question



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheDon
reply to post by Death_Kron
 



There are many other products that have alcohol in that are not related to drinking it.

So what would happen to them people if you a 0% limit?

Food for thought.


Okay thats a fair point but surely these products have a limit of alcohol in them, I don't think it would be that hard to calculate a limit that could only be exceeded by consuming alcoholic beverages.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Well I was just wondering does the goverment set a limit because they know people will be tempted to go above it, even ever so slightly, then if they are caught they can be fined.

Having a government imposed limit allows a catchment area in my opinion where profit can be made by issuing fines as punishment.

As a quick genuine question where does the money from drink driving fines go to? i.e. whats it actually spent on



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Well I was just wondering does the goverment set a limit because they know people will be tempted to go above it, even ever so slightly, then if they are caught they can be fined.

Having a government imposed limit allows a catchment area in my opinion where profit can be made by issuing fines as punishment.

As a quick genuine question where does the money from drink driving fines go to? i.e. whats it actually spent on


OK I will bit some more.

You have answered your own question why there is a limit. Also Retrovertigo did. Limits are different in every country. for example were I am now in Sweden the limit is 0.2 though Denmark which is only 45mins from me has a limit of 0.7 (i think)

Now were the money goes is anyones question, but have you ever noticed the increased checks when budgets are due to be renewed?


Thank you.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Well I was just wondering does the goverment set a limit because they know people will be tempted to go above it, even ever so slightly, then if they are caught they can be fined.

Having a government imposed limit allows a catchment area in my opinion where profit can be made by issuing fines as punishment.

As a quick genuine question where does the money from drink driving fines go to? i.e. whats it actually spent on


Not being in government, I don't know why governments set an allowable BAC at the level they do...Like I said in my first post, to me, having an allowable level Vs a free for all where you can have any level of alcohol in your blood when you drive is pretty obvious...

Fair enough, good point...Governments do rely on revenues collected from fines imposed on people who exceed the allowable BAC level to varying degrees. But again, this doesn't make much of a dent in the cost of caring for people who are injured and the expense involved when someone is killed in a road accident...

Where does the money go ? A really good question that I'm not sure any of us know the answer to...I'd imagine it just goes into whatever revenue account they throw it in...I doubt all of the money raised thru fines goes toward education or the care of those injured in accidents, which it probably should...



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retrovertigo
Where does the money go ? A really good question that I'm not sure any of us know the answer to...I'd imagine it just goes into whatever revenue account they throw it in...I doubt all of the money raised thru fines goes toward education or the care of those injured in accidents, which it probably should...


Exactly my point, and hence the conspiracy angle, I wouldn't mind if the money was used to treat or help care for those who are victims of a drink driver but I highly doubt thats the case.

Goverments are great at screwing people over aren't they?

[edit on 4/4/10 by Death_Kron]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Sorry about the first reply. My mistake. It is a conspiracy and I am willing to tell you why. ANYONE who drives poorly should be removed from the road. There are already laws to that effect. They are not enforced. Why is it OK to kill someone because you havent slept for 24 hours or are taking a prescription medicine but it is wrong to kill somone because you are drinking? It shouldn't matter if you are drinking or not. If you are driving badly NO MATTER THE REASON you should be held equally responsible. Politacally that is a no no. Ne extra money for fines, no extra money for political campains. Check out the statistics on sobriety checkpoints. Few DUI busts but a lot of fines for driving without a seatbelt on, no insurance, no legal driving license, or a host of other not DUI offences. Politics and money only.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by Retrovertigo
Where does the money go ? A really good question that I'm not sure any of us know the answer to...I'd imagine it just goes into whatever revenue account they throw it in...I doubt all of the money raised thru fines goes toward education or the care of those injured in accidents, which it probably should...


Exactly my point, and hence the conspiracy angle, I wouldn't mind if the money was used to treat or help care for those who are victims of a drink driver but I highly doubt thats the case.

Goverments are great at screwing people over aren't they?

[edit on 4/4/10 by Death_Kron]


I couldnt' agree with you more...100% of the fines collected from drink drivers should be used to educate people as to why its a bad idea to drink drive and also toward the costs...

And you're right, its pretty unlikely even a majority of the funds raised thru fines goes to these things...

Oh yes, governments are well versed at having us grab our ankles whilst they sneak up behind us...



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Sorry about the first reply. My mistake. It is a conspiracy and I am willing to tell you why. ANYONE who drives poorly should be removed from the road. There are already laws to that effect. They are not enforced. Why is it OK to kill someone because you havent slept for 24 hours or are taking a prescription medicine but it is wrong to kill somone because you are drinking? It shouldn't matter if you are drinking or not. If you are driving badly NO MATTER THE REASON you should be held equally responsible. Politacally that is a no no. Ne extra money for fines, no extra money for political campains. Check out the statistics on sobriety checkpoints. Few DUI busts but a lot of fines for driving without a seatbelt on, no insurance, no legal driving license, or a host of other not DUI offences. Politics and money only.


I didn't see your first reply, but I'm pretty sure I know what it entailed...

Agreed, anyone who drives below a specified standard, whatever the reason should have their licence revoked for X period...No arguments from me there...

Its not ok to kill anyone because you've taken too much of a prescription or OTC medication, or because you've had 4 hours sleep in 2 days, agreed...

As to what you mentioned about sobriety checkpoints, I can't comment on those..In Victoria, we have what we call "booze buses" that the police set up when they want to randomly test drivers for BAC...

If people get caught for other offences whilst driving thru one of these, tough...Don't break the road laws and you won't be penalised...

There is certainly an element of politics involved, no doubt about it...However, in Victoria, the offensive against drink driving (and speeding) has seen our yearly road toll fall from well over 800 in the mid 80's to under 300 in 2009...

To me, that's evidence the measures enacted by government and enforced by police are working....In my first post I suggested an allowable BAC level of 0%..After reading what The Don had to say, I'd support an allowable BAC level of .02%...Its currently .05% in Victoria...

I also support toughening of penalties for drivers who cause accidents thru lack of sleep and thru being under the influence of prescription and OTC drugs...



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


I have to agree with the OP. Even if you have a tiny amount of alcohol and then get behind the wheel, you are putting your own life and that of others in unnecessary danger. In Australia the "legal limit" is very low, but it still begs the question: why are people that have consumed alcohol allowed to drive?

PS: This is NOT an attack on those who like to drink. This is NOT an attack on those who like cars and enjoy driving. The problem is when the two are combined and the lives of others are needlessly endangered.

[edit on 4/4/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
[edit on 4-4-2010 by Miishgoos]



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheDon
reply to post by Death_Kron
 



There are many other products that have alcohol in that are not related to drinking it.

So what would happen to them people if you a 0% limit?

Food for thought.





exactly, and in Germany for instance they could fine you when you have THC in your saliva or blood[from weed].
In holland[not because we're liberal] police are not allowed to do those tests because THC can stay in your blood for about 3/4 days, after 1, obvisously2/3 4 days it doesnt have affect anymore on your driving skill, hence impossible to judge somebody on that...

If there's 0,01% alcolhol in your breath/blood it can be from the day before but have no affect on your driving skill



[edit on 4-4-2010 by Foppezao]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join