Drink Drive limit

[FionaH]

This was written by a rig worker in the North Sea - What he says makes a lot of sense!)


I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a rig for a drilling contractor. I am required to pass a random urine test for drugs and alcohol, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get benefits because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope, and doing nothing. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get their benefit cheque?

So people on benefits, quite possibly through no fault of their own (say... redundancy, ill health, desertion by a partner etc) should never be allowed to have a tipple?

What utterly presumptious, unpleasant codswallop

......and from what I can make out bears absolutely no significance to Drink Driving

Lets try not to make sweeping generalisations here. Alcohol addiction effects every single level of society. Not all alcoholics are on benefits and not all on benefits are drunken scroungers.

I think we all agree that drink driving is a dangerous and potentially lethal act so play nice eh

[lindyloo]

the thing is, we have a choice as to whether to drink and drive. we make a conscious choice to take the risk, so that is where i think the responsibility for our actions comes in,thus making a difference the blame attatched when an accident occurs. the roads are dangerous enough, without upping the odds unnecasarily

[piskieinboots]

Did anyone hear the debate on Jeremy Vine yesterday about whether there should be a difference to the proposed limit for rural locations?

Erm, what

The idea being that lowering the limit will damage rural pubs and restaurants - and it would accept 'pensioner Alf and his mate' who drop into the pub for 1½ pints each night.

Nope, don't get that one

[maytreefrannie]

I may stand corrected on this - but I always understood that the gut produces its own fermentation/alcohol by-product of gases which might cause some with certain health problems to register positive, and even those without, should the level be absolute zero.

I am quite happy for the level to be reduced to a point where just a single alcoholic drink might tip the balance. If you can afford the night out then you can afford the taxi home.

I think I've read something to this effect - zero limit therefore could pose problems.

I don't drink at all if I'm driving, but I think there are several factors that CAN affect our driving, as others have pointed out:

Alcohol
Tiredness - a very important one, to my mind
Using mobiles
Eating, drinking - which seems to be quite common
Anxiety (as in, having a lot on one's mind)
Distractions - (loud) children in the back seat, billboards, or even an incessantly-talking passenger
Loud music on the radio

These and probably many other factors affect people to different extent I think. It's not easy to decide what's safe and what's not, though I guess we should all be aware of our responsibility while driving.

I've been told not to drive for a time because of some medical treatment I got and while it's bothersome it's definitely more relaxed - at least for me, if not for those driving me around (I live in an area with little public transport, but OH, family and friends are all great for doing the honours).

[lindyloo]

crikey- rural roads around here already have thier quota of drink drivers! if there is a law on anything, it should be clear and concise and the same for all; it is up to the individual to apply it as they see fit, and take what consequences may come.

[Hilary B]

Zero limit would be fine if it was actually possible. It isn't, 99% of the population (including some who have never touched alcohol in their lives) have SOME alcohol in their system, because most people 'produce' some.
Very low limit, yes if you like, but I would prefer a 'performance' test anyway, that would catch out ANYONE whose capability is impaired (including those who simply are not fit to drive, perhaps through no fault of their own, at any time. That it isn't their fault is irrelevant, if they are a danger to others.)
Mobile phones could (and should) come under the old one of "due care and attention".
Making individual laws about specific things only creates the risk of missing something out....
BTW, the 'due care and attention' thing should (IMO) include driving while smoking. Your hand leaves the wheel in order to hold the thing to your mouth, and if you drop it, you are GOING to be distracted, big time!

[bubblewrap]

This was written by a rig worker in the North Sea - What he says makes a lot of sense!)


I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a rig for a drilling contractor. I am required to pass a random urine test for drugs and alcohol, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get benefits because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope, and doing nothing. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get their benefit cheque?

I suppose I'm in that category I like a drink(beer please) and I used to smoke(dope when I could get it) & when NOT down the lottie I sit on my but.
Try getting a job at 58-60 no one wants to know you.
I some times think it's the government who are taking the urine when they send me on a "work experience" course when at 58 I had worked for over 40 years.
The ones I despise are those who have never worked & appear to have no intention of doing so
I am glad I got pension credits last year, so now I don't have some jumped up little pipsqueak trying to stop my JSA for not trying to get a (non existent) job.