You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Fair point. Makes a lot more sense to know the actual numbers rather than shouting SIX TIMES!! over and over.
TJ has made me very guilty I only had 1 and a half pints today after my ride but then again I had to ride over Red Bank offroad to get to the van did not want to puke it up would be a waste. Seriously I am a stick to the speed limits man, never tail gate, don't smoke weed never owned an Audi!!! please don't think bad of me as a serial drink driver I ride hard and the occasional drink at the end of a ride (probably most rides) I like a beer its just me but I can seriously say I have never driven a vehicle in which I felt impaired and most probably!! under the limit.
Sorry If Ive gone down in a lot of peoples estimation but just being hones
Thanks for being honest Postie - I do have some respect for that but please stop drinking and driving. You are impaired after that much alcohol. Thats the simple fact
Serious question TJ. Do you spend your life going from confrontation to another?
How many times have you been knocked on your arse?
I am not always as confrontational in real life as I am on here. However as I ride pretty much every day in the city I am not going to see dangerous driving and not let my feelings be known.
Never been knocked on my arse. I make sure I have time and space to run away. A few times I have had car drivers really chase me, none have ever caught me
There is a line between being assertive and aggressive. I try to stay the right side of it
But when somone nearly hits me 'cos they are looking at their phone and I catch them up in traffic I want to say something to embarrass them. If somone puts my life in danger then I am going to tell them. Reported quite a few to the plice as well. Drink drivers, road rage etc. Got one guy a ban for drink driving.
" All it takes for evil to flourish is for good folk to do nothing" I believe it is right to challenge these things. I can understand others think differently
And to be clear - I do not do this angrily in a road rage style. See someone on their phone and get the opportunity to tell them when they get caught in traffic. Get right alongside them ( they never see me - too interested in their phones) and shout very loudly - " put the phone down" Everytime I have done this they react with shock and fright and drop the phone. Petty amusement maybe but just maybe someone will think twice
To drive whilst over the legal limit (whatever it is or will be) is illegal but to drive with lower levels of alcohol in your system is frankly irresponsible.
TJ, your link to the Cornwall police is interesting but also a load of b*llocks. That police man is wrong, in much the same way as the policeman from Birmingham who recently publicly claimed that they were going to prosecute anyone traveling 1mph over the limit was proved wrong. Speed detection equipment and speedometers are never 100% accurate so the law requires a 10% + 2mph buffer. Police often claim these sorts of things to scare the public (who are by enlarge ignorant) but the actual law often says different. In the case of drink driving, or proving someone's impairment to drive through drink, the law is very clear. It requires a positive breath/blood/urine test that is over the limit. In rare occasions if the incident is serious enough and someone is under the limit a a few hours later when tested, a back calculation can be made to ascertain if they were over the limit when driving at the time of the accident.
I've no idea what your personal crusade is but please get off your high horse, live and let live, and please stop using made up facts about the law and twisting what you read online to try and win the argument. It seems that winning the argument at all costs is really your objective here isn't it?
The law is very clear TJ and the provided that you haven't exceeded the current drink drive limit (which is perfectly reasonable for most people) then you cannot get prosecuted for drink driving. I will carry on enjoying a pint after my bike ride and will drive home safely again as usual. If you don't like that then I couldn't care less - the law is on my side.
To drive whilst over the legal limit (whatever it is or will be) is illegal but to drive with lower levels of alcohol in your system is frankly irresponsible.
Why is this? The law says it is fine. Do you know better than the law? All depends though doesn't it? I bet I'm a safer driver after a pint than most drivers out there who are sober. Perhaps it's irresponsible of those less able drivers to be driving at all, drunk or sober!
surfmatt - is that you?
surfmat – is that you?
😂
This is the joy of the Internet, despite the fact I hardly drive and on the occasions I do never touch a drop, I can't help thinking I would rather have a pint with those that do 😉🍻
So where do we all stand on drinking and cycling, or is that a different thread? 🙂
Still waiting for that that baseline crash probability BTW. Not being pedantic, I am actually genuinely interested.
I did ask that one earlier.
IMO there is a moral difference as you are so unlikely to hurt anyone but yourself riding drunk and to be done for it you have to be very impaired so legally its very different as well
Helpful, yet uninvited, reminder:
one of my life lessons from here is to try to make my point and move on not get bogged down in the minutiae of debate so that is what I will
It's a topic with no winners 🙂
🙂
When we go camping we always take the bikes, I can whole heartedly agree with the scientific fact that there is a sweet spot on the bike where a little Dutch courage (stella in my case) will increase speed without hindering performance, however it's a rapid decline after the next beer to which I can vouch for after trying to ride up a near vertical rooty wooded section and nearly removing my sack in the process!
So, whose had a couple of pints with Sunday Lunch today then driven home?
Even before the law changes in Scotland I never even had a pint and drove.
Even if under the limit, if I hit someone I'd always be thinking 'would it of happened without that pint in my system '
I personally don't have the desperate need for a drink if I have the car. You may be legal, and you may think you can drive to the same standard, and you can probably still drive safely but I doubt you can drive as safely as if you had no alcohol at all.
You may be legal, and you may think you can drive to the same standard, and you can probably still drive safely but I doubt you can drive as safely as if you had no alcohol at all.
Possibly not, but that's what the law is there for to stop you exceeding a limit that is deemed fair and reasonable. If you traveled at 70mph everywhere then you wouldn't be as safe as if you traveled at 20mph, but then we'd never be able to get anywhere or do anything in a reasonable time frame. Like everything a balance must be struck between enjoyment/practicality/getting things done and safety.
If no one was allowed a single pint before driving then pretty much all of our much loved country pubs would have shut down by now. Saving a few lives every year possibly, but is that what we want - a life of boredom and following a strict rule book, when we're all going to die of something at some point anyway. Not for me thank you.
Does having 1 pint really add much enjoyment to an activity.. If it doesn't get you drunk or merry, and the alcohol has no affect then surely a non alcoholic drink will suffice? Or a non alcoholic beer if its the taste you like.
I'm all for lack of rules, as long as they don't affect other people. I wonder if you would have the same attitude if someone just under the limit knocked over a family member?
As for pubs going out of business.. Same was said about the smoking ban. Folks would still go to the pub, but would just alter their habits when there.
I've been seriously underestimating the spending power of all the car drivers and their one for the road. Who'd a thunk it?
If no one was allowed a single pint before driving then pretty much all of our much loved country pubs would have shut down by now.
Pretty much as in none.
@pbiker is it at all possible that some of us like a pint purely for the taste and because we enjoy it irrespective of the effects? Having a pint at the end of a ride with your mates is absolutely enjoyable, even if it’s just one (or two). It’s not about getting leathered, it’s just about enjoyment, that’s it. There really is nothing else to read into it.
And have you tasted non-alcoholic beer?
After riding with mates there is nothing better than quenching your thirst with a pint ..myself and my mates usually have a single pint after riding locally & drive ..it's not for the alcohol content ..but for the taste ( of a nice real ale ) .
As we live near the border ( Scotland ) and regularly venture that way ..not one of us would risk a pint then drive while in that country ..preferring to visit a tea room or coffee house ...
Another consideration while riding ( in England ) would be the distance we would have to travel back home..preferring coffee to a pint if it's a long journey ..
At the moment ( in England ) you have a choice ..and while that is the case and I'm staying on the right side of being legal then I think it's up to myself as to how I exercise that choice ..
Should alcohol limits change in the future then I will adapt accordingly to stay on the right side of the law..
Does having 1 pint really add much enjoyment to an activity.. If it doesn’t get you drunk or merry, and the alcohol has no affect then surely a non alcoholic drink will suffice? Or a non alcoholic beer if its the taste you like.
Well I REALLY enjoy it, just because you don't then that's neither here nor there. Alcohol free beer tastes nothing like real beer - generally it's pretty awful stuff.
I’m all for lack of rules, as long as they don’t affect other people. I wonder if you would have the same attitude if someone just under the limit knocked over a family member?
Depends how the accident was caused. If they'd had a pint but were under the limit and driving sensibly and well then what's the problem? If they were driving like a d*ck then regardless of whether they have had a drink or not I might have rights to be pretty angry. There are multiple reasons for any one accident and whether someone has had a drink or not, whether they are over the limit or not, might play a part in some, but no part in others. Everything you do or don't do affects other people to some extent. Should we legislate the heck out of every part of life (because that's what the knee-jerk crowd seem to want).
As for pubs going out of business.. Same was said about the smoking ban. Folks would still go to the pub, but would just alter their habits when there.
Supposed you are not aware then of the between 7,000 and 11,000 (depending on which study you read) rural pubs that have gone out of business and closed since the smoking ban came in? Many of these pubs would have been the social hub of the village, a place where lonely old people can meet, an opportunity to chat about ones problems. Indeed loneliness is becoming one of the biggest issues for the elderly out there since a lot feel unconfident to communicate through social media. Would be a real shame if more pubs closed as many others already operate on very slim margins.
I for one would not bother stopping in a country pub if I couldn't have pint, and most of my friends would be the same I suspect. A pint often leads to food, snacks, a quick game of pool etc. Instead I'd probably just head home for a beer there instead.
"Why is this? The law says it is fine. "
Current modern research using current information says English law us out of date.
@kananga - not all those pubs shut because of the smoking ban. What was the rate of closure before the smoking ban came in to force.
Supposed you are not aware then of the between 7,000 and 11,000 (depending on which study you read) rural pubs that have gone out of business and closed since the smoking ban came in?
No, there's been that many closures over 18 years the ban came in 2007. The biggest contribution being the rise of cheap supermarket alcohol and there's a big link to the recession too, the smoking ban was only a small part of it.
Well I say it's CLEARLY PROVEN that increases in speed lead to increases in severity and likelihood of accidents so therefore I DECLARE that anyone who drives over 10MPH is a DANGEROUS CRIMINAL and should be SLAPPED in the FACE with a KIPPER.
/thread
Current modern research using current information says English law us out of date.
In your opinion, but not in the opinion of those who make the law. Still, you know best I guess!!!
It would seem that the law is working too. Here's some statistics for you.
Back in the mid 70's drink driving was a factor in 60% of all traffic fatalities. Today they are just 12%
To quote from a recent study - Analyses by scientists indicate that over 70% of people in crashes caused by alcohol met alcohol dependence criteria, but most have never been arrested or received treatment.
In Australia where drink drive limits are much less than the UK, there are three times the percentage of people being killed in drink driving accidents than in the UK.
So it's pretty clear that the current laws are hugely successful in bringing down alcohol deaths. It's also blatantly clear that reducing the limit won't really do that much to combat the issue when the real issue is those who flout the current limits, and those with alcohol dependency issues. Target these people, not the rest of us.
@kananga – not all those pubs shut because of the smoking ban. What was the rate of closure before the smoking ban came in to force.
I don't know, why don't you enlighten us?
No, there’s been that many closures over 18 years the ban came in 2007. The biggest contribution being the rise of cheap supermarket alcohol and there’s a big link to the recession too, the smoking ban was only a small part of it.
The numbers I referred to were since the smoking ban, not before. Google it if you don't believe me. Sure many of these pubs had probably had their margins cut by recession, people drinking at home etc but the smoking ban was the final straw. Changes to the law meaning that a person can't risk a single pint and drive would be the final straw for many more of those pubs that are still just abut hanging in there. Closing a village pub not only means that the village has no more social hub, but also job losses not only in the pub, but in the pub's supply chain too.
The numbers I referred to were since the smoking ban, not before. Google it if you don’t believe me.
How about you link them? With that also evidence that it's due the smoking ban not increase in taxes, rates and cheap alcohol in pubs.
Kananga - have you read the north report I linked to? I suggest you do if you think thre is no evidence for changes to the law. ~This is why scotland has a lower limit.
"In your opinion, but not in the opinion of those who make the law"
The guy who advised on the existing level has said knowing what he knows now he would not have set it at 0.8 in 1967 as the data sets used totset it was already 10 years old
Then the north report came to similar conclusions.
Can't link direct to the PDF from phone
How about you link them?
Perhaps even more relevant - Scotland, where there is a lower alcohol limit.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/654184/Scottish-pubs-shut-decade-smoking-ban-drink-limit-crisis
jobs or avoidable deaths.
Depends how you prioritise these things really doesn't it ?
There is zero evidence that the scottish lowered limit has had any effect at all - and anyway do you think at least 60 deaths a year is a reasonable price to pay for keeping a few rural pubs open?
The Express will distort anything to attack the SNP
I think spesh made the old tee shirt. "Innovate or die"
At least one of my local rural pubs has a shuttle bus that will collect you and drop you off after a meal and drinks
They are doing well.
Oh well done you've posted a link from the Express. 😂
Kananga – have you read the north report I linked to? I suggest you do if you think thre is no evidence for changes to the law. ~This is why scotland has a lower limit.
TJ, there are some strong arguments for reducing the limit sure, there are also some strong arguments against it and instead of targeting those who drink responsibly (penalizing everyone), why not simply direct resource towards targeting those who do drink and drive. This would involve more police on the road in problem areas.
As has been shown in some other countries, having a lower drink drive limit does not necessarily reduce drink drive casualties over a country with higher limits. Better enforcement of the current limits would almost certainly reduce casualties however since people would realise that they just can't get away with it (which they easily can at the moment). The biggest gain is not targeting everyone but instead targeting the problem drinkers.
Did you not see my statistic above that 70% of people involved in driving driving related accidents have alcohol dependancy issues? This implies that it's not those having a single post ride pint who are the big problem. I suspect most of the rest of them know that with few police on the roads, they can just get away with it. Do you think a change in the drink drive limit would discourage them? Not a chance!
do you think at least 60 deaths a year is a reasonable price to pay for keeping a few rural pubs open?
Well, I don't know about where you live but certainly here in the West Country all of our lovely country pubs are only able to stay in business due to the throngs of drivers piling into the bars to drink their single pints before carefully driving off to their AIM courses.
when I lived in Kendal, there was 4 ex postmen who worked at my firm. Three of them were heavy drinkers (at least one was an alcoholic, we found cans in his van), the fourth one was teetotal, he used to tell me how great it was working for the post offiice, when I asked him why he left he said because virtually nobody made it to retirement because of the heavy drinking culture there , people just pegged out, every day it was in the pub for the remainder of the afternoon after your shift.
There is zero evidence that the scottish lowered limit has had any effect at all – and anyway do you think at least 60 deaths a year is a reasonable price to pay for keeping a few rural pubs open?
You may also find though that keeping rural pubs open provides a better quality of life for everyone. If you're that bothered by deaths on the road though them why haven't you taken your advanced driving test? Or do you just prefer to preach to others about what they should or shouldn't do?
I know it's fashionable to get all pious about these things and I'm sure lots of hand-wringers will jump down my throat but frankly 60 deaths per year is **** all when you consider the size of the at-risk population. It's not even a large proportion of road deaths. 60,000 (yes, sixty thousand) die of alzheimer's and believe it or not we all die of something.
believe it or not we all die of something.
Would be of boredom if TJ and Drac got their way!
If you’re that bothered by deaths on the road though them why haven’t you taken your advanced driving test?
Why are so obsessed by this?
Would be of boredom if TJ and Drac got their way!
One pint in a pub will never be very exciting.
If you’re that bothered by deaths on the road though them why haven’t you taken your advanced driving test?
Why are so obsessed by this?
Because if you haven't done anything yourself to improve your own skills then you are not really in a position to lecture to others about possible shortcoming's in theirs.
Drac are you just here to troll?
One pint in a pub will never be very exciting.
Maybe not for you but for others, me included then it's a looked forward part of a ride or Sunday lunch etc.
One pint in a pub will never be very exciting.
One pint in a pub with some friends can be a very enjoyable way to relax. If you need to get plastered to have fun I respectfully suggest you're the one with the problem.
I've done my defensive driving courses through work for driving in the USA, west africa and other places with terrible driving.
I may have missed the part where they talked about having a pint before driving defensively.
Because if you haven’t done anything yourself to improve your own skills then you are not really in a position to lecture to others about possible shortcoming’s in theirs.
That does not require an AIM though, you can make you driving safer without one of those. Stop speeding, drive at a sensible speed to the conditions, keep you car maintained or not have any alcohol when driving. They're just a few things that can be done. You being presumptuous that anyone who mentions drink drivers hasn't done anything about their own driving.
No I'm not trolling I'm still puzzled why you think the AIM is a god send and allows you to comment on drink driving laws.
One pint in a pub with some friends can be a very enjoyable way to relax. If you need to get plastered to have fun I respectfully suggest you’re the one with the problem.
No I don't need alcohol to have fun or relax for that matter but it has been known. I'm very partial to a pint or 3, funnily enough I was out Saturday night for a few which meant the car didn't move until yesterday evening.
Maybe not for you but for others, me included then it’s a looked forward part of a ride or Sunday lunch etc.
Not sure that is a definition of excitement.
I may have missed the part where they talked about having a pint before driving defensively.
Can you still drive defensively after a single pint though, sure you can.
No I’m not trolling I’m still puzzled why you think the AIM is a god send and allows you to comment on drink driving laws.
I'm more puzzled why someone who seems to care so much about road deaths would not have done such a course, or similar? I'm not a member of the IAM by the way, although have taken and passed their course in the past.
You know you're on thin ice when you start quoting the Express.
I’m more puzzled why someone who seems to care so much about road deaths would not have done such a course, or similar?
So you're saying you would accept my opinion if I'd done such a similar course and was assessed every 5 years, held a certificate rather the just past the AIM course some years previously?
Interesting.
You being presumptuous that anyone who mentions drink drivers hasn’t done anything about their own driving.
I have asked and only one person has come forward.
Why should anyone need to get extra training?
There is a legal standard of driving that is required to be met once.
The law makers have not deemed it necessary to make any significant changes to this for years.
I will have a pint before driving.
I tow stuff without any extra training.
I occasionally speed on motorways.
The only extra training I have had was a Lantra Off Road course for work.
So you’re saying you accept my opinion if I’d done such a simily course and was assessed every 5 years, held a certificate rather the just past the AIM course some years previously?
Interesting.
Nope I'm saying that if you care about deaths on the road - go and get some further driver training before complaining about what others do or don't do. If you have then great. If you haven't then I suggest you do and that if everyone did then it would have a HUGE positive impact on road safety - a far, far bigger impact than reducing the alcohol limit by a few %. Stop trying to twist my words Drac to try and catch me out to win your own pedantic little argument.
I suspect Drac given his job and his training is one of the highest trained and most highly skilled drivers on here.
I suspect Drac given his job and his training is one of the highest trained and most highly skilled drivers on here.
That's great TJ - but are you?
Nope I’m saying that if you care about deaths on the road – go and get some further driver training before complaining about what others do or don’t do.
Ok this is why I'm not twisting your words. This is a nice thing for people to do and I'd recommend people do a AIM I've said this before on previous threads. However it does not mean you can't complain about driving standards especially drink driving without one. People can alter the driving standards easily enough as I pointed out above.
Not sure I'd go that far TJ but cheers.
However it does not mean you can’t complain about driving standards especially drink driving without one.
But why would you complain about the driving standards of others but then not seek to improve your own standards - it doesn't make any sense?
All it demonstrates is that people are happy to whinge about what others should do, but cant be bothered to do anything about it themselves.
But why would you complain about the driving standards of others but then not seek to improve your own standards – it doesn’t make any sense?
How do you know they haven’t? Biggest change I did was to stop speeding that was years after I did my training. Once again so you get it, you don’t need an AIM to change you’re driving standards.
How do you know they haven’t?
Because (as I've said for the third time) I've asked on here and only one person came forward, TJ not included.
Oh and it's IAM, not AIM. Plenty of other options there though as you said.
I give up. Suns out so off to do some work at the cricket club, might have a pint too.
A bunch of the folk on here are emergency vehicle drivers. Trained to a much higher standard than most. I don't know if any of the coppers are pursuit trained - IIRC the highest level
Personally - I did a good few hours of advanced training with an ex police biker and IAM assessor.
You do know what Drac does as a job don't you?
You do know what Drac does as a job don’t you?
Why don't you just tell us instead of speaking in riddles TJ?
He drives the fake taxi. Highly skilled.
IIRC he is a senior paramedic training other paramedics. Trained himself to a very high standard of driving for driving emergency vehicles. Far higher standard that you. I am sure he could say more
Several of the other contributors to this thread are also emergency vehicle drivers. Dunno if any are pursuit trained - obvuiously the cops need to hold their cards close
so when you are arguing in ignorance against that level of expertise you do end up looking somewhat foolish
@kananga – my we are a sensitive little soul aren’t we?
You're not getting the subtext of all his postings. Check out the windsurfing one for example on page 1 or 2. He's not a sensitive little soul, he's a hard drinking, hard living adventurer, living life on the edge and not playing by anybody's rules. If I was a woman I'd be throwing myself at him.
so when you are arguing in ignorance against that level of expertise you do end up looking somewhat foolish
So in your eyes TJ in order of hierarchy of people qualified to comment it goes as follows:
1 - Emergency vehicle drivers.
2 - YOU
3 - Everyone else.
4 - Those who have done some additional driver training off their own back, but who don't agree with you, relegated below 3 as you believe that it makes them too confident for their own good.
You are a complete clown. Get off your high horse and stop being argumentative for the sake of it.
pot kettle black
😉
You have been told you are wrong by folk much better trained than you, You have been shown thr evidence that shows you to be wrong but still you insist drink driving is OK.
pot kettle black
You have been told you are wrong by folk much better trained than you, You have been shown thr evidence that shows you to be wrong but still you insist drink driving is OK.
TJ I have not said that drink driving (as defined by the law) is OK. Only you and a few highly vocal other are saying that the law is wrong. I have seen and read the evidence which you posted, I accept that there is some merit in this but have also posted my own evidence to back up my argument as to why there might be a better way to tackle the drink drive problem, which you choose to simply ignore because it undermines your own rabid zero tolerance of anything agenda.
I am saying that the big problem is not with those having a quick pint very occasionally before driving - it's the serial offenders, often people with alcohol issues, well over the limit that are causing 70% of the accidents. These people couldn't give a stuff about the law. The rest I suspect occasionally drink and drive because they know they'll get away with it. A reduction in alcohol limits is only a distraction and will do nothing to catch and prevent these abhorrent people - only more police on the road, which I wholeheartedly support will do that. This is where the changes and money should be spent. Can you not understand these basic principles?
To be fair, I'm not really getting what all this talk of driver training is all about. It would be great if we were all trained to drive at a higher standard. However, it's my understanding that most accidents are caused by things like impatience, distraction, and drunkenness. The latter being what this thread is about.
On the other hand, I see some appalling driving from some of these 'highly trained' drivers. Not that long back, while cycling, I was passed by a police car on a clear road, on the inside of traffic island. He left about 6" of space between me and him. Perhaps they possess the skills to carry out such manoeuvres due to their superior training, but who are they to say I have the same skills and ability to hold my line?
Unfortunately people make stupid decisions regardless. The big problem is an emotional one. No amount of training will prevent people getting angry, or feeling the need to rush, or the will power not to check their phone, or end their alcoholism. There's some poor driving out there, for sure, and I'd be happy to see stricter standards. But generally speaking, the kind of people who voluntarily go for advanced driver training, are probably the ones who need it least.
I was passed the other day by a hearse which went by me in the inside lane.
Thought to myself, "Mmm, typical undertaker".
I'm here all week folks.
TJ, you're wasted on this forum mate.... you should be out there in Parliament Square with your placard, demanding a change in the law!
Surely you mean outside holyrood? 😉 ah - but we already have the lower limit here