The reason the UK sometimes sucks

[ECA]

Cars need to be fitted with breathalysers, breathe into them, and if you're below the limit, you can drive. It would stop 90% of drunk driving. The only way around is to have somebody else breathe into it- and make that an offence. I can't see why this hasn't been done yet.

.

Taken from BBC NEWS | Magazine | Waking up to the effects of a few drinks

Stop voting pillocks like this into office, here's a tip - they are smug assholes who know whats best for everyone.

 

[Rubric]

.

Taken from BBC NEWS | Magazine | Waking up to the effects of a few drinks

Stop voting pillocks like this into office, here's a tip - they are smug assholes who know whats best for everyone.

Lol i just been reading that myself.

 

[Chilly]

yeah, all technology is perfect. That would never give a false positive.

 

[rynnor]

It odd when you think about it how drivers over some arbitrary concentration of alcohol in the blood are so villified Regardless of whether it actually effects their driving or causes some accident when other equally or worse things are tolerated or ignored.

For instance new research out recently showed that even using a hands free mobile is a massive distraction and can slow your reactions more than being over the limit yet its still legal and no one questions the morality.

Come to that using a non hands free mobile usage has been illegal for years yet its practically never enforced and any random sample of a few drivers would find a few using their mobiles in one hand and driving with the other.

And people just do not regard it as immoral in the same way as drink driving?

People read maps whilst driving, do their makeup while driving, have arguements with their partner while driving or even just drive very badly

Being 17 and driving with mates in the back should also be a criminal offence - its practically the definition of distraction...

Finally - theres little as distracting as a couple of kids screaming in the back of the car as I know from personal experience yet if I ran someone over I wouldnt face a fraction of the villification of a drink driver - funny old world eh?

 

[Tom]

Drink driving offences in this country are rising because numbers of traffic police are falling.

You can blame 'safety camera partnerships' for that.

And if people don't realise they can still be drunk the morning after, then they don't deserve a licence.

 

[Damini]

Here you go - settle an argument for me. Kenny and I were having a disagreement last night. I said that if they spent a month taking all the uninsured, unqualified drivers off the road by doing random stops then the vast majority of law abiding drivers, myself included, wouldn't mind the brief interruption and intrusion. Kenny was of the opinion that most law abiding drivers would be annoyed at having their lives interrupted in this fashion when they are doing nothing wrong.

So? Who do you agree with?

 

[ECA]

Would be well worth the intrusion, I suspect seeing said units maybe be the first police people have been in a long time

 

[Trem]

I agree with your idea Damini but Kenny still remains the sexiest.


That idea is a good one and thats why it would never work in this fucking joke of a country. As for the in-car breathe test I have never heard such a crock of bollocks in my whole life.

Maybe they should also fit a foreign foodaliser in job centres so if illegal immigrants want to sign on they have to breathe into it first to see what they had for breakfast, oh no wait they aren't a motorist so they wouldn't be a huge cash cow.

How have the motorists in this country become public enemy number one, I reckon they haven't caught Bin Laden yet because he doesn't drive* give him a UK driving licence and he will be caught in minutes.








*may be untrue but driving in the mountains would be difficult.

 

[Tom]

Here you go - settle an argument for me. Kenny and I were having a disagreement last night. I said that if they spent a month taking all the uninsured, unqualified drivers off the road by doing random stops then the vast majority of law abiding drivers, myself included, wouldn't mind the brief interruption and intrusion. Kenny was of the opinion that most law abiding drivers would be annoyed at having their lives interrupted in this fashion when they are doing nothing wrong.

So? Who do you agree with?

They're working on it, random stops aren't all that necessary with ANPR.

The trouble can be that sometimes the insurer database isn't quite up to scratch and innocent motorists can be pulled over and their vehicles confiscated even if they are driving legally. It doesn't happen often though, but what I would say is that it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that all their documentation is in order - and keeping a copy of the insurer's contact details in the glovebox is a good idea.

 

[Chilly]

Another flaw with Damini's idea is that if it was only a brief spike in extra policing the fucking would just get back on the road after it calmed down. Maybe randomly scheduled spikes 2-3 times a year would be a better way of dealing with it. Have each one last only a week or two and be quite intensive (ie plan to stop about 10% of all cars) and the risk/reward for driving uninsured quickly becomes very poor.

On the other hand, massively increasing subsidy of public transport (think central london quality transport accross the country), especially intercity train services would get a shitload of people off the road.

 

[MYstIC G]

I agree with you Damini. VOSA spot check at blackwall tunnel on a regular basis so why they can't weed out ***** with no license and no insurance I've never understood.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

The UK sucks because the immigrants have more rights than the British.

 

[nath]

THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!

Back to the pile!*








*extra special Christmas points for getting the reference.

 

[Wij]

Goobacks.

Too easy.

 

[Ctuchik]

For instance new research out recently showed that even using a hands free mobile is a massive distraction and can slow your reactions more than being over the limit yet its still legal and no one questions the morality.

i said it in the other thread. u CAN just stop talking on the phone if you see a incomming accident. granted thats not a guarantee that u WILL avoid it. but then again, theres lots of accidents where cell phones or anything else arent involved, and they still happen.

but the chances are LOTS better then if you are driving drunk. because you can't just stop being drunk.

and if handsfree is so bad, then having a conversation with a passenger is even worse (atleast if its to the one in the front passenger seat) because then ppl will have eye contact every now and then. both not focusing on the driving AND not watching he road.


yes driving while talking on the phone might not be the smartest thing to do if you have a hard time multi tasking. but it realy isnt comparable with driving under influence for above reason.

 

[ECA]

i said it in the other thread. u CAN just stop talking on the phone if you see a incomming accident. granted thats not a guarantee that u WILL avoid it. but then again, theres lots of accidents where cell phones or anything else arent involved, and they still happen.

but the chances are LOTS better then if you are driving drunk. because you can't just stop being drunk.

and if handsfree is so bad, then having a conversation with a passenger is even worse (atleast if its to the one in the front passenger seat) because then ppl will have eye contact every now and then. both not focusing on the driving AND not watching he road.


yes driving while talking on the phone might not be the smartest thing to do if you have a hard time multi tasking. but it realy isnt comparable with driving under influence for above reason.

You're dumb please quit life.