one for the road....

[daftdog]

Agree totally. 1 drink = NO drive.

In fact we were discussing this the other night. They need to start selling off - totally contradictory - pub car parks.

I don't agree with selling off pub car parks. In fact i would be encouraging patrons to take the car and leave the keys behind the bar for collection the next day etc.

I know a few people from the town and surrounding area who take the car into town and get a taxi home that night then just collect the car the next day.

[jester and the fool]

My own view is dont drink and drive.That is my choice,keeps it simple for me,thats all.Whether zero tolerance is the way to go,i dont know.If you choose to drive over a limit that is already there..........
what will a lower limit do?
Would harsher sentencing deter people?

see now ,me 'eds sore and fool is confused even more than the norm.oh my oh my oh my.

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Regulate impaired driving, which means too tired, too angry, too drunk, too stoned, too distracted, too too too... whatever...

You might want to regulate cough syrup..

What a stupid point you are trying to make.

If you are any of these things, you really should not be driving bobbie. Would you get on public transport if you knew the driver was any of these??

Stupid? My point, in case it was missed, is to regulate impaired driving. I don't think one glass of wine makes a person too impaired to drive. If you don't believe blood alcohol levels are stringent enough, fight to have them lowered. If you don't believe you are capable of driving after drinking a glass of wine, by all means, stay out of the driver's seat, because you are probably impaired. If a police officer stops someone who is driving erratically, the person should get a ticket for wreckless driving, whether they had a beer or zero beers.

And not sure where you live, Sweltered, but they take the offense of DWI very seriously here. Losing your license for a year or two isn't a slap on the wrist.

[Sweltered]

How many people have you heard of with 2,3 or 4 DUI's. THAT was my point. They keep deiving AFTER a ban.

I didn't miss your point, YOU missed mine. Alcohol affects different people differently. One glass of wine may (and I stress may) not appear to affect you, but it would someone else.

I just don't understand why anyone HAS to drink and drive. And it beats me why there is argument in favor of it. And you're splitting hairs again, obviously reckless driving would attract a ticket and rightly so.

There are thousands of accidents on the road every day, where at least one person is blameless. Now take into the equation that that "blameless" person had a glass of wine, or a beer. One whiff of beerbreath and the cops won't care if you're under the influence or not.

Good luck with the insurance claim.

[Bobbie En Tejas]

lol

I just think the world is over regulated.. if people are still driving after the ban, what good did the ban do? What good do more laws do? If a person is inclined to be irresponsible and break laws, they will do that no matter what the law is (a point already made on this thread).

Probably in more cases than not, we don't need more laws, we just need the ones already in place enforced.

And, as I said before, they have done enough blood alcohol studies to know how people react to different levels of alcohol... people should quit trying to regulate the world to fit the one exception to everything.

[Annie]

I have to add that even when one usually drinks one glass of wine with dinner, if you are either tired, angry, stoned or WHATEVER, a glass of wine ADDS to your impairment. Some people have a drink or so when they get home after a hard day at work. But they do it, or should do it, at home!

Edited one time just for Bobbie!

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Okay, so we have your tired, your stoned, your one-wine-glass drunks.. We have 5 year olds fighting in the backseat. Ionns probably drives Just think of THAT! Not to mention people with medical problems such as diabetes and hypertension who could have strokes or comas.

So, instead of regulating everything, lets just lower the speed limit to 30 mph everywhere. Most deaths are caused with speeds over 30. Of course, when the rare death does occur, we'll have to lower the limit to 25.. and then 15.. until we hit the speed where everyone is guaranteed not to die.

[Annie]

The first thing to go when you are impaired, is your judgment.

Have you been drinking Bobbie??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Actually, no. I don't drink and do the forum, and there should be laws against such things!

1. Less regulation.
2. More personal responsibility.
3. Enforce the laws already on the books.
4. Heavy fines and consequences for wreckless driving, regardless of the reason.

Where is the bad judgment?

Oh wait.. there it is

[Sweltered]

I'm glad you find it amusing. Shame that you are starting to sound like Bill O'Reilly making excuses for the Republicans, even when they're wrong.

[Bobbie En Tejas]

LOL.. I'm not making excuses, sweltered.. And whatever I said didn't warrant that big an insult!!

[Annie]

I was being ironic! Doh!

However, I do actually agree with all the points you made!

Amazing!

Bobbie En Tejas Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:36 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, no. I don't drink and do the forum, and there should be laws against such things!

1. Less regulation.
2. More personal responsibility.
3. Enforce the laws already on the books.
4. Heavy fines and consequences for wreckless driving, regardless of the reason.

[general jack o'niell]

a lifetime ban for anyone caught drink driving and confiscation of the vehicle, the same for driving under the influence of drugs of any kind, as sweltered said, it says on the bottle.

i never ever operate heavy machinery after taking medication, my tractor and digger lie dormant in the yard, ok, i never had a tractor or a digger, but then i was never the favourite, nah, all i got was a rangers tracksuit and a toorie bunnet, never even had an action man or an evil knievel power cycle and my first football boots had wooden soles.

just as a thought? is there any laws against operating a keyboard under the influence of medication, i only ask because i just reread the last bit and think i might have wandered a bit over the white lines, ooh white lines, now that has both driving and drugging conotations, but then i've never seen anyone who could drive while balancing a cistern lid on their lap.

that might be a good ploy for getting off on speeding tickets, if you get caught on camera you could always say it wasn't you that was driving the catr on that day, it was your cistern!!

[jock the boat]

a lifetime ban for anyone caught drink driving and confiscation of the vehicle, the same for driving under the influence of drugs of any kind, as sweltered said, it says on the bottle.

i never ever operate heavy machinery after taking medication, my tractor and digger lie dormant in the yard, ok, i never had a tractor or a digger, but then i was never the favourite, nah, all i got was a rangers tracksuit and a toorie bunnet, never even had an action man or an evil knievel power cycle and my first football boots had wooden soles.

just as a thought? is there any laws against operating a keyboard under the influence of medication, i only ask because i just reread the last bit and think i might have wandered a bit over the white lines, ooh white lines, now that has both driving and drugging conotations, but then i've never seen anyone who could drive while balancing a cistern lid on their lap.

that might be a good ploy for getting off on speeding tickets, if you get caught on camera you could always say it wasn't you that was driving the catr on that day, it was your cistern!!

YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAAYAYAYAYAAY hes back i lobe u general

[Bobbie En Tejas]

I agree with the long-time ban, maybe not life, but I don't ever like the idea of confiscation of the vehicle. I think that places too much hardship on other innocent people and many times punishes the wrong people. If the impaired driver doesn't own the car, it doesn't put a whole lot of hardship on him if the car is confiscated.

Not sure what the answer is, but I don't think thats it.