reohn2 wrote:What has that got to do with drinking and driving?
nothing, sorry
reohn2 wrote:What has that got to do with drinking and driving?
karlt wrote:thirdcrank wrote:Going back to the earliest days of the breathalyser, there has been a feeling in some quarters that the police should not routinely test drivers leaving pub car parks as though it's a bit unsporting, like punching below the belt, fishing for salmon with dynamite, or hunting foxes with pump-action shotguns. I've never really gone along with that, because the primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime.
Ditto hidden speed cameras. Main objection to them boils down to " 't i'n't fair if I don't know you're checking."
pete75 wrote:
The whole point of speed cameras is to ensure drivers slow down at danger spots on the road. They need to be visible to ensure this happens.
hubgearfreak wrote:gilesjuk wrote:Cue my drinking licence idea. If caught drink driving you have to either surrender your driving licence or drinking licence.
seriously?
why shouldn't one drink whilst having no intention of driving, or one drive whilst having no intention of drinking?
i can do both in a week - do i need to re-apply between fri afternoon and the following tuesday?
gilesjuk wrote:............. You could be given the chance to carry on driving but give up being able to drink for 12 months. It then forces home the point about how important a driving licence is to people and how it is a privildge to drive.
Tonyf33 wrote:... getting a caution for a 39mg breat reading seems wrong as that is 30% over the prescribed limt
Tonyf33 wrote:Sorry, I was reading about what triggers a potential roadside caution and I'd written down 30 and it stuck in my head which of course it totally wrong & is as you say 35mg of breath From the reading, it seems that some people are let off with an informal roadside caution if up 39mg.