porchrat
Honorary Master
I know. The wording is very carefully constructed when you look at it.He didn't say drunk drivers...
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
I know. The wording is very carefully constructed when you look at it.He didn't say drunk drivers...
They would need to prove that most of the accidents are occurring for people within that 0.05ml level otherwise this is pointless. If this large number of accidents is occurring in the range of people over the 0.05ml limit then they are already illegal and adding a new law doesn't change that. We already have laws to address those people.
I want to know how many accidents involved drivers that had alcohol in their bloodstream but at concentrations at or below that 0.05ml mark. Right now I just see a bunch of very carefully constructed statements that very much attempt to imply that lots of accidents are occurring under the 0.05ml limit but never is that explicitly stated. Also I want to see the studies that demonstrate that a mere drop of alcohol in your blood impairs your ability to operate a vehicle.
What about people on medicine (drugs) which contains alcohol?
Under the influence of cough syrup while driving huh? You fiend!! Off to jail with you you criminal scum!What about people on medicine (drugs) which contains alcohol?
It doesn't simplify the process it turns the whole thing into a nightmare.In my view it simplifies the process as these things can get annoying for the law when doing breathalyzers/blood tests etc. as the alcohol can diminish etc etc etc. With this as long as you have alcohol in your bloodstream then you are guilty.
Again, this is only my view so don't flame me, but I think it's pointless to just go out and have 1 drink; I would rather drink water or juice. If I go out and am drinking alcohol I want to have a few drinks.
It doesn't simplify the process it turns the whole thing into a nightmare. Alcoholic beverages are not the only source of alcohol on the planet.
they must stop driving.
It's all good and well suggesting zero tolerance, but surely they should first buck up public transport to ensure that a zero tolerance principle will actually work?
Cart before the horse mentality...
It doesn't simplify the process it turns the whole thing into a nightmare.
- Alcoholic beverages are not the only source of alcohol on the planet.
- The drink driving accidents the dude in the article is referring to involve people who are already intoxicated, the law currently addresses these people as it stands.
What about people on medicine (drugs) which contains alcohol?
So? Driving under the influence of alcohol is driving under the influence of alcohol. Why does it matter where the alcohol came from? Is cough syrup intoxication less impairing to driving skills than beer intoxication?
If you are drinking cough syrup to get wasted then there isnt really a difference, i suppose with this law however one could be genuinely sick take a few swigs of cough syrup and be pulled over for drunk driving?
they must stop driving.
Right, so, no going to work when you've got a cold then? Or no cough syrup if you go to work with a cold?
Should you be driving in that situation? The effect is the same, why should the cause count for or against you?
You get pissed on a couple of teaspoons of cough syrup? The point is normal people don't get intoxicated on recommended dosages of cough syrup but they will technically be subject to prosecution if this law is passed.
No-one is forced to drink, ever? So why assume that people are incapable of not drinking at a social function?