Travel to Europe after Madrid bombings

Following up to David Horne

Explain, if alcohol limit was 0, when could I drink?

I'm not necessarily supporting a 0 limit, but the level I support would
most likely mean someone couldn't have a pint of beer then drive home,
or go on a bender and drive the next morning.

so you're talking halving it or something.

Enforcing the current law with police rather than cameras
addresses that.

It doesn't, because people do it all the time. You could have a lot more
random police searches. I think setting a lower limmit to begin with
would be a better idea.

Well, I disagree entirely for reasons already stated.

Are you saying you didn't drink ever when you owned a car, or
never just before you drove?

Well, I didn't measure my blood alcohol. I would never drink in a period
around 8 hours or so before I was going to drive, no. And, there were
several times when I didn't drive in the morning, because I felt I had
too much the night before.

so with a lower limit (halved) your talking 16 hours and all the
next day? So I can never drink.

Its a matter of balance, like speed limits, taking a reasonable
position rather than a draconian one. Many traffic policeman have
said its the drunk driver that's the problem, not the driver who
has some small amount of alcohol in the blood.

A drunk driver is a lot worse than someone who has had a pint of beer,

agreed!


As I said, the research in this area isn't as clear as it ought to be
(certainly not as clear as the research into alcohol limits, reactions
times and accidents), but more is being done.

Yes, they don't know.


but not the last couple of years or so.

I thought we were talking about things getting worse in the last decade.
As said before, the death rate for pedestrians was significantly higher
a decade ago. I'd say something has been done right.

the over emphasis on speed is a recent thing.

I think we will have to agree to differ.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids wrote:

Following up to David Horne

Explain, if alcohol limit was 0, when could I drink?

I'm not necessarily supporting a 0 limit, but the level I support would
most likely mean someone couldn't have a pint of beer then drive home,
or go on a bender and drive the next morning.

so you're talking halving it or something.

I think it should at least be 50- which it is in a lot of the EU. Would
you support that?

so with a lower limit (halved) your talking 16 hours and all the
next day? So I can never drink.

Have you never driven in a country (e.g. Spain) where the limit was 50.
What did you do then? To be clear, my intention is not to personalise
this, and you don't have to answer that part of the question, but I'm
guessing that you may already have driven in a country which had the 50
limit.

Its a matter of balance, like speed limits, taking a reasonable
position rather than a draconian one. Many traffic policeman have
said its the drunk driver that's the problem, not the driver who
has some small amount of alcohol in the blood.

A drunk driver is a lot worse than someone who has had a pint of beer,

agreed!


As I said, the research in this area isn't as clear as it ought to be
(certainly not as clear as the research into alcohol limits, reactions
times and accidents), but more is being done.

Yes, they don't know.

I'll quote verbatim from the department of tranport's consultation
document on this issue.

First of all, they have identified three particular problem areas whhen
it comes to drink driving accidents- note the second one in particular:

"2.The Government has identified three main problem areas:

* hardened drink-drivers, in particular repeat offenders (around 12%
of offenders are convicted of a second offence within 10 years);

* drivers who are not above the current limit, but nevertheless impaired
(studies dating back to the 1960s show convincingly that impairment and
the risk of a driver's involvement in a road accident begin, for most
drivers, well below the current legal limit);

* young men, particularly in their twenties, who are disproportionately
involved in drink-drive accidents."

(http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...nts/page/dft_r
dsafety_504532.hcsp)

Later on, they talk more about impairment.

"Taking into account also the large body of international research into
the subject, there can now be little doubt that most drivers are
impaired at 50mg. For the average driver in the 50-80mg range, the risk
is estimated at around twice or 2.5 times that for a sober driver.
However, the risk of a fatal accident from blood alcohol rises far more
rapidly than the risk of all severities of accident and this must also
be taken into account, as must the propensity for accidents to involve
the less experienced drivers who are more affected by alcohol."

I find this interesting too:

"It is sometimes claimed that a reduction in the drink-drive limit could
lead to a weakening of public support for drink-drive policy and a
greater tolerance of drink-drive offenders. There is some evidence that
this has happened in Sweden; however in that case, the reduction was
from 50 to 20mg and it is perhaps understandable that such a low limit
would put a strain on public acceptance. Even in Sweden, moreover, the
change in the limit was accompanied by a fall in casualties. There is no
evidence from any country of a reduction in the limit leading,
perversely, to an increase in drink-related casualties as has sometimes
been speculated."

Anyway, there's a lot of stuff there- it's a consultation document of
course, and so they are putting out a lot of feelers.

There's a US study which you might want to look up on the internet (I
don't have a direct link) referred to as the "Grand Rapids" study. It's
almost 4 decades old now, but it's been frequently updated and retested
in other parts of the world. I think the DfT consultation alludes to it.
It's the most convincing analysis so far AFAIK of the relationship
between alcohol and risk.

My own feeling is that there is a certain amount of denial in society
about what even moderate amounts of alcohol will do to impair a driver.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Following up to David Horne

I think it should at least be 50- which it is in a lot of the EU. Would
you support that?

no

so with a lower limit (halved) your talking 16 hours and all the
next day? So I can never drink.

Have you never driven in a country (e.g. Spain) where the limit was 50.
What did you do then? To be clear, my intention is not to personalise
this, and you don't have to answer that part of the question, but I'm
guessing that you may already have driven in a country which had the 50
limit.

spain isn't much of a problem as towns are compact and we are
staying in central hotels, unlike home. I may have been over the
limit in the morning, who knows?

You can always find an expert to tel you something will be safer
if you curtail x

no alcohol, no smoking, only drive for 2 hours without a break
(recently suggested), ultra low speed limits, covert cameras,
ultimately you wont be able to do anything in the name of safety

--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids wrote:

Following up to David Horne

I think it should at least be 50- which it is in a lot of the EU. Would
you support that?

no

It's quite likely IMO that it will change to this eventually, if for EU
harmonisation than nothing else.


so with a lower limit (halved) your talking 16 hours and all the
next day? So I can never drink.

Have you never driven in a country (e.g. Spain) where the limit was 50.
What did you do then? To be clear, my intention is not to personalise
this, and you don't have to answer that part of the question, but I'm
guessing that you may already have driven in a country which had the 50
limit.

spain isn't much of a problem as towns are compact and we are
staying in central hotels, unlike home. I may have been over the
limit in the morning, who knows?

You really have to have drunk a lot the night before to be over the
limit.

You can always find an expert to tel you something will be safer
if you curtail x

The link between alcohol levels and increased risk of accidents is
really quite clear. Anyone in their right mind knows this is the case-
all that different countries have done is to decide a cut-off point at
which the level is acceptable. The trend is going towards the 50 limit,
because it's increasingly shown that this can further reduce accidents
and deaths.

no alcohol, no smoking, only drive for 2 hours without a break
(recently suggested), ultra low speed limits, covert cameras,
ultimately you wont be able to do anything in the name of safety

You're lumping everything together again when the specific question is
alcohol. It's perfectly possible to drink, and later drive and stay
below the 50 limit. You just can't drink as much.

The minute you get in a car, you accept various restrictions. Although I
was quite young at the time, I remember drivers in my family _bitterly_
complaining about having to wear seat-belts, and many of them refusing
for a while to comply. This, they felt, restricted their freedom, and
they didn't like the government telling them what to do. Besides, they
were careful drivers. Well, that changed after a little while.

I think the question on alcohol limits is similar, while obviously not
the same. Moving down to a 50 limit will not severely curtail the
lifestyles of the majority of drivers who like a drink. It may very well
force them to think a little bit more carefully however, and they
probably won't have that second pint. It might also make them rethink
some of their previous plans- maybe getting a taxi home after the pub,
maybe walking to one nearby instead of driving 10 miles to another one,
and so on. In any case, we're not talking about some arcane theory here-
the 50 limit already applies in much of the EU not to mention other
countries- and I don't think the sky has fallen down there.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Following up to Miguel Cruz

Reaction. lower speed limit to 40.
No effect.
Fit two speed cameras.
No effect.
Build out kerb at roundabout to make bend "difficult".
More crashes including overturning after clipping kerb, actuallt
saw that one.

Only then after years of failure do they admit defeat and fit two
traffic light controlled crossings.

Speed bumps or at least rumble strips.

Speed bumps on a 40 road? do you want to reduce all traffic to
walking pace everywhere?
Anyway, speed wasn't the issue, it was controlled road crossing
that was always the real issue.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids wrote:
Following up to Miguel Cruz
Reaction. lower speed limit to 40.
No effect.
Fit two speed cameras.
No effect.
Build out kerb at roundabout to make bend "difficult".
More crashes including overturning after clipping kerb, actuallt
saw that one.

Only then after years of failure do they admit defeat and fit two
traffic light controlled crossings.

Speed bumps or at least rumble strips.

Speed bumps on a 40 road? do you want to reduce all traffic to
walking pace everywhere?

Sure you want the answer to that?

Anyway, speed wasn't the issue, it was controlled road crossing
that was always the real issue.

Not at those speeds...

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Following up to Miguel Cruz

Speed bumps on a 40 road? do you want to reduce all traffic to
walking pace everywhere?

Sure you want the answer to that?

no

Anyway, speed wasn't the issue, it was controlled road crossing
that was always the real issue.

Not at those speeds...

40s not fast, giving people a safe crossing place was, but lets
not have the argument, its obviously pointless.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

In MANY respects, Madrid is MUCH SAFER NOW than before March 11 because
of the added safety precautions. The same can be said for the USA. I
traveled to Madrid less than 3 weeks after the bombings and wouldn't
have changed my plans unless the airport itself was under a bomb-alert.


As I tell everyone, don't turn your backs on Spain when she needs you
the most.

I also read that the the month of March 2004 had more tourism
income than March 2003 so that's good news. Sadly and unfortunately,
people now must be aware, after September 11, 2001, that terrorism is a
part of life in the world. Some hostels in Madrid told me that
immediately after the bombings there were some cancellations but shortly
there after things were back to "normal" for reservations.

Spain has
had their own (ETA) terrorists for decades now and it's something they
live and deal with. They are resiliant people, Spaniards are, and
nothing will keep them from living life outside. I admire them.


Saludos, MadridMan
http://www.MadridMan.com


--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com

"MadridManDotCom" wrote in message
...

In MANY respects, Madrid is MUCH SAFER NOW than before March 11 because
of the added safety precautions. The same can be said for the USA. I
traveled to Madrid less than 3 weeks after the bombings and wouldn't
have changed my plans unless the airport itself was under a bomb-alert.


As I tell everyone, don't turn your backs on Spain when she needs you
the most.

I also read that the the month of March 2004 had more tourism
income than March 2003 so that's good news. Sadly and unfortunately,
people now must be aware, after September 11, 2001, that terrorism is a
part of life in the world. Some hostels in Madrid told me that
immediately after the bombings there were some cancellations but shortly
there after things were back to "normal" for reservations.

Spain has
had their own (ETA) terrorists for decades now and it's something they
live and deal with. They are resiliant people, Spaniards are, and
nothing will keep them from living life outside. I admire them.


Saludos, MadridMan
http://www.MadridMan.com



Do you also admire the fact that they let terrorists determine their
national elections and foreign policy? They have sold out to the enemy.

Ryan

Following up to Ryan B

Do you also admire the fact that they let terrorists determine their
national elections and foreign policy?

They have sold out to the enemy.

90% of the people were against the war in Iraq from the start.
The government tried to say the bombs were ETA
As a result they lost the election the next day to a party that
had always been against the war. Voting for a party with a sane
approach to world politics unlike Asnar and Blair with thier
heads up Bushes arse is not selling out to the enemy.
I note the UK electorate is starting to see sense[1] and I wonder
if Blair, like Asnar will not stand again?

1] now the s*** has hit the fan on ill disiplined troops
mistreating prisoners.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap