steve_gus
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 09:29 PM |
|
|
I cant see a problem with this....
banning drinking of alcohol on public transport.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4390802.stm
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pearson
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 09:36 PM |
|
|
Ditto.
|
|
|
raccoonradar
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 09:37 PM |
|
|
Good idea
The drivers sould be sober
I know people do drink when traving but how many are too pissed before they get
on ?
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 10:06 PM |
|
|
Yes this government does seem obsessed with banning things.
I hear the argument for banning, I don't want hassle from drunken yobs on the bus, but that is not a government issue and they should leave well
alone.
The Labour nanny state seems to have plenty of time to dabble in minor issues like this and skirt around real issues that affect us all.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 10:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
I hear the argument for banning, I don't want hassle from drunken yobs on the bus, but that is not a government issue and they should leave well
alone.
Whose issue is it then? You seem to think it's a problem but if the government shouldn't sort it then who should?
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 10:20 PM |
|
|
the police  its an offense to be drunk in public, or to be drunk and disorderly Banning booze on trains is probably a good idea, but the core of
the issue is both irresponsible drinking and yob culture (or lack of!)
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 10:21 PM |
|
|
People who oppose this say "one drink on a journey doesn't cause a problem so don't ban it." If people were having one drink
then there wouldn't be a problem. The bigger picture is that so many people only drink to excess. The idea of only having one is alien to
them. If "we" can't be responsible by ourselves then rules need to be drawn. It's a pity that things have to go as far as a
proposed ban but the shame is that we behave so badly so often that we need a ban.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 10:22 PM |
|
|
we seem to share the same viewpoint here mate
might point out, many people in the UK, myself included, dont need a ban. I could be on a train pissed senseless and not cause anyone any bother! But
some people arent good drunks i guess. Several of my mates in fact, but thats another story
[Edited on 30/10/05 by JoelP]
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 10:27 PM |
|
|
Do they honestly think that drunken yobs will obey the new laws?
Very similar to the new speed limits, a good road near me was 60mph for years, then brought down to 50 about 3 years ago, then to 40 and is now 30mph.
There was a nasty accident on it about 2 weeks ago, a tw@t in a Rav4 planted it into a tree doing 70mph, you could lowewr the limit to 5mph, but
people will still drive to their perception of a safe speed.
Peoples perception of the right amount to drink, or the speed to drive needs to be altered, not blanket bans/limits.
Perhaps a new law limiting the number of laws any government can bring out in any one year, perhaps they would be more careful with the selection they
brought out?
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
raccoonradar
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 10:49 PM |
|
|
Everybody speeds & people say a time & place for it. Its when the time & place meets head on at 60mph on your side of the road! Putting
you in hospital for 2 weeks, 6mths off work 7 years of consultations
You would think he would do it just risking he’s life but no his girls friend was in the passenger side with a 6mths old baby on her lap (Not
strapped in of course) just the time & place !
|
|
|
Chippy
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 11:21 PM |
|
|
There is absolutely no point in making rules, and regulations, that no bugger will ever enforce. You/we already have laws which can/should be used to
deal with this problem, but it's the same old thing when you need a copper to enforce them, not a f*****g one to be found. Mind you try
speeding, and a whole raft of the buggers are all over you like a bad suit.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 30/10/05 at 11:24 PM |
|
|
Banning booze on trains will almost certainly put all the 'trolley dollies' out of work. Won't be able to get a overpriced
coffee/bottle of water/kitkat anymore...
The chavs with their bottle of "just fizzy orange honest" will still be necking it down and causing grief.
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 12:46 AM |
|
|
I read it that they dont want actual drinking on public transport - its not wether you were pissed when you got ON the bus.....its drinking actually
on the bus...
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
we seem to share the same viewpoint here mate
might point out, many people in the UK, myself included, dont need a ban. I could be on a train pissed senseless and not cause anyone any bother! But
some people arent good drunks i guess. Several of my mates in fact, but thats another story
[Edited on 30/10/05 by JoelP]
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 12:48 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
you could lowewr the limit to 5mph, but people will still drive to their perception of a safe speed.
thats an interesting statement mark. Many people's justification of speeding is that 'the speed limits are not there for me, I drive at
the speeds I thik are safe......'
This would be pretty good justification for speed cams - ie only way to make people slow down and not think they can drive at the speed they
personally feel is safe......
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 12:48 AM |
|
|
I'd like alcohol banned all together, but that's just me.
The mental gymnastics a landlord will employ to justify immoral actions is clinically fascinating. Just because something is legal doesn't make
it moral.
|
|
|
Jumpy Guy
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 08:38 AM |
|
|
Im strongly against all of this ban.
what i think is needed is for the British Transport police to start enforcing the existing law regarding drunken behaviour on trains.
I regularly travel on the sleeper from Glasgow to London, and i dont think its unreasonable to have a glass of wine during the eleven hour journey....
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 08:57 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jumpy Guy
Im strongly against all of this ban.
what i think is needed is for the British Transport police to start enforcing the existing law regarding drunken behaviour on trains.
I regularly travel on the sleeper from Glasgow to London, and i dont think its unreasonable to have a glass of wine during the eleven hour journey....
Perfectly put, exactly my view.
If people behave in a manner which we do not like, perhaps we need to look at why they do it, not just legislate against it. That's like trying
to carry water in a sieve. Cover one hole and it'll just find another.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 09:15 AM |
|
|
heck, i've even been known to have a beer on the London to Nuneaton train. After spending a hellish day on site, its nice to have a beer and
relax as the train takes the strain.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 10:30 AM |
|
|
.............. and everybody knows that you're a beer swilling thug Mike
|
|
|
ditchlewis
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 02:28 PM |
|
|
Education.
this could all be avoided if kids were better educated and disiplined at school.
A short sharp shock with the effects if drink, smoking and drugs showing all the effects to the body these have should be given to children.
My fiance has a 6'3" 16 year old son, he and his friends think it is cool to drink them selves silly when they have the opportunity.
His grand father has just died of alcohol related illnesses, his father took him and his 13 year old brother on holiday and plied them with drink
every night ( 2lts cider each). father has a serious drink problem and is a very bad example.
being 6'3" he can and get served with out question.
Samantha and I are trying to explain that drinking in moderation does not harm but drinking to excess can kill. Banning him will only sent him
underground, it is better to educate and just say that he is acting a prat when he returns drunk.
Ditch
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 03:10 PM |
|
|
I think you are right. The only way to make anybody listen, particularly at that age, is to embarrass them dramatically or to let them learn by their
mistakes.
Unfortunately the latter can sometimes come too late.
|
|
|
ch1ll1
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 05:48 PM |
|
|
i think its a good idea !
i carnt smoke on plane trains and so on, so why should you drink !
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 10:33 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve_gus
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Allanson
you could lowewr the limit to 5mph, but people will still drive to their perception of a safe speed.
thats an interesting statement mark. Many people's justification of speeding is that 'the speed limits are not there for me, I drive at
the speeds I thik are safe......'
This would be pretty good justification for speed cams - ie only way to make people slow down and not think they can drive at the speed they
personally feel is safe......
atb
steve
Speeding used to mean driving too fast, now it means driving above the new speed limits. I used to drive to St Ives at 50mph, thats 10mph below the
speed limits, at the same speed now, I would be SPEEDING at 20 mph OVER the limit.
What I tried to point out was that you cannot legislate for idiots, all that happens now is that at the inquest, they say they were driving 60mph over
the speed limit and not 30mph as it used to be.
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 31/10/05 at 11:07 PM |
|
|
my laser van 'nick' in 2000 was 71mph on a 2 mile section of dual carriageway that was 70mph except for 2 miles at 60mph that was
originally 70 too. I just forgot and the gits got me. Its stupid things like that that make you disrespect the police.
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 1/11/05 at 12:21 AM |
|
|
in a similar vein, though slightly daft in this case,
when exactly does a "speeding offence" start and stop?????????????????
If I drive from my house to a friends house, and complete the whole journey above the speed limit, and go though 4 cameras on the way, how many
offences have I comitted?????
Surely only one?
The offence is speeding, not being caught on camera speeding surely??
If it were the case that I could be prosecuted for 4 seperate offences, then what is to stop the cameras being placed at 1 metre intervals and have
the 4 offences in quicker succession???????
Surely then the presecution would struggle to prove the 4 seperate offences? If so, what is the requisite distance between cameras which constitutes
seperate offence!?
Sounds silly but the whole principle of this confuses me. If the law is being portrayed as "black and white" and "right and
wrong" then surely the law itself is rotally flawed in terms of enforcement???
Any legal eagles explain that one to me!!!
[Edited on 1/11/05 by NS Dev]
|
|
|
