Drink Driving Limits

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

My point is whether THEY are only proposing something because it doesn't affect THEM.

Thats your opinion, you have absolutely no grounds for saying that. Where does it come from?

Perhaps it comes from the fact that you think this way and you incorrectly assume other people do.

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

Thats your opinion, you have absolutely no grounds for saying that. Where does it come from?

I was ASKING earlier, remember ? Before you decided to misrepresent me and made me explain the blatantly obvious AGAIN!!!

But just in case you didn't read that either before jumping to conclusions, here's the post:

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So why are you not against reducing the speed limits if they'll save more lives than your beloved reduction in drink limits ?

See that yoke at the end of the sentence - it's called a question mark.

T runner wrote: »

Perhaps it comes from the fact that you think this way and you incorrectly assume other people do.

That's your opinion, you have absolutely no grounds for saying that. Where does it come from ?

Especially since I've even PROVEN YOU WRONG before you posted it, if you bothered to read it :

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And since you're talking to someone who recognised for years that a 60mph limit on some of the back roads was ridiculous - EVEN THOUGH THAT AFFECTED ME TOO - you're yet again way off the mark!

Why don't you read posts instead of diving in and making ridiculous claims and inferences ?

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I was ASKING earlier, remember ? Before you decided to misrepresent me and made me explain the blatantly obvious AGAIN!!!

But just in case you didn't read that either before jumping to conclusions, here's the post:

As you know, I am referring to this post:

but it's ridiculous that those who propose dropping an alcohol limit (because they don't drink one or two and drive, therefore it affects others)are firmly opposed to lowering the speed limits.

Here You are clearly saying that people who propose dropping the alcohol limit are doing so because they don't drink one or two and drive. How can you legitimately claim I am misrepresenting this post?

Out of the blue you are accusing other people of putting selfish issues before other concerns and yet when the finger is pointed back at you all you can do is deny what is written in black and white and whinge misrepresentation.

Please show me how I have misrepresented you in the quoted post above. And no, substituting another post and pretending taht is the one under discussion wont cut it.

Tipp Man

T runner wrote: »

As you know, I am referring to this post:




Here You are clearly saying that people who propose dropping the alcohol limit are doing so because they don't drink one or two and drive. How can you legitimately claim I am misrepresenting this post?

Out of the blue you are accusing other people of putting selfish issues before other concerns and yet when the finger is pointed back at you all you can do is deny what is written in black and white and whinge misrepresentation.

Please show me how I have misrepresented you in the quoted post above. And no, substituting another post and pretending taht is the one under discussion wont cut it.

simple question T Runner, if we reduced the speed limit across the country to 30k it would save more lives, why are you not campaigning for this??

Liam Byrne

OK, now I'm COMPLETELY confused! Seems to happen regularly when taking to T-runner, what with all the battles and accusations about what TippMan or myself did or didn't say.

T-runner, which is your issue with my post / original question :

1) That I think people who want to keep the current speed limit and only target social drinkers are two-faced

or

2) That I think those who propose a reduction don't currently drink

Because between all the "clarifications" and corrections and explanations that have been required in order for myself and TippMan to get through to you what we're actually saying, rather than you inferring and wildly "can I take from that..." surmising and extrapolating, I honestly haven't a notion WHAT you're on about at this stage, and whether it's real or imaginary.

Yes, the original question that I posed mutated into the above; also, that's a PART OF a sentence, and is not in full context, and also ignores the fact that it was written in frustrated reply to an off-the-wall suggestion by you that TippMan and myself were proposing no speed limits.

I've said it to you before, if you want to have a discussion without confusing the bejaysus out of people and making them so frustrated that they don't bother, then leave all the crap out of it and there might actually be a decent discussion with valid points.

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK, now I'm COMPLETELY confused! Seems to happen regularly when taking to T-runner, what with all the battles and accusations about what TippMan or myself did or didn't say.

T-runner, which is your issue with my post / original question :

1) That I think people who want to keep the current speed limit and only target social drinkers are two-faced

or

2) That I think those who propose a reduction don't currently drink

Because between all the "clarifications" and corrections and explanations that have been required in order for myself and TippMan to get through to you what we're actually saying, rather than you inferring and wildly "can I take from that..." surmising and extrapolating, I honestly haven't a notion WHAT you're on about at this stage, and whether it's real or imaginary.

Yes, the original question that I posed mutated into the above; also, that's a PART OF a sentence, and is not in full context, and also ignores the fact that it was written in frustrated reply to an off-the-wall suggestion by you that TippMan and myself were proposing no speed limits.

I've said it to you before, if you want to have a discussion without confusing the bejaysus out of people and making them so frustrated that they don't bother, then leave all the crap out of it and there might actually be a decent discussion with valid points.

Ive quoted the section twice now, I dont honestly how I can make it any simpler for you.

It is clear to me that the only reason you are against a reduction is because it inconveniences you personally. A reduction in road deaths means nothing. This is an extremely backward selfish attitude you have.

T runner

Tipp Man wrote: »

simple question T Runner, if we reduced the speed limit across the country to 30k it would save more lives, why are you not campaigning for this??

Im not actually campaigning for drink driving either. This is just a discussion forum after all.

I would say that reducing the speed limit to 30 across the board may cripple the economy. With a road network you will have deaths. The trick is to keep speed limits low enough to reduce deaths without slowing the network to make it too slow for the economy to function and people to get around in a timely manner.

People are willing to accept a certain amount of deaths that go with road transport. They are not willing to accept completely unnecessary deaths.
If you die in a car after taking 60-80mg alcohol there is a 70% chance that it is because of the alcohol.
This is because some gob****e wanted his second pint, completely avoidable and therefore unacceptable.
Reducing the speed limit to thirty may make the road network lose its advantages. Stopping gob****es drinking and driving will only have the effect of reducing deaths.

Now any more about speed limits, maybe set up a new thread for yourself. I will post on it if you do.

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

It is clear to me that the only reason you are against a reduction is because it inconveniences you personally. A reduction in road deaths means nothing. This is an extremely backward selfish attitude you have.

And yet again it becomes obvious that what's "clear to you" bears no relation to reality.

If I never drank I'd look at the figures and say the exact same!

I'll put it this way (as it obviously hasn't gotten through to you yet).

I already drink LESS than the current limit, and often LESS than the PROPOSED limit, and often NOTHING. Of course, I said this earlier in relation to drinking responsibly, which you took up completely wrong and went off on a completely unrelated rant, so I'm not surprised that you missed the point completely.