To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 7631
7630  |  7632
Subject: 
Re: One for the road sir? (Re: US supreme court strikes down...)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:03:34 GMT
Reply-To: 
(ssgore@superonline)Spamcake(.com)
Viewed: 
1144 times
  
Scott A wrote:
> 
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > A small bit of good news. However when one reads the article one discovers
> > that the court considers drunk driving checkpoints constitutional,
> 
> Here in the UK random alchhol test are not strictly legal. However, they do
> sort of occur. However, for 10-20 yaers now drink driving has been
> effectivly stigmatised to the point where even drinking within the legal
> limit (80 mg/l) is frowned upon socially. Having a drink driving conviction
> in the UK, is a sure way to become a social pariah. Because of this climate,
> I have never heard of anyone complain of being stopped and tested (we do
> have the right to a refuse test if stopped).


Yesterday, random alcohol tests declared to be illegal here in Turkey.
What a coincidence..:-)

Selçuk



Message is in Reply To:
  One for the road sir? (Re: US supreme court strikes down...)
 
(...) Here in the UK random alchhol test are not strictly legal. However, they do sort of occur. However, for 10-20 yaers now drink driving has been effectivly stigmatised to the point where even drinking within the legal limit (80 mg/l) is frowned (...) (26 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

11 Messages in This Thread:



Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR