This week we asked the man/woman in the street about the amendments to the law to target drinking and driving.
Sookraj, taxi driver:
‘The two beer thing is not really going to hold out. People are going to still drink more than two beers. For some persons two beers is nothing to the system, even if it’s taken within an hour. I also think this will provide another opportunity for the police to make more money. The fine attached to being caught is so high that drivers will prefer to give the police a raise and get off. I think if the fines were set at a lower rate the Government would make more money, since I believe the drivers would pay the lower fine rather than pay the police.’
Nirmaldeo Sarwan, missionary:
‘I honestly feel that it should have been set at no alcohol whatsoever if you are driving. This is because I think that any amount of alcohol in a person’s system would influence their level of concentration. I was listening to a programme the other day and someone was saying that drinking is a part of our culture and so it will be hard for persons to give up drinking hard even when they have to drive. Generally though it is a good move by the Government but the question is if they can uphold and implement the changes they have made. This is like the seat belt issue. At first it was hard for people to comply with but now most persons wear their seatbelt, so we have hope yet. To further comment I don’t know why people believe they have to drink to have fun. I’m a Christian and my friends and I have fun without consuming alcohol.’
Quincy Castello, pastor:
‘The great and wise King Solomon said that “wine is a mocker and they that are led astray are not wise.” When you drink one, you go to two, next thing you want three and the number keeps rising. People have choices, but if you’re going to drink then do it at home or park your vehicle. Driving under the influence not only endangers your life but the lives of others as well.
Even one shot or one beer can affect judgment in split-second decisions, so no alcohol should be used when driving.
The amendments to the laws are good if they can be implemented properly.’
Vishnu Matbadal,
laboratory technician:
‘The amendments are fine by me, since I don’t agree with drinking and driving. And the introduction of the breathalyzer test is a good stance but how well will it be implemented. The authorities have to ensure that persons are trained competently to administer the test, since it involves a lot of chemistry.
The laws that govern the use of cell phones while driving is also a good move because using phones while driving can result in losing concentration on the road.’
Karen Pratt, clerk:
I think it should have been no alcohol when driving. The percentage of alcohol in the drink a person consumes will determine how much their mind is affected. One beer may seriously affect an individual’s ability to think straight.
I think persons should drink at weekends and at home or if you are going out leave your vehicles at home. As regards the cell phone and driving; that’s very similar to the drinking issue.
It breaks your concentration just as well. People need to realize that what does not happen for years can happen in a second and you need to have all your faculties working properly when it does. Pull over and take the call and don’t drink and drive.
Akeela, private sector
employee:
A man can drink up to six beers within two hours and not be affected. For regular drinkers two beers is nothing and as such they will not stick to two beers. Catching persons who drink and drive will depend on how competent the authorities are at doing their job. And while I agree that drinking and driving is a cause of accidents I don’t believe that it is responsible for the high percentages the authorities say. So the other reasons need to be taken into account and looked at also.
Steve Austin, farmer:
‘I don’t think you should have even one beer if you will be driving. The beer limit stated would depend on the individual’s health. It is possible for one beer to get a person high. As they say: “Chance takers are accident makers”. So to stay on the safe side a person should consume no amount of alcohol before driving. Drivers should not be on cellular phones while driving. This is a very distracting thing. For example, a man is driving then his phone rings and he answers it and is told that his wife just died. Right away he becomes distracted and can no longer concentrate on the road in his state of shock. I am speaking from personal experience because my father was in a similar situation once. Drivers should not drink alcohol nor use cellular phones. I support the new amendments.’
Jasmattie Khan, self employed:
‘People should not drink when driving. Even if it is one or two beers the alcohol can still get to their heads and will not allow them to concentrate as they should on the roadway. Drunk drivers are the ones who cause most of the accidents. As far as the cellular phone goes I think it was the right decision to restrict their use. When drivers are on their cellular phones they concentrate more on the conversation and less on the road.’
Sharon Williams,
self employed:
‘The recent amendments to the traffic law are good. Most of the accidents that occur yearly are caused by drunk drivers. With regard to the two beer limit; it must be realized that two beers will affect everyone differently. If it’s an experienced driver then they could drink two beers in about an hour and not be affected by it. However, an inexperienced drinker consuming two beers in an hour would get high and this would affect their concentration level.
The two beer limit is reasonable. As far as the cellular phones go they should not be banned. I mean many drivers spend most of their day driving and their phone is the only way they can be contacted by their family so that they can be give messages during an emergency. If proper research was done then I think it would be found that very few accidents occur because a driver was on his/her phone. So cellular phones should not be restricted or limited because drivers are still able to concentrate on the road while on their phones.’
Lincoln Schwartz, driver:
‘How can you determine how two beers will affect a driver? While one beer might not affect one person it can very well cause another to get drunk. So I do not agree with the amendment to the traffic law which stated that the limit for drivers is two beers.
However, the decision to restrict the use of cellular was well thought out. While I agree that a phone can be very important in cases of emergency it can also be very dangerous. For example if a driver gets some shocking news via his phone while driving then this can cause him to lose his concentration and may result in an accident.
There have been many occasions when I’ve seen drivers talking away on their phones until they seem to forget that they’re on the road. This lack of concentration is what causes accidents.
However, instead of banning the phone completely I think there should be a limitation. A driver may be allowed to take calls but must not be on their phones for more than two minutes which should be enough time for them to complete their communication.’
