|
Читайте также: |
22.08.2006
NEWSru.com
Безусловный лидер пассажирских перевозок в России - автомобильный транспорт, а самый безопасный - железнодорожный, свидетельствуют исследования социологов Всероссийского центра изучения общественного мнения (ВЦИОМ).
Согласно результатам опроса, услугами автобусов, маршрутных такси и другими видами автомобильного транспорта пользуется большинство граждан РФ - 82%, причем 57% - часто, передает "Интерфакс".
На втором месте по популярности - железнодорожный транспорт, которым пользуются 64% россиян, из них 46% - 1-2 раза в год, а постоянных клиентов заметно меньше - 18%.
Авиационные и водные перевозки охватывают меньшее число респондентов - 15% и 13% соответственно; причем, как правило, такие путешествия опрошенные позволяют себе 1-2 раза в год, а доля постоянных пользователей не превышает 1-2%.
Самый безопасный, согласно общественному мнению, вид транспорта - железнодорожный. Положительную оценку его безопасности дают 70% опрошенных, из них 15% считают этот вид транспорта "безусловно безопасным".
Наибольшие страхи у респондентов вызывает авиация - 84% респондентов полагают, что такие путешествия опасны, в их числе 33% - что "очень опасны".
Водный транспорт также имеет негативный баланс оценок: 39% воспринимают его как безопасный способ передвижения, 44% - как опасный.
Уровень безопасности самого популярного вида транспорта - автомобильного - оценивается неоднозначно: 48% считают его безопасным, 50% - опасным.
Комфортными все эти виды транспорта считает большинство респондентов (65-77%). Самое большое число отзывов "безусловно комфортный" получает авиационный транспорт - 36%, тогда как железнодорожный, автомобильный и водный виды - по 19-21%. Негативные отклики реже всего звучат в адрес авиационных перевозок (11%), чаще всего по поводу автомобильного транспорта (23%).
С финансовой точки зрения самые недоступные для опрошенных - авиационные перелеты - 84% респондентов считают их слишком дорогими для себя. Стоимость железнодорожных и автомобильных путешествий вполне демократична: 62-65% опрошенных считают их не дешевыми, но и не слишком дорогими, а 9-12% -дешевыми. Затраты на водные поездки затрудняется оценить почти треть опрошенных - 29%, среди остальных преобладает мнение, что этот вид транспорта им "не по карману" (43%).
Опрос ВЦИОМ проводился в июле в 153 населенных пунктах в 46 областях, краях и республиках России. В нем приняли участием 1600 человек.
CLASS 2
TRAIN TRAVEL
Explain why the accident "spooked" the rail industry.
HOW HATFIELD CHANGED THE RAIL INDUSTRY
The October 2000 train disaster had far-reaching effects on Britain's railways
www.guardian.co.uk
Press Association
September 6, 2005
The Hatfield rail crash was by no means the worst train disaster in terms of fatalities but it had a devastating effect on rail services that was to last for years.
The disaster in October 2000 also hastened the demise of Railtrack, thus ensuring a new approach to the way the railways are run.
An edition of Rail magazine, appearing less than a month after the Hatfield derailment, proved to be spot-on with its assessment that the accident "seems destined to change the face of Britain's railway network forever".
Passengers were quick to notice the changes - their trains were subject to severe disruption.
Huge delays were caused by Railtrack's decision to impose hundreds of speed restrictions throughout the national network so that rails could be checked for possible cracks.
Service levels slumped, with long-distance operators such as Virgin Trains particularly badly hit.
Shortly after the Hatfield accident, Virgin Trains chief executive Chris Green - an admired official with many years of rail experience - said: "We are now living through the biggest disruption to the rail network that I have ever experienced".
It is only now, nearly five years on, that punctuality has finally returned to its pre-Hatfield level among passenger train companies.
Railtrack's chief executive, Gerald Corbett, offered his resignation immediately after the derailment but his board rejected the offer.
While passengers endured a dreadful winter of 2000/01 on the railways, recriminations began. The Strategic Rail Authority chairman, Sir Alastair Morton, bemoaning the numerous speed restrictions, said the accident had "spooked" the rail industry, adding that operators could have coped better with the crisis.
The deputy prime minister, John Prescott, said passengers had become "increasingly fed-up at what they see as continuing and unnecessary delays in getting the rail network up to speed".
The crisis certainly got to Railtrack. In November 2000 Mr Corbett did resign and the full extent of Railtrack's failings were exposed in the Health and Safety Executive's January 2001 second interim report into the Hatfield crash.
The HSE said cracks in the track at Hatfield were not picked up during a visual inspection just a week before the crash.
No speed restrictions were in place at the time of the crash and the HSE said that Railtrack had a system that was not optimised to look at the sort of cracks that were occurring at Hatfield.
It was at the time of the publication of this second report that the HSE said that senior Railtrack and Balfour Beatty executives could face manslaughter charges as well as prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
It would not be until July 2003 that six rail managers and engineers, including Mr Corbett, were sent for trial for manslaughter.
By then, Railtrack was long gone. In May 2001 it had announced a £534m loss and further calls for money from the government prompted the then transport secretary Stephen Byers to take steps to put the company into administration in October 2001.
There was no doubt that the Hatfield accident had sparked the cash crisis which saw the company's shares fall from a one-time high of more than £17 to less than £3.
A recent report by rightwing thinktank the Adam Smith Institute said that Railtrack "simply panicked in its reaction to the crash".
The report said: "It seems that the lack of detailed knowledge of engineering and railway operations in Railtrack's senior management was the problem."
| a rail crash; a train disaster; fatalities; to have a devastating effect on rail services; the way the railways are run; derailment; to be destined to change the face of Britain's railway network forever; to be subject to severe disruption; to cause huge delays; to impose hundreds of speed restrictions; rails – to be checked for possible cracks; service levels – to slump; disruption to the rail network; to become "increasingly fed-up at continuing and unnecessary delays in getting the rail network up to speed"; to expose the full extent of Railtrack's failings; a crack in the track; to be/not to be picked up during a visual inspection; to face manslaughter charges; to be sent for trial for manslaughter. |
2. Read the article. Sum it up in 5 sentences.
Do you agree that it could have been sabotage? Are these sorts of things common in your country?
TRAIN CRASH: IT COULD HAVE BEEN SABOTAGE
By CHRISTOPHER LEAKE, CHRISTIAN WOLMAR and ELEANOR MAYNE
The Daily Mail
25 February 2007
In echoes of Potters Bar, train crash investigators find four vital bolts lying at the side of the tracks as Network Rail orders checks on 600 sets of points around Britain...
Rail crash investigators were facing up to the possibility that the Virgin train derailment could have been the result of sabotage.
Four vital steel bolts from a set of points that the train had just crossed were found lying at the side of the track.
The bolts should have been firmly fixed to a track stretcher bar on the high-speed West Coast line at Grayrigg, near Kendal, Cumbria.
Network Rail, which is responsible for track maintenance, said it would require a specialist heavy spanner used by rail engineers to remove the bolts.
One senior railway executive told The Mail on Sunday last night: "Four bolts were lying there neatly. They had been removed recently. It's very odd. It's a mystery. We cannot give a rational explanation. We have to try to find out who has been there recently and why somebody would do this. Sabotage cannot be ruled out."
One woman - 84-year-old Margaret Masson from Glasgow - died and 100 of the estimated 120 passengers were injured, five seriously, when the London to Glasgow Virgin Pendolino tilting train left the track at 95 mph at 8.15pm on Friday night. Experts were astonished there was no greater loss of life.
The crash appears eerily similar to the Potters Bar accident five years ago, which killed seven people.
Investigators found that nuts were missing from key bolts on a track stretcher bar which fractured, derailing the train. An inquiry by the Health and Safety Executive ruled out sabotage, which had been alleged by maintenance contractor Jarvis. Since then, responsibility for maintenance has been taken over by Network Rail.
In Friday's crash, the carriages careered down an embankment, and the leading engine ended up on its own facing in the opposite direction in a field. Police, fire and ambulance crews worked in rain and pitch-black conditions to rescue the injured, smashing their way into carriages.
Dazed passengers showed remarkable resilience and stumbled through the darkness to reach isolated farmhouses nearby.
Last night, as the investigation centred on the points, Network Rail announced that a further 600 similar points around Britain would be checked for faults.
Network Rail chief executive John Armitt said: "A points failure can be due to various causes. I have to live with the reality that something could have gone wrong on our watch."
Mr Armitt said the points at the crash scene had been given a monthly inspection in early February, with the next due in a week. A 13-weekly inspection took place two months ago, and the annual inspection was made last June.
Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union, said: "There was a track inspection a few days ago and there were no problems. But all of a sudden the bolts are off.
"The reality is that after Potters Bar they've allowed a situation where nuts and bolts have fallen off. Nuts and bolts go on jumbo jets, they go on space ships. How come they don't fall off?
"I can't say if it's sabotage. But management have to take the rap when it goes wrong. We will not allow our staff to be scapegoats."
Mrs Masson was travelling home on the train with her daughter Margaret Langley, 61, from Southport, Merseyside, and her husband Richard, 63. Mrs Langley was 'very poorly' and deteriorating in the Royal Preston Hospital last night, and her husband was 'critical'.
Mrs Masson's granddaughter Margaret Jones, 41, said last night: "We are devastated by the death of our Nan and about Mum and Dad being so very poorly.
"We are distraught but we are all here for our parents and we ask that we are left alone to cope during this difficult time."
The train driver, Ian Black, 46, from Scotland, was in a 'very critical but stable' condition with chest and neck injuries at the Royal Preston Hospital.
Sir Richard Branson, who flew back from a family holiday in the Swiss Alps to visit the crash scene, sent his condolences to Mrs Masson's family and described Mr Black as a hero.
He said the driver had done a 'tremendous job' staying at the controls in a desperate attempt to steer the train to safety.
"Our driver could have run from his seat and dashed to the next carriage, where he might well have been safe,' said Sir Richard. "Instead, he tried to steer the train to safety. He ended up quite badly injured. I am honestly not worried at this moment who is to blame. If it was a faulty line, then we have to make sure it never happens again."
He added he was sure the Virgin train was "100 per cent safe" and was "built like a tank".
Rebecca Denholme, 25, from Glasgow, who escaped with bruising, described how she was flung around her carriage before it came to rest upside down.
"When I stopped moving my seat was on the ceiling, which was quite strange," she said. "It was like being in a pinball machine. I feel like I have been beaten up."
Conduct a similar survey in your group. Is the situation similar or different in your country? What would be your verdict on our trains?
FILTHY AND OVERCROWDED, THE VERDICT ON OUR TRAINS
The Daily Mail
29th January 2007
Dismay at the state of the railways is revealed today in a comprehensive survey of passengers.
They express their annoyance at dirty, overcrowded trains with dismal toilet facilities and too little space for luggage.
Tatty, poorly-staffed stations with a lack of information also come out top among the gripes of the 25,000 people questioned.
The survey, by consumer pressure group Passenger Focus, comes amid inflation-busting rises in ticket prices, with First Great Western customers last week staging a fares strike in protest at the poor service and overcrowding.
Researchers found that, nationally, just 43 per cent of passengers feel the service they receive offers value for money.
Only six out of ten are satisfied with the amount of space they have in which to sit or stand.
Fewer than four out of ten are happy with how train companies cope with delays and 41 per cent are dissatisfied with toilet facilities.
There is also a wide variation in standards of service between the private train operators.
Dissatisfaction with rail fares and overcrowding is worst in London and the South-East, where more than a quarter of passengers complain of cramped conditions and four out of ten are unimpressed with high ticket prices.
Just over half of long-distance travellers believe the trains are value for money and 18 per cent are dissatisfied with overcrowding.
Three-quarters of Merseyrail passengers are unhappy with the state of train toilets. The lowest rating for "overall satisfaction" is given to One, which operates between London Liverpool Street and eastern England.
Some 75 per cent of One customers said they were satisfied with the service overall, compared with 96 per cent for Heathrow Express – the best performer.
Fewer than a third of One passengers believe they get value for money and nearly a third are unhappy with overcrowding.
On First Great Western, subject of last week’s fares strike, more than a third of passengers feel there is insufficient room to sit or stand. Fewer than half – 46 per cent – believe that tickets are value for money.
The worst offender for overcrowding is Southeastern, where only 51 per cent of passengers are satisfied with the space on trains.
| the state of the railways; to express their annoyance at dirty, overcrowded trains with dismal toilet facilities and too little space for luggage; tatty, poorly-staffed stations with a lack of information; poor service and overcrowding; to feel the service they receive offers value for money; to be dissatisfied with toilet facilities; to complain of cramped conditions; to be unimpressed with high ticket prices; long-distance travellers; insufficient room to sit or stand. |
Can travelling by train in Europe be cost-effective - and even a pleasure? How?
Was there any useful information for you how to save money when travelling by train in Europe?
ON THE RAILS
Forget commuter hell: travelling by train in Europe can be cost-effective - and even a pleasure. Our travel adviser shows you how
The Guardian
September 21, 2004
It's easy to forget, given the misery of using the railways in the UK, just how pleasurable it can be to travel by train in Europe. For a start, there is an impressive and growing network of high-speed lines - not just in France, but also in Germany, Spain, Italy and even Switzerland. And even if you do end up on a slow stopping service in Tuscany or Andalusia, even just passenger watching or taking in the view from the window is part of the fun.
But what is the best way to buy tickets? The plethora of different passes and deals can all save you money, but to get the best value, you need to take several factors into account.
Starting points
The first decision is whether to do the whole journey by train, or fly out to a starting point. Given the low cost of European air fares, bagging a cheap flight with or for example can be a useful time-saving option. Given that they allow you to book single fares, you could fly out, do your rail tour then fly back from somewhere else. Or you could come all the way back by train.
Using the high-speed lines
If you want to do the whole journey by rail, you will probably want to make use of the Eurostar and extensive French TGV links to get you on your way. The journey time between London and Paris is now down to two hours 35 minutes, where you could connect to Paris-Marseilles (three hours); or you can do London-Avignon via Lille or direct (just over six hours). Other key high-speed lines include Madrid-Seville (two hours 30 minutes), Hanover-Berlin (one hour 40 minutes) and Madrid-Barcelona, recently reduced from seven hours to four hours 35 minutes (and which should be cut again - to two hours 30 minutes - during 2005).
A point worth considering here is that high-speed lines allow you to plan day trips or itineraries that simply weren't possible a few years ago. You can get to the Loire in less than an hour from Paris for example. Cordoba can now be visited from Madrid, and Berlin and Cologne are particularly easy to combine.
Choosing a ticket
Buying a simple international return ticket can be cost effective on some routes. There have been £59 returns to Paris on Eurostar recently, and the £109 return fare from London to Avignon looks good value. But the cheapest standard returns to say, Berlin (£228) or Venice (£213) look poor value compared to flying, or (depending on your itinerary) using rail passes. In fact the further you go, and the more you want to travel when you get there, the better value you will get from a pass. Here are the main ones.
Inter-rail This multi-country pass is no longer aimed just at under 26s (although they pay a lower tariff). A full Inter-rail card allows unlimited travel for a month through 27 European countries and Morocco (the traveller's home country is excluded). It costs £415 (£295 for under 26s).
You can get a cheaper pass, by limiting your travel to specific zones. There are eight in all including, for example, one which covers Austria, Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland, and another Belgium, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. A 16-day ticket for any one zone costs £223 (£159 under 26), while a 22-day ticket for any two zones is £303 (£215).
The downside of these cards is that they don't include travel on most express and high-speed services - you normally have to pay a supplement. Travel from Paris to Lyon by TGV for example and it will cost you an extra £2.50. Other regional passes worth checking include the Scanrail pass (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland), Greece and Turkey pass, and the Iberic Railpass (Spain and Portugal).
Eurodomino passes
These are now the standard single-country passes for most European countries (plus Morocco). They allow you unlimited rail travel for a certain number of days (choose between three and eight) within a one-month period. The cost varies hugely between different countries and obviously also depends on how many days you want to travel. These are examples for five-day passes in second class in a selection of countries: France £186 (£246 in first class), Italy £158 (£186), Spain £129 (£162), Slovakia £43 (£64), Turkey £46 (£69). There are cheaper fares for those under 26.
The good thing about these passes is that expresses and high-speed trains are normally covered, though if there is a compulsory reservation fee, you will have to pay this. You will also need to plan your travel quite carefully to make sure you can do what you want to do in the days available.
Note too that some countries - Holland, Germany for example, have both Eurodomino and alternative national passes that usually work in a similar way. These are worth checking - a five-day Germany Eurodomino pass costs £168, compared with £154 for a Germany Rail pass for example.
Way to go
Fares given are from Rail Europe or as quoted on <http://www.railchoice.com>. All are subject to change. You will normally need to buy rail passes before you arrive in the country or countries for which it is valid (normally the first date stamp on the pass activates it).
· The best source of timetable information is Thomas Cook's European Rail Timetable (£9.45). It also publishes a rail map of Europe (£5.96)
| to be cost-effective; to be a pleasure; the misery of using the railways; an impressive and growing network of high-speed lines; the plethora of different passes and deals; to save you money; to get the best value; to make use of the Eurostar and extensive French TGV links to get you on your way; high-speed lines; standard returns; a full Inter-rail card; to allow unlimited travel; to get a cheaper pass by limiting your travel to specific zones; the standard single-country passes for most European countries; unlimited rail travel for a certain number of days; a compulsory reservation fee; to plan your travel quite carefully to make sure you can do what you want to do in the days available. |
5. Write an essay on the following topic: Why do the Europeans go loco over train travel today? Use the topical vocabulary from the boxes.
CLASS 3
DRIVING [EB1]
Before you read:
1. Do you drive? If not? Do you intend to take a driving test at some time?
2. What sort of car do you have? What sort of car would you like if you had a choice?
3. Do you think a person’s car says something about him? If so, what?
4. Do you think you are a good driver? Why/Why not? What makes a good/bad driver?
5. Have you ever had an accident? What happened?
1. Read the text. Answer the questions.
Answer the title question.
Give a brief talk on how you see the solution to the problem raised in the text.
IS YOUR CAR REALLY NECESSARY?
(From “Modern English” by J.Bentley)
All over Britain vast areas of land are being covered with cement for bigger motorways, car parks and garages. That land used to give us fresh air, oxygen from grass and trees; fruit and vegetables; a rest and beauty for weary eyes; a relaxation; an escape. Today that land gives lead-poisoned and polluted air; noise; more nervous tension; and injury; damage and death. No one anywhere is safe now. In country lanes which were quite, isolated and peaceful, children and old people are knocked down and murdered by holiday cars tearing elegantly along to get back to the nearest motorway. We are told to expect more cars every year, more and more acres of land under deadening cement. What are all these cars used for? For urgent and important purposes, essential to our modern life? No, of course not. The majority of cars are mostly used to take Mr Smith to tobacconist for a packet of cigarettes or to the pub; to take Mrs Smith to the supermarket for a packet of cornflakes or to the hairdresser; to take Mr and Mrs Smith and the two little Smiths and the dog for an aimless drive anywhere at all.
I do not accept the proposition that we must have more cars. We do not really need all the cars we have now. I propose that no more new cars whether British or foreign, should be sold in Britain for a period of ten years. There are already plenty of cars to last us for ten years. Look at all the thousands of unsold second-hand cars in dense rows around the garages all over Britain. Some people take pride in driving “old crocks”. Those “old crocks” and today’s new and second-hand cars can last for another ten years. If some cars fall irreparably to pieces from old age or are totally smashed in road accidents during the ten years, all the better. And we may at last regain a little fresh air and relaxation and sanity. What do you think?
Answer the questions:
1. What is happening to vast areas of land in Britain today?
2. What does the author say pollutes the air with lead poison, increases noise to dangerous levels, brings injury and death to people?
3. Why doesn’t the author believe the car to be in any way essential to modern living/
4. What does the author suggest by way of improving the situation?
5. Are the author’s arguments against the car convincing enough?
6. Do you agree, or disagree with the author on the matter?
BAD HABITS ON THE ROAD
2. Read the text. Sum it up in 5 sentences. Use the topical vocabulary from the box.
THE DANGERS OF DRINKING AND DRIVING
25 March 2004
BBC
It is not the aim of this site to play down the risks of drinking and driving. Alcohol and motor vehicles represent a dangerous and potentially lethal cocktail. Although the figures have been falling steadily in recent years, each year in Britain over 400 people are killed in road accidents where excess alcohol is a factor. Thousands more are seriously injured. Being below the legal alcohol limit is no guarantee that your driving ability will not be impaired. At 50% above the limit, your chances of being involved in a fatal or serious injury accident are five times higher than those of a completely sober driver. Twice the legal limit, and that figure rises to twenty times.
Once you have had a few drinks, the only thing that will reduce your alcohol level is time, and plenty of time at that. Your body can only metabolise one unit of alcohol per hour (the equivalent of a half-pint of ordinary strength beer). After a heavy drinking session, you could still be over the limit the following morning, or even much later in the day. There are cases of people being convicted of drink-driving when they had not had a drink for twenty-four hours. Black coffee or hangover medicines might make you feel better, but they will not bring your alcohol level down any quicker.
And if you are so arrogant and thoughtless that you couldn't care less about endangering the lives of others, bear in mind that 60% of the deaths in drink-related accidents are of the drinking driver himself. Drinking and driving really does wreck lives, and the life it is most likely to wreck is your own.
The combination of highly visible public awareness programmes, rigorous enforcement of the current Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) limit and the application of the toughest penalties on conviction anywhere in the world, ensure that much has been achieved in the UK. Three is the decline in drink-drive fatalities over the last 25 years. Few, if any other countries in the world have achieved such success despite, in many cases, having lower BAC limits.
The late 1990s saw a halt to the decline in drink-drive fatalities and indeed a rise in drink-drive injuries. There is an urgent need for action to further reduce levels of drink-drive fatalities and injuries in the UK. We believe that:
· additional countermeasures are needed to further reduce drink-drive fatalities and injuries in the UK;
· these should be targeted against the hardcore of drink-drivers who are responsible for the majority of drink-drive accidents and should be in the areas of enforcement, penalties and education;
· the UK would stand to save most lives through wider breath-testing powers for the police, the maintenance of harsh penalties and continued public education;
· a reduction in the BAC limit would not have a significant effect upon drink-drive accidents which could not better be achieved through those countermeasures listed above. A lowering of the limit may also result in a loss of public support for drink drive law.
| to play down the risks of drinking and driving; to represent a dangerous and potentially lethal cocktail; to be killed in road accidents where excess alcohol is a factor; to be seriously injured; to be below the legal alcohol limit; to impair one’s driving ability; to be involved in a fatal or serious injury accident; a completely sober driver; to reduce alcohol level /to bring one’s alcohol level down; to metabolise alcohol; a heavy drinking session; to be over the limit the following morning; arrogant and thoughtless drivers; to endanger the lives of others; the deaths in drink-related accidents; to wreck lives; the highly visible public awareness programmes; rigorous enforcement of the current Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) limit; the application of the toughest penalties on conviction anywhere in the world; drink-drive fatalities; to further reduce levels of drink-drive fatalities and injuries; additional countermeasures; to be targeted against the hardcore of drink-drivers; to be responsible for the majority of drink-drive accidents; to save lives through wider breath-testing powers for the police; to maintain harsh penalties; to continue public education. |
3. Read the article. Sum it up in 5 sentences. Use the topical vocabulary from the box.
MORNING-AFTER DRIVERS PUTTING LIVES AT RISK
27th August 2004
The Daily Mail
Almost three in 10 drivers are putting lives at risk by driving the morning after a night of heavy drinking, it was revealed today.
A total of 28% of 1,000 drivers admitted the offence in a survey by road safety charity Brake and breakdown service Green Flag Motoring Assistance.
The survey comes after recent Department for Transport figures which show that the number of casualties caused by drinking and driving on UK roads rose from 14,980 in 1993 to 20,140 in 2002.
Brake chief executive Mary Williams said: "It is extremely frightening to know there are drivers on the road putting lives at risk because they simply don't realise that they are still unfit to drive the morning after a heavy night drinking.
"Sleeping, showering and drinking a cup coffee do not sober you up. We want drivers to know that there is no excuse to risk getting behind the wheel it if they still feel unfit to drive.
"The message is simple. If you know you have to drive the next morning, don't risk drinking the night before at all."
Drivers at risk
Melanie Denny, from Green Flag Motoring Assistance, said: "It is essential that drivers understand how long alcohol stays in the blood for, as it is clear from our research, some drivers are still putting themselves and others at risk by driving only a few hours after drinking heavily."
Meanwhile, a survey by the Churchill Insurance company showed that while one in three motorists admits to drinking more alcohol in the summer months, as many as 91% do not know the legal drink-drive limit.
Also, most drivers were unaware that many pubs now serve larger-than-usual measures - such as large glasses of wine.
The legal limit for drinking and driving is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, although some individuals can reach that limit after two units of alcohol (one standard glass of wine) while for others it can be almost double that amount.
A standard glass of wine is the equivalent of two units of alcohol, while a large wine is three units. A standard spirit would be one unit of alcohol, while a large spirit would be 1.4 units. The survey showed that:
Darren McCauley, head of car insurance at Churchill, said: "It is becoming increasingly apparent that drivers do not know the boundaries for drinking and driving.”
"This means that drivers could be flouting the law without realising it. On top of the obvious dangers of driving whilst over the limit, a drink driving conviction can increase your motor insurance premium and in some cases make it hard to get insurance at all."
| to put lives at risk by driving the morning after a night of heavy drinking; casualties caused by drinking and driving; to be still unfit to drive the morning after a heavy night drinking; to sober smb. up; to risk getting behind the wheel; to understand how long alcohol stays in the blood; to know the legal drink-drive limit; the legal limit for drinking and driving is mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood; to reach that limit after two units of alcohol while for others it can be almost double that amount; to increase one’s motor insurance premium; to make it hard to get insurance at all. |
4. Read the article. Sum it up.
Answer the title question. Do you know any examples of this kind in this country?
WHAT CAN YOU DO WHILE DRIVING?
BBC 9 March 2006
A woman has been fined after being caught on camera applying make-up while driving. So what can you do while at the wheel?
With a compact mirror in one hand and an eye liner in the other, Donna Maddock applied her make-up. But this wasn't in her bedroom, the 22-year-old was driving at 32mph at the time.
She was caught by police who filmed her on a speed camera and has been fined £200 and had six points put on her licence after pleading guilty to careless driving. So what can you do while driving?
While certain things are most definitely against the law, with others it comes down to how the driver handles the car.
When it comes to things like eating, smoking, applying make-up, map reading and tuning in the car stereo, they are not against the law but drivers can be charged with careless driving or not being in proper control of their vehicle.
Discretion
It comes down to the discretion of the police and in the past a motorist has been fined for eating an apple while driving and feasting on a Kit Kat.
Research suggests such simple actions can have a serious effect on driving skills. A study for the AA found that fiddling with the car stereo caused drivers to cross lanes, go off the road, go above the speed limit and be more at risk of a collision.
But if a driver's attention falls "far below" the standard required, they could be guilty of the more serious offence of dangerous driving, which is punishable with a fine of up to £5,000 and/or six months in prison. Most serious of all is death by dangerous driving, which can carry a sentence of up to 14 years.
Driving while holding a mobile phone is a specific offence and is automatically punishable with a £30 fine. This will soon increase to £60 and three penalty points on a licence when the Road Safety Bill becomes law within the next few months.
This applies not just to phones but to all gadgets which send or receive data electronically, including PDAs and GPS navigation systems.
It is acceptable for drivers to use a mobile phone which is not handheld, such as one in a holder. So, in theory, drivers can use their PDAs as long as they are secured.
But, if it affects their driving they run the risk of being charged with careless driving, not being in proper control of their vehicle or dangerous driving.
And it seems most motorists commit these offences weekly. The average driver risks being pulled over by the police 10 times each week for a range of motoring offences, according to a recent survey by Churchill Car Insurance.
"Most drivers will be shocked by how many laws they break on their daily commute, " says a Churchill spokesman. "They seem to be completely unaware of their actions."
5. Comment on the following piece of news.
DRIVER’S FILM FINE
A driver has been fined £80 – for watching The Invisible Man while travelling through Coventry, Divish Kumar Patel, 22, was driving a s he watched a TV mounted to his dashboard.
7. Read the article. Sum it up in 7-8 sentences. What do you think of this initiative?
Do you (your parents, friends) ever speak on the mobile when driving?
Дата добавления: 2015-10-23; просмотров: 104 | Нарушение авторских прав
| <== предыдущая страница | | | следующая страница ==> |
| Хаос в документации | | | DRIVERS RISK TWO YEARS IN JAIL FOR USING THEIR MOBILE PHONES |