document_title: Drunk driving law by country

question_text: legal limit of drink and drive in india

question_tokens: legal limit of drink and drive in india

text: Drunk driving law by country

text: Asia[edit]

text: Central Asia[edit]

text:
Kyrgyzstan: 0.05%[1]
Mongolia: 0.05%[1]
Turkmenistan: 0[1]

text: East Asia[edit]

text:
China: 0.02%. Over 0.02% but under 0.08%: CN¥ 1000–2000 fine, six months licence suspension; Over 0.08%: up to three years imprisonment,[2] five years licence suspension. If the driver causes serious injuries or death, the license will be suspended for life.[3]
Hong Kong: 0.05% or BAC 0.22 mg/L or urine 0.067%. Driving under the influence of alcohol beyond legal limit is punishable with a monetary fine and up to three years imprisonment, with ten driving-offense points and mandatory Driving Improvement Course.[4]
Japan: BrAC 0.15 mg/L (equivalent to 0.03%). Additionally, regardless of alcohol readings, police may also determine the driver to be "driving drunk", which is punished more severely than exceeding the designated alcohol limits.[5]
Republic of Korea: 0.05%[6]
Taiwan: 0.05% (BrAC 0.15 mg/L). Over 0.05% but under 0.11%: TWD 15,000 to 90,000 fine, and license suspension for one year.[citation needed] 0.11% and above: license suspension for one year, and charge of offences against public safety with possible prison sentence up to two years as the maximum penalty. If the driver is convicted of causing accidents, the penalty shall be increased by half.[citation needed] If the driver causes serious injuries or death, the license will be suspended for life or even face the death penalty.

text: South Asia[edit]

text:
Afghanistan: 0[1]
India: 0.03%. This is according to section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. On a first offence, the punishment is imprisonment of six months, a fine of 2000 Indian Rupees (INR) or both. If the second offence is committed within three years, the punishment is two years, a fine of 3000 Indian Rupees (INR) or both. The clause of 30 mg/dL was added by an amendment in 1994. It came into effect beginning 14 November 1994.
Nepal: 0%. Breathalyzer testing is regularly used in major cities like Kathmandu, Pokhara, Biratnagar and Highways. For more verification, driver will be taken to nearest hospitals for blood and urine test (if demanded by the driver). Licence will be seized instantly. Driver will get the licence back after attending anti-alcoholic classes run by Nepal Traffic Police and fine will be charged NRS 1000.[citation needed]
Pakistan: Falls under Drink and Drugs, S. No 14. No Set limit. 8 Penalty Points.[7]
Sri Lanka: 0.06%.[citation needed] Breathalyzer testing is not used routinely. If suspected by police the driver is produced before the closest government medical officer who examines and determines whether the driver is under influence. If the driver refuses examination by the medical officer he is considered to have been under influence by default.

text: Southeast Asia[edit]

text:
Brunei: Not applicable, alcohol is banned.
Cambodia: 0.01%[1]
Laos: 80 mg/100 ml of blood.[8][citation needed]
Indonesia: 0[1]
Malaysia: 0.08%, or 80 mg100 ml alcohol in blood.[9]
Philippines: 0.05%[10]
Singapore: 0.08% (80 mg/100 ml alcohol blood) or BrAC: 35 μg/100 ml alcohol in breath, strictly enforced.[citation needed]
Thailand: 0 for professional or commercial drivers, 0.05% for all other drivers.[1]
Vietnam: 50 mg/100 ml alcohol in blood motorbikes and 0 for cars or larger vehicles.[11]

text: Western Asia[edit]

text:
Turkey: 0.05%,[12] 0 for commercial transport and public service drivers.
Armenia: 0.04%[13]
Azerbaijan: 0[14]
Iran: Not applicable, alcohol is banned.
Israel: 0.024% 24 mg/100 ml alcohol in breath (penalties only apply above 26 mg/100 ml alcohol in breath due to lawsuits about sensitivity of devices used). New drivers, drivers under 24 years of age and commercial drivers 0.005% 5 mg/100 ml alcohol in breath.[15]
Jordan: 0.05.[1] Breathalyzer testing is not routinely used. If suspected by police the driver is produced before the closest government medical officer who examines and determines whether the driver is under influence.
Kuwait: Not applicable, alcohol is banned.
Lebanon: 0.02%, often unenforced.
Saudi Arabia: Not applicable, alcohol is banned.
Syria: often unenforced, unless heavily drunk and driving. License revoked for 1 to 3 month. 2000 Syrian pounds fine.
United Arab Emirates: 0[citation needed]

text: Africa[edit]

text:
Angola: 0.06%[16]
Algeria: 0.02%[1]
Benin: 0.05%[1]
Cape Verde: 0.08%[1]
Central African Republic: 0.08%[1]
Comoros: 0[1]
Congo: 0.01%[1]
Egypt: 0.05%[17]
Equatorial Guinea: 0.15%[1]
Eritrea: 0.03% for commercial or professional drivers, 0.05% for all other drivers.[1]
Ethiopia: 0.08[18]
The Gambia: No limit[1]
Ghana: 0.08%[1]
Guinea: 0.08%[1]
Guinea-Bissau: 0.15%[1]
Kenya: No limit[1]
Libya: 0[1]
Malawi: 0.08%[1]
Mauritius: 0.05%[1]
Morocco: 0.00%[1]
Namibia: 0.05%[1]
Niger: No limit[1]
Nigeria: 0.05%[19]
Seychelles: 0.08%[1]
South Africa: 0.05% and 0.02% for professional drivers (trucks over 3.5 tonnes, and vehicles carrying passengers for reward) National Road Traffic Act, 1996.
Togo: No limit[1]
Uganda: 0.08%[1]
Tanzania: 0 for professional or commercial drivers, 0.08% for all other drivers.[1]
Zambia: 0.08%[1]

text: North America[edit]

text: Canada[edit]

text: Canada: 0.05–0.08%

text: The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 made it a per se offence to drive with a BAC in excess of 80 mg/100 ml of blood. Refusal of a police officer's demand to provide a breath sample was made an offence at the same time and both began as summary conviction offences, with a mandatory minimum $50 fine.[20]

text: Mexico[edit]

text: Mexico: 0.04–0.10%.[21]

text: United States[edit]

text: United States: Depends on state, 0.08% or 0.05% BAC by volume

text: Some states now have two statutory offenses.[22] The first is the traditional offense, variously called driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), driving while intoxicated/impaired (DWI),[23] operating under the influence (OUI), or operating while intoxicated/impaired (OWI). The second and more recent is the so-called illegal per se offense of driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) by volume (mass of alcohol/volume of blood) of 0.08% (previously 0.10%) or higher. In most states, the timing of the chemical test is important because the law mandates a result within a given time period after the driving stopped, usually two hours. The first offense requires proof of intoxication, although evidence of BAC is admissible as rebuttably presumptive evidence of that intoxication; the second requires only proof of BAC at the time of being in physical control of a motor vehicle. An accused may be convicted of both offenses, but may only be punished for one.[24] The differences between state penalties still varies. Wisconsin, for instance, is the only state that continues to treat first offense drunk driving arrests as forfeiture.[25]

text: Some states also include a lesser charge of driving with a BAC of 0.05%; other states limit this offense to drivers under the age of 21. All states and DC also now have zero tolerance laws: the license of anyone under 21 driving with any detectable alcohol in their bloodstream (BAC limits of 0.01% or 0.02% apply in some states, such as Florida.) will be suspended. In 2009, Puerto Rico joined these states, setting a limit of 0.02 for drivers under 21, despite maintaining a legal drinking age of 18.[26]

text: The blood alcohol limit for commercial drivers is 0.04%.[27] Pilots of aircraft may not fly within eight hours of consuming alcohol, while under the impairing influence of alcohol or any other drug, or while showing a blood alcohol concentration equal to or greater than 0.04 grams per decilitre of blood.[28]

text: Utah became the first U.S. state to lower the legal limit to .05% BAC by volume on March 24, 2017. The law takes effect on December 30, 2018.[29] The bill’s passage, HB155, was controversial in the state. A poll published on July 29, 2017 found 50 percent of Utahns supported the new law, but 47 percent opposed it.

text: Caribbean[edit]

text:
Bahamas: 0.06%[30]
Cuba: 0 for young or inexperienced drivers and professional or commercial drivers, 0.05% for all other drivers.[1]
Dominican Republic: 0.03%[1]
Jamaica: The law states that the legal alcohol limit is 35 μg/100 ml alcohol in breath or a blood alcohol level of 80 mg/100 ml alcohol in blood.[31]
Trinidad and Tobago: 35 μg/100 mL BrAC, 80 mg/ml BAC[32][33]

text: Central America[edit]

text:
Belize: 0.08%[1]
Costa Rica: 0.02%[1] for public transport, commercial drivers and new drivers, or 0.05% for all others results in a fine of CRC 280,000 (US$489.61 as of 27 July 2017). A BAC in excess of 0.05% for public transport, commercial drivers and new drivers or 0.075% for all others additionally results in a 1 to 3 year prison sentence, vehicle impoundment and 2 year licence suspension.[34]
El Salvador: 0.05%[1]
Guatemala: 0.08%[1]
Honduras: 0.07%[1]
Nicaragua: 0.05%[35]
Panama: 0.08%[1]

text: South America[edit]

text:
Argentina: 0% for public transport and commercial vehicles, 0.02% for motorcycles, and 0.05% for all others.[36]
Bolivia: 0.05% for professional drivers only.[37]
Brazil: Since 2008 Brazil practices a zero tolerance. If a driver is found to be driving with any BAC (up to .06%), the driver is to have their license suspended for 12 months, pay a fine of BRL 2,934.70 (doubled if recurrence) and will have the car seized. Anything above 0.06% is considered a criminal offense. [38][39]
Chile: From 15 March 2012, 0.03–0.08% the driver is considered to be driving under the influence and carries a three-month suspension and a fine of US$82–410 (as of 19 March 2012[update]); over 0.08% the driver is considered to be drunk and carries a prison term of 61 to 301 days, a fine of US$164–820 (as of 19 March 2012[update]) and a two-year suspension for the first offense, a five-year suspension for a second offense, and a life suspension for a third offense.[40]
Colombia: Colombia is known to have the toughest penalties against those driving under the influence in all of Latin America and practice a zero tolerance policy on DUIs. If a driver is found to be driving with 20–39 mg/100 ml ethanol in blood (equivalent to 0.02–0.039% BAC), the driver is to have their license suspended for a year, pay a fine of US$914 (as of 22 December 2013[update]), and serve twenty hours of community service. In the most extreme cases, if a driver is found to be driving with grade three alcohol (150 mg/100 ml ethanol in blood), the driver is to have their licence confiscated for ten years, pay a fine of US$7,314 (as of 22 December 2013[update]), and serve fifty hours of community service. If the driver gets in an accident and causes injuries and or deaths, the driver is to face between 2.5 and eighteen years of prison sentence.[41]
Ecuador: 0.01% for commercial or professional drivers; 0.03% for all other drivers.[1]
Guyana: 0.08%[1]
Paraguay: 0 [42]
Peru: Drivers below a 0.05% BAC will be given a warning. At a 0.05% and over, the driver will be given a fine and a license suspension of no less than six months and no more than two years. If the driver is involved in an accident without causing death or severe injury to another individual, he or she may possibly face jail time. If the driver's causes an accident with a BAC over 0.101%, involving death or severe injury to another party, he or she will receive a mandatory prison sentence of three to five years. The driver's license will also be permanently revoked.[citation needed]
Suriname: 0.05%[1]
Uruguay: 0 tolerance for every driver, professional or not (since January 2016)[1] The driver will have to pay a fine of US$464 (as of 29 April 2015[update]) and will have their licence suspended. Depending on the concentration of alcohol in blood and the times the driver was found guilty, the suspension goes from a minimum of six months to a maximum of two years.[43] If the driver causes an accident involving death, he or she will be charged with negligent homicide and will face a minimum of six months in prison.
Venezuela: 0.08%[1]

text: Europe[edit]

text: Note: Take zero to usually mean below detection limit.

text:
Albania: 0.01%[12]
Austria: 0.05%.[1] 0.01% for drivers who have held a licence for less than two years and drivers of vehicles over 7.5 tonnes[citation needed]
Belarus: 0.03%
Belgium: 0.05%[12] Fines and driving bans increase as the alcohol concentration in the blood increases.[44]
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 0.03% for all drivers except for drivers of C, CE, D and DE categories, public service drivers, professional drivers, driving instructors, and drivers younger than 21 years or without 3 years of experience, where limit is zero. [45]
Bulgaria: 0.05%[1]
Czech Republic: Zero[12]
Croatia: 0.05%. Zero for drivers aged 16 to 24 and professional drivers on duty.[46][47]
Cyprus: 0.05%[1]
Denmark: 0.05%, imprisonment if over 0.20%, zero if not driving safely. Fine: one month's pay after taxes × BAC × 10.[48]
Estonia: 0.019%[49]
Finland: 0.05%,[12] 0.12% (aggravated). The penalty is a fine or jail up to six months plus license suspension from one month to five years. For aggravated, also a prison sentence (sixty days to two years) is possible,[50] usually as a suspended sentence. Routine breath testing without a probable cause is permitted and often practiced. Penalties vary by level of intoxication.
France: 0.05% or 0.02% for new drivers (under three years of driving license) and bus drivers (€135 fine and six demerit points on the driver's license, which can be suspended for three years maximum),[12] 0.08% (aggravated, criminal offense, license suspension for three years, €4,500 fine, and up to two years imprisonment)
Georgia: 0.02%[1]
Germany: Zero for beginners (less than two years' experience or under the age of 21), professional drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers, and drivers transporting passengers commercially; 0.03% in conjunction with any other traffic offense or accident; 0.05% otherwise. For cyclists, the limit is set at 0.16%, where not in conjunction with any other traffic offense or accident. From 0.16%, cyclists face the same penalties as driving a car at that limit.[51]

Penalties start at a €500 fine and one-month license suspension. From 0.11%, the penalty is a €500 fine and the withdrawal of the driver's licence for at least six months, but usually about one year (penalty is set by the court); from 0.16%, reissue of the licence requires a successful Medical Psychological Assessment (MPU).[52] From 0.11% within ten years of an offence from 0.05%, there is a minimum €7003100000000000000♠1000 fine and a one-year licence withdrawal; the driver has to successfully pass an MPU and is required to prove to the court that they have been sober for the last twelve months, before they can get their licence back. For repeat offenses, the fine is multiplied by the ordinal of the offence (doubled, tripled, etc.), regardless of the amount by which the driver was over the limit. These minimum penalties are usually exceeded by the German courts. From 0.11%, the courts usually also require the DUI offender to do unpaid community service.
Gibraltar: 0.05%[53]
Greece: 0.05% (BrAC 0.25 mg/L),[12] reduced to 0.02% (BrAC 0.10 mg/L) for unlicensed or new drivers who have held a license for less than two years, motor cycle and professional drivers. Above 0.11% (BrAC 0.60 mg/L) it's considered a flagrant misdemeanor punishable with up to two years of imprisonment and a hefty fine in the court plus the revoking of the drivers licence for six months. Routine breath testing without a probable cause is permitted and practiced by the traffic police, especially on weekends and major holidays.
Hungary: Zero[1]
Iceland: 0.04%[12]
Ireland: 0.05% generally or 0.02% for learner drivers, newly qualified drivers (those who have their license for less than two years) and professional drivers, and those who do not have their driving license on them when stopped by the Gardaí (police).[54] Police do not need a reason to request a breath sample. Being convicted of drunk driving usually carries a two-year ban as well as a €1,500 fine.[55]
Italy: From 0.05% to 0.08% (€500-2,000 fine, three to six months license suspension), from 0.08% to 0.15% (aggravated, €800-3,200 fine, six to twelve months license suspension, up to six months imprisonment), over 0.15% (aggravated, €1,500-6,000 fine, one to two years license suspension, six to twelve months imprisonment, vehicle seizure and confiscation), zero for drivers with less than three years experience and professional drivers (bus, trucks, etc.). License is always revoked in case of: professional drivers, second offence committed within two years or in case of an accident. If the driver refuses examination he is considered to have been under influence by default applying the over 0.15% rules.[56] Limit is zero for newly qualified drivers (those who have their license for less than three years). Routine breath testing without a probable cause is permitted and practiced by various law enforcement agencies.
Latvia: 0.02% for drivers with less than two years of experience and 0.05% for those with more than two years of experience
Liechtenstein: 0.08%[citation needed]
Lithuania: 0.00% for taxi, truck, autobus, motorcycle drivers. 0.02% for drivers with less than two years of experience and 0.04% for those with more than two years of experience[12]
Luxembourg: 0.02% for professional drivers and drivers with less than two years of experience and 0.05% for the rest (€145 fine and two demerit points on the driving licence if caught). 0.08% earns you a citation, 0.12% means loss of license (since October 1, 2007)[57]
Macedonia: Zero for professional drivers, public service drivers, commercial transport and beginner drivers, 0.05% for all others[58]
Moldova: 0.03%[12]
Malta: 0.08%[12]
Netherlands: 0.05%,[12] 0.02% for drivers with less than five years' experience (or less than seven years' experience when the driver got his license before reaching the age of eighteen)
Norway: 0.02%.[12] Punishment depends on the alcohol level. 0.02% (fine, but one may also risk a suspended licence if any aggravated circumstances are present.), 0.05% (fine, suspended sentence and suspended license), 0.10% (fine, suspended or mandatory sentence and suspended license), 0.15% (fine, mandatory sentence and suspended license). The guidelines state that the fine for an alcohol level of more than 0.05% should be around 1.5 months base salary and usually not lower than 10,000 NOK. For 0.02 to 0.05% the fine is lower. Prison sentences are usually around three weeks to three months with a maximum of one year. The suspension period varies from less than a year to forever, when license is suspended forever, one may apply to get it back after five years.[59]
Poland: 0.02% (driving license banned from six months up to three years, jail up to one month), 0.05% (driving license banned from minimum three years, prison up to three years).[12] Limits and penalties for riding the bicycles were same as for motorized vehicles to December 2013. Almost half of people imprisoned for drunk driving were riding bicycles.[60]
Portugal: 0.05%. 0.02% for drivers with less than three years of experience[12]
Romania: 0.2%. Above 0.5 g/L imprisonment of one to five years. Between 0.2 and 0.5 g/L civil fine with possible suspended licence.[citation needed][61]
Russian Federation: 0.0356% since 1 September 2013,[62][63] previously zero since 2010[64][65]
Serbia: 0.03% for all, zero for motorcycle drivers, professional drivers, public service drivers, commercial transport and beginning drivers.[66] The official government plan is to make it zero for everyone in 2015.
Slovakia: Zero[12]
Slovenia: Zero for drivers with three years or less experience and professional drivers, 0.24 mg/l (0.05%) for all others.[citation needed]
Spain: 0.05% BAC (0.25 mg/l BrAC)[67] and 0.03% BAC (0.15 mg/l BrAC) for drivers with less than two years experience and drivers of freight vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, and of passenger vehicles with more than nine seats. Surpassing the limit is a serious offence, fined with €500.[68] Driving with an alcohol rate over 0.12% is a crime (up to six months imprisonment and license suspension up to one years).[69]
Sweden: 0.02% (up to six months imprisonment), 0.10% (imprisonment, maximum two years).[70] Annually about 2.5 million random tests are performed for alcohol and about twelve thousand tests on suspicion of drugs.[71]
Switzerland: Zero for drivers with less than three years experience, 0.05%[12] for all others.
United Kingdom

Scotland: 50 mg/100 ml alcohol in blood or 22 μg/100 ml alcohol in breath (legislation became effective from 5 December 2014)[72]
England and Wales: 80 mg/100 ml alcohol in blood, 35 μg/100 ml alcohol in breath or 107 mg/100 ml alcohol in urine.[73]
Northern Ireland: 80 mg/100 ml alcohol in blood. As of November 2014[update] results of a public consultation regarding reduction of this limit were being considered,[74] with a reduction to fifty being thought likely[75]

Ukraine: 0.02%[76]

text: Britain[edit]

text: In British law it is a criminal offence to be drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. The definition depends on such things as being in or near the vehicle, and having access to a means of starting the vehicle's engine and driving it away (i.e., the keys to a vehicle). A passenger in the vehicle can also be prosecuted if the police can prove that they were driving under the influence at some point.[77]

text: The UK's drug driving laws were updated in 2015. The changes included: a new roadside testing kit, which could detect the presence of cocaine and cannabis in a suspect's saliva; zero tolerance limits for a number of illegal drugs, Limits were also set for certain prescription medications. The laws, however, did not end the use of the field impairment test, but made them more relevant for determining driver impairment by those drugs that are not now covered by the new legislation, or cannot be identified by the limited use of a device, that currently are only authorised for cannabis and cocaine.[78]

text: Further rules in the United Kingdom (UK)[edit]

text: In the UK, driving or attempting to drive whilst above the legal limit or unfit through drink carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment, a fine of up to £5,000 and a minimum twelve months' disqualification. For a second offence committed within ten years of conviction, the minimum ban is three years. Being in charge of a vehicle whilst over the legal limit or unfit through drink could result in three months' imprisonment plus a fine of up to £2,500 and a driving ban. Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of alcohol or other drugs carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years in prison, a minimum two-year driving ban and a requirement to pass an extended driving test before the offender is able to drive legally again.

text: It is an offence to refuse to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine for analysis. The penalties for refusing are the same as those for actual drunk driving.

text: The offence of driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is one to which there is no defence, as such (although defences such as duress or automatism, which are not specific to the offence of driving with excess alcohol, may apply in certain rare circumstances). However, it may be possible to argue that special reasons exist which are such that you should not be disqualified from driving despite having committed the offence. Special reasons are notoriously difficult to establish and the burden of proof is always upon the accused to establish them. Such reasons may include:

text:
shortness of distance driven
unintentional commission of the offence (i.e., laced drinks)
emergencies

text: Magistrates' sentencing guidelines[edit]

text: In England and Wales, when DWI offenders appear before a magistrates' court, the magistrates have guidelines they refer to before they decide on a suitable sentence to give the offender. These guidelines are issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council[79] and cover offences for which sentence is frequently imposed in a magistrates' court when dealing with adult offenders.

text: Offences can either be tried summarily which means they can only be heard in the magistrates' court or they can be either way offences which means magistrates may find their sentencing powers are insufficient and indict the case to crown court. The majority of drunk driving offences are summary only offences which can only be tried in a magistrates' court. Only the most serious offences such as a collision, death or injury involved are indicted to crown court. The maximum sentence magistrates can usually impose is a £5,000 fine, a six-month prison sentence or both.

text: As with England and Wales, road traffic law in Scotland is in the main framed within the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended. Prosecution and disposal of drink-drive offences is broadly similar to England and Wales with less serious cases prosecuted on complaint through the sheriff summary courts. Cases involving aggravations, life-changing or fatal injuries are prosecuted on indictment via the sheriff solemn or high court. As with most UK-wide legislation, the penalties and sentencing guidelines for drunk driving in Scotland mirror those in effect in England and Wales.

text: Oceania[edit]

text: Australia[edit]

text: Road laws are state or territory based, but all states and territories have set similar rules.

text: Australian law allow police officers to stop any driver and perform a random breath test without reason. Roadblocks can be set up (for example, leading out of town centres on Friday and Saturday nights and after football matches or other major events), where every single driver will be breath-tested.

text: This differs from UK and US laws where police generally need a reason to suspect that the driver is intoxicated before requesting a breath or sobriety test. It is an offence to refuse to provide a sample of breath when requested with severe penalties including prison.[80]

text: Australian Capital Territory[edit]

text:
0 for drivers or riders holding a learner, provisional, restricted or probationary license and for drivers operating heavy vehicles over 15t GVM or driving a public vehicle for hire or reward (for example taxi and bus drivers).[81]
0.05% for all other drivers.

text: New South Wales[edit]

text:
Zero for Learner and Provisional licences.[82]
0.02% for drivers of vehicles of "gross vehicle mass" greater than 13.9 tonnes, vehicles carrying dangerous goods or public vehicles such as a taxi or bus.
0.05% for all other drivers
0 limit for methamphetamine, Cannabis and MDMA.

text: Northern Territory[edit]

text:
0 for provisional (probationary) licence holders and all motorcyclists.
0.05% for all other drivers.

text: Queensland[edit]

text:
A 0 limit applies to the drivers of trucks, buses, articulated vehicles, vehicles carrying dangerous goods, pilot vehicles, taxis, all learner drivers and provisional drivers and RE class licensed motorcyclists in their first twelve months.[83]
0.05% for other drivers.[84]
0 limit for methamphetamine, Cannabis and MDMA.[84]

text: South Australia[edit]

text:
0 limit for learner, provisional, probationary, heavy (greater than fifteen tonnes) vehicle, taxis, licensed chauffeured vehicles, dangerous goods, and bus licenses.
0.05% for all other drivers.
0 limit for methamphetamine, Cannabis and MDMA.

text: Tasmania[edit]

text:
0 limit for learner, provisional, truck, bus, and taxi licences.
0.05% for all other drivers.
0 limit for methamphetamine, Cannabis and MDMA.

text: Victoria[edit]

text:
0 limit applies for unlicensed drivers, holders of learner permits and probationary licences, "professional" drivers, and certain relicensed drunk-drivers.
0.05% for all other drivers.
0 limit for methamphetamine, Cannabis and MDMA.

text: There are also other restrictions for drivers in Victoria:

text:
Limits apply within three hours of driving - that is, police can require a person to submit to an alcohol or drugs test within three hours of driving and it is an offense to fail that test, unless the drug or alcohol use occurred after driving (see Road Safety Act 1986, ss. 49, 53 and 55E).
Licenses canceled for certain serious drunk-driving offenses may only be reissued after obtaining a court order. This is the case for repeat offenders, and first offenders above 0.15% . In such cases, the relicensed driver is subject to a 0 limit for three years following relicensing, or for as long as the person is required to use an alcohol interlock.
Alcohol interlocks must be imposed whenever a repeat drunk-driver is relicensed.
A court also has discretion to impose an alcohol interlock when relicensing a first offender in certain serious cases, generally when the offense involves a BAC of 0.15% or higher.
The law requires interlocks to be used for certain minimum periods, but the requirement to use an interlock does not automatically end at the completion of the minimum period. Once that period has expired, an individual may apply to a court to have the interlock condition removed from their driver's licence. The State Police must be given notice of the application and may make submissions to the court on whether the interlock condition should be removed. The court will also take into account data recorded by the interlock itself (e.g., whether any attempts were made to start the vehicle by a person who had been drinking).
Driving without an interlock when one is required carries severe penalties, including imprisonment.
If a doctor sees any patient who is aged fifteen years or over as a result of a motor vehicle accident, the patient must allow the doctor to take a blood sample for testing for alcohol and drug content in a way that preserves the chain of evidence. If this process is skipped the doctor may not be able to discover the alcohol blood level. The results can be used as evidence in subsequent court proceedings.
The law allows a police officer to require any driver (or any person who has driven a vehicle within the last three hours) to perform a random saliva test for methamphetamine, Cannabis or MDMA, all of which are subject to a zero limit (see Road Safety Act 1986: ss. 49, 55E & 55D)

text: Western Australia[edit]

text:
0 for learner and probationary licence holders and persons convicted of driving under the influence or failing to comply with a request for breath, blood or urine (for three years after the offense).
0.05% for all other drivers.

text: Readings over 0.08% but under 0.15% BAC, and 0.15% BAC and above (legally defined as Drunk Driving) comprise separate offenses, the latter attracting heavier penalties. Persistent offenders may be barred from driving for terms up to and including life, and may also be imprisoned.

text: The law allows a police officer to require any driver to perform a random saliva test for methamphetamine, Cannabis or MDMA, all of which are subject to a zero limit.

text: New Zealand[edit]

text: New Zealand operates a program called Compulsory Breath Testing, which allows police to stop motorists at any time. CBT is usually carried out at roadside checkpoints but mobile patrol cars can also randomly stop motorists to administer a test. The police also carry out roadside drug tests upon motorists they suspect have used drugs.[85]

text: The system in New Zealand is age-based.[86] the limits are:

text:
0 limit for persons under twenty years.
0.05% BAC or 250μg/L breath for persons twenty years and over.

text: The penalties for exceeding the limits are:

text:
Persons under twenty years, up to 0.03% BAC, 150 μg/L breath: instant NZ$200 fine and fifty demerit points.
Persons under twenty years, 0.03–0.08% BAC, 150–400 μg/L breath: up to three months imprisonment, up to NZ$2,250 fine or both; loss of licence for three months or more.
Persons twenty years and over, 0.05–0.08% BAC, 250–400 μg/L breath: instant NZ$200 fine and fifty demerit points. twelve hour prohibition from driving immediately after[87]
All persons over 0.08% BAC, 400 μg/L breath (first and second offenses): up to three months imprisonment, up to NZ$4,500 fine or both; loss of licence for six months or more.
All persons over 0.08% BAC, 400 μg/L breath (third and subsequent offenses): twe years imprisonment; NZ$6,000 fine; loss of licence for one year or more.

text: Note that penalties apply to the lowest reading taken across both breath and blood tests. For example, if a driver twenty years or over has a breath test result of 426 μg/L but a subsequent blood test returns 0.077% BAC, then the driver is not charged with any drink driving offence despite the breath reading being over the breath alcohol limit. The penalty for injuring or killing someone when under the influences is the same as dangerous driving (up to five years imprisonment, up to NZ$20,000 or both; loss of licence for one year or more).

text: Other countries in Oceania[edit]

text:
French Polynesia: 0.05%[citation needed]
Micronesia: 0.05%[1]
Palau: 0 for new or inexperienced drivers and commercial or professional drivers, 0.10% for all other drivers.[1]


document_title: Apollo Creed

question_text: who won the first fight between rocky and apollo creed

root

text: Apollo Creed

text: Role in the series[edit]

text: Rocky[edit]

text: Apollo Creed first appeared in the 1976 Oscar-winning film Rocky as the charismatic, intelligent, and undefeated 33-year-old World Heavyweight Champion. A planned Bicentennial fight against number-one contender Mac Lee Green was scheduled for January 1, 1976, which Creed gladly hypes whenever someone places a microphone in front of him. However, Green hurts his left hand in training, and when none of the other top-ranked contenders, such as Joe Czak and Buddy Shaw, step up to face the champion, Creed responds with a promotion that will generate huge publicity. He will offer an unknown local fighter an opportunity to battle for the title in a match in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[7]

tag: p

text: Upon reviewing the local boxers in Philadelphia, Creed is drawn to a club fighter named Rocky Balboa because Balboa is Italian and has a catchy nickname, "The Italian Stallion". Creed also explains his choice by saying: "Who discovered America? An Italian, right? What better way to celebrate its 200th birthday than to get it on with one of his descendants?" Creed brushes off the idea of the left-handed Balboa giving him a fight, pledging to knock him out in three rounds.[8] In spite of his trainer's concern when he sees Balboa in a television interview, training by punching sides of beef in a meat-packing plant, Creed puts more effort into giving everyone a good show rather than training for the bout. When the match takes place, Creed dresses up like both George Washington and Uncle Sam in the pre-fight festivities (with his matching trademark "stars and stripes" boxing shorts) and is in a jovial mood until Balboa knocks him down in the first round with a single uppercut, the first time Creed has been knocked down in his career.[9] He then endures a gruelling 15-round fight with Balboa, who gets to his feet after Creed takes him down with an uppercut in the 14th round in what appears to be the end of the match. This was the first time anyone had ever taken the champion the full 15 rounds.

text: Both fighters are beaten, bloodied, and bruised by the end of the bout—Balboa with severe eye damage and Creed with internal bleeding. Creed gains a controversial split decision victory, and neither fighter wants a rematch, at least at that moment.

text: Rocky II [edit]

text: In the second film, Creed immediately demands a rematch in the hospital ER after the fight. In fact, he challenges Rocky to finish the fight right there. Creed's desire for a rematch with Balboa intensifies when it becomes clear that the prevailing public opinion is that Creed had been paid to intentionally carry Rocky for the 15-round distance instead of knocking him out early in the fight. Eager to change minds and ignoring the pleas of his staff, Creed challenges Balboa to a second fight on Thanksgiving Day, 1976. He uses various humiliation tactics to coax Balboa out of retirement. Rocky had married his girlfriend Adrian after getting out of the hospital from the first fight. Creed insists at the press conference that he would "drop him like a bad habit" and tells Rocky when he leaves, "Come November, you're mine!" In a press interview during training, he also insists that Rocky "cannot last five minutes in the ring with a superior athlete like me!" Creed plows through sparring partners and trains harder than ever before, with the intention of punishing Balboa for the embarrassment eleven months earlier. Mickey trains Rocky to become faster by chasing and catching a chicken.

text: Unlike their first fight, Creed dominates Balboa throughout the second fight, thwarting Rocky's strategy of fighting right-handed. Despite this, he is unable to make good on his promise of an early knockout victory, as Rocky absorbs his punches. By the final round, Creed is well ahead on points; however, he also endures a substantial beating in later rounds, when it becomes apparent he cannot knock Balboa out, and Balboa begins landing his own punches on the tiring Creed. Not wanting a repeat of the first fight (and ignoring the pleas of his trainers), he vows to knock Balboa out rather than taking the safer route by winning on points. At the beginning of the 15th round, he tells Rocky, "You're going down", to which Rocky replies, "No way". After going toe-to-toe for much of the final round, Creed is knocked down by a left from Balboa, with Balboa falling down in exhaustion as well. Rocky gets up by the count of 9, but Creed is unable to pull himself up and is counted out, losing the match and the championship by knockout, his first professional loss.[10]

text: Apollo retires from boxing soon after. Even though he has lost, he gains his respect from the crowd back since it feels that he fought and lost in a fair fight. The fight also results in Creed finally acknowledging Balboa's ability as a fighter, rather than seeing him as a fluke.

text: Rocky III[edit]

text: In the third film, a 39-year-old Apollo Creed appears at the first fight between James "Clubber" Lang, 23, and Rocky Balboa, 34, as a guest moderator. This is a match at which Lang defeats Rocky by KO in the second round. Before the match, the former champion Creed steps into the ring to greet the fighters. When he steps up to Lang, the latter slaps away Creed's hand and mockingly insists that he "don't want no has-been in my corner". He further says, "You want to jump, Creed? Jump." When Creed walks away, stunned at this rude display from the belligerent challenger, Lang laughs at him and calls him a "chicken." This prompts Creed to tell Balboa to "give everybody a present and drop this chump." Following the match, in which Lang wins by a brutal second-round knockout, Balboa's beloved manager Mickey dies in the locker room. Determined in part to put the disrespectful brute in his place, Creed finds an apprehensive and bereaved Balboa at Mickey's gym. Despite hesitating at first, Balboa agrees to let Creed train him for a rematch against Lang, who laughs off the prospect of "one has been teaching another" during a television interview. The pair subsequently travels to the "Tough Gym" in Los Angeles, California, where Creed used to train, in preparation for a rematch with Lang. Creed encourages Rocky not to ignore the naysayers that say he is too old but instead refocus himself. During this talk, he states, "Now when we fought…you had that eye of the tiger".[11] This quote is referred to throughout the movie, including the film's theme song, "Eye of the Tiger" by Survivor. Creed mentions that Rocky will owe him "a big favor" once he wins, which he does not specify at first. Rocky's training is geared toward making him quicker and more agile to counter the larger, stronger brawler. Creed teaches Rocky his (Creed's) own fighting style.[12] Rocky has trouble concentrating during his training, suffering from guilt over Mickey's demise and self-doubt. Adrian helps Rocky recognize this as a simple fear of losing again and convinces him that he can't let fear control his life and that he has to fight again, not to prove a point but to live without fear. Rocky agrees and begins to put his fear aside. Creed helps Rocky rediscover the fire inside, which he had lost in the time leading up to the Lang fight, that had won him the title. Creed calls this fire the "eye of the tiger".

text: Before the match begins, Creed expresses his confidence that Rocky will win. He gives Rocky his signature "colors" (Creed's stars and stripes boxing trunks) to wear during the fight (and tells him to wash them afterwards). Re-energized with Creed shadow-boxing in his corner, Rocky regains his title with a three-round knockout of Lang. After his victory, Creed reveals his favor—a third fight with Rocky (not as a bloody fight between bitter rivals, but as a sparring match between friends). Rocky happily accepts the challenge. The film ends showing each boxer hitting the other at the same time, symbolizing the equality of their greatness. The result was not revealed until the 2015 film Creed, in which Rocky tells Apollo's son that Apollo won this fight.

text: Rocky IV[edit]

text: In 1985, Apollo (43 years old), comes out of a five-year retirement to fight mammoth Soviet Olympic boxer Ivan Drago, who has come to the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union to enter the world of professional boxing.[2] Not wanting the Soviets to appear superior to American fighters, the patriotic Apollo challenges Drago to an exhibition match and calls out Drago at the press conference that sets up their exhibition bout at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada on August 31, 1985.

text: Highlighted by a pre-match rendition of "Living in America" by James Brown, Apollo enters the arena from a descending scaffold overhead, dancing to the music in his old red, white, and blue Uncle Sam outfit. With Rocky, Duke, and Paulie in his corner, Apollo is overly confident that he can dispense of Drago with ease. However, Apollo is not ready for the extreme size and strength of the Russian. After taunting the Russian and landing a number of ineffectual punches, Creed is pummeled badly in the first round. Rocky wants to stop the fight but Apollo refuses. Apollo adamantly tells Rocky not to stop the fight "no matter what...no matter what!"

text: By the start of the second round, Drago pummels Creed with ease. Rocky again tries to stop the fight by throwing in the towel. Apollo tells Rocky not to stop the fight, giving Drago a chance to deliver a fatal blow (as Rocky drops the towel causing the fight to stop) to Apollo, who dies in Rocky's arms in the middle of the ring. Drago wins by technical knockout.

text: An enraged Rocky then sets out to avenge Apollo's death by beating Drago in the Soviet Union, with the Soviet premier and the Politburo looking on. He succeeds as the film ends with Rocky winning the fight by knockout in the last round.

text: Rocky V[edit]

text: With his character's death, Carl Weathers departed the franchise after Rocky IV. In Rocky V, the fifth installment of the series, after Rocky Balboa defeated Ivan Drago, Apollo's trainer Duke congratulated Rocky by showing that he made everyone proud, especially for Apollo by holding up his red, white, and blue trunks. Apollo was thereafter only mentioned briefly in past tenses, including a flashback scene between Mickey and Rocky before Balboa's first fight with Creed where Mickey states, "Apollo won't know what hit him." Rocky's pupil Tommy Gunn also claimed to have been a fan of Rocky since his first fight with Apollo. Tommy was eventually allowed to wear Creed's trunks. There was a poster of Apollo and Rocky during the events of Rocky II in Rocky Jr's bedroom before the Balboas went bankrupt. During Tommy's fight with Union Cane, Rocky commented that it was like his own first fight with Apollo. Later, during Rocky's street fight with Tommy, he began to hallucinate and saw images of Apollo's death at the hands of Drago, believing that he was about to suffer the same fate. However, a vision of Mickey telling him to get up gave Rocky the strength to win the street fight.

text: Rocky Balboa[edit]

text: In the sixth installment of the Rocky franchise, Rocky is seen paying tribute to Apollo by telling customers at his restaurant stories about his friendship and fights with him. In a deleted scene when Rocky wakes up, Rocky sees Paulie sleeping and Rocky sees a photo of his first fight with Apollo but his face is censored and Rocky's face is covered by a scrap of paper with Paulie's head. During the commentary before the Rocky vs Mason Dixon fight, a montage of Rocky's opponents is shown which excludes his two fights against Apollo.

text: Creed[edit]

text: In the seventh installment, it has been revealed that Creed had an affair sometime before his death, and from that, Adonis Johnson Creed was born. After his biological mother's death in the late '90s, Apollo's widow, Mary Anne (Phylicia Rashad), adopts him. At a young age, not only does he possess the boxing skills of his father, but also his fiery temper. Years later, presumed to be a well-educated young man, Adonis (Michael B. Jordan) leaves his job to pursue a full-time career in boxing. He first seeks tutelage from Duke's son, "Lil' Duke" (Wood Harris), who runs the Delphi Boxing Academy. Duke refuses to work with Adonis to ensure his safety. Adonis, to his mother's dismay, moves to Philadelphia to seek out Rocky. While meeting up at Adrian's, Rocky is surprised when Adonis mentions a third fight between him and Apollo that happened behind closed doors, presenting himself to be Apollo's son. Rocky compliments his father's boxing ability and reveals that Apollo won their third match.

text: When the word got out that Adonis is Apollo's illegitimate son, the media heavily publicized the story of his infidelity, which catches the eye of the trainer for the reigning light-heavyweight champion, "Pretty" Ricky Conlan (Tony Bellew). Both parties would want the fight to happen, however, on the condition that Adonis would assume his actual name instead of his mother's last name, Johnson, to which he agrees, similar to Apollo's desire to select Rocky due to his nickname: "The Italian Stallion". Leading up to the fight, Rocky has been diagnosed with cancer, which greatly impacts Adonis' behavior, including being incarcerated for the night after a brawl at a club. While Rocky visits him in prison, Adonis angrily blames him for his father's death, while Rocky tries to calm him down and understand Apollo, who isn't there to defend himself. After getting his mind straight, Adonis makes a pact with Rocky that they would both fight their respective battles together.

text: In Liverpool, Adonis receives a gift from Mary Anne; boxing trunks that heavily resembles his father's trunks, who he passed to Rocky, who he passed to Tommy "The Machine" Gunn. The fight presents many parallels to Rocky and Apollo's original fight, with Adonis assuming his trainer's role. Conlan presents an unrelenting attack on Adonis, in which he knocks him down. After a less than stellar introductory round, Adonis finally manages a right hook strong enough to cut Conlan by surprise. In the eleventh round, after an intense flurry, Conlan manages a strong shot that seemingly knocked Adonis unconscious, however Adonis sees visions of his relationship with his girlfriend and Rocky's ailing composure, but finally wakes up after seeing a vision of his father in his prime, which baffles Conlan and the audience.

text: Before the final round, Rocky is adamant on stopping the fight to save Adonis from the long term effects of his injuries, a decision he contemplated 30 years after Apollo's death. However, Adonis wants to continue to fight to prove that he is not "a mistake". After the revelation, Rocky tells Adonis that, though he's never had the chance to thank Apollo for stepping in when Mickey died, it does not match what he's done for him and that he loves him. In the closing seconds of the fight, Adonis finally unleashes a style that is comparable to his father's and Rocky's, and manages to knock down Conlan for the first time in his career. A split decision determines Conlan the winner of the fight, and gives Adonis the ultimate respect, telling him that he's "the future of this division". During the post-fight interview, HBO Boxing analyst Max Kellerman asks Adonis what he would like to say to his father, to which Adonis tearfully says that he loves him and he knows he didn't leave him on purpose, in which he concludes the interview saying he's "proud to be a Creed".

text: Fighting style[edit]

text: In the film series, Creed is known as one of the world's best fighters, possessing a combination of great speed and strength. His powerful jab and emphasis on agility complement his flashy personality and outfit.[2] In terms of weaknesses, his only major drawback appears to be his deep sense of pride and strong self-confidence, which allows Rocky to get an edge over him in the ring by surprising Creed.[7]

text: Like Ali, Apollo was an outside fighter, relying on his speed and power to get through fights. His jab-cross-hook combination were his mainstay, and, also like Ali, Creed's defense was heavily contingent upon his speed. Apollo used Ali's "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" philosophy, being able to slip and evade blows and frustrate his opponents. A notable difference was that though Creed had Ali's unorthodox hand positioning, he ducked, bobbed and weaved in the classic style, as opposed to Ali who preferred to move backwards, in contradiction to boxing's basic tenets, but with success. Perhaps the reason for this was that only Ali could be that unorthodox and look convincing; where most boxing instructors would tell their pupils that a punch cannot be landed when the puncher is retreating backwards, Ali did that too with regularity. Also unlike Ali, Apollo was not very political and had very little to say on social issues. In Rocky I, a reporter asked him if it mattered to him that he was fighting a white man on the most celebrated day in the U.S.'s history, to which Apollo replied, "About as much as it matters to him that he's fighting a black man on the most celebrated day in our country's history."

text: Like Ali, Creed was susceptible to taking a lot of damage during fights because of the level at which he held his hands, a fact which ultimately proved to be his undoing.

text: Film in the United States portal

tag: ul


document_title: Poor relief

question_text: which act or law defined the three classes of the poor

text: Poor relief

text: Tudor era[edit]

text: In the late 15th century, parliament took action on the growing[citation needed] problem of poverty, focusing on punishing people for being "vagabonds" and for begging. In 1495, during the reign of King Henry VII, Parliament enacted the Vagabond Act. This provided for officers of the law to arrest and hold "all such vagabonds, idle and suspect persons living suspiciously and them so taken to set in stocks, there to remain three nights and to have none other sustenance but bread and water; and after the said three days and three nights, to be had out and set at large and to be commanded to avoid the town."[1] As historian Mark Rathbone has discussed in his article "Vagabond!", this Act of Parliament relied on a very loose definition of a vagabond and did not make any distinction between those who were simply unemployed and looking for employment and those who chose to live the life of a vagabond. In addition, the Act failed to recognise the impotent poor, those who could not provide for themselves. These included the sick, the elderly, and the disabled. This lack of a precise definition of a vagabond would hinder the effectiveness of the Vagabond Act for years to come.

text: Dissolution of the Monasteries[edit]

text: The problem of poverty in England was exacerbated during the early 16th century by a dramatic increase in the population. This rose "…from little more than 2 million in 1485,…(to) about 2.8 million by the end of Henry VII's reign (1509)". The population was growing faster than the economy's ability to provide employment opportunities.[1] The problem was made worse because during the English Reformation, Henry VIII severed the ecclesiastical governance of his kingdoms of England and Ireland and made himself the "Supreme Governor" of the Church of England. This involved the Dissolution of the Monasteries in England and Wales: the assets of hundreds of rich religious institutions, including their great estates, were seized by the Crown. This had a devastating impact on poor relief. According to the historian Paul Slack, prior to the Dissolution "it has been estimated that monasteries alone provided 6,500 pounds[2] a year in alms before 1537 (equivalent to £3,400,000 in 2015); and that sum was not made good by private benefactions until after 1580."[3] In addition to the closing of the monasteries, most hospitals (which in the 16th century were generally almshouses rather than medical institutions) were also closed, as they "had come to be seen as special types of religious houses".[4] This left many of the elderly and sick without accommodation or care. In 1531, the Vagabonds and Beggars Act was revised, and a new Act was passed by parliament which did make some provision for the different classes of the poor. The sick, the elderly, and the disabled were to be issued with licences to beg. But those who were out of work and in search of employment were still not spared punishment. Throughout the 16th century, a fear of social unrest was the primary motive for much legislation that was passed by parliament.

text: Slavery law 1547[edit]

text: This fear of social unrest carried into the reign of Edward VI. A new level of punishment was introduced in the Duke of Somerset's Vagrancy Act of 1547.[5] "Two years' servitude and branding with a 'V' was the penalty for the first offense, and attempts to run away were to be punished by lifelong slavery and, there for a second time, execution." [1] Fortunately for vagabonds during this era, "there is no evidence that the Act was enforced." [1] In 1550 these punishments were revised in a new act that was passed. The act of 1550 makes a reference to the limited enforcement of the punishments established by the Act of 1547 by stating "the extremity of some [of the laws] have been occasion that they have not been put into use." [1]

text: Parliament and the parish[edit]

text: Following the revision of the Duke of Somerset’s Act of 1547, parliament passed a new Act in 1552. This focused on using the parishes, which were the areas attached to a parish church, as a source of funds to combat the increasing poverty epidemic. This statute appointed two "overseers" from each parish to collect money to be distributed to the poor who were considered to belong to the parish. These overseers were to ‘gently ask’ [1] for donations for poor relief, and refusal to give money would ultimately result in a meeting with the bishop of the Church of England diocese which contained the parish, and he would ‘induce and persuade’ them.[1] However, at times even such a meeting with the bishop would often fail to achieve its object.

text: Sensing that voluntary donation was ineffective, parliament passed new legislation in 1563, and once this Act took effect parishioners could be brought by the bishop before the Justices, and continued refusal could lead to imprisonment until contribution was made.[1] However, even this Act still suffered from shortcomings, because individuals could decide for themselves how much money to give in order to gain their freedom.

text: A more structured system of donations was established by the Act of 1572. After determining the amount of funds needed to provide for the poor of each parish, Justices of the Peace were granted the authority to determine the amount of the donation from each parish's more wealthy property-owners. This Act finally turned these donations into what was effectively a local tax.[6]

text: In addition to creating these new imposed taxes, the Act of 1572 created a new set of punishments to inflict upon the population of vagabonds. These included being "bored through the ear" for a first offense and hanging for "persistent beggars".[1] Unlike the previous brutal punishments established by the Act of 1547, these extreme measures were enforced with great frequency.

text: However, despite its introduction of such violent actions to deter vagabonding, the Act of 1572 was the first time that parliament had passed legislation which began to distinguish between different categories of vagabonds. "Peddlers, tinkers, workmen on strike, fortune tellers, and minstrels" were not spared these gruesome acts of deterrence. This law punished all able bodied men "without land or master" who would neither accept employment nor explain the source of their livelihood.[1] In this newly established definition of what constituted a vagabond, men who had been discharged from the military, released servants, and servants whose masters had died were specifically exempted from the Act's punishments. Unfortunately, this legislation did not establish any means to support these individuals.

text: A new approach[edit]

text: A system to support individuals who were willing to work, but who were having difficulty in finding employment, was established by the Act of 1576. As provided for in this, Justices of the Peace were authorized to provide any town which needed it with a stock of flax, hemp, or other materials on which paupers could be employed and to erect a "house of correction" in every county for the punishment of those who refused work.[6] This was the first time Parliament had attempted to provide labour to individuals as a means to combat the increasing numbers of "vagabonds".

text: Two years after the Act of 1576 was passed into law, yet more dramatic changes were made to the methods to fight vagabondage and to provide relief to the poor. The Act of 1578 transferred power from the Justices of the Peace to church officials in the area of collecting the new taxes for the relief of poverty established in the Act of 1572. In addition, this Act of 1578 also extended the power of the church by stating that "…vagrants were to be summarily whipped and returned to their place of settlement by parish constables."[1] By eliminating the need for the involvement of the Justices, law enforcement was streamlined.

text: End of the Elizabethan Era to 1750[edit]

text: Starting as early as 1590, public authorities began to take a more selective approach to supporting the poor. Those who were considered to be legitimately needy, sometimes called the "deserving poor", were allowed assistance, while those who were idle were not. People incapable of providing for themselves, such as young orphans, the elderly, and the mentally and physically handicapped, were seen to be deserving, whereas those who were physically able but were too lazy to work were considered as "idle" and were seen as of bad moral character, and thus undeserving of help.[7] Most poor relief in the 17th century came from voluntary charity which mostly was in the form of food and clothing. Parishes distributed land and animals. Institutionalized charities offered loans to help craftsmen to alms houses and hospitals.[8]

text: Act for the Relief of the Poor 1597 provided the first complete code of poor relief, established Overseers of the Poor and was later amended by the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, which was one of the longest-lasting achievements of her reign, left unaltered until 1834. This law made each parish responsible for supporting the legitimately needy in their community.[6] It taxed wealthier citizens of the country to provide basic shelter, food and clothing, though they were not obligated to provide for those outside of their community.

text: Parishes responsible for their own community caused problems because some were more generous than others. This caused the poor to migrate to other parishes that were not their own. In order to counteract this problem, the Poor Relief Act 1662, also known as the Settlement Act, was implemented. This created many sojourners, people who resided in different settlements that were not their legal one.[8] The Settlement Act allowed such people to be forcefully removed, and garnered a negative reaction from the population. A laissez-faire economist said it was a "barrier to labour mobility and migration decisions".[8] In order to fix the flaws of the 1662 act, the act of 1691 came into effect such that it presented methods by which people could gain settlement in new locations. Such methods included "owning or renting property above a certain value or paying parish rates, but also by completing a legal apprenticeship or a one-year service while unmarried, or by serving a public office" for that identical length of time.[8]

text: The main points of this system were the following:

text:
The impotent poor (people who couldn't work) were to be cared for in an almshouse or a poorhouse. In this way, the law offered relief to people who were unable to work, mainly those who were elderly, blind, or crippled or otherwise physically infirm.
The able-bodied poor were to be set to work in a House of Industry. All materials necessary for this work were to be provided for them.[9]
The idle poor and vagrants were to be sent to a House of Correction or prison.[10]
Pauper children would become apprentices.

text: During the 16th & 17th centuries, the population of England nearly doubled.[7] Capitalism in the agricultural and manufacturing arenas started to emerge, and trade abroad significantly increased. Despite this flourishing of expansion, sufficient employment rates had yet to be attained by the late 1600s. The population increased at alarming rates, outpacing the increase in productivity, which resulted inevitably in inflation.[6] Concurrently, wages decreased, declining to a point roughly half that of average wages of a century before.

text: "The boom-and-bust nature of European trade in woolen cloth, England's major manufacture and export" caused a larger fraction of the population of England to fall under poverty. With this increase in poverty, all charities operated by the Catholic Church were abolished due to the impact of protestant reformation.[6]

text: Workhouse Test Act[edit]

text: A law passed by the British government by[clarification needed] Sir Edward Knatchbull in 1723 introduced a "workhouse test", which meant that a person who wanted to receive poor relief had to enter a workhouse and undertake a set amount of work. The test was intended to prevent irresponsible claims on a parish's poor rate.

text: The Industrial Revolution[edit]

text: Child Labour[edit]

text: By the mid to late 18th century most of the British Isles was involved in the process of industrialization in terms of production of goods, manner of markets[clarification needed] and concepts of economic class. In some cases, factory owners "employed" children without paying them, thus exacerbating poverty levels.[11] Furthermore, the Poor Laws of this era encouraged children to work through an apprenticeship, but by the end of the 18th century the situation changed as masters became less willing to apprentice children, and factory owners then set about employing them to keep wages down.[11] This meant that there were not many jobs for adult labourers.[11] For those who could not find work there was the workhouse as a means of sustenance.

text: Gilbert's Act[edit]

text: The 1782 poor relief law proposed by Thomas Gilbert aimed to organise poor relief on a county basis, counties being organised into parishes which could set up workhouses between them. However, these workhouses were intended to help only the elderly, sick and orphaned, not the able-bodied poor. The sick, elderly and infirm were cared for in poorhouses whereas the able-bodied poor were provided with poor relief in their own homes.

text: Speenhamland system[edit]

text: The Speenhamland system was a form of outdoor relief intended to mitigate rural poverty at the end of the 18th century and during the early 19th century. The system was named after a 1795 meeting at the Pelican Inn in Speenhamland, Berkshire, where a number of local magistrates devised the system as a means to alleviate the distress caused by high grain prices. The increase in the price of grain most probably occurred as a result of a poor harvest in the years 1795–96, though at the time this was subject to great debate. Many blamed middlemen and hoarders as the ultimate architects of the shortage.

text: The authorities at Speenhamland approved a means-tested sliding-scale of wage supplements in order to mitigate the worst effects of rural poverty. Families were paid extra to top up wages to a set level according to a table. This level varied according to the number of children and the price of bread.

text: New Poor Law of 1834[edit]

text: Indoor Relief vs. Outdoor Relief[edit]

text: Following the onset of the Industrial Revolution, in 1834 the Parliament of the United Kingdom revised the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601) after studying the conditions found in 1832. Over the next decade they began phasing out outdoor relief and pushing the paupers towards indoor relief. The differences between the two was that outdoor relief was a monetary contribution to the needy, whereas indoor relief meant the individual was sent to one of the workhouses.

text: The Great Famine (Ireland)[edit]

text: Following the reformation of the Poor Laws in 1834, Ireland experienced a severe potato blight that lasted from 1845–1849 and killed an estimated 1.5 million people. The effects of the famine lasted until 1851. During this period the people of Ireland lost much land and many jobs, and appealed to the Westminster Parliament for aid.[citation needed] This aid generally came in the form of establishing more workhouses as indoor relief.[12] Some people argue that as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was in its prime as an empire, it could have given more aid in the form of money, food or rent subsidies.

text: In other parts of the United Kingdom, amendments to and adoptions of poor laws came in and around the same time. In Scotland, for example, the 1845 Scottish Poor Law Act revised the Poor Laws that were implemented under the 1601 Acts.


document_title: NHL uniform

question_text: when did nhl home teams start wearing dark jerseys

text: NHL uniform

text: Background[edit]

text: Historically, the only standardized piece of the equipment has been the sweater (jersey), which has to be of identical design by the same company for all members of a team. Other elements merely have a number scheme, allowing individual players to select their own brand and model colored to match the uniform but not necessarily identical in appearance. Sticks and other equipment worn under the clothes have no requirements in terms of matching a team's colors; teams will sometimes provide players with team-brand undershirts or other under-clothing, but players are not required or limited to wearing them.

text: Goalies often have their pads and gloves and masks colored to match the team's color scheme, but there is no requirement for this equipment to match, and goalies who transfer to a new team often play in their old equipment until new colors can be obtained. Alternatively, players who transfer teams have sometimes had their gloves painted temporarily to match the required colors, and are given new helmets.

text: Each is currently required to have two sweater designs: One with a white base (or sometimes historically, a light color), and one with a darker-colored base. Between the 1970-71 and 2002-03 seasons, NHL teams wore white uniforms at home and dark uniforms on the road (which is the current convention in some low-level ice hockey leagues). Since the 2003–04 season, NHL teams typically wear the dark color at home and the white for road games; there are occasional single-game exceptions.[1][2][3] The only element allowed by NHL rules to be interchangeable between the two sets of equipment is the pants.

text: Third Sweater Program[edit]

text: Starting in 1995 (excluding a few prior isolated instances), some teams began to design a third sweater, or alternate sweater, which allowed them to experiment with new designs, or throwback to a vintage design. Though they are termed third sweaters, they can actually entail an entirely separate look from the primary equipment, often including alternate socks, and sometimes alternate helmets and other equipment.[4] Some third sweaters have eventually become the bases for new primary sweater designs.

text: Third sweaters are typically worn only a few times a season by special permission of the league, based on a list of requested games. They can also be worn during selected playoff games. The third sweater program, as the NHL came to call it, was temporarily suspended on two occasions: for the 2007–08 season (due to logistics problems with the introduction of the Reebok Edge sweater that was unveiled at the 2007 NHL All-Star Game) and for the 2017–18 season (due to the introduction of the Adidas sweater).

text: A team's desire to wear their third sweater sometimes requires the opposing team to wear their home or road sweater when the opposite would be normally worn, due to the color of the third sweater. This can occur when a road team wishes to wear a colored third sweater, or a home team wishes to wear a white third sweater, as there must be one team each wearing white and colored uniforms in a game. This can require a team to carry two sets of uniforms and equipment on the road, whether they are using their third sweaters, or are playing against a team who is. As of the 2017-18 season, no team wears a white third sweater. The Washington Capitals (2011 Winter Classic sweater modeled after the sweater the team wore from 1974 to 1995) were the only NHL team to have a white third sweater from the 2011-12 season to the 2014-15 season, when they were replaced by red sweaters of the same design. The Philadelphia Flyers used a special white third sweater for their 50th anniversary in the 2016–17 season.

text: Sweaters[edit]

text: As hockey originates as an outdoor winter sport where players wore sweaters, this terminology has been retained to describe what is probably the most recognized element of a team's equipment (which is the only element which is mass marketed to the public).

text: Most NHL sweaters (jerseys) display the team's primary logo in the center of the chest, while some also display secondary logos on the shoulders. Each player in a team's lineup for a game must have a different number displayed on the back of their sweater, as well as the player's surname above their number on the back of their sweater. While not required, teams typically place their numbers on each upper arm as well. Team captains and alternate captains wear the letters "C" and "A" respectively on the front of their sweaters. Sweaters have a loop of fabric sewn into the inside back, called a "fight strap" or "tie-down", which must be secured to the player's pants during a game, to prevent the sweater from being pulled over the player's head in a fight.

text: In recent years, teams have sold both "pro" model sweaters, ostensibly identical to those worn by players, and "replica" quality sweaters which are cheaper versions that typically use cheaper production methods and lower-quality materials. Replica versions typically lack the fight strap, and in recent years have an additional brand logo on the left wrist.

text: History[edit]

text: Prior to 2000, different NHL teams had contracts with different manufacturers for their sweaters, although in some years all or most teams had a deal with one supplier. Manufacturers included CCM, Koho, Nike, Starter, and Pro Player.

text: From the 2000–01 season, up to the 2005–06 NHL season, all team sweaters were made by The Hockey Company in an NHL-wide deal, and were branded with subsidiary brands. The Koho brand was on dark sweaters and third sweaters, while the CCM brand was on the white sweaters. The Hockey Company began the practice of putting the manufacturer's logo on the back of the sweater, below the neck, rather than on the back of the waist hem, as had previously been the practice. Jofa, another subsidiary, made the sweaters for referees and linesmen until the 2005–06 season, when they were re-branded CCM which they remain as of 2008–09.

text: Following Reebok's purchase of The Hockey Company, all official NHL team sweaters were switched to the Reebok (Rbk Hockey) brand (which is more familiar to the general public), while cheaper replica sweaters sold to fans retained the CCM branding. Reebok logos are on the side boards in all NHL arenas (for marketing purposes) just above the blue and red lines.

text: 2007-2017: Reebok Edge[edit]

text: The Rbk Edge, or simply Edge, is a newer line of sweaters designed by Reebok. They were announced by Reebok after nearly three years of development.[5] The new sweaters are tighter-fitting, are less water-absorbent, and are more flexible than before.[6] It was intended to make players more maneuverable on the ice. The Edge sweaters were unveiled at the 55th National Hockey League All-Star Game and began to be worn, league-wide, from the 2007–08 NHL season onwards. Almost every team in the league made at least minor changes to their equipment design in conjunction with implementing the new sweater style. The San Jose Sharks, Tampa Bay Lightning, Ottawa Senators, Vancouver Canucks, Dallas Stars, and Washington Capitals redesigned their equipment altogether with a new or updated logo. The Columbus Blue Jackets and Minnesota Wild used their alternate sweater from the previous three seasons as the basis for their new look, complete with the team adopting the alternate logo from their alternates as their primary logo.

text: Five of the Original Six teams (excluding the Boston Bruins) as well as the New Jersey Devils kept their previous styles intact when possible, with the Devils going as far as to issue a press release saying that the team had no plans for an event unveiling the Rbk Edge design, because there was nothing new to see.[7] The Anaheim Ducks and Buffalo Sabres, who both had just redesigned their sweaters the year before the implementation of the Edge sweaters, also left theirs mostly unchanged. But the Sabres made the logo on the front of their sweater smaller and took away the silver outline on their white away sweater, and the Ducks added orange piping to their sweater's neckline.

text: Along with the traditional differences between the replica and authentic versions of NHL sweaters, the replica (billed as "premier") versions of the Edge sweater sold to the public have a "jock tag" on the left side of the front near the waist with the Reebok vector, NHL logo, and sweater size.

text: Citing player complaints, Reebok later modified the Edge sweaters, removing the play-dry material in the front and making the sleeves bigger. The modified sweaters, dubbed the Edge II, made their debut at the 2008 NHL Winter Classic on January 1, 2008.[8]

text: 2017–present: Adidas ADIZERO[edit]

text: In 2015, the NHL and Adidas announced plans for Adidas to begin manufacturing official NHL jerseys starting in the 2017–18 season. On June 20, 2017, the NHL unveiled new ADIZERO sweaters for each of the 31 teams, including the first uniform for the league's newest team, the Vegas Golden Knights. The new sweaters are advertised as being lighter, cooler, and stronger than previous jerseys. [9] Due to the change, there will be no third "alternate" jerseys for any NHL teams for the 2017–18 season.

text: Other equipment[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: A team's gear also includes color requirements for other equipment, while not requiring players to use a specific brand or model, so they may select equipment to their preferences. This includes a player's gloves, pants, and helmet. Socks are also part of the design, historically with some pattern of horizontal stripes. CCM/Reebok has been a frequent supplier of player equipment and skates.

text: There is a sock and pant design by Reebok with similar technological improvements and design intentions.


document_title: List of Major League Baseball single-game runs batted in leaders

question_text: who has the most rbis in one game

question_tokens: who has the most rbis in one game

text: In baseball, a run batted in (RBI) is awarded to a batter for each runner who scores as a result of the batter's action, including a hit, fielder's choice, sacrifice fly, sacrifice bunt, catcher's interference, or a walk or hit by pitch with the bases loaded.[1] A batter is also awarded an RBI for scoring himself upon hitting a home run.[1] Fifteen players have batted in at least 10 runs in a single Major League Baseball (MLB) game to date, the most recent being Scooter Gennett of the Cincinnati Reds on June 6, 2017.[2] No player has accomplished the feat more than once in his career and no player has ever recorded more than 12 RBIs in a game. Wilbert Robinson was the first player to record at least 10 RBIs in a single game,[3][4] driving in 11 runs for the Baltimore Orioles against the St. Louis Browns on June 10, 1892.[5]

text: As of 2016[update], every team that has had a player achieve the milestone has won the game in which it occurred. These games have resulted in other single-game MLB records being set due to the stellar offensive performance. Robinson, for example, also amassed seven hits in that same game, setting a new major league record that has since been tied by only one other player.[6] Mark Whiten hit four home runs to complement his 12 RBIs for the St. Louis Cardinals on September 7, 1993, tying the single-game records in both categories.[7][8] By attaining both milestones, he became one of only two players to hit four home runs and drive in 10 or more runs in the same game,[3] with Gennett being the other.[2][9] Tony Lazzeri, Rudy York, and Nomar Garciaparra hit two grand slams during their 10 RBI game,[10][11][12] equaling the record for most grand slams in one game.[13] Norm Zauchin has the fewest career RBIs among players who have 10 RBIs in one game with 159, while Alex Rodriguez, with 2,086, drove in more runs than any other player in this group and hit the third most in major league history.[14]

text: Of the eight players eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame who have batted in 10 runs in a game, four have been elected and one was elected on the first ballot. Players are eligible for the Hall of Fame if they have played in at least 10 MLB seasons, and have either been retired for five seasons or deceased for at least six months.[15] These requirements leave three players ineligible who are living and have played in the past five seasons and two—Phil Weintraub and Zauchin—who did not play in 10 seasons.[16][17]

text: Players[edit]

text:
Key

Player
Name of the player

Date
Date of the game

Team
The player's team at the time of the game

Opposing team
The team against whom the player hit 10 runs batted in

Score
Final score of the game, with the player's team score listed first

Runs batted in
Number of runs batted in the player hit

Career RBI
The number of runs batted in the player hit in his MLB career

Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame

Player is active

text:
MLB hitters with 10 RBI in one game

Player
Date
Team
Opposing team
Score
Runs batted in
Career RBI
Refs

Robinson, WilbertWilbert Robinson
000000001892-06-10-0000June 10, 1892
Baltimore Orioles
St. Louis Browns
25.2125–4
11
722
[5][18]

Bottomley, JimJim Bottomley
000000001924-09-16-0000September 16, 1924
St. Louis Cardinals
Brooklyn Robins
17–3
12
1,422
[19][20]

Lazzeri, TonyTony Lazzeri
000000001936-05-24-0000May 24, 1936
New York Yankees
Philadelphia Athletics
25.2325–2
11
1,194
[21][22]

Weintraub, PhilPhil Weintraub
000000001944-04-30-0000April 30, 1944
New York Giants
Brooklyn Dodgers
26–8
11
207
[16][23]

York, RudyRudy York
000000001946-07-27-0000July 27, 1946
Boston Red Sox
St. Louis Browns
13–6
10
1,152
[24][25]

Cooper, WalkerWalker Cooper
000000001949-07-06-0000July 6, 1949
Cincinnati Reds
Chicago Cubs
23–4
10
812
[26][27]

Zauchin, NormNorm Zauchin
000000001955-05-27-0000May 27, 1955
Boston Red Sox
Washington Senators
16–0
10
159
[17][28]

Jackson, ReggieReggie Jackson
000000001969-06-14-0000June 14, 1969
Oakland Athletics
Boston Red Sox
21–7
10
1,702
[29][30]

Lynn, FredFred Lynn
000000001975-06-18-0000June 18, 1975
Boston Red Sox
Detroit Tigers
15.1415–1
10
1,111
[31][32]

Whiten, MarkMark Whiten
000000001993-09-07-0000September 7, 1993
St. Louis Cardinals
Cincinnati Reds
15.1315–2
12
423
[33][34]

Garciaparra, NomarNomar Garciaparra
000000001999-05-10-0000May 10, 1999
Boston Red Sox
Seattle Mariners
12–4
10
936
[35][36]

Rodriguez, AlexAlex Rodriguez
000000002005-04-26-0000April 26, 2005
New York Yankees
Los Angeles Angels
12–4
10
2,086
[37][38]

Anderson, GarretGarret Anderson
000000002007-08-21-0000August 21, 2007
Los Angeles Angels
New York Yankees
18–9
10
1,365
[39][40]

Rendon, AnthonyAnthony Rendon
000000002017-04-30-0000April 30, 2017
Washington Nationals
New York Mets
23–5
10
243
[41][42]

Gennett, ScooterScooter Gennett
000000002017-06-06-0000June 6, 2017
Cincinnati Reds
St. Louis Cardinals
13–1
10
190
[43]