Just curious, are people in favour of this or think it's a terrible idea? Lets have a healthy debate, I'm sure it wont be too long before we, (England) follow suit and lower our limit.
Personally I think its an absolute step in the right direction, but is it enough? Many EU countries have a zero tolerance, should we go this far?
Over to you folks......remember lets have a clean fight! :mfr_lol:
Interesting question... got me thinking. Sorry for the long post I didn't have time to write a shorter one!
I'm in favour of an evidence based approach to policy making. I would like the focus to be on whether the driving is impeded - whatever that point is in blood alcohol level for the average person I think is where the blood alcohol level limit should be set.
Lots of factors like gender, weight, metabolism, drink, stress levels, medication, age and what the person has eaten all play a role in the affect of alcohol. But, the current 80mg per 100ml limit (first set in 1965) allegedly allows a man of average build to drink between 1-2 pints of normal strength beer or three small glasses of wine and remain within the law. That seems like a lot to me.
Alcohol literally affects people differently. I like a pint and I don't feel my driving is impaired after 1 pint. I rarely drink but when I do plan to drink and drive I set a very strict limit. I will not drink more than 1 pint. I think with 3 pints in me I would be acutely and consciously aware that my driving is impaired so it's probably already impaired at 2 pints, which means I am happy for a limit that would allow me to have 1 pint (from a personal perspective)
If the figures are accurate, and to be believed, that a reduction to 50mg per 100ml of blood will prevent 65 deaths and 230 serious injuries a year then this is the kind of data that would persuade me. There were 230 drink-related motoring deaths (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226068/accidents-involving-illegal-alcohol-levels-2011-2012.pdf) in 2012 compared with 1,640 in 1979 when the reporting began. More interesting data here (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244914/rrcgb2012-03.pdf).
I suspect other factors like better car safety and driver training as much as anything else was responsible for the decline in road deaths including those that are related to drink driving because drink driving convictions (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_statistics_uk.php) went up massively from 1966 to over 100k in the late 1990s and has since dropped to around 50k today.
Think about that, all these fluctuations with no changes in the blood alcohol limit. Do less convictions mean less drink driving? Does less drink driving mean less deaths? Does a lower legal blood alcohol limit mean less deaths? I suspect lower blood alcohol limits will mean more drink driving convictions but will not necessarily result in lower rates deaths, this will more likely than not come from those other factors I mentioned and the downward trend will continue regardless.
I favour a progressive punitive approach: beginning at fines and points, to bigger fines, to big fines and bans, all the way up to mandatory prison sentences... depending on the blood alcohol levels and driving impairment.
I don't think we should over criminalise people who are on the lower end of the legal limit and whose driving is not impaired. Let police and the CPS have some discretion here. Am I not merciful, LOL. Some campaigners are calling for a 20mg per 100ml limit and others for a total ban. That would defo rule out my 1-pint rule! Other countries levels vary but I've not seen any with a higher limit. I wonder which countries have the lowest drink driving related deaths and injuries and how that correlates with their legal blood alcohol limits?
Useful calculator here (http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_bloodalcoholcontentcalculator.php) to work out if your likely over the limit or not.
Review of effectiveness of laws limiting blood alcohol concentration levels to reduce alcohol-related road injuries and deaths. Centre for Public Health Excellence NICE (http://www.nice.org.uk/media/default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-guidelines/Public-health-guidelines/Additional-publications/Blood-alcohol-content-effectiveness-review.pdf)
A simple and short post provides my answer.......
A NO drink drive policy should be introduced and enforced, i.e if you drink you simply DO NOT drive, same applies to drugs.
There's far too much misery caused by pricks who think they are safe to drink and then drive, even the morning after ...its a :nono: in my book
No drinking and driving. Zero tolerance. If caught life time ban. Feeling fairly liberal today.
Driving and riding is dangerous on our overcrowded roads as it is without someone having had a few beers inside them.
If I had my way I would structure fines and bans, no drinking at all, pure and simple, low levels say large fine and six month ban, medium levels bigger fine and years ban, blind drunk monster fine and five year ban, get caught driving while banned then straight to the five year job or if you already on that a lifetime ban.
As for using a phone while driving I see this EVERY day going to work, I even stopped next to a girl and pretended to read her text last week, that shocked her. First offence 250 fine and lose licence for a month, second 500 and no licence for three months, third then your not learning the lesson, 1000 and a years ban.
Alan
Do you think that those whose blood alcohol level is 51mg per 100ml should be treated the same as those who have a blood alcohol level of 300mg per 100ml (extreme intoxication)?
Can you forsee any problems with a zero tolerance ban? I think zero tolerance makes absolutely no sense when you think about it!
I say that because there are reasons why people might have alcohol in their system. It's why 20mg per 100ml advocacy groups propose this level, it represents a trace amount of alcohol in system from using mouthwash, nibbling on chocolate liqueurs or other foods containing alcohol or from medication. Or the sensible drinker from the night before who got that taxi home but still has trace amounts in their system the following day but whose driving is not impaired. 20mg is as close to an absolute ban without accidentally penalising those with trace element of alcohol in their system.
There is good reason to believe that a zero tolerance is not actually going to make any difference to the behaviour of those that knowingly drink and drive well over the prescribed legal limits, they'll do it whatever the level - they're probably also not taxed, insured or even licensed to drive. Conversely there is some evidence that a lower limit would reduce deaths from these most serious drink-driving offenders.
What a zero tolerance will do is criminalise motorists who do drink moderately and within the legal limit and whose driving is not significantly impaired. More convictions and revenue from low hanging fruit perhaps? The empirical data seems to suggest that the probability of being involved in an accident increases after 50mg.
It seems to me that the reduction in misery is the result of not only of better vehicle safety and higher standards of driving but also successful public road safety campaigns that has altered the cultural Zeitgeist making it socially unacceptable to drink and drive at all.
Hurrah for Steven
That's exactly what I have been trying to write but you have capped it succinctly.
It's not the ones with 42mg that are killing and being killed, it's those that are so far over that will not be dissuaded by any change in the limit,but you are likely to criminalise many for having 2 pints or 2 glasses of wine or as Steven says the responsible one from the night before who didn't drive but still has traces of alcohol the next day
This is an easy political solution, get the cops to enforce the laws we have eg mobile phone usage before tinkering with existing legislation
Colin
Quote from: O.C. on December 06, 2014, 06:53:16 AM
A simple and short post provides my answer.......
A NO drink drive policy should be introduced and enforced, i.e if you drink you simply DO NOT drive, same applies to drugs.
There's far too much misery caused by pricks who think they are safe to drink and then drive, even the morning after ...its a :nono: in my book
I agree.
But a zero limit is not workable as there are loads of instances of naturally occurring trace elements of alcohol in the environment. That's why the lower levels were set, which would be above the 'trace' element and therefore deemed to have been purposefully ingested and not just mouthwash etc.
And let's face it, any amount of alcohol will affect us - we wouldn't waste our money on it otherwise.
And why else would you walk home with a Traffic Cone on your head......
Take a look on YouTube at the Australian Road Safety (TAC) film, 'Only a Little Bit Dead'.
I'll find the link now.
Yer Tiz. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hhkyxA3OLeU
The problem the Govt has is that deterrence is cheap but enforcement is expensive. Would you agree to a 3% increase in your income tax to fund enough Police to enforce the existing laws? Most wouldn't. So the result is that pretty much everyone is guilty of breaking the law on a semi-regular basis.
Me, my drink drive limit is one pint of shandy (= 1/2 pint beer)
My drink ride limit is zero.
Boomer via Tapatalk
I personally don't have a problem with Scotlands new limit and wouldn't mind if England adopted it too, but I am against a no tolerance policy which Stephen explains very well.
Quote from: Foody on December 06, 2014, 11:33:34 AM...Australian Road Safety (TAC) film, 'Only a Little Bit Dead'.
Who knows what effect that Oz commercial had on the social acceptance of drink driving. It's why I started my first post with policy making should be based on reason and evidence not appeals to emotion. I agree with it's implication that whilst those well over the limit probably all say they were only a little bit over the limit but I would want to see the data. I'm not convinced that those on 51mg are causing the deaths in Australia - I would want to see the data. I suspect it's true that they're getting convicted.
At 30-50mg the generally accepted progressive effects of alcohol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content) on behaviour include mild euphoria, relaxation, joyousness, talkativeness and decreased inhibition. The latter is the particularly worrying part, especially in younger drivers. The impairment at this blood alcohol limit is reduced concentration, but lots of things reduce concentration, some of which are already regulated.
When you get up to 60-90mg per 100ml you become disinhibited and extroverted and your impairment is in reasoning, depth perception, peripheral vision and glare recovery. Getting more and more dangerous. Conversely at the lower end of the scale to 10-30mg the person appears normal and subtle impairments can only be detected with special tests.
I say all this as food for thought. I enjoy a good back and forth. I'm satisfied with the current 80mg level but wouldn't object, I might even support, a reduction to 50mg. I wouldn't like a reduction to 20mg as it's effectively a no-drink-drive limit but I wouldn't object that strenuously if it was democratically decided after a period of sensible debate. However, I would object strongly to a zero tolerance ban for the reasons I've given.
Quote from: Boomer on December 06, 2014, 11:40:46 AMWould you agree to a 3% increase in your income tax...
Maybe, once they've reformed the tax code to close existing tax avoidance loopholes for the rich and implemented a myriad of other sensible reforms to increase the treasurers purse, but that's too off topic.
Quote from: Boomer on December 06, 2014, 11:40:46 AMMe, my drink drive limit is one pint of shandy (= 1/2 pint beer)
My drink ride limit is zero.
Sounds like a very sensible and reasonable self imposed limit to me, but why the difference? Does that one shandy really impair your driving more in a car than on a bike?
Quote from: davetherave on December 06, 2014, 12:14:27 PM
I personally don't have a problem with Scotlands new limit and wouldn't mind if England adopted it too...
Me too. Scotland always seems to be leading the way when it comes to sensible social policy...
Why the difference? It's quite difficult to filter (lanesplit) in a car and you need super sharp focus and awareness to a level never needed in a car.
Boomer via Tapatalk
I don't mind what the limit is, zero or a little, I never touch the stuff if i have to drive.
As said, many of the RTA s are caused by people well over the limit and folk have different intake levels before it affects them. I'd personally like to see huge fines / bans for texting, putting on makeup etc......fines for not paying attention due to nattering and looking at your passenger whilst doing so.........sadly, something that can never be enforced i guess.
I do believe that everyone that is able should, before driving a car, be made to ride a moped for a year, and once the car test is passed, be limited to under a 1.0 litre car for 1 year or a certain BHP.
Quote from: Ant on December 06, 2014, 01:25:38 PM
I don't mind what the limit is, zero or a little, I never touch the stuff if i have to drive.
As said, many of the RTA s are caused by people well over the limit and folk have different intake levels before it affects them. I'd personally like to see huge fines / bans for texting, putting on makeup etc......fines for not paying attention due to nattering and looking at your passenger whilst doing so.........sadly, something that can never be enforced i guess.
I do believe that everyone that is able should, before driving a car, be made to ride a moped for a year, and once the car test is passed, be limited to under a 1.0 litre car for 1 year or a certain BHP.
Crickey! That's enough to drive you to drink......
Quote from: Ant on December 06, 2014, 01:25:38 PM
I don't mind what the limit is, zero or a little, I never touch the stuff if i have to drive.
As said, many of the RTA s are caused by people well over the limit and folk have different intake levels before it affects them. I'd personally like to see huge fines / bans for texting, putting on makeup etc......fines for not paying attention due to nattering and looking at your passenger whilst doing so.........sadly, something that can never be enforced i guess.
I do believe that everyone that is able should, before driving a car, be made to ride a moped for a year, and once the car test is passed, be limited to under a 1.0 litre car for 1 year or a certain BHP.
Ant,
I so agree with you on the new driver restrictions. I would like to see a post test car type,1.0 litre, standard stereo no modifications allowed, rigorously enforced by police or ministry of transport, if you can go a year with no accidents or convictions then you can move up to a 1.6 open class ( cosmetic mods allowed). There would be a recurring market for these basic cars as all new drivers would need one. Too many mummy's boys being given cars that are beyond their skills or maturity.
I was lucky, I was poor and made all my basic errors at slow speeds (mk 11 cortina, Ford Anglia etc)
Don't even start me on my fairer tax proposals ( not a leftie but there needs to be fairness for all, that includes NOT milking the rich, make it fair and most are happy to pay their share, drifting off topic now)
Go to my website www.ukiplite.org for my manifesto
Colin P.M.P
zero tolerance is ok in my book.
when the current alcohol limits came in the roads were not so busy and there were less driver distractions available . Nowdays every driver needs everything they can possibly have in their concentration dept so a move to zero tolerance is moving with the times.
However reality and hindsight are great teachers and will a zero tolerance actualy improve/worsen Drink driving statistics?
the main problem out there is driving and drugs , IMO
Zero tolerance is a scary thought to me. FWIW, I never drink and drive or ride. Over here, like there, people socialize with a beer, or a drink, after work, at sporting events, holiday parties, after bad day at work, etc. Zero tolerance would allow for the police to legally stop, cite, arrest, and possibly ruin many peoples lives, by just waiting outside any bar/pub.
This type law would be a back door way to prohibition of a legal substance/alcohol, consumed normally intelligently, buy adults. Bars/pubs would have to close, sporting events facilities would lose their greatest form of income, No restaurant could/would sell alcohol. One couldn't in good conscience even serve a friend a beer in their own home, if that friend was leaving later, and on and on it goes. The effect on local economies could be devastating.
In the US, the legal limit is .08% blood saturation level. Used to be .1%. Lowering the limit had little effect except to pack the court houses with people who before the change had been legal at .09%, but were now criminals. Average low end cost for a DWI is $10,000 USD.
My son was arrested with a .09%, when he was 23. Now 38, he is still tagged with the criminal offense and has trouble with insurance, applying for jobs, driving on a job, and being considered a ex-con, as he was required to spend a month in jail
Be careful what you wish for or allow, it Will some day come back and bite you in the butt, hard... Just saying. tomp
Quote from: tomp on December 06, 2014, 11:00:08 PM
Zero tolerance is a scary thought to me. FWIW, I never drink and drive or ride. Over here, like there, people socialize with a beer, or a drink, after work, at sporting events, holiday parties, after bad day at work, etc. Zero tolerance would allow for the police to legally stop, cite, arrest, and possibly ruin many peoples lives, by just waiting outside any bar/pub.
This type law would be a back door way to prohibition of a legal substance/alcohol, consumed normally intelligently, buy adults. Bars/pubs would have to close, sporting events facilities would lose their greatest form of income, No restaurant could/would sell alcohol. One couldn't in good conscience even serve a friend a beer in their own home, if that friend was leaving later, and on and on it goes. The effect on local economies could be devastating.
In the US, the legal limit is .08% blood saturation level. Used to be .1%. Lowering the limit had little effect except to pack the court houses with people who before the change had been legal at .09%, but were now criminals. Average low end cost for a DWI is $10,000 USD.
My son was arrested with a .09%, when he was 23. Now 38, he is still tagged with the criminal offense and has trouble with insurance, applying for jobs, driving on a job, and being considered a ex-con, as he was required to spend a month in jail
Be careful what you wish for or allow, it Will some day come back and bite you in the butt, hard... Just saying. tomp
Sorry mate but I don't agree with all that at all. :no:
I'm with Boomer on this. I have enough issues staying upright when I'm cold sober. No drinking and riding for me. I'm at a one beer limit for the car.
Quote from: O.C. on December 07, 2014, 01:42:10 PM
Sorry mate but I don't agree with all that at all. :no:
That's OK by me. Your country, your decision. Hope things don't turn out for you, as I suggested they might, though. tomp
Quote from: O.C. on December 07, 2014, 01:42:10 PM
Sorry mate but I don't agree with all that at all. :no:
OK by me too, as if you need my permission LOL. But I'm interested in
why exactly you don't agree?
:popcorn:
Quote from: Stephen.Stallebrass on December 07, 2014, 03:51:37 PM
OK by me too, as if you need my permission LOL. But I'm interested in why exactly you don't agree?
:popcorn:
I was wondering that, too.
The fatal crashes around my area usually the driver is well over the limit ,or high on drugs ,you don't hear of any crashes where they are just over , in this day and age you should not drink drive at all,the only way to slow it all up is to do lots of random breath tests , all these cars in pub car parks on a night , quite a few must be drink-driving, people don't get caught unless. They crash ,
May be its not the law that needs review ...................................but the physical means and funding to uphold and implement that law ?
:popcorn:
Quote from: Charlie747 on December 07, 2014, 04:48:49 PM
May be its not the law that needs review ...................................but the physical means and funding to uphold and implement that law ?
:popcorn:
Or even peoples attitude's to drink driving....... :popcorn:
Does the 80/20 rule apply ?
20% of the population abuse the rules that the remaining
80% of the population live by ?
🙈🙉🙊
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Charlie747 on December 07, 2014, 07:47:44 PM
Does the 80/20 rule apply ?
20% of the population abuse the rules that the remaining
80% of the population live by ?
Zero tolerance law would turn the 80% into law abusers by simply doing what was always legal before the change in the law. Why force the 80% to suffer for the 20% of abusers' actions? Just saying. . .
Quote from: tomp on December 07, 2014, 08:12:51 PM
Zero tolerance law would turn the 80% into law abusers by simply doing what was always legal before the change in the law. Why force the 80% to suffer for the 20% of abusers' actions? Just saying. . .
:agree:
Hence........................
Quote from: Charlie747 on December 07, 2014, 04:48:49 PM
May be its not the law that needs review ...................................but the physical means and funding to uphold and implement that law ?
:popcorn:
Another more fitting example and consequence of zero tolerance. The government, without the will of the people, decide that motorcycles are dangerous, and cost lives. They therefore ban the use of all two wheel vehicles with an engine displacement over 50cc, and 7HP. That would immediately make everyone here a law breaker the next time we got onto our C14/GTR's, or any other motorcycle. Does that sound like a good enough law, that may possibly save a life, to allow a totalitarian way of controlling the public and confiscating vehicles and fine money for simply riding a here before legal, registered, MOT approved conveyance to work or play? Possibly one's only form of transportation, too???
If a government can do it with alcohol, they can do it with food, tobacco, transportation, music, absolutely anything they feel you as legal citizens, shouldn't use or simply don't need, because they deem it so. Give them an inch, and they will take a mile of your liberties.
Drinking and driving is so old hat these days. It's the texters and emailers that scare the :censored: out of me. I think that it's much worse than drinking.
Quote from: virginiajim on December 07, 2014, 11:33:13 PM
Drinking and driving is so old hat these days. It's the texters and emailers that scare the :censored: out of me. I think that it's much worse than drinking.
They are here in our country, Jim. wonder how much of a problem they are in the UK area. . .Wonder when this Zero tolerance will hit our towns. I know it already has in our schools. Kids expelled for chewing a PopTart into an L shape, that some other kid says looks like a gun, or just pointing a finger, and not the middle one... Things aren't good world wide, today. . .
Worlds gone mad!