Scottish Drink Drving Chages

[Cat]

agtlaw said:

For example, causing death by careless driving whilst OPL has a 14 year maximum. Assuming the Scots have that offence (anyone?)

Yep, s.3A of the RTA applies north of the border.

Cat

[Phatboy317]

alock said:

I cannot get to/from work on public transport so any after work drink would never happen again if I lived in Scotland.

And presumably your few pints on a weeknight would also have to stop, as you have to drive in the morning - as well as your couple of pints with your lunch.

[Dammit]

alock said:

£20 round trip for two taxi journey's to enjoy one £4 pint is not sensible.

I cannot get to/from work on public transport so any after work drink would never happen again if I lived in Scotland.

How far do you live from work? How far is your work from somewhere that you can get to via public transport?

I'm going to hazard a guess that "cannot" means "don't want to", unless your place of work is more than 10 miles from anywhere you can get to on public transport.

[rs1952]

Dammit said:

rs1952 said:

If we were talking a slap on the wrist like they have in other EU countries for low readings over the limit, say £100 fine and a few points for a 50 to 80 reading, I could live with that concept. If that's what the Jocks want to do - fine - let them got on with it. But we are not talking slaps on wrists, we are talking the full repercussions of a DD10 conviction, but for a transgression which is only illegal in part of the UK.

If it was a slap on the wrist then people would be less inclined to obey the restriction - the point of the automatic, 12 month ban is to stop people from thinking "ah, it's only three points if I do get caught".

It's not like it's hard to work out what you have to do in this case- if you are in Scotland, don't have an alcoholic drink, it's much simpler than the UK where there can be (semi)legitimate confusion over how much you can have.

Easiest, and probably best thing to happen would be the UK following suit.

Funny that you didn't also quote the second and third sentences in that paragraph, which were :

rs1952 said:

But we are not talking slaps on wrists, we are talking the full repercussions of a DD10 conviction, but for a transgression which is only illegal in part of the UK. You know the UK, that's the "one country" that embraces England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Only it no longer does embody one united country as far as DD legislation is concerned.

Was that because they completely demolished your argument?

Presumably you also do not realise that the contention in your second paragraph is nonsense, because it will still be just as legal to have an alcoholic drink in Scotland and drive afterwards - the only difference being that you won't be able to have quite as much. To make it easier for you to understand this concept I'll copy and paste a table I added to another thread only yesterday:

% proof Alcohol Units per pint
3.5-------19.88-----1.988
3.6-------20.448----2.0448
3.7-------21.016----2.1016
3.8-------21.584----2.1584
3.9-------22.152----2.2152
4.0-------22.72-----2.272
4.1-------23.288----2.3288
4.2-------23.856----2.3856
4.3-------24.424----2.4424
4.4-------24.992----2.4992
4.5-------25.56-----2.556
4.6-------26.128----2.6128
4.7-------26.696----2.6696
4.8-------27.264----2.7264
4.9-------27.832----2.7832

In very broad terms, the limit in the whole of the UK since the legislation was introduced in 1967 was 5 units, and this has now changed in Scotland to approximately 3 units. Even in Scotland under the new legislation it would still be possible to have a pint and a half of "boy's beer" and blow green.

[Dammit]

So what are you whining about then?

[rs1952]

Dammit said:

So what are you whining about then?

I can't make up my mind which is the better smiley to add, so here's both of them





As I said in my final sentence in the post you partially quoted, I am "whining" about a point of principle.

[Dammit]

You have not actually defined what that point of principle is, however.

As best I can make out you don't think it is fair to suffer a uk wide ban for drinking beyond the limit in Scotland, as it is lower than the rest of the UK, so you suggest that to even out this inequality we introduce another inequality, where drink driving in Scotland just gets points rather than a ban.

This seems slightly contradictory - and would defeat the intention of the Scottish change in the limit.

I'd include some smileys at this point, if I was an 8 year old child.

[rs1952]

Dammit said:

You have not actually defined what that point of principle is, however.

As best I can make out you don't think it is fair to suffer a uk wide ban for drinking beyond the limit in Scotland, as it is lower than the rest of the UK, so you suggest that to even out this inequality we introduce another inequality, where drink driving in Scotland just gets points rather than a ban.

This seems slightly contradictory - and would defeat the intention of the Scottish change in the limit.

I'd include some smileys at this point, if I was an 8 year old child.

You are hard going this morning...

Try reading my post from yesterday again.

[Dammit]

I did, what is the principle?

Copy and paste it if you want to make me look stupid.

[Corpulent Tosser]

Dammit said:

You have not actually defined what that point of principle is, however.

As best I can make out you don't think it is fair to suffer a uk wide ban for drinking beyond the limit in Scotland, as it is lower than the rest of the UK, so you suggest that to even out this inequality we introduce another inequality, where drink driving in Scotland just gets points rather than a ban.

This seems slightly contradictory - and would defeat the intention of the Scottish change in the limit.

I am unclear just what the intention of the Scottish parliament is, in fact I emailed my MSP and asked her a question regarding this, she has not replied.
If the intention was to bring Scotland in line with the EU then surely not only the limit should be aligned so too should the penalties.
In most EU countries a 50-80mg reading would get a fine, over 80mg would bring a ban.

[Nigel Worc's]

Corpulent Tosser said:

Dammit said:

You have not actually defined what that point of principle is, however.

As best I can make out you don't think it is fair to suffer a uk wide ban for drinking beyond the limit in Scotland, as it is lower than the rest of the UK, so you suggest that to even out this inequality we introduce another inequality, where drink driving in Scotland just gets points rather than a ban.

This seems slightly contradictory - and would defeat the intention of the Scottish change in the limit.

I am unclear just what the intention of the Scottish parliament is, in fact I emailed my MSP and asked her a question regarding this, she has not replied.
If the intention was to bring Scotland in line with the EU then surely not only the limit should be aligned so too should the penalties.
In most EU countries a 50-80mg reading would get a fine, over 80mg would bring a ban.

Same here, I can't understand what they are trying to achieve.

[alock]

Dammit said:

alock said:

£20 round trip for two taxi journey's to enjoy one £4 pint is not sensible.

I cannot get to/from work on public transport so any after work drink would never happen again if I lived in Scotland.

How far do you live from work? How far is your work from somewhere that you can get to via public transport?

I'm going to hazard a guess that "cannot" means "don't want to", unless your place of work is more than 10 miles from anywhere you can get to on public transport.

Live 5 miles north of Winchester. Work North-East Basingstoke.

20 miles by road. Takes 25-30 minutes in the car.

First bus leaves our village at about 8:05am which means I cannot get an early enough train to then get to Basingstoke to then get another bus across Basingstoke by 9:00am. Total public transport journey is over an hour. The problem is the start time. If we had a bus that left our village at about 7:00am then lots of people in our village could use public transport. As it is, only people who work in Winchester have it as an option. If you work in another town then you must drive unless your employer allows you to start at 9:30am.

Public transport is a joke for large parts of the country.

[TooMany2cvs]

Corpulent Tosser said:

I am unclear just what the intention of the Scottish parliament is

The intention is to stop people driving with blood alcohol above 50...

I'm surprised your MSP didn't just point you to this, which a two-second google found:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/resource/0041/00416814....

[Nigel Worc's]

TooMany2cvs said:

The intention is to stop people driving with blood alcohol above 50...

And their authority to inflict that upon England and Wales comes from where ?

[v12Legs]

alock said:

Live 5 miles north of Winchester. Work North-East Basingstoke.

20 miles by road. Takes 25-30 minutes in the car.

First bus leaves our village at about 8:05am which means I cannot get an early enough train to then get to Basingstoke to then get another bus across Basingstoke by 9:00am. Total public transport journey is over an hour. The problem is the start time. If we had a bus that left our village at about 7:00am then lots of people in our village could use public transport. As it is, only people who work in Winchester have it as an option. If you work in another town then you must drive unless your employer allows you to start at 9:30am.

Public transport is a joke for large parts of the country.

Probably best not to do anything to jeopardise your licence then.

[allergictocheese]

Nigel Worc's said:

TooMany2cvs said:

The intention is to stop people driving with blood alcohol above 50...

And their authority to inflict that upon England and Wales comes from where ?

That limit isn't inflicted on England & Wales. If you're caught south of the border the limit is the same as was. It's only if you're in Scotland the new limit will apply.

Of course, any sanction by the courts will affect your UK driving licence, however that's always been the case. It's worth pointing out the Scottish legal system is very different from our own, to the point that lawyers qualified in England are not qualified to work in Scotland. Yet people convicted by this very different system have still had their UK licence affected by decisions in the Scottish courts.

[Corpulent Tosser]

TooMany2cvs said:

The intention is to stop people driving with blood alcohol above 50...

I'm surprised your MSP didn't just point you to this, which a two-second google found:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/resource/0041/00416814....

Full marks to you for stating the bloody obvious
Non to my MSP for failing to answer my question, no vote for her in future either


The consultation is seriously flawed, a skim through was enough.

BMA (2008)7 which showed the relative accident risk of drivers with a BAC of
50mg / 100ml is double that for a person with zero BAC.
PACTS (Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety) research
conducted by Professor Richard Allsop8 which showed that reducing BAC to
50gm / 100ml would prevent 65 deaths and 230 serious injuries per year
across the UK.

and later in the paper

Six respondents (a transport organisation, a local authority, a legal organisation
and three individuals) commented that there are no statistics available for
casualties who have been drinking but who are within the current drink drive
limit of 80mg / 100ml. They felt figures were needed for individuals who are
breathalysed at levels between 50mg / 100ml and 80mg / 100ml in order to
ascertain whether a reduction in drink driving limits will have a significant impact
in reducing drink driving.

No data to support the assertion that lowering the limit will save lives, yet actual number given to how many would be saved.

[Nigel Worc's]

allergictocheese said:

Nigel Worc's said:

TooMany2cvs said:

The intention is to stop people driving with blood alcohol above 50...

And their authority to inflict that upon England and Wales comes from where ?

That limit isn't inflicted on England & Wales. If you're caught south of the border the limit is the same as was. It's only if you're in Scotland the new limit will apply.

Of course, any sanction by the courts will affect your UK driving licence, however that's always been the case. It's worth pointing out the Scottish legal system is very different from our own, to the point that lawyers qualified in England are not qualified to work in Scotland. Yet people convicted by this very different system have still had their UK licence affected by decisions in the Scottish courts.

We have not, to my knowledge, ever had the situation where you can be banned from UK roads by one part of the UK for something that isn't even illegal in the majority of the UK.

Do you not think that is a little odd ?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Nigel Worc's said:

And their authority to inflict that upon England and Wales comes from where ?

They don't have the authority to inflict it on England and Wales. And they haven't.

See my original analogy. My local council impose a 20mph limit outside the school. They don't have the authority to inflict that limit on the nearby motorway. So they don't. But any ban I get for exceeding the 20 limit will still apply on the motorway, even though I might not have been exceeding 70 when I was banned for exceeding 20.

It's so straight forward that I'm not sure how the debate has run this far.

[otolith]

I don't agree with reducing the limit to 50mg, at least not with the same penalty that other countries apply for 80mg, but that's the point of devolution - if Scotland wants to do things that the rest of us don't, have at it. I suspect that at least part of this is about pressure from anti-drinking campaigners to tackle the particularly Scottish problem of overconsumption of alcohol in general. They want to vote for nannies, let them be nannied.

The penalty applies in the rest of the UK too, but it's easy to avoid. Don't drink if you have to drive at all the next day, and if that sounds like a crappy holiday, go somewhere else. Plenty of nice places in the rest of the UK.