Hands up who saw this coming...
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure that the reasons you suggest were persuasive in setting the limit at 80 are those that the politicians opted for. If I remember correctly, the recommendation was for a much lower level. The reason 80 was chosen was to get it past a load of old soaks: MPs.
All the evidence suggests there is modification to the behaviour and performance of a person who has had as little as half a pint, one shot.
The phrase 'significantly impaired' is an odd one. Alcohol has a number of effects on the body. Any measurable impairment should, perhaps, cause concern.
One poser earlier in this thread suggested that his driving was not affected by a couple of pints. Firstly, a person who has drunk a couple of pints is in no way a reliable assessor of any deterioration in ability to drive. Secondly, most people would be able to drive fairly well below 80 but only until a surprise incident required an instant response.
Most people can drive safely after a couple of pints in all probability. However, the test for impairment was meat and drink to briefs and cases were challenged all the time, with some very esoteric arguments being accepted. So a prescribed limit was seen as the only option. As mentioned before, the 80 limit was a political decision and it was suggested that once the efficacy of the prescribed limit was accepted, a more sensible, and justifiable limit would have been set.
It has taken longer than anticipated.
The 80mg limit was decided from the results of the large-scale Grand Rapids Borkenstein study, as well as that of Maycock 1966.All the evidence suggests there is modification to the behaviour and performance of a person who has had as little as half a pint, one shot.
The phrase 'significantly impaired' is an odd one. Alcohol has a number of effects on the body. Any measurable impairment should, perhaps, cause concern.
One poser earlier in this thread suggested that his driving was not affected by a couple of pints. Firstly, a person who has drunk a couple of pints is in no way a reliable assessor of any deterioration in ability to drive. Secondly, most people would be able to drive fairly well below 80 but only until a surprise incident required an instant response.
Most people can drive safely after a couple of pints in all probability. However, the test for impairment was meat and drink to briefs and cases were challenged all the time, with some very esoteric arguments being accepted. So a prescribed limit was seen as the only option. As mentioned before, the 80 limit was a political decision and it was suggested that once the efficacy of the prescribed limit was accepted, a more sensible, and justifiable limit would have been set.
It has taken longer than anticipated.
It wasn't simply a political thumb-suck.
MarshPhantom said:
Other countries have lower limits than we do but far less draconian penalties, small fines for being slightly over the limit for example.
This is why it's flawed to merely compare our limit with those of other countries.
Yep. Also - we should factor that the UKs roads are amongst the safest in the world, even with our 'high' DD limit. According to the list below only two european countries have a lower death rate than ours (Denmark and Sweden).This is why it's flawed to merely compare our limit with those of other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...
bad company said:
ShireRoller said:
A gun requires intention whereas lack of control in a car doesnt. Any amount of alcohol shouldn't be aloud if your driving. Full stop. Same for the people on their phones, same punishment. Road laws/speed limits all need looking at IMO.
Is that really English?
Pete317 said:
The 80mg limit was decided from the results of the large-scale Grand Rapids Borkenstein study, as well as that of Maycock 1966.
It wasn't simply a political thumb-suck.
From what I read in the link I posted earlier it had an element of what was viewed to be politically acceptable as well as not to overburden the Police.It wasn't simply a political thumb-suck.
Also science is never settled and views are always subject to revision in the light of further study.
ShireRoller said:
A gun requires intention whereas lack of control in a car doesnt. Any amount of alcohol shouldn't be aloud if your driving. Full stop. Same for the people on their phones, same punishment. Road laws/speed limits all need looking at IMO.
Do you think the speed limits need to increase or decrease, bearing in mind the UK's enviable road safety record?Devil2575 said:
Pete317 said:
The 80mg limit was decided from the results of the large-scale Grand Rapids Borkenstein study, as well as that of Maycock 1966.
It wasn't simply a political thumb-suck.
From what I read in the link I posted earlier it had an element of what was viewed to be politically acceptable as well as not to overburden the Police.It wasn't simply a political thumb-suck.
Also science is never settled and views are always subject to revision in the light of further study.
There's more than enough material to fill several discussion forums for a long time.
Kawasicki said:
Do you think the speed limits need to increase or decrease, bearing in mind the UK's enviable road safety record?
The whole system needs to change, right from how we learn to drive. Not once are we ever taught what to do in say... An 'elk' situation.. rapidly changing direction at speed initiating the car into a slide.. Dodging something on a carriageway for instance. That sliding car hits the car alongside an causes a big accident. Had the driver been taught how to control a car in that situation do you think the outcome would change? Then new cars with ESP, they handle completely different different when sliding as they try an self straighten, leading to overcorrection. What if that drIver had been on a skid pan an learnt how his/her car would react?
Germans have a good attitude an respect for dricing so autobahns work there.
Variable limits are the way forwards I think, 60/70 during peak hours, 90/100 off peak.
An learning a new language while your driving is not recommended..
Devil2575 said:
bad company said:
ShireRoller said:
A gun requires intention whereas lack of control in a car doesnt. Any amount of alcohol shouldn't be aloud if your driving. Full stop. Same for the people on their phones, same punishment. Road laws/speed limits all need looking at IMO.
Is that really English?
far from it!ShireRoller said:
Devil2575 said:
bad company said:
ShireRoller said:
A gun requires intention whereas lack of control in a car doesnt. Any amount of alcohol shouldn't be aloud if your driving. Full stop. Same for the people on their phones, same punishment. Road laws/speed limits all need looking at IMO.
Is that really English?I also believe that the penalties are draconian especially for the lower limit.
Is that OK & plain English?
Edited by bad company on Thursday 21st May 09:08
bad company said:
If you look back my view is that the current limit is right but needs more traffic police to enforce.
Yep this. What is the point in tightening the rules if the current rules can't be enforced fully.All that will happen is you will potentially criminalise people who abide by the current rule (as more of them are likely to be caught during spot checks), whist doing nothing to deal with people who flout the current rule and who are in fact the main issue.
ShireRoller said:
A gun requires intention whereas lack of control in a car doesnt. Any amount of alcohol shouldn't be aloud if your driving. Full stop. Same for the people on their phones, same punishment. Road laws/speed limits all need looking at IMO.
So if you had a shedful on a Saturday night, when would you drive to work again? Tuesday? Wednesday? And even then, what do you do to be sure?If this was a serious problem, why is there so much exaggeration involved?
I think the level is fine as it is. There are lots of problems out there on the roads, but this isn't one of them imo.
Corpulent Tosser said:
I wrote to my MSP before the change was ratified to ask if when adopting the European limit they would also adopt the European sentencing, ban over 80mg/100ml, fine between 50 and 79mg/100ml.
She didn't even answer my mail.
The Scottish Parliament had the power to change the threshold for prosecution, but not the penalty. Unable to make the punishment fit the "crime", they pressed ahead anyway where they should have left both alone.She didn't even answer my mail.
handpaper said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
I wrote to my MSP before the change was ratified to ask if when adopting the European limit they would also adopt the European sentencing, ban over 80mg/100ml, fine between 50 and 79mg/100ml.
She didn't even answer my mail.
The Scottish Parliament had the power to change the threshold for prosecution, but not the penalty. Unable to make the punishment fit the "crime", they pressed ahead anyway where they should have left both alone.She didn't even answer my mail.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I very rarely drink. My birthday is in june so I'll have a couple then and then again NYE. I can feel the effects (My teeth are numb) before getting half way through a bottle of bud. I would be waaay under the limit. But my ability to drive would be severely hampered. Again not a large scale comparison.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff