Hands up who saw this coming...

[maxxy5]

Terminator X said:

Isn't there a greater chance of having an accident when sleepy / tired / over-worked vs current limit? Cut down on the sleepy drivers instead I say

TX.

vodka red bulls?

[Devil2575]

grumbledoak said:

Mr Will said:

The limit only needs to come down if people under the current limit are causing accidents. If that's not the case then all you are going to do is reduce people's respect for the law.

^^^ This. We are illegalising a non-problem. It will have no effect on those better described as "Driving while stfaced".

And all to make us the same as the EUSSR, who pulled a round metric number out of their collective arse!

How do you know it is a non-problem?

[Devil2575]

Rangeroverover said:

The problem I can see if the limit is lowered will be the death of the country pub, currently I know I'm under the limit on a pint and a half of the weakest lager. If the limit were lowered I don't think I would bother going to a pub for lunch if I thought that a single pint would put me close to the limit.

There are many people who will visit country pubs who will just not bother "just in case". What would help is the availability of a much weaker "driving beer" at about 2-2.5% abv. When I were a lad etc, you could get much weeker beer than is available now, the lowest abc seems to be 3.5% or more.

The mandatory sentencing is another issue, if you live in London and get a 12 month ban it's not going to effect you to the same level as someone living in very rural devon or dorset in an area with virtually no public transport.

I fully expect the "hang em and flog em" holier than thou brigade to jump on this but the fact is I like going to a country pub, having lunch and maybe in the space of two hours get through 2 pints, if I'm not eating and its a shorter visit I will stick to a pint and a half. If I have to halve that I won't be out spending money on fuel and food and drink so the exchequer will suffer as well as small local businesses that are only just making a living as things are at the current level.

I'm not sure how this will be the death of the country pub. You could always not have a beer with your lunch, it wouldn't be the death of you i'm sure. I've been going to country pubs for years and managing to not drink and drive. I doubt your pint and half is what is keeping the pub above water, more likely attracting familes in who buy food. I'm sure these families will continue to come in and buy food.

FWIW I can also get a taxi as well without too much trouble.

[Rangeroverover]

You said:
"All the same arguments were brought against putting the current limit in place and the doom scenarios simply haven't happened. Our roads are safer, and fewer people suffer life-changing injuries / death as a result."

You may have noticed the amount of country pubs that are closing, something like one per day, many of those still trading are marginal at best. I accept that drinking and driving over the current limit is a bad thing. I think the current limit is OK as is.

All car related deaths are reducing as cars are becoming ever safer, however if the scotch see a reduction proportionatly greater than ours then I suppose we have to go along with it. I still think a weaker "driving lager" would be a good thing as I hate the sweeter taste of shandy

[Devil2575]

Rangeroverover said:

You said:
"All the same arguments were brought against putting the current limit in place and the doom scenarios simply haven't happened. Our roads are safer, and fewer people suffer life-changing injuries / death as a result."

You may have noticed the amount of country pubs that are closing, something like one per day, many of those still trading are marginal at best. I accept that drinking and driving over the current limit is a bad thing. I think the current limit is OK as is.

All car related deaths are reducing as cars are becoming ever safer, however if the scotch see a reduction proportionatly greater than ours then I suppose we have to go along with it. I still think a weaker "driving lager" would be a good thing as I hate the sweeter taste of shandy

Pubs across the country are closing on a daily basis, not just country pubs. Have you got any evidence that the rate of closure of country pubs is greater than pubs in towns etc?

[MarshPhantom]

Not sure how many people have crashed/died/killed others because they've had one pint of lager? None?

[WinstonWolf]

grumbledoak said:

Mr Will said:

The limit only needs to come down if people under the current limit are causing accidents. If that's not the case then all you are going to do is reduce people's respect for the law.

^^^ This. We are illegalising a non-problem. It will have no effect on those better described as "Driving while stfaced".

And all to make us the same as the EUSSR, who pulled a round metric number out of their collective arse!

The limit is fine, the problem is people the who don't comply with the current limit.

[Devil2575]

WinstonWolf said:

grumbledoak said:

Mr Will said:

The limit only needs to come down if people under the current limit are causing accidents. If that's not the case then all you are going to do is reduce people's respect for the law.

^^^ This. We are illegalising a non-problem. It will have no effect on those better described as "Driving while stfaced".

And all to make us the same as the EUSSR, who pulled a round metric number out of their collective arse!

The limit is fine, the problem is people the who don't comply with the current limit.

I was under the impression that the problem wasn't that people were drinking to below the current limit and crashing, it was that the current limit implies that there is a safe ammount and so people try to guess and then get it wrong. It's a much simpler and easier to follow message "Don't drink if you're going to drive" than "You can probably have a couple of pints and still be ok"

[WinstonWolf]

Devil2575 said:

WinstonWolf said:

grumbledoak said:

Mr Will said:

The limit only needs to come down if people under the current limit are causing accidents. If that's not the case then all you are going to do is reduce people's respect for the law.

^^^ This. We are illegalising a non-problem. It will have no effect on those better described as "Driving while stfaced".

And all to make us the same as the EUSSR, who pulled a round metric number out of their collective arse!

The limit is fine, the problem is people the who don't comply with the current limit.

I was under the impression that the problem wasn't that people were drinking to below the current limit and crashing, it was that the current limit implies that there is a safe ammount and so people try to guess and then get it wrong. It's a much simpler and easier to follow message "Don't drink if you're going to drive" than "You can probably have a couple of pints and still be ok"

The limit should cater for people to have a drink with their evening meal and leave them a safety margin. The current system is just fine, it's people ignoring it that represent a danger.

[Pete317]

Devil2575 said:

I was under the impression that the problem wasn't that people were drinking to below the current limit and crashing, it was that the current limit implies that there is a safe ammount and so people try to guess and then get it wrong. It's a much simpler and easier to follow message "Don't drink if you're going to drive" than "You can probably have a couple of pints and still be ok"

What makes me less than convinced that this is the motivation is the fact that the very first person to fall foul of the lower limit in Scotland was a guy driving to work at 8.30 in the morning.

[mph1977]

Devil2575 said:

Rangeroverover said:

You said:
"All the same arguments were brought against putting the current limit in place and the doom scenarios simply haven't happened. Our roads are safer, and fewer people suffer life-changing injuries / death as a result."

You may have noticed the amount of country pubs that are closing, something like one per day, many of those still trading are marginal at best. I accept that drinking and driving over the current limit is a bad thing. I think the current limit is OK as is.

All car related deaths are reducing as cars are becoming ever safer, however if the scotch see a reduction proportionatly greater than ours then I suppose we have to go along with it. I still think a weaker "driving lager" would be a good thing as I hate the sweeter taste of shandy

Pubs across the country are closing on a daily basis, not just country pubs. Have you got any evidence that the rate of closure of country pubs is greater than pubs in towns etc?

and outside Scotland i don;t think drink drinking legislation is having an effect ...

as opposed to the pub COs being biggest gits than the breweries and the expectation of better food offerings and cellermanship meaning that some pubs are unable to compete being neither sufficiently repeatably acceptable as the chain pub- restaurants nor as good as those offering good real ale / craft lagers and ciders / selection of imported + interesting bottled and/or really good food offering ...

[handpaper]

Devil2575 said:

handpaper said:

ETA - the poll a little way down the page is disgusting.

Why?

The yes and no options are loaded :

Yes - just one drink can alter reaction time

No - the effects of alcohol are exaggerated

Don't know - would it make a difference?

The "Yes" option has a justification attached which appears sensible and plausible; the "No" option's is a strawman (would be better applied to a bid to raise the limit) and looks irresponsible.
The only 'honest' option is "Don't know"; since this is a voluntary poll it's not likely to get clicked much.

[stuart313]

I cant say I'm too bothered, if I go to the pub I will have 3 shandies and drive home, it makes it worthwhile going if I can have 3 pints of something. Never had any problem in all the years I have been doing it.

If I can't have that then I wont bother going anymore. Cant be arsed with a taxi or getting a bus so this will mean no money spent in the pub to help keep it going, no beer tax paid, no fuel used getting there so no fuel duty and if I'm not on the road then zero chance of getting caught speeding so no christmas club money either. I would expect there to be hundreds of thousands of people like me who will take that approach.

Yes I know I'm inherently evil and shouldn't be on the road anyway bla bla bla.

[Devil2575]

WinstonWolf said:

Devil2575 said:

WinstonWolf said:

grumbledoak said:

Mr Will said:

The limit only needs to come down if people under the current limit are causing accidents. If that's not the case then all you are going to do is reduce people's respect for the law.

^^^ This. We are illegalising a non-problem. It will have no effect on those better described as "Driving while stfaced".

And all to make us the same as the EUSSR, who pulled a round metric number out of their collective arse!

The limit is fine, the problem is people the who don't comply with the current limit.

I was under the impression that the problem wasn't that people were drinking to below the current limit and crashing, it was that the current limit implies that there is a safe ammount and so people try to guess and then get it wrong. It's a much simpler and easier to follow message "Don't drink if you're going to drive" than "You can probably have a couple of pints and still be ok"

The limit should cater for people to have a drink with their evening meal and leave them a safety margin. The current system is just fine, it's people ignoring it that represent a danger.

Is it? I'm not saying it isn't but I've not seen any evidence.

[Devil2575]

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

I was under the impression that the problem wasn't that people were drinking to below the current limit and crashing, it was that the current limit implies that there is a safe ammount and so people try to guess and then get it wrong. It's a much simpler and easier to follow message "Don't drink if you're going to drive" than "You can probably have a couple of pints and still be ok"

What makes me less than convinced that this is the motivation is the fact that the very first person to fall foul of the lower limit in Scotland was a guy driving to work at 8.30 in the morning.

That's something of an irrelevance though isn't it. It tells you nothing about the motivation of the people who changed the law.

[voyds9]

What am I miss understanding from that article

Percentage of women drink driving has increased

Number of men drink driving has decreased

If number of women drink driving is 10

If the number of men drink driving has dropped from 100 to 50

Then the percentage of women drink driving has increased from 10% to 20% but total not changed

Without absolute figures the percentage change is useless.

[Chrisgr31]

So people women arent obeying the current law, so we will reduce the limit. Hows that going to work?

The reality probably is that people are risking drink driving because camera enforcement etc means that there are less traffic police around to catch drink drivers.

[Pete317]

Devil2575 said:

That's something of an irrelevance though isn't it. It tells you nothing about the motivation of the people who changed the law.

Yes, it's almost as if the lawmakers act unilaterally without consultation with the police or anyone else.

But assuming the motivation to be sound, would you call that unintended consequences, or collateral damage?

[Devil2575]

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

That's something of an irrelevance though isn't it. It tells you nothing about the motivation of the people who changed the law.

Yes, it's almost as if the lawmakers act unilaterally without consultation with the police or anyone else.

But assuming the motivation to be sound, would you call that unintended consequences, or collateral damage?

It's neither.

[PoleDriver]

Is there any data which would show the number of accidents caused by people who have blood alcohol levels between the current legal limit and the proposed new limit? I'd love to see the result!

So what they are saying is that all those people currently driving perfectly legally with just under the current limit will soon be breaking the law?

Same old, same old! Once again the revenue collectors police will have any easy target while the murderous idiots who drink 2 or more times over the limit will still have the same chance of being caught before they kill someone as they do now!

Rather than finding yet another way of squeezing yet more money out of (currently) law abiding drivers it would make more sense to try and find a way to catch the true criminals in this case... The habitual drinkers who are so drunk they can barely walk and don't give a damn who's lives they wreck!