Hands up who saw this coming...

[jm doc]

voyds9 said:

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.

This

Overall number of drink driving convictions have continued to fall more or less year on year. In the ten years up to 2011 the convictions have decreased by around fifty per cent. The number of women convicted over the same period has also fallen but from a much lower starting point the fall has also been less thus giving rise to the deliberately misleading (I believe) statement that the percentage of women convicted has risen when in fact the actual numbers of people, both men and women convicted have fallen significantly. Why are these people being allowed to peddle their propaganda, it was a similar story on the BBC 6 o'clock news this evening. They even wheeled out a reformed alcoholic woman to attempt to justify reducing the limit from 80 to 50mg. What's that got to do with this issue? Nothing.

The 80mg limit was chosen because research showed that it was only above this level that there was any significant deterioration in skill performance. This research remains valid today. If there is a question to be asked it should be how many deaths occur involving people with alcohol levels between 50mg and 80mg, I suspect it would show minimal differences, but until those proposing this change produce those statistics, the current, evidence based limits should stay.

[Pete317]

Devil2575 said:

It's neither.

Well, as you seem to be of the opinion that it probably wasn't the primary intention of the lawmakers to target morning-after drinkers, what would you say it was?

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 19th May 22:34

[zulash]

they are obviously not catching as many people over the limit as they'd like.... especially the easy catch 'morning after' drinkers. I can only presume the English pub will become a thing of the past.

[Pete317]

jm doc said:

The 80mg limit was chosen because research showed that it was only above this level that there was any significant deterioration in skill performance. This research remains valid today. If there is a question to be asked it should be how many deaths occur involving people with alcohol levels between 50mg and 80mg, I suspect it would show minimal differences, but until those proposing this change produce those statistics, the current, evidence based limits should stay.

Not quite that simple.

At 80mg, the statistical risk of accident involvement is unmistakably elevated, which suggests impairment - although it has to be said that an elevated risk over a very low background level is still a very low risk.
80mg was chosen as the limit because of the recognition that a high probability of impairment must be shown to exist in order to justify the punishment.
However, at 50mg it's very difficult to show a high probability of impairment.
This means that, although it may be effective as a deterrent to people drinking at all before driving, we run a high risk of banning drivers who are not significantly impaired at all - so this just might be a step too far.

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 19th May 23:02

[jm doc]

Pete317 said:

jm doc said:

The 80mg limit was chosen because research showed that it was only above this level that there was any significant deterioration in skill performance. This research remains valid today. If there is a question to be asked it should be how many deaths occur involving people with alcohol levels between 50mg and 80mg, I suspect it would show minimal differences, but until those proposing this change produce those statistics, the current, evidence based limits should stay.

Not quite that simple.

At 80mg, the statistical risk of accident involvement is unmistakably elevated, which suggests impairment - although it has to be said that an elevated risk over a very low background level is still a very low risk.
80mg was chosen as the limit because of the recognition that a high probability of impairment must be shown to exist in order to justify the punishment.
However, at 50mg it's very difficult to show a high probability of impairment.
This means that, although it may be effective as a deterrent to people drinking at all before driving, we run a high risk of banning drivers who are not significantly impaired at all - so this just might be a step too far.

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 19th May 23:02

Performance vs blood alcohol concentration is not significantly elevated until it rises above 80mg, that's why it was chosen. There is a marked rise in impairment but only after this point. It is that simple.

[carinaman]

What with the TISOL speed weeks, where police across Europe unite against the carnage speeding causes on our roads, unification of drink drive limits would seem foreseeable.

[Pete317]

jm doc said:

Pete317 said:

jm doc said:

The 80mg limit was chosen because research showed that it was only above this level that there was any significant deterioration in skill performance. This research remains valid today. If there is a question to be asked it should be how many deaths occur involving people with alcohol levels between 50mg and 80mg, I suspect it would show minimal differences, but until those proposing this change produce those statistics, the current, evidence based limits should stay.

Not quite that simple.

At 80mg, the statistical risk of accident involvement is unmistakably elevated, which suggests impairment - although it has to be said that an elevated risk over a very low background level is still a very low risk.
80mg was chosen as the limit because of the recognition that a high probability of impairment must be shown to exist in order to justify the punishment.
However, at 50mg it's very difficult to show a high probability of impairment.
This means that, although it may be effective as a deterrent to people drinking at all before driving, we run a high risk of banning drivers who are not significantly impaired at all - so this just might be a step too far.

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 19th May 23:02

Performance vs blood alcohol concentration is not significantly elevated until it rises above 80mg, that's why it was chosen. There is a marked rise in impairment but only after this point. It is that simple.

So you're saying that someone caught at 81mg probably isn't significantly impaired?
If that is the case, the current level of punishment (mandatory 1+ year ban) cannot be justified at the 80mg limit, let alone at 50mg

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 19th May 23:20

[tumble dryer]

carinaman said:

What with the TISOL speed weeks, where police across Europe unite against the carnage speeding causes on our roads, unification of drink drive limits would seem foreseeable.

Tick Tock. It's a done deal, just a matter of time.

Quite by chance earlier this evening I googled the drink driving laws around the planet, we're WAY at the top. In the EU (from memory) only Malta, Luxembourg and Ireland sit alongside us (the highest range) whereas the vast majority sit alongside Scotland - and the rest split between zero tolerance and half that of Scotland.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs, or our individual opinions, it's coming.

[jm doc]

Pete317 said:

jm doc said:

Pete317 said:

jm doc said:

The 80mg limit was chosen because research showed that it was only above this level that there was any significant deterioration in skill performance. This research remains valid today. If there is a question to be asked it should be how many deaths occur involving people with alcohol levels between 50mg and 80mg, I suspect it would show minimal differences, but until those proposing this change produce those statistics, the current, evidence based limits should stay.

Not quite that simple.

At 80mg, the statistical risk of accident involvement is unmistakably elevated, which suggests impairment - although it has to be said that an elevated risk over a very low background level is still a very low risk.
80mg was chosen as the limit because of the recognition that a high probability of impairment must be shown to exist in order to justify the punishment.
However, at 50mg it's very difficult to show a high probability of impairment.
This means that, although it may be effective as a deterrent to people drinking at all before driving, we run a high risk of banning drivers who are not significantly impaired at all - so this just might be a step too far.

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 19th May 23:02

Performance vs blood alcohol concentration is not significantly elevated until it rises above 80mg, that's why it was chosen. There is a marked rise in impairment but only after this point. It is that simple.

So you're saying that someone caught at 81mg probably isn't significantly impaired?
If that is the case, the current level of punishment (mandatory 1+ year ban) cannot be justified at the 80mg limit, let alone at 50mg

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 19th May 23:20

It's where they drew the line, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it being 80mg or 81mg, just saying that 50mg doesn't appear to have any hard evidence to suggest that it will make a much difference to accident rates, a bit like speed limits these days I suppose so no doubt it will be imposed on us to satisfy the usual bunch of zealots.

[MGJohn]

Chimune said:

tony wright said:

People who drink and drive will always do it. Dropping the limit to 50mg per 100 will not change their habit one iota.

I see it as more Big Brother, Nanny state crap. I admit to having a pint (always followed by a coffee) after a game of golf for the last thirty years, never ever felt it compromised my ability to drive. So here we go again, our so called poxy leaders and righteous career chasing pratts telling me I'll have to change my ways yet again

Ho hum. that's terrible.

You should have taken the opportunity to blame the EU too .....

Hmmmm ....

One of the few occasions when I'll miss that opportunity. I'm in favour.

Long time ago now but I still clearly remember work colleagues state that they are better drivers when they've had a few. Don't think anyone would say things like that now.

Only once have I ever ridden or driven whilst had too much to drink although in actual fact it was not that much, it was enough. Christmas Office Party in the City. Have another John you'll be alright. Leaving very late, my point to point time that cold December night from Central London to Chingford was scarily brisk. That was 1961 and London traffic was never the form of madness it is today. Over that bridge in Lea Bridge Road my Triumph bike must have been airborne quite a while. That was a major awareness jolting scare and brought me to my "reduced" senses. I got home unscathed but, luck must have played a part. I was nineteen.

At sixteen stone, I can drink a pint or more without feeling the slightest impaired... even if I am. However, an average half full glass of Table Wine after dinner will soon have me light headed then drowsy and definitely unfit to drive for a period. I know my limits. Those must be no alcohol at all if I will be driving as I value my licence far too much.

Since that bike ride in the small hours back in 1961, I have never since ridden or driven with an alcohol level which would see me failing the breathaliser.

[amusingduck]

MGJohnSince said:

that bike ride in the small hours back in 1961, I have never since ridden or driven with an alcohol level which would see me failing the breathaliser.

You can't know that for certain, surely.

Unless you're teetotal, or every single time you've gotten drunk, you have not driven the next day?

Edited by amusingduck on Wednesday 20th May 10:52

Edited by amusingduck on Wednesday 20th May 10:52

[The Mad Monk]

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.

Is she Scottish?

[Type R Tom]

I thought this was quite interesting:

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-05-20/violent-...

[Corpulent Tosser]

The Mad Monk 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.

Is she Scottish?

She is, and she can be assured of not getting my vote at the next Scottish election.

[W124Bob]

As a train driver the limit in this industry has been lower(than 50) for years, so the real world limit is effectively zero for anyone in a safety critical role. Random testing(drugs and alcohol) is done, as is post incident testing. Lowering the road limit won't make any difference to me so I don't have a problem.

[hunton69]

ruggedscotty said:

Got into a landrover with someone who had been drinking.... simple dont drink and drive.

It can and it does go wrong..... and when it does you might not get out the mess alive.

So why did you get into the Land Rover?

[MarshPhantom]

carinaman said:

What with the TISOL speed weeks, where police across Europe unite against the carnage speeding causes on our roads, unification of drink drive limits would seem foreseeable.

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.

Slightly O/T but I watched the documentary Dig, a while ago, the band featured where got busted for drugs on their coach in France, they had a load of weed, they were fined 6 Euros and allowed to keep the stash.

[MarshPhantom]

hunton69 said:

ruggedscotty said:

Got into a landrover with someone who had been drinking.... simple dont drink and drive.

It can and it does go wrong..... and when it does you might not get out the mess alive.

So why did you get into the Land Rover?

And how much had the driver had? 1 pint?

[bad company]

I think the current limit works well enough. I would like better enforcement tho .

[mikecassie]

I think we need to lower the penalties for drink driving if the drink drive limit is lowered. Fair enough keep the existing ban for above the 85mg level, but for levels between 50mg and 85mg have some points and not the draconian all or nothing ban we have just now in Scotland. I didn't think the old level was that high, IMO.

Those who drink drive as a matter of course after 3 or 4 pints (maybe more) won't change their way regardless of a new lower limit. Its these people who we need to get the message into, someone who has had a glass of wine with a meal isn't a demon.

Between this and the average speed cameras on the A9, I'm sure the SNP government are full of smugness in how they've made the roads safer up here. The statistics will probably back this up, nothing to do with raising the speed limit for HGV's to 50mph so people aren't so frustrated and attempt dodgy passing manoeuvres with the same regularity.