Hands up who saw this coming...
Discussion
If there is clear proof that there are crashes directly linked to someone being below the current limit but above the proposed new limit, then sure; but I would not be surprised if the request for the new limit is just knee jerk based and probably the same stupid basis for lowering a speed limit from 60 to 40 because a small number of drivers have been caught driving at 80.
Good Read!
Personally think you shouldn't drink alcohol at all when driving, is it really that big a thing to not drink! An if your drinking that much you can't drive In the morning I think you need to look at the amount you drink.
A 'motorvehicle' is a killing machine that demands full respect. Would you want a doctor working on you after a pint? ...
Personally think you shouldn't drink alcohol at all when driving, is it really that big a thing to not drink! An if your drinking that much you can't drive In the morning I think you need to look at the amount you drink.
A 'motorvehicle' is a killing machine that demands full respect. Would you want a doctor working on you after a pint? ...
ShireRoller said:
Good Read!
Personally think you shouldn't drink alcohol at all when driving, is it really that big a thing to not drink! An if your drinking that much you can't drive In the morning I think you need to look at the amount you drink.
A 'motorvehicle' is a killing machine that demands full respect. Would you want a doctor working on you after a pint? ...
I agree with this post.Personally think you shouldn't drink alcohol at all when driving, is it really that big a thing to not drink! An if your drinking that much you can't drive In the morning I think you need to look at the amount you drink.
A 'motorvehicle' is a killing machine that demands full respect. Would you want a doctor working on you after a pint? ...
Corpulent Tosser said:
A motor vehicle is not a killing machine, a gun is a killing machine.
Yes you can kill someone with a motor vehicle but you could kill someone with a spoon if so inclined.
True, it isn't a killing machine. It is however something that is inherently dangerous once in motion.Yes you can kill someone with a motor vehicle but you could kill someone with a spoon if so inclined.
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
It would be interesting to see how many people are involved in accidents when they're between 50 and 80 mg. I bet the number is statistically insignificant.The effort should be targeted towards those who still don't comply with the current limit.
There's nothing wrong with having a pint with your meal in a country pub whilst still leaving a good safety margin, this will put a stop to that.
Fortunately it's not the legislators who are currently pushing for it.
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
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.
Derek Smith 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
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.
I think if we apply logic or look for evidence on this issue we're missing the point.
In the same way that the health of bar staff was put forward as the reason for banning smoking in pubs when it was really about changing the place of smoking in society (and thus reducing it), this is all about changing our attitudes to alcohol.
It's ironic though, that this will affect the moderate drinker, when little seems to be done to stop excessive drinking which can make town centres no-go areas for many people.
Govt doesn't see the wider value of pubs to communities and never has as far as I know.
In the same way that the health of bar staff was put forward as the reason for banning smoking in pubs when it was really about changing the place of smoking in society (and thus reducing it), this is all about changing our attitudes to alcohol.
It's ironic though, that this will affect the moderate drinker, when little seems to be done to stop excessive drinking which can make town centres no-go areas for many people.
Govt doesn't see the wider value of pubs to communities and never has as far as I know.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC124861...
This is worth reading.
It would seem that even with a 50mg/l limit you can still have 1 pint or 3 units.
This is worth reading.
It would seem that even with a 50mg/l limit you can still have 1 pint or 3 units.
Devil2575 said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
A motor vehicle is not a killing machine, a gun is a killing machine.
Yes you can kill someone with a motor vehicle but you could kill someone with a spoon if so inclined.
True, it isn't a killing machine. It is however something that is inherently dangerous once in motion.Yes you can kill someone with a motor vehicle but you could kill someone with a spoon if so inclined.
If we're going down the road (pun intended) of vehicles being 'killing machines', the general competence of an awful lot of drivers needs a good looking at before the DD limit, in my opinion.
A 12 month ban for, potentially, consuming less than a pint and a half, versus a small FP for a dizzy 18 y/o bint caught weaving all over the road while reading and typing b
ks into a Facebook page while supposedly in control of a car?Yes the Facebooking moron could potentially get more than a FP notice but I'd bet that the chances of a ban are remote.
Mr Will said:
A stretch of road has a 40mph speed limit. A small number of people are doing 90mph down it and crashing. Will reducing the limit to 20mph solve that problem?
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.
Bingo. Unfortunately the people in charge don't seem to realise this.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.
Some drivers exceeding the 40mph limit in our village seemed to be the main the justification for lowering it to 30. This is a nice straight road, good visibility, no schools and no history of accidents.
What happened soon after it dropped - a camera van turned up and has been there at least once a month ever since.
MarshPhantom said:
That's your take on situation Derek, but should someone who's had 1 pint get the same punishment as someone who's had 15 pints?
A prescribed limit offence is just that: there's a limit. However, a magistrate can take into account, as an aggravating or mitigating factor, the reading/blood alcohol level. In other words, any fine or punishment can take into account the reading. However, there is a base and that is the 12-month ban. It would be nice to bring into account the degree of impairment but defendants are reluctant to accept this as evidence so hence the prescribed limit.
Further, impairment is not always obvious. A driver who drove into the side of a stationary car seemed, for all the world, quite sober but questioning showed that he thought the car he hit was moving and had 'pulled out', although both the car in front and behind the one he hit had not moved for some time.
He blew fairly high, memory not what it was, but could still walk and talk without any signs of inebriation. Yet he had trouble seeing a blue car one bright, albeit cloudy, morning.
So your question, I think, boils down to whether a 12-month ban for all excess alcohol offences is 'right'. I think it reasonable. It is not as if the legislation is hidden. But I'm open to argument.
A question for the people who are upset at the new proposals.
What's worse?
Someone who never drinks and has a very low tolerance to the effects of alcohol, drinks to the current legal limit but feels dizzy and they're driving suffers.
Or
Someone who is an alcoholic and has a very high tolerance to the effects of alcohol, drinks twice the legal limit but due to their tolerance still drives better / safer than the rare drinker mentioned above.
What's worse?
Someone who never drinks and has a very low tolerance to the effects of alcohol, drinks to the current legal limit but feels dizzy and they're driving suffers.
Or
Someone who is an alcoholic and has a very high tolerance to the effects of alcohol, drinks twice the legal limit but due to their tolerance still drives better / safer than the rare drinker mentioned above.
I think the whisker over people aren't causing accidents due to drinking, they may have been in an accident then found to be whisker over.
The ones mounting curbs and weaving all over the road types have had a skinfull so changing the limit isn't going to change their behaviour.
I don't really drink anyway so not really affected but would be interested to see stats that show the volume of people that drink 2 beers on a night out that went on to caused an accident that would have been prevented had they only had drunk 1, as this is presumably the motivation for suggesting the change.
The ones mounting curbs and weaving all over the road types have had a skinfull so changing the limit isn't going to change their behaviour.
I don't really drink anyway so not really affected but would be interested to see stats that show the volume of people that drink 2 beers on a night out that went on to caused an accident that would have been prevented had they only had drunk 1, as this is presumably the motivation for suggesting the change.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff