Scotland to lower drink drive limit.

[Guybrush]

I wonder how many vehicle accidents are caused by drivers just at or under the current drink drive limit such that lowering the limit will stop these accidents happening. None I should think. Hysterical nonsense - just the Scotch looking like they're trying to do something a bit independent.

[Vipers]

Scots,

[bad company]

Guybrush said:

I wonder how many vehicle accidents are caused by drivers just at or under the current drink drive limit such that lowering the limit will stop these accidents happening. None I should think. Hysterical nonsense - just the Scotch looking like they're trying to do something a bit independent.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What he said plus Salmond wants to be seen to be following the Europeans.

[Tunku]

I can just see it. Every Monday morning, not a car to be seen on the road!

[thinfourth2]

Guybrush said:

I wonder how many vehicle accidents are caused by drivers just at or under the current drink drive limit such that lowering the limit will stop these accidents happening. None I should think.

Yep its not going to make even the slightest difference apart from make the figures look worse

Guybrush said:

bad company said:

Hysterical nonsense - just the Scotch looking like they're trying to do something a bit independent.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What he said plus Salmond wants to be seen to be following the Europeans.

Not quite

Its not the scots who want it, it is some little left wing tt trying to grab headlines. If they actually wanted to make a difference they would have more police patrols but that costs money.

However i can see the rest of the UK rapidly following this line in an effort to be seen to be doing something.

[Derek Smith]

There is little chance of a single pint of beer putting anyone over the 50mg limit.

One wonders where this suggestion came from. There is no evidence to support it. For a chap of average build, of middle age, who is fairly fit and who has no major madical problems, especially with his liver, he will not to pushing the 50mg limit after three pints over three hours.

The headline limit of 2 pints and over the 80mg limit was not scientifically arrived at. It was not even a guess. For Mr Average above, it would require five pints over an evening and probably without food.

The amount of alcohol in blood/breath depends on a considerable number of variables, although the main one is of course the amount you've drunk. However, sex plays a part, not only which you are but whether you've indulged in it, or other pysical activity. If you are very fit you can peak early and higher than a sedentary couch potato would. One up for the rest of us.

All tests have shown that ability to drive deteriorates measurably well before a 50mg level in blood is reached.

[JohnnyJones]

I think they should st or get off the pot.

I don't agree with the lowering of levels, but it's a guessing game as to how much you can drink.

Get a bloke aholed, put him to bed and 12 hours later breathylise him. That's the limit.

Don't drive within 12 hours of having a drink. That should finish off the rest of the pubs.

[mondeoman]

JohnnyJones said:

I think they should st or get off the pot.

I don't agree with the lowering of levels, but it's a guessing game as to how much you can drink.

Get a bloke aholed, put him to bed and 12 hours later breathylise him. That's the limit.

Don't drive within 12 hours of having a drink. That should finish off the rest of the pubs.

All that would tell you was that he'd had a drink - it wouldn't show whether he was safe to drive. Perhaps a better option is to do a dexterity test afterwards?

[bicycleshorts]

mondeoman said:

All that would tell you was that he'd had a drink - it wouldn't show whether he was safe to drive. Perhaps a better option is to do a dexterity test afterwards?

On arrival at the station you skip the breathalyser and have to do a flying lap on Gran Turismo?

[12gauge]

First the minimum pricing on alcohol, now this.

Funny how the far left manage to end up just as puritanical and miserablist as the religious right - mind, i guess the presyterians arent a million miles away.

Its actually the east European countries that have the lowest alcohol/drive limits, and going off all the reports of lithunians/poles/estonians i see in the local papers caught for being above our limit, absurdly low limits obviously don't work.

We have a higher limit than most, and, i'll bet one of the lowest death rates re:drunk drivers.

[s2art]

Derek Smith said:

All tests have shown that ability to drive deteriorates measurably well before a 50mg level in blood is reached.

Evidence? My understanding is that there is negligible deterioration up to approx 80mg, and in fact its difficult to detect at 100mg in many people. The original research took 80mg as the most sensible amount. IIRC there is a slight improvement up to approx 20-30mg.

[Derek Smith]

s2art said:

Derek Smith said:

All tests have shown that ability to drive deteriorates measurably well before a 50mg level in blood is reached.

Evidence? My understanding is that there is negligible deterioration up to approx 80mg, and in fact its difficult to detect at 100mg in many people. The original research took 80mg as the most sensible amount. IIRC there is a slight improvement up to approx 20-30mg.

Even at very low levels alchohol changes perception and alters judgement. The 'improvement' you mentioned was a minor change in behaviour after a unit. Those who were nervus drivers tended to be less nervous. Whather this is an improvement or not depends whether you think a drug-influenced decision is good or not.

One test springs to mind every time there is a discussion on the limit. Professional drivers were asked to drive between to 'bollards'. They had to stop when they the gap was too narrow. None hit them when they were sober. At three units, a pint and a half, the majority of drivers hit them. This is a simple decision, one that is straightforward.

When decisions become much more complex, such as judging overtaking opportunities, the change was noticeable earlier.

I went on a substantive breath test machine instructors' course in Harrogate. One evening the students drank - I didn't, I'm tea total - and had to assess their ability to drive, guess their level of intoxication and then blow into the machine.

We were given the results of umpteen tests regarding intoxication but there is nothing more convincing than weeing it yourself.

Everyone thought they were too far gone to drive well below the limit. I had arranged chairs that had to be walked around before people could get to the machine and students, hairy arsed coppers amongst them, fell over them. At no time did anyone blow over the limit yet all but was was quite comfortably drunk. The one that wasn't was a 'special case' and not relevant.

The evening was staged to ensure that we did not feel sorry for those we banned for 12 mnths and gave us something to tell our students to prove to them they were doing a good job. All of us thought that the limit was too high. I seem to remember that we all though 40 (blood) or below was reasonable.

Not scientific but persuasive. As the only sober person in the group it was eye-opening.

[jmorgan]

One pint and I know my ability is affected.

[Shuvi McTupya]

Derek Smith said:

Everyone thought they were too far gone to drive well below the limit. I had arranged chairs that had to be walked around before people could get to the machine and students, hairy arsed coppers amongst them, fell over them. At no time did anyone blow over the limit yet all but was was quite comfortably drunk. The one that wasn't was a 'special case' and not relevant..

Really?

Grown men falling over furniture while still sober enough to legally drive?

Sounds a bit unlikely to me!

[Derek Smith]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Derek Smith said:

Everyone thought they were too far gone to drive well below the limit. I had arranged chairs that had to be walked around before people could get to the machine and students, hairy arsed coppers amongst them, fell over them. At no time did anyone blow over the limit yet all but was was quite comfortably drunk. The one that wasn't was a 'special case' and not relevant..

Really?

Grown men falling over furniture while still sober enough to legally drive?

Sounds a bit unlikely to me!

Indeed. All of us would have said so beforehand. The 'experiment' was there to show us, breath test liason officers, just how high the limit was.

One person was a rugby player, although by then on the list for the vets, and he had trouble standing at one time. We had other cognitive tests, which were there merely to occupy them as, the instructor said, otherwise the behaviour of the students would deteriorate into silly behaviour and jokes. A worthy objective but one that failed.

One of the test was a game of Scrabble. That was gone in the first hour.

Despite the image given int he press, a lot of police officers are not hard-drinkers. I'm tea-total and when I ran a shift in Brighton, two others were also. Further, most of the shift would have a couple of pints of an evening out as a group and then not drive home. So three or four of us on the curse were not habitual drinkers. Those that were appeared more sober but behaved childishly. Whilst this was, apparently - although not to me, fun, the change was remarkable from their normal selves.

And this is what alcohol does to people: makes them behave differently.

The biggest problem with alcohol is that it negates experience. Drivers who have been drinking do not see those occurrences that experience has taught them are important. Most drivers will say something along the lines of: He just came out of nowhere. Had they been sober they might have noticed the chap coming out of the shop, or the cyclist trying to avoid a pothole.

My belief is that the limit is set too high.

I feel certain that many officers will say that they have stopped drivers who have behaved as if they are drunk yet blow negative on the screening device. The screening device is sent for recalibration only for it to be found spot on, or rather under-reading by the agreed degree. Soemtimes I've nicked them for DIC, brought into the station, and they've blown positive on the SBTM. The few minutes enough to put them over the limit. But always, at least for me, only just.

[W124Bob]

The railway limit is 30mg,any lower is unenforceable due to the bodies own chemistry/digestion.The 30 limit came in post Clapham as part of a much wider saftey review.I would be automatiaclly tested post incident and am also subject to potential random testing(more drugs related)at 24hours notice.Can't see what the issue is here.I also thought the 50 limit is common across much of europe.

[s2art]

Derek Smith said:

Shuvi McTupya said:

Derek Smith said:

Everyone thought they were too far gone to drive well below the limit. I had arranged chairs that had to be walked around before people could get to the machine and students, hairy arsed coppers amongst them, fell over them. At no time did anyone blow over the limit yet all but was was quite comfortably drunk. The one that wasn't was a 'special case' and not relevant..

Really?

Grown men falling over furniture while still sober enough to legally drive?

Sounds a bit unlikely to me!

Indeed. All of us would have said so beforehand. The 'experiment' was there to show us, breath test liason officers, just how high the limit was.

One person was a rugby player, although by then on the list for the vets, and he had trouble standing at one time. We had other cognitive tests, which were there merely to occupy them as, the instructor said, otherwise the behaviour of the students would deteriorate into silly behaviour and jokes. A worthy objective but one that failed.

One of the test was a game of Scrabble. That was gone in the first hour.

Despite the image given int he press, a lot of police officers are not hard-drinkers. I'm tea-total and when I ran a shift in Brighton, two others were also. Further, most of the shift would have a couple of pints of an evening out as a group and then not drive home. So three or four of us on the curse were not habitual drinkers. Those that were appeared more sober but behaved childishly. Whilst this was, apparently - although not to me, fun, the change was remarkable from their normal selves.

And this is what alcohol does to people: makes them behave differently.

The biggest problem with alcohol is that it negates experience. Drivers who have been drinking do not see those occurrences that experience has taught them are important. Most drivers will say something along the lines of: He just came out of nowhere. Had they been sober they might have noticed the chap coming out of the shop, or the cyclist trying to avoid a pothole.

My belief is that the limit is set too high.

I feel certain that many officers will say that they have stopped drivers who have behaved as if they are drunk yet blow negative on the screening device. The screening device is sent for recalibration only for it to be found spot on, or rather under-reading by the agreed degree. Soemtimes I've nicked them for DIC, brought into the station, and they've blown positive on the SBTM. The few minutes enough to put them over the limit. But always, at least for me, only just.

I think you were observing the effect of rising blood alcohol rather than a fairly steady amount or falling levels. It has been shown that someone can be well over the limit the morning after but suffer very
little deterioration. Basically the body adapts. What seems to be true is that rising levels have more effect on performance.

[Derek Smith]

s2art said:

I think you were observing the effect of rising blood alcohol rather than a fairly steady amount or falling levels. It has been shown that someone can be well over the limit the morning after but suffer very
little deterioration. Basically the body adapts. What seems to be true is that rising levels have more effect on performance.

The prescribed limit was brought in because of the difficulty in proving drunkenness and inability to drive. Briefs would demand the doctor, whose opinion was required, to attend court and then get a delay after dealy. When they finally got to court their evidence would be twisted and drivers, with the help of juries, would get off despite being all but legless. In the end it was all but impossible to gt a doctor willing to give an opinion in many areas.

So a prescribed limit was brought in and the police did not have to prove that the driver's abilities were impaired. In the early days briefs did try to get doctors, whose only job was to drain the blood, to court to give opinions of drunkenness until that was shown to be irrelevant.

So rather like speeding where a limit was imposed with no need to show danger, the DD limit was brought in as an offence to exceed. Whilst it has its faults, there was a significant drop in accidents following enforcement.

Some idividuals can drive without apparent deterioration in mechanical skills despite being over the limit but what has been shown is that the unconscious suffers. Drivers miss danger signals.

I'm not sure what a satisfactory alternative could be. Certainly opinion of impairment has been shown to be a non-starter by the fact that lawyers did what lawyers do so made prosecutions, at least for those who could afford expensive briefs, extremely difficult. Evidence alone was not enough.

[Edinburger]

I've never seen the point in having 'just one'. When you've had the taste and cna't have any more it spoils the night. I'd rather have none at all. I've always seen the drink drive limit as the safety net for the day after rather than having one.

[thinfourth2]

Edinburger said:

I've never seen the point in having 'just one'. When you've had the taste and cna't have any more it spoils the night. I'd rather have none at all. I've always seen the drink drive limit as the safety net for the day after rather than having one.

That sounds like the start of a problem to me