scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit
Discussion
If the data indicated more chance of having an accident at the current drink drive limit, then I'd understand the current reduction, but it seems the enforcers are getting the ache because of the number caught above the current limit. So why reduce it, other than to possibly increase the margin by which limits are breached? The same twisted logic seems to be applied to the lowering of speed limits.
MintyChris said:
Just another headline grabbing law from an interfering, hollow government designed to win over gullible Scottish voters.
Pointless change.
The tPointless change.
t that brought it in just survived a no confidence motion earlier this month :-http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-po...
Same t
t that let the lockerbie bomber free, let police roam routinely armed to school fairs etc.Socialist f
kwits.
Edinburger said:
I really really do not see the enjoyment of having one pint. It's pointless. Why the get the taste and then punish yourself for the rest if the evening?
"Get the taste" and "punish yourself" sounds like alcohol dependence to me...If arbitrarily reducing alcohol limits is a good idea on safety grounds then surely it follows that reducing all speed limits would be an even more effective contributor to reducing serious accidents/ road deaths.
Nobody has answered my earlier question.
The vast majority of people give a breath sample when being tested for drink driving.
Very few people give a blood sample.
What difference does lowering the alcohol in blood content mean to people who give breath samples?
I've not read anything about the breath sample limit being reduced, just the blood test.
The vast majority of people give a breath sample when being tested for drink driving.
Very few people give a blood sample.
What difference does lowering the alcohol in blood content mean to people who give breath samples?
I've not read anything about the breath sample limit being reduced, just the blood test.
Driver101 said:
Nobody has answered my earlier question.
The vast majority of people give a breath sample when being tested for drink driving.
Very few people give a blood sample.
What difference does lowering the alcohol in blood content mean to people who give breath samples?
I've not read anything about the breath sample limit being reduced, just the blood test.
A blood content value has a (supposedly) proportionate breath content value.The vast majority of people give a breath sample when being tested for drink driving.
Very few people give a blood sample.
What difference does lowering the alcohol in blood content mean to people who give breath samples?
I've not read anything about the breath sample limit being reduced, just the blood test.
As far as I understand it, the UK uses a conversion factor of 2300:1 for the conversion so changing from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood is equivalent to changing from 35mcg to 22mcg per litre of breath.
The fact that they haven't mentioned the breath test isn't relevant; if one limit changes the other does too.
The worrying thing really is the rise in legislation because people think its “the right thing to do” and powers that be wanting to “be seen to be doing something” with absolutely no objective evidence to support the proposals, whether drink drive, 20mph blanket speed limits, or anything else.
This attitude has already been demonstrated on this thread, with some posters not only challenging why should the limit be the level be the limit it is today (Perfectly fine question), then suggesting as there is little objective argument therefore it should be reduced.
It is fine to challenge the status quo, but the onus for ‘proof’ so to speak should be on those arguing the change – i.e show that the proposals will result in a tangible benefit vs the costs (whether actual cost or lack of utility, or loss of freedoms etc) rather than expect those who either support or have no problem with the current position to continually defend it in face of whatever harebrained scheme arrives next.
I’d be happy if the change in limit was touted as a trial, but as it stands it is simply a change with change sake with no evidence it’ll actually do any good (lower casualty rates) and has the potential to inconvenience large numbers of people, all for political point scoring.
How long until Westminster blindly follows this lead? (Perhaps the Scots MP’s will take a position on English laws.....)
Oh, and as for the comment of cant enjoy just one pint, this simply shows your attitude to alcohol, not everyone takes the first sip of their first drink with an end goal of getting wasted.
This attitude has already been demonstrated on this thread, with some posters not only challenging why should the limit be the level be the limit it is today (Perfectly fine question), then suggesting as there is little objective argument therefore it should be reduced.
It is fine to challenge the status quo, but the onus for ‘proof’ so to speak should be on those arguing the change – i.e show that the proposals will result in a tangible benefit vs the costs (whether actual cost or lack of utility, or loss of freedoms etc) rather than expect those who either support or have no problem with the current position to continually defend it in face of whatever harebrained scheme arrives next.
I’d be happy if the change in limit was touted as a trial, but as it stands it is simply a change with change sake with no evidence it’ll actually do any good (lower casualty rates) and has the potential to inconvenience large numbers of people, all for political point scoring.
How long until Westminster blindly follows this lead? (Perhaps the Scots MP’s will take a position on English laws.....)
Oh, and as for the comment of cant enjoy just one pint, this simply shows your attitude to alcohol, not everyone takes the first sip of their first drink with an end goal of getting wasted.
Edinburger said:
Cannot believe some of the stuff posted here. Cannot believe that so many posters on a car enthusiast website are arguing why they should have a pint before driving.
It's simple - either drink OR drive. Don't do both.
I really really do not see the enjoyment of having one pint. It's pointless. Why the get the taste and then punish yourself for the rest if the evening?
Get a taxi. It's straightforward really. The arbitrary limit is there to cover alcohol in food, maybe even the morning after.
Oh, and look at other country's limits and look at their death/serious injury rates (due to drink driving) compared to ours.
By the way, I'm far from being any sort if goody-two-shoes or rule confirmor. But on this issue, it's there for good reason.
You're making unscientific leaps between drink drive limits and deaths. Scotland is a notorious nation of drinkers and binge drinkers - our attitude to booze is very much different to countries with lower limits.It's simple - either drink OR drive. Don't do both.
I really really do not see the enjoyment of having one pint. It's pointless. Why the get the taste and then punish yourself for the rest if the evening?
Get a taxi. It's straightforward really. The arbitrary limit is there to cover alcohol in food, maybe even the morning after.
Oh, and look at other country's limits and look at their death/serious injury rates (due to drink driving) compared to ours.
By the way, I'm far from being any sort if goody-two-shoes or rule confirmor. But on this issue, it's there for good reason.
Is there any evidence that a driver is more likely to crash because of consumption of 2 units of alcohol?
Oh and btw, you're missing the point. We're not saying we should have a pint before driving - we're saying we should have the freedom to do so.
simoid said:
You're making unscientific leaps between drink drive limits and deaths. Scotland is a notorious nation of drinkers and binge drinkers - our attitude to booze is very much different to countries with lower limits.
Is there any evidence that a driver is more likely to crash because of consumption of 2 units of alcohol?
Oh and btw, you're missing the point. We're not saying we should have a pint before driving - we're saying we should have the freedom to do so.
It's not a direct link. As you suggest, dropping the limit from 80 to 50 is going to make little difference to the guy who gets behind the wheel after two bottles of Buckfast. Is there any evidence that a driver is more likely to crash because of consumption of 2 units of alcohol?
Oh and btw, you're missing the point. We're not saying we should have a pint before driving - we're saying we should have the freedom to do so.
What dropping the limit (and IMO this doesn't go low enough) does is to make a bit of a dent in the culture of drinking and driving. More people will say "it's not worth the bother" and then the people that do will look even more socially unacceptable. It's a lot like the way that banning smoking indoors has contributed a lot to the stigmatisation of smoking.
Edinburger said:
Cannot believe some of the stuff posted here. Cannot believe that so many posters on a car enthusiast website are arguing why they should have a pint before driving.
It's simple - either drink OR drive. Don't do both.
I really really do not see the enjoyment of having one pint. It's pointless. Why the get the taste and then punish yourself for the rest if the evening?
Get a taxi. It's straightforward really. The arbitrary limit is there to cover alcohol in food, maybe even the morning after.
Oh, and look at other country's limits and look at their death/serious injury rates (due to drink driving) compared to ours.
By the way, I'm far from being any sort if goody-two-shoes or rule confirmor. But on this issue, it's there for good reason.
Who are you? It's simple - either drink OR drive. Don't do both.
I really really do not see the enjoyment of having one pint. It's pointless. Why the get the taste and then punish yourself for the rest if the evening?
Get a taxi. It's straightforward really. The arbitrary limit is there to cover alcohol in food, maybe even the morning after.
Oh, and look at other country's limits and look at their death/serious injury rates (due to drink driving) compared to ours.
By the way, I'm far from being any sort if goody-two-shoes or rule confirmor. But on this issue, it's there for good reason.
And why do you have the last word over whether it's ok to have a pint and drive or not?
It's simple - drink if you want and drive if you're safe.
I really do see the enjoyment of having one pint. Why not enjoy the taste and then move to soft drinks for the rest of the evening?
I'm not a tine, tiny crying child so having a pint doesn't make me come over all malco-ordinated and unable to safely control a vehicle. So I'm fine as I am thanks very much
davepoth said:
It's not a direct link. As you suggest, dropping the limit from 80 to 50 is going to make little difference to the guy who gets behind the wheel after two bottles of Buckfast.
What dropping the limit (and IMO this doesn't go low enough) does is to make a bit of a dent in the culture of drinking and driving. More people will say "it's not worth the bother" and then the people that do will look even more socially unacceptable. It's a lot like the way that banning smoking indoors has contributed a lot to the stigmatisation of smoking.
Can't be long 'til prohibition. Lots of bad comes about because of alcohol, so it would be simplest to just ban it outright - and those who can and do enjoy alcohol responsibly would just have to deal with(out) it What dropping the limit (and IMO this doesn't go low enough) does is to make a bit of a dent in the culture of drinking and driving. More people will say "it's not worth the bother" and then the people that do will look even more socially unacceptable. It's a lot like the way that banning smoking indoors has contributed a lot to the stigmatisation of smoking.
More seriously - I'm not sure what you mean by the culture of drinking and driving. Do you mean drunk/seriously impaired driving? Or the culture of having a pint on the way home from work? Those in society who deem it acceptable to drive whilst drunk clearly do so in the knowledge that the majority find it intolerable.
And if you mean the culture of having a single pint and driving - why should I be stigmatised if I'm not doing anything wrong or harmful?
Dr Jekyll said:
Surely the sensible limit would be the amount of alcohol that degrades your driving ability to the level of your local minicab driver. I don't drive after drinking, but I'm amused by the notion that getting a minicab is the risk free option.
What ?! Are you suggesting that African / middle Eastern / Eastern European driving tests aren't as good as the UK?! ;-)Edited by Dr Jekyll on Saturday 25th October 15:18
simoid said:
Is there any evidence that a driver is more likely to crash because of consumption of 2 units of alcohol?
The is ample evidence to show that low levels of alcohol in the blood have a negative effect on a person's ability to drive.It is, after all, a drug. It is a depressive. It reduces and eventually blocks certain performance inhibitors.
At very low levels it has a negative effect on the spacial awareness of drivers, even, possibly especially, experienced ones. Critically, it gives no warning of this to the driver, so they feel totally capable of driving normally and fail to see the deterioration in their abilities. So you get the response of: "Alcohol doesn't affect me at just a pint or two."
On top of that, for some drivers their confidence increases. This, oddly, has the effect of improving the driving in certain aspects of some as their lack of confidence when sober reduces their driving performance. But that's obviously from a low level due to lack of confidence having an effect on their ability to drive. The positive effect of this is soon negated, and not necessarily after drinking more alcohol. The confidence boost is short lived and then the driving drops to below the normal level.
Perception is reduced as well. The mechanics of this was in dispute when I studied it, but those drivers with low levels of alcohol in their blood fail to see warning signs. Whatever the process, experienced drivers end up driving like less experienced drivers, but without the caution that many beginners exercise.
All this starts at low levels of alcohol. It starts on everyone at two units, and for some as low as one unit, eg: half a pint. The effects are measurable scientifically.
Women are effected to a greater extent than men for the same amount. Again, the specific reasons for this were being argued over, but not the fact that the effects are greater.
There is some deterioration in ability to drive if a person drinks to excess regularly, and this is measurable whether or not there is any alcohol in the blood at the time of the test.
There are many, many results of research into the effects of low-level alcohol online, many universities being only too pleased to publish it.
I saw the video of an unscientific test of drinking on professional HGV drivers. All were able to negotiate a slalom, and quite impressively. Knights of the road and all that. Then they drank one unit and there was no obvious reduction in ability.
Then they drank a second unit and there was a delay for a few minutes, so giving time for the whole 2 units to be taken in.
These top quality drivers hit cones.
There was another test done, I think, with PSV drivers. This time they had to drive between two 6' high cones. From a distance of a few feet they were required to reduce the distance between the cones to just enough for them to drive through safely. All, at the start when sober, were able to make the judgement within a foot or so, 6" either side. After one unit, with a bit of time afterwards, none were able to do it effectively, and one even drove into one.
So to answer your question, Yes there is ample evidence to show that even low levels of alcohol negatively affect driving ability. This is regardless of whether there is a drinking culture or not.
Some suggest that if, for instance, there is locally a considerable amount of drink driving, sober drivers will avoid the roads these drivers frequent and if forced to share the same space, will drive with a great deal of caution. So the drunks are bailed out by the sober.
Surely an argument against dropping the limits is this ... The limits have been the same for over 45 50? Years while deaths from drink driving have massively reduced without limit change !
This has been done by more focus on breath testing , education and change in attitude.
I would have no problem with random testing in UK - like u get in NZ .
I reckon the biggest reason people still drive drunk today ( eg: well over the limit)..is that they don think they will be caught ( as well as not caring about the risks of dd).
There is no need or benefit in changing limits IMO
This has been done by more focus on breath testing , education and change in attitude.
I would have no problem with random testing in UK - like u get in NZ .
I reckon the biggest reason people still drive drunk today ( eg: well over the limit)..is that they don think they will be caught ( as well as not caring about the risks of dd).
There is no need or benefit in changing limits IMO
Surely an argument against dropping the limits is this ... The limits have been the same for over 45 50? Years while deaths from drink driving have massively reduced without limit change !
This has been done by more focus on breath testing , education and change in attitude.
I would have no problem with random testing in UK - like u get in NZ .
I reckon the biggest reason people still drive drunk today ( eg: well over the limit)..is that they don think they will be caught ( as well as not caring about the risks of dd).
There is no need or benefit in changing limits IMO
This has been done by more focus on breath testing , education and change in attitude.
I would have no problem with random testing in UK - like u get in NZ .
I reckon the biggest reason people still drive drunk today ( eg: well over the limit)..is that they don think they will be caught ( as well as not caring about the risks of dd).
There is no need or benefit in changing limits IMO
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff