scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit
Discussion
simoid said:
Pwig said:
Am I right by thinking there has never been a study which proves that you are a worse driver after a pint than before? In fact I think every study shows you are actually better.
Happy to be proved otherwise.
But I believe the attitude to risk and confidence/perception can change after a legal amount of booze, so it's not clear cut(?)Happy to be proved otherwise.
As usual, I think the only people with will affect is the law abiding vast majority. The "five and drive" crowd or absolute pissheads aren't going to stop breaking rules because the rules have altered slightly.
Continue down this road, and we'll all be restricted to 8mph all over the country in our cotton wool wrapped cars.
As to Pwig's comment regarding the study with data on low blood alcohol levels, see below.
alfaman said:
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
Agreed again. An atbitrary limit doesn't signal the sudden onset of lunacy and mayhem, though it may appear to help those pursuing a war of words to make it seem like that.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
People who are marginally over the limit are careless and should know better than to get even close, similar people are equally if not more likely to be marginally over a lower limit. At that end of the spectrum there's hardly any increase in crash risk for driving marginally over the limit.
The type of people who are multiple times over a higher limit are hardly going to be anything but an even bigger multiple over a lower limit. Drivers who don't "get it" still won't get it whatever the blood alcohol limit is set at. These are the potentially lethal drivers.
As the Borkenstien Grand Rapids data shows, the current 80mg/100ml limit is well set. Moving to a lower limit in itself won't do what's claimed without e.g. enhanced breath testing and banning of drunk drivers for longer periods. The suggested move from 80 to 50 would barely make any difference to crash risk.
Going back to the idea that a small amount of alcohol may be beneficial, take a look at crash risk at about 35mg/100ml. Road safety totalitarians have tried everything to not publicise, or to explain away, that mini-dip in the data.
alfaman said:
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
At the risk of having to post twice, I agree that the reason people still drink and drive, despite the proven effects of even low levels of alcohol on performance, is that they are unlikely to get caught.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
However, it is manpower intensive and with the slashing of police numbers, the incentive is not to take on preventative measures as they are not measured. Random testing is unlikely to give rise to a significant rise in the number of tests.
Drivers therefore will kid themselves that alcohol doesn't affect them. They will cherry-pick data, in the same way those who are pro/anti MMGB do, and suggest that alcohol has no affect at low levels.
So dropping the limit might, just might, stop people having that one extra glass.
Those who regard drinking and driving as a test of manhood will continue to offend and will only get caught when they have an accident serious enough for the police to be called. And serious enough for the police to attend, which is a much higher bar nowadays.
turbobloke said:
Agreed again. An atbitrary limit doesn't signal the sudden onset of lunacy and mayhem, though it may appear to help those pursuing a war of words to make it seem like that.
People who are marginally over the limit are careless and should know better than to get even close, similar people are equally if not more likely to be marginally over a lower limit. At that end of the spectrum there's hardly any increase in crash risk for driving marginally over the limit.
The type of people who are multiple times over a higher limit are hardly going to be anything but an even bigger multiple over a lower limit. Drivers who don't "get it" still won't get it whatever the blood alcohol limit is set at. These are the potentially lethal drivers.
As the Borkenstien Grand Rapids data shows, the current 80mg/100ml limit is well set. Moving to a lower limit in itself won't do what's claimed without e.g. enhanced breath testing and banning of drunk drivers for longer periods. The suggested move from 80 to 50 would barely make any difference to crash risk.
Going back to the idea that a small amount of alcohol may be beneficial, take a look at crash risk at about 35mg/100ml. Road safety totalitarians have tried everything to not publicise, or to explain away, that mini-dip in the data.
Looking at that graph there is a possibility of an accident at 0.0000%People who are marginally over the limit are careless and should know better than to get even close, similar people are equally if not more likely to be marginally over a lower limit. At that end of the spectrum there's hardly any increase in crash risk for driving marginally over the limit.
The type of people who are multiple times over a higher limit are hardly going to be anything but an even bigger multiple over a lower limit. Drivers who don't "get it" still won't get it whatever the blood alcohol limit is set at. These are the potentially lethal drivers.
As the Borkenstien Grand Rapids data shows, the current 80mg/100ml limit is well set. Moving to a lower limit in itself won't do what's claimed without e.g. enhanced breath testing and banning of drunk drivers for longer periods. The suggested move from 80 to 50 would barely make any difference to crash risk.
Going back to the idea that a small amount of alcohol may be beneficial, take a look at crash risk at about 35mg/100ml. Road safety totalitarians have tried everything to not publicise, or to explain away, that mini-dip in the data.
This isn't safe enough for the people of the free democratic workers republic of salmondovia
Now
It is widely accepted that a Blood alcohol level of over 0.5% and there is a good chance of it being fatal
if you are dead you can't drive a car therefore no chance of a crash
So I belive to bring the required level of safety we must insist that anyone found driving with a level below 5% blood alcohol should be excited immediately
You can't be too safe
McWigglebum4th said:
Looking at that graph there is a possibility of an accident at 0.0000%
This isn't safe enough for the people of the free democratic workers republic of salmondovia
OK, but how safe is safe enough?! Got it - negative alcohol levels, sorted.This isn't safe enough for the people of the free democratic workers republic of salmondovia
McWigglebum4th said:
You can't be too safe.
Safe.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The experience of officers present at the scene of drink related accidents and with experience of other incidents is sobering 
but no single officer has studied the crash risk related to varying blood alcohol levels in as much detail as Prof Borkenstein's team. They looked at 5895 accident group drivers and 7590 control group drivers and the results of their study have been posted in this thread. Depending on PH page set-up it may still be on this page. Their work was verified by the 'New Grand Rapids Study' sponsored by NHTSA and conducted by Richard D Bloomberg which sampled a total of 14985 drivers in crash and control groups. Of the crash subset, BAC tests were available for 92% of drivers, with the total information gathered representing a wealth of real world data.Derek Smith said:
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.
It would be interesting to see if these studies use BACs from actual drivers in actual crashes together with control groups, or whether somebody is sat in a simulator after being fed on various amounts of vodka, with lane wandering, response times and other easily measured variables cooked up into numbers claimed to be equivalent to or better than crash stats. Who knows?! One study involving a larger total of drivers than above which did sample actual BACs is often used to promote a lower or zero BAC limit. It found "no sudden transition from blameless to blamed (in fatacs)" in terms of BAC level and there was "no point at which it is harmless to consume alcohol and get behind the wheel of a car". That said, how could driving ever be 'safe' in an absolute sense? It's not harmless to get behind the wheel of a car with a zero BAC - in statistical terms - and the Borkenstein Grand Rapids data also shows a small continuous rise in accident risk above 35mg/100ml up to around 90mg/100ml. At that point, crash risk increases rapidly. Setting the 80mg/100ml limit was entirely sensible and it remains so.
There are additional risks when driving with the radio on, the window open, a passenger next to you, and when you're uptight about work or a relationship. These can and often will involve greater risks than driving with a BAC close to 80. Nothing except totalitarian acts can take away all the risk (ban driving any vehicle on the roads, that would work). It does matter that we keep the issue of risk in perspective.
If the proposal is enacted and there's a push to enforce it, the misrecording and abuse of stats we've seen in the context of vehicle speed will meet its match.
BooHoo said:
I find it highly amusing that he's still upset about the independence vote. 
If he is indicative of the intelligence of rest of the people in Scotland then I'm still upset about the vote too - just imagine how much better things would be without people like this holding the rest of the country back!Edited by sidicks on Sunday 26th October 22:38
Well, here's an interesting chloropleth. The scale is grams per decilitre of blood.
It looks like Scotland is about to change to the slightly lighter shade of green favoured by much of western Europe in due course.
The thing is, from that map - on a completely unscientific basis - that the more a nation has a reputation for indulging in high-order alcohol abuse, the lower the limit is.
McWiggle's problem is that he lives in Scotland, which has a certain reputation in that regard.
Perhaps if he moved to the soft shandy-drinking South he wouldn't be having such an embolism about the whole thing.
It looks like Scotland is about to change to the slightly lighter shade of green favoured by much of western Europe in due course.
The thing is, from that map - on a completely unscientific basis - that the more a nation has a reputation for indulging in high-order alcohol abuse, the lower the limit is.
McWiggle's problem is that he lives in Scotland, which has a certain reputation in that regard.
Perhaps if he moved to the soft shandy-drinking South he wouldn't be having such an embolism about the whole thing.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Well what else should we be drinking?Coke = sugary f
king horrible fizzy nasty st that makes me burp that is bloody expensiveLemonade = See coke
diet coke = See coke
fanta = See coke
iru bru = See coke
soft drinks = See coke
american beers = See coke
sparkling water = See coke without sugar
Fruit juice = overly sweet
So i am left with water
Oh great lets go out dear for a nice glass of water
Or take my life in my hands with a mini cab
My local taxi driver has the nickname of rollover roy
eharding said:
Well, here's an interesting chloropleth. The scale is grams per decilitre of blood.
Most the European counties with lower drink drive limits also have very light penalties for those caught at the lower end of the spectrum - e,g. In France, the limit is 0.5, but if caught at 0.75 you can expect a 135 euro fine, not a job ending 1 year ban and £1000 fine.
You asked what the purpose of having the first sip was, when people have explained you've got all grumpy. Why ask the question in the first place?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff