scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit

[simoid]

bodhi said:

Assuming 1 unit is 15mg, the reduced limit won't stop you from having a pint, will just stop you from having the second one.

I remember several moons ago, whilst I was doing my drink driving course after slightly misjudging the time taken for the previous night's alcohol to shift (I blew 41 at the station, they let you go at 40. Blood reading came back at 86. Not proud in the slightest), they spent a day of the course telling you how to stay below the limit, and how to work out if you were safe. Key figures were 15mg / unit of alcohol, and it takes 1 hour for 1 unit to leave your system.

Agree it's a stupid idea though, it won't stop people having a skinful then driving home (especially the further North you go), but it will probably increase the number of people getting caught the morning after, when they pose a far lower danger.

So a pint takes your average Joe to about 30-40mg, are we talking blood there?

Sit down for a meal for 2 hours and Joe Drunkard will still manage 2 pints by the time his blood alcohol gets measured.

[McWigglebum4th]

arp1 said:

Well if you are not happy, vote with your feet and leave like we all wish you would

So all the people of scotland want me to leave scotland


Go fk off and hide back under your nationalist rock

[Vipers]

McWigglebum4th said:

arp1 said:

Well if you are not happy, vote with your feet and leave like we all wish you would

So all the people of scotland want me to leave scotland


Go fk off and hide back under your nationalist rock

I Say chaps, settle down, after all, we are all British............

[Moonhawk]

Rovinghawk said:

It's like speed- limits should be sensible in order to be respected. Artificial lowering below sensible limits does more harm than good.

Yep even the government recognise this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

Yet councils seem to be arbitrarily lowering speed limits based on no evidence - just so they can be seen to be doing something.

If you set speed limits too low - then drivers don't respect them. As per the white paper above - drivers speeding may actually be indicative of a speed limit that is set too low:

"26. Where there is poor compliance with an existing speed limit on a road or stretch of road the reasons for the non-compliance should be examined before a solution is sought. If the speed limit is set too low for no clear reason and the risk of collisions is low, then it may be appropriate to increase the limit. If the existing limit is in place for a good reason, solutions may include engineering measures or changes to the road environment to ensure it better matches the speed limit, or local education and publicity. Enforcement may also be appropriate, but should be considered only after the other measures and jointly with the police force."

Laws should encourage self compliance - they shouldn't be set arbitrarily tight just because they can be.

[arp1]

McWigglebum4th said:

So all the people of scotland want me to leave scotland


Go fk off and hide back under your nationalist rock

'Waves union nationalist flag'

[bodhi]

simoid said:

So a pint takes your average Joe to about 30-40mg, are we talking blood there?

Sit down for a meal for 2 hours and Joe Drunkard will still manage 2 pints by the time his blood alcohol gets measured.

Yep, will take them to a maximum of 30mg in blood, assuming 100% absorption. Just parroting what the gubbermint told me at the time.

[simoid]

bodhi said:

Yep, will take them to a maximum of 30mg in blood, assuming 100% absorption. Just parroting what the gubbermint told me at the time.

Sorted. I'll still get a pint when I go out for dinner then (and a few until the 5th of December!)

[Mojocvh]

McWigglebum4th said:

Edinburger said:

The reason I'm so against drink driving is because a loved one was killed by a drunk driver a few years ago.

It's beyond me why anyone would knowingly drink alcohol and then knowingly drive a car. Or even plan to.

This proposed change is to prevent people having " just the one".

It's car or booze - they don't match.

Now let me guess

Your loved one was killed by someone 2 or more times over the limit



You are incapable of seeing the difference between me having a single pint of beer and someone who has 20 pints and has to crawl into their car

You are the idiot

Don't we work that out a couple of volumes ago?

If not idiotic, the blind obedience to both the "safety" and the "must be seen to do something" dogma is a tell tale indication of the quasi Stalinist...

[crofty1984]

Edinburger said:

McWigglebum4th said:

As a taxi is £80 back to my house from aberdeen

and coke tastes like st

and it is a tiny tiny increased risk to the general public


So why should i not be allowed one single pint of decent beer?

That's your lifestyle choice. If you want a beer, sort out transport home.

He did sort out transport home. He's legally driving home after having one pint which will in all likelihood impair his ability to safely drive by far less than him being distracted thinking about the rodgering he's going to give the Mrs, having taken her out for a nice meal and got her tipsy.

[Moonhawk]

Edinburger said:

The reason I'm so against drink driving is because a loved one was killed by a drunk driver a few years ago.

It's beyond me why anyone would knowingly drink alcohol and then knowingly drive a car. Or even plan to.

Whilst clearly painful for you because of the experience you have had - this type of argument can be extended to many areas of driving - using emotive anecdotes to set policy is not really viable.

Should we stop people from driving who cannot demonstrate they have had at least 7 hours sleep the night before or should we fit tachographs to all cars to ensure drivers stop for 15 minutes in every 2 hours driving etc (fatigue is implicated in 4% of all fatal accidents)

Should we ban all possible distractions within vehicles. You are not allowed a radio, cd player, phones (even hands free), fluffy dice etc because they may distract the driver (distraction inside a vehicle is implicated in 4% of all fatal accidents)

Should we ban people from driving if they are ill or disabled (illness and disability is implicated in 6% of all fatal accidents)

I'm sure we can find people whose loved ones have been killed by a driver fitting one of those descriptions above.

If there is clear evidence favouring lowering the DD limit further - then fine, but lowering it arbitrarily to be seen to be doing something, whilst providing little or no actual benefit only serves to criminalise otherwise law abiding citizens and will lead to people having little respect for those laws. Just because you can impose a law - doesn't mean you should.

[Harry H]

Moonhawk said:

If there is clear evidence favouring lowering the DD limit further - then fine, but lowering it arbitrarily to be seen to be doing something, whilst providing little or no actual benefit only serves to criminalise otherwise law abiding citizens and will lead to people having little respect for those laws. Just because you can impose a law - doesn't mean you should.

Bang on.

Isn't there a danger now that someone who's had two pints (at which point is more than safe to drive) might just as well have 6 before driving home.

[JF87]

I absolutely don't want to see the limit reduced, but accept there probably is a justification for doing so.

After a pint and a half (the most I drink before driving) I can tell I'm a little "keener" behind the wheel. Not taking risks as such, just rather more spirited (arf). In the knowledge I'm safely under the limit I don't rein myself in.

It seems I'd probably be fine under the current limit after two pints, but at that level I suspect alcoholic joie de vivre might lead most of us into the realm of behind-the-wheel risk-taking...

Edited by JF87 on Friday 24th October 18:15

[Hilts]

This is not a good thing.

Pls leave the limit as is.

[Boozy]

simoid said:

Er, why? Who the fk are you to tell me what to do?

Someone's had a drink.

[Vipers]

Harry H said:

Isn't there a danger now that someone who's had two pints (at which point is more than safe to drive)might just as well have 6 before driving home.

Based on what?

[simoid]

Boozy said:

Someone's had a drink.

Not today, I'm not driving!

[bodhi]

Vipers said:

Based on what?

Based on what the nice civil servant who ran my drink driving course told me.

[Driver101]

Help a confused one here.

They are planning to lower the limit for amount of alcohol in blood.

I thought that most people were tested according to the amount of alcohol on their breath?

Aren't they two different tests? Refuse a breath test and you can give blood as an alternative?

I've not heard anything about the alcohol in breath limit being reduced.

[dandarez]

This arguing about just one pint and driving.

A friend did this, he could see no problem in it. He drove quite a lot. The pub he frequented is not far (I walk to it, still do) but nah, he'd drive. We're in the sticks, so... one pint (sometimes though it was more than one). Funnily (not really) he had the same attitude with seat belts. To drive to work - 11 miles - he wore it. To go to the village shop (and the pub!) he couldn't see the point.

The point is, guess where he is now? It involved a Spar lorry. Do I need to tell you more?

[Einion Yrth]

dandarez said:

This arguing about just one pint and driving.
Do I need to tell you more?

If you expect anyone to come to any kind of sane assessment, then yes, some germaine facts might be useful; otherwise I'm afraid that if you consult a dictionary you'll find that "anecdote" is a different word from "data".