Scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit.

[Negative Creep]

RobinBanks said:

Krikkit said:

otolith said:

Because we like to strike a sensible balance between personal freedom and risk.

Because we don't like to criminalise activities which are harmless.

Because while you can be reasonably confident that enough time has passed since you consumed alcohol that you are under the limit, the point at which you are actually at zero is much harder to call.

Because there are small quantities of alcohol in all sorts of things.

Because we tolerate riskier factors than a small amount of alcohol - driving is such a fundamental part of the way we conduct our lives that people still expect to drive when they have minor illness, or a headache, or a new baby keeping them up all night, or their faculties are dulled by age, or they are young and inexperienced, or they've just had a massive row with their partner, or they are bereaved and grieving or...

The law is fine how it is. It's a good sensible compromise between private freedom and public safety.

Save this post somewhere, keep posting it in any of this type of thread. Bob on.

Agreed. You put it very well.

I wonder if all those who call for zero tolerance go out for a few on Saturday night then drive to work on Monday? Are they sure every last trace has vanished from your system?

[Dog Star]

austinsmirk said:

its rare I'd bother to quote someone else: but did you really think and then write that statement.

truly amazing.

Great quoting.

I aim to please.

Yes I did think and then write that. I have an opinion, and am capable of drawing my own conclusions. I've drawn one about you already, for example.

My point stands and is valid - drink driving is vilified and come Christmas for example there is always the great DD campaign. This never seems to stop the "career" drink driver, they were breaking the law before, what difference does it make to them?

But think about it - it's dark and wet. We're on a busy road. Two cars travelling at 35mph. Bloke A has had a couple of pints. Bloke B is stone cold sober but has a set of stty Chinese tyres on. Someone on a pedal bike sails through a red light in front of them. Now who is going to hit and kill the cyclist: chap with slightly (if at all) diminished reaction time, or the bloke who takes 15 metres further to stop?

That's a contrived but valid example, and if the government wanted to *really* cut road deaths and injuries they would ban cheap st tyres. I bet they'd save a lot of lives. It'd cost voters a lot of money though....

The "couple of drinks" crew aren't the issue. All that will happen is that a lot more people will end up criminalised for doing no harm whatsover.

I'll draw a parallel with the introduction of 20 limits - usually introduced by campaigns from residents annoyed about "speeding cars". The speeding cars were speeding in 30s. Do these people fondly imagine that when they have the limit lowered outside their house that the 40 and 50mph speeders will stop? Will they hell - they'll carry on, the only people who have been inconvenienced have been the law abiding 30mph folk who were perfectly safe in the first place.

[PurpleMoonlight]

luckystrike said:

FYI a pint of beer is typically over 2 units so even with the current legislation that's very much in the realm of potentially over the limit already, as is a large glass of wine. Usual caveats, average sized person, no 'recovery' time etc.

Is it though?

30 years ago when I was not old and out at the weekends and needing to watch what I drank, 2.5 pints was just under the limit. This was based on 4% alcohol content. Each pint equated to 30 mg.

Has the limit changed over this time or has the strength of beer more than doubled?

I think there is a lot of exaggerating going on the press.

[Tribal Chestnut]

r11co said:

Gesture politics of the worst kind (here's the problem with devolution - people granted the power to change things will change things just to make their mark) but the bigger picture is that this is another small step towards the prohibition of alcohol that the zealots want.

Edited by r11co on Friday 24th October 12:24

Agree with the first point, the rest is bks. Beverage companies, private healthcare providers, security firms, banks, etc, and those generally with a financial interest in the status quo (ie those that are 'in charge' of us) will never let the rest of what you fear happen.

[luckystrike]

PurpleMoonlight said:

luckystrike said:

FYI a pint of beer is typically over 2 units so even with the current legislation that's very much in the realm of potentially over the limit already, as is a large glass of wine. Usual caveats, average sized person, no 'recovery' time etc.

Is it though?

30 years ago when I was not old and out at the weekends and needing to watch what I drank, 2.5 pints was just under the limit. This was based on 4% alcohol content. Each pint equated to 30 mg.

Has the limit changed over this time or has the strength of beer more than doubled?

I think there is a lot of exaggerating going on the press.

Yup.

Using ethanol density of 7.89g/ml you're drinking 7890mg of ethanol in 1 unit (10ml). If you've got 10 pints of blood in you that's 5682.6ml of blood. Assuming a 100% absorption and 0% metabolism of the ethanol that puts you at 7890/5682.6 = 1.38mg/ml, or 138mg/100ml, namely 58mg/100ml over the limit. That's just for 1 unit, rather than 2.3 units for a pint of 4% beer.

Of course that's assuming that either all of the alcohol enters your bloodstream at once or none of it metabolises, whereas in practice there's a clear overlap given alcohol's absorbed at varying stages of digestion from the stomach to the small intestine while the liver will be getting to work as soon as it encounters alcohol, but I would estimate that if a normal-sized bloke banged a pint down and was breathalysed 15-20 minutes later (at roughly maximum absorbtion/minimum metabolism) he'd be close to if not over the legal limit.

The '2 unit rule' normally ends up with people being alright as people rarely ingest 2 units instantly, and people rarely start driving the second they stop drinking. The staggered consumption of sipping a pint and the 10+ minute wait from actually saying goodbye/waiting for your mate to finish/walking to the car will both have result in a relatively significant portion of the alcohol being metabolised before you start driving.

As for 2.5 pints being just under the limit, I'm sure an element of that was delays as mentioned above and police leniency, frankly. I'm sure there was much more 'I'm fine officer I just live down the road' 'well on your way, keep out of trouble' 30 years ago than now. There's press exaggeration about the issue without a doubt, but conversely I think a lot of people like to think they're perfectly fine when in reality they're sailing quite close to the wind.

[PurpleMoonlight]

But 1 unit is 10 ml.

So an 80 ml limit gives 8 units, not 2.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 24th October 16:31

[luckystrike]

PurpleMoonlight said:

But 1 unit is 10 ml.

So an 80 ml limit gives 8 units, not 2.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 24th October 16:31

The limit's 80 milligrams per 100ml, not 80 millilitres per 100ml - not only would you be dead but you wouldn't be allowed near the crematorium

[otolith]

Tribal Chestnut said:

Agree with the first point, the rest is bks. Beverage companies, private healthcare providers, security firms, banks, etc, and those generally with a financial interest in the status quo (ie those that are 'in charge' of us) will never let the rest of what you fear happen.

Prohibition is not going to happen, but there is certainly lobbying going on to discourage and reduce the use of alcohol.

[PurpleMoonlight]

luckystrike said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

But 1 unit is 10 mg.

So an 80 mg limit gives 8 units, not 2.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 24th October 16:31

The limit's 80 milligrams per 100ml, not 80 millilitres per 100ml - not only would you be dead but you wouldn't be allowed near the crematorium

Fair enough, amended.

[luckystrike]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Fair enough, amended.

You've still got it a little wrong - 1 unit is still 10ml, but that ends up being 7,890mg of ethanol and the legal limit is based on the alcohol by weight (80mg) vs blood by volume (100ml). Beyond that there's no real fixed rule as rate of absorbtion and rate of metabolism become the key factors plus total volume of blood in the individual.

I'm not high-horsing about alcohol, just interpreting numbers

[PurpleMoonlight]

Having done a little research, it appears 1 unit will create 15 mg of blood alcohol content.

So 80 mg gives just over 5 units.

5 units is 2.5 pints of normal strength beer.

I accept the people will absorb at different rates, but claiming 1 pint could put you over the limit is an exaggeration for the vast majority of people.

[luckystrike]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Having done a little research, it appears 1 unit will create 15 mg of blood alcohol content.

So 80 mg gives just over 5 units.

5 units is 2.5 pints of normal strength beer.

I accept the people will absorb at different rates, but claiming 1 pint could put you over the limit is an exaggeration for the vast majority of people.

Do you have the numbers/links for this? I'm genuinely interested.

As mentioned before in the thread actual data on alcohol absorbtion rates isn't the easiest to come by due to the overarching 'drinking is bad' attitude.

[PurpleMoonlight]

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_informat...

[Gareth79]

luckystrike said:

Do you have the numbers/links for this? I'm genuinely interested.

As mentioned before in the thread actual data on alcohol absorbtion rates isn't the easiest to come by due to the overarching 'drinking is bad' attitude.

This 1986 booklet is interesting!

http://www.80mg.org.uk/ddfacts.html

[luckystrike]

PurpleMoonlight said:

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_informat...

Wikipedia also has similar numbers, although the reference is dead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content...

so I'll stand corrected as far as 4% beer is concerned, with the caveat of safety margins. Every day's a school day

This site has some decent info, particularly the last set of paragraphs.

http://www.80mg.org.uk/guide.html

edit: just saw the link to the booklet on the same site above. Probably the most pragmatic 'official' summary I've ever seen, even if 4% isn't necessarily an average beer anymore. I wish government guidelines were still like this.

Edited by luckystrike on Friday 24th October 17:17

Edited by luckystrike on Friday 24th October 17:18

[JF87]

Gareth79 said:

This 1986 booklet is interesting!

http://www.80mg.org.uk/ddfacts.html

Isn't it just? How's this for an insight into just how far attitudes to alcohol have shifted in the last 30-ish years:

In 1986 the authorities said:

However, the capacity of the body to metabolise alcohol is finite, and is limited to about 16-20 units per day. If you consistently drink around or above this level, you will probably never be below the limit - and you also need to consider seriously whether you have a drink problem!

Whether?!

[r11co]

Tribal Chestnut said:

r11co said:

Gesture politics of the worst kind (here's the problem with devolution - people granted the power to change things will change things just to make their mark) but the bigger picture is that this is another small step towards the prohibition of alcohol that the zealots want.

Agree with the first point, the rest is bks. Beverage companies, private healthcare providers, security firms, banks, etc, and those generally with a financial interest in the status quo (ie those that are 'in charge' of us) will never let the rest of what you fear happen.

They said the same thing about the influence of the tobacco lobby....

[Skyedriver]

1974 - failed breathalyser after 3 pints, went down to the station, a further test proved negative.
Now I would not drive now after 3 pints but I think this will kill off a lot of sensible drinking habits. In most instances one or even for some, two pints are ok. The ones that need to be caught are the ones who drink 7 or 8 pints, or those like the guy who killed 3 (?) cyclists at Seaton Sluice while actually drinking a bottle of Vodka (?)

Or the girl who killed a lady whilst driving or texting
Or the numerous drivers distracted whilst driving with a phone held to their ear.
Sorry but driving after a limited amount, whilst not clever is not the worst crime on the road

[bottledatsource]

What would be the legal status for making it across the border then? failing to stop versus "DR10, DR20, DR30, DR31, DR61 and DR80"

[paulwirral]

heebeegeetee said:

Have what on your conscience? What part did the drink play in your sober truck driver's accident?

It possibly had no part , but if I was the truck driver and I'd chosen to drink alcohol , no matter how little , I would always question myself , if I hadn't drank would I have been able to avoid the accident ?
That's just me though , everyone is different .