Lib-con looking to lower blood alcohol limit
Discussion
80mg to 50mg
Often discussed on here, report commissioned by Labour is recommending drop to 50mg, and removal of right to request a blood / urine test for breath readings near the limit.
Glad I'm more or less TT and no driving within 24h of a drink but the arguments will start up again no doubt.
I was amazed when I looked just how many countries have a zero limit which is a totally stupid limit.
The move to 50 from 80 will only mess about on the fringes of the problem, ie incidents caused by somebody having taken alcohol. The problem children will carry on as before whether 80 limit, 50 limit, 20 limit.
Often discussed on here, report commissioned by Labour is recommending drop to 50mg, and removal of right to request a blood / urine test for breath readings near the limit.
Glad I'm more or less TT and no driving within 24h of a drink but the arguments will start up again no doubt.
I was amazed when I looked just how many countries have a zero limit which is a totally stupid limit.
The move to 50 from 80 will only mess about on the fringes of the problem, ie incidents caused by somebody having taken alcohol. The problem children will carry on as before whether 80 limit, 50 limit, 20 limit.
full report said:
Motorists face having the legal alcohol limit for driving lowered by almost half under plans drawn up by a government road safety adviser.
The Daily Telegraph has learned that Coalition ministers are studying proposals to cut the drink-drive limit for the first time in a generation.
Under the plans, the limit would fall from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg. Anyone caught above the new limit would face an automatic 12-month driving ban, even if they were only marginally over the threshold.
The plans were drawn up by Sir Peter North, the former Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, who was asked to review drink-drive laws by the Department for Transport.
Some estimates suggest that a single glass of wine or pint of strong beer can leave some people — and especially women — with a blood-alcohol level above 50mg.
However, Sir Peter is said to have advised that a 50mg rule would still allow many people to consume two drinks without exceeding the limit.
His review was commissioned by the previous Labour government but submitted to Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, late last month. The Daily Telegraph today discloses that the confidential recommendations are more radical than officials had expected.
Sir Peter’s other proposals include scrapping rules allowing a driver whose breathalyser reading is close to the legal limit to demand a second blood or urine test at the police station. The subsequent delay often puts drivers below the limit.
Sir Peter has also urged ministers to consider an even lower limit for novice drivers of 20mg for the first five years after passing their test. However, he has recommended that this be delayed until five years after the introduction of the 50mg limit for all drivers. Other proposals include random breath testing, giving the police the right to stop motorists at any time, and lifetime bans for high risk offenders. A “drug driving” law could create an offence of getting behind the wheel with an illegal substance in the bloodstream at levels that could be deemed impairing.
The 80mg limit has been in place since the introduction of the breathalyser more than 40 years ago. Before the election, the Conservatives said they were “not minded” to reduce the limit. But the Lib Dem/Conservative Coalition is now understood to be studying Sir Peter’s recommendations closely.
A government source confirmed that Sir Peter was calling for major changes in the rules. Sir Peter is understood to have said that there is a “persuasive” case for cutting the limit. He estimated that this could save up to 168 lives in England and Wales every year.
The idea of a lower limit has been backed by members of the AA and the British Medical Association.
However, the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations, which represents pub landlords, opposed the move, suggesting it could lessen the stigma attached to a drink-driving conviction.
A spokesman said: “It is rightly seen by the public as anti-social and we don’t condone it in any way, shape or form. But the public perception of the lower limit may be different.”
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “We are considering Sir Peter’s report carefully.”
The Daily Telegraph has learned that Coalition ministers are studying proposals to cut the drink-drive limit for the first time in a generation.
Under the plans, the limit would fall from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg. Anyone caught above the new limit would face an automatic 12-month driving ban, even if they were only marginally over the threshold.
The plans were drawn up by Sir Peter North, the former Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, who was asked to review drink-drive laws by the Department for Transport.
Some estimates suggest that a single glass of wine or pint of strong beer can leave some people — and especially women — with a blood-alcohol level above 50mg.
However, Sir Peter is said to have advised that a 50mg rule would still allow many people to consume two drinks without exceeding the limit.
His review was commissioned by the previous Labour government but submitted to Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, late last month. The Daily Telegraph today discloses that the confidential recommendations are more radical than officials had expected.
Sir Peter’s other proposals include scrapping rules allowing a driver whose breathalyser reading is close to the legal limit to demand a second blood or urine test at the police station. The subsequent delay often puts drivers below the limit.
Sir Peter has also urged ministers to consider an even lower limit for novice drivers of 20mg for the first five years after passing their test. However, he has recommended that this be delayed until five years after the introduction of the 50mg limit for all drivers. Other proposals include random breath testing, giving the police the right to stop motorists at any time, and lifetime bans for high risk offenders. A “drug driving” law could create an offence of getting behind the wheel with an illegal substance in the bloodstream at levels that could be deemed impairing.
The 80mg limit has been in place since the introduction of the breathalyser more than 40 years ago. Before the election, the Conservatives said they were “not minded” to reduce the limit. But the Lib Dem/Conservative Coalition is now understood to be studying Sir Peter’s recommendations closely.
A government source confirmed that Sir Peter was calling for major changes in the rules. Sir Peter is understood to have said that there is a “persuasive” case for cutting the limit. He estimated that this could save up to 168 lives in England and Wales every year.
The idea of a lower limit has been backed by members of the AA and the British Medical Association.
However, the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations, which represents pub landlords, opposed the move, suggesting it could lessen the stigma attached to a drink-driving conviction.
A spokesman said: “It is rightly seen by the public as anti-social and we don’t condone it in any way, shape or form. But the public perception of the lower limit may be different.”
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “We are considering Sir Peter’s report carefully.”
Fool said:
A “drug driving” law could create an offence of getting behind the wheel with an illegal substance in the bloodstream at levels that could be deemed impairing
Is that not what Sec 4 RTA covers?It's a good job these a
holes that are in power know what they are talking about 
.I'm confused I was under the impression a 'normal' sized bloke drinking a pint of 'normal' strength beer would be roughly the legal limit. At the current 80mg law, how much could I (approx 12 1/2 stone) drink before i would be in danger of failing a breathalizer? I always work on the basis of 1 pint of beer is the limit, but I'm curious....
Funky Town said:
I'm confused I was under the impression a 'normal' sized bloke drinking a pint of 'normal' strength beer would be roughly the legal limit. At the current 80mg law, how much could I (approx 12 1/2 stone) drink before i would be in danger of failing a breathalizer? I always work on the basis of 1 pint of beer is the limit, but I'm curious....
That would depend upon body fat, foot consumed, normal consumption for the individual, how long they have been awake (metabolism) etc etc.No definite answer for the people that think they can drive on two pints.
Nigel Worc's said:
I hope they don't do this.
We've just had 13 years of the nanny new labour state, I was hoping this lot would stop all the banning crap and pointless poxy piddly annoy everyone laws.
I agree, but then maybe they'll adopt a differet tactic from Labour and set up an investigatory committee to waste a load of time and money instead.We've just had 13 years of the nanny new labour state, I was hoping this lot would stop all the banning crap and pointless poxy piddly annoy everyone laws.
F i F said:
Jakg said:
I thought the limit was 35mg?
That's breath alcohol limit; 35 µg (microgrammes) per 100 ml, or in urine 107 mg per 100ml.In blood it's 80mg per 100ml.
edited because PH didn't support the mu µ symbol used the first time.
The alcohol/breath limit is not a straight conversion from the blood/alcohol one and is more 'favourable'. As the actual conversion from the old rate is 21.8 it pushes the lmit up even further.
In essence there is little argument against this move. But where the figure of 168 deaths comes from is a bit lost in the midst of spin.
Its probably being done to stop the " I can have one and I'll be okay". If the limit is lowered people may change that attitude. Yet set higher enough that it won't catch people who have had alcohol in cake or similar. The half-way house between the current limit and zero.
Not sure I see the need.
Not sure I see the need.
Derek Smith said:
In essence there is little argument against this move. But where the figure of 168 deaths comes from is a bit lost in the midst of spin.
It must mean 168 deaths (a year, out of 3000 odd killed and seriously injured) are caused by people with an alcohol level between 50 and 80. And none of them would have happened with a lower limit.b
ks.Why are we blaming the Condems for this? The review was instigated by Nu-Labia some time back, the report has just been released.
It's probably going to be a case of, "yes, thank you very much, goodbye, we won't be calling you again"
In the coming months, I'm sure that there will be plenty more quango-esque reports coming out that were commissioned ages ago as part of the Blair-Brown gravy train.
It's probably going to be a case of, "yes, thank you very much, goodbye, we won't be calling you again"
In the coming months, I'm sure that there will be plenty more quango-esque reports coming out that were commissioned ages ago as part of the Blair-Brown gravy train.
That's my view too.
Indeed where does the 168 come from. In effect he is saying there are 168 alcohol related deaths where the death was caused by someone who had a level 50<result<80.
Or?
And let's examine Czech Rep, level is 0 officially zero tolerance. Doesn't stop the totally smashed lorryists.
Just for the record, why is the breath enforcement level 40 vs the legal conversion limit of 35? i think you did explain it once Derek but I've forgotten and can't find your old post.Would the removal of the right for a blood / urine test on a borderline result be an issue or not?
For example enforcement on blood starts at 81 so would some people escape prosecution? Of course some escape because their level is on the way down and the time for a blood test allows this
Frankly it won't affect me for reasons given in original post and I live with a system that has a 20mg limit now but it seems as Nigel says that I'd hoped we were moving away from this tatting about with legislation and brassing folks off malarkey
Indeed where does the 168 come from. In effect he is saying there are 168 alcohol related deaths where the death was caused by someone who had a level 50<result<80.
Or?
And let's examine Czech Rep, level is 0 officially zero tolerance. Doesn't stop the totally smashed lorryists.
Just for the record, why is the breath enforcement level 40 vs the legal conversion limit of 35? i think you did explain it once Derek but I've forgotten and can't find your old post.Would the removal of the right for a blood / urine test on a borderline result be an issue or not?
For example enforcement on blood starts at 81 so would some people escape prosecution? Of course some escape because their level is on the way down and the time for a blood test allows this
Frankly it won't affect me for reasons given in original post and I live with a system that has a 20mg limit now but it seems as Nigel says that I'd hoped we were moving away from this tatting about with legislation and brassing folks off malarkey
thunderbelmont said:
Why are we blaming the Condems for this? The review was instigated by Nu-Labia some time back, the report has just been released.
It's probably going to be a case of, "yes, thank you very much, goodbye, we won't be calling you again"
In the coming months, I'm sure that there will be plenty more quango-esque reports coming out that were commissioned ages ago as part of the Blair-Brown gravy train.
I certainly hope so.It's probably going to be a case of, "yes, thank you very much, goodbye, we won't be calling you again"
In the coming months, I'm sure that there will be plenty more quango-esque reports coming out that were commissioned ages ago as part of the Blair-Brown gravy train.
Although this has been done to death on here umpteen times, just a reminder that all this will really do is to increase the number of "morning after" convictions.
(Just mentioned because no-one else threw it in yet
)madbadger said:
Derek Smith said:
In essence there is little argument against this move. But where the figure of 168 deaths comes from is a bit lost in the midst of spin.
It must mean 168 deaths (a year, out of 3000 odd killed and seriously injured) are caused by people with an alcohol level between 50 and 80. And none of them would have happened with a lower limit.b
ks.Seems to me that there are 3 groups here.
Those that don't drink at all and drive.
Those that know you can have a couple of pints and drive afterwards.
Those that have a normal night at the pub and drive home anyway.
I know there is a hardcore of drinkers that are generally middle aged onward, who will have numerous pints and then drive home. They do tend to take the quietest route, and drive suspiciously carefully.
Don't condone this behaviour at all, but it does go on.
The change is the law will have no impact on these at all.
The change in law obviously won't impact on those that don't drink.
So, it seems it will impact on the 'morning after' people, and those that regularly drive after a couple of pints. Considering the increase in confidence + the decrease in reations a couple of pints does have, maybe this isn't a bad thing?.
The only real potential losers therefore are the 'morning after' people. Then again, on average, the blood alcohol level will fall about 17 every hour, so it only adds about 2 and a bit hours to your 'sober enough to drive' time with the new law. Basically you're either completely sober, or still drunk the next morning regardless.
If you tend to have nights out and drive the next morning, buy yourself a breathalyzer. I did. Very usefull.
Those that don't drink at all and drive.
Those that know you can have a couple of pints and drive afterwards.
Those that have a normal night at the pub and drive home anyway.
I know there is a hardcore of drinkers that are generally middle aged onward, who will have numerous pints and then drive home. They do tend to take the quietest route, and drive suspiciously carefully.
Don't condone this behaviour at all, but it does go on.
The change is the law will have no impact on these at all.
The change in law obviously won't impact on those that don't drink.
So, it seems it will impact on the 'morning after' people, and those that regularly drive after a couple of pints. Considering the increase in confidence + the decrease in reations a couple of pints does have, maybe this isn't a bad thing?.
The only real potential losers therefore are the 'morning after' people. Then again, on average, the blood alcohol level will fall about 17 every hour, so it only adds about 2 and a bit hours to your 'sober enough to drive' time with the new law. Basically you're either completely sober, or still drunk the next morning regardless.
If you tend to have nights out and drive the next morning, buy yourself a breathalyzer. I did. Very usefull.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff