Lib-con looking to lower blood alcohol limit
Discussion
herewego said:
F i F said:
I'm rather intrigued that nobody apart from GC8 has made any adverse comment relating to the removal of the right to samples and check tests in borderline cases.
Seems as if you've all accepted that the breath test technique is accurate as accurate can be.
Where's jith?
Probably, like me most don't know much about it having never been involved. The station breath test is an evidential machine isn't it and, from seeing car wars type programmes, prosecutions only follow if above a tolerance above the legal limit. The demand for a blood/urine test is a delaying tactic isn't it?Seems as if you've all accepted that the breath test technique is accurate as accurate can be.
Where's jith?
Some people do use it as a delaying tactic if they think their level is dropping, but that can work against them. Also with two samples, one of which they get it does allow them to get an independant check done if that test is also borderline. If the blood test result is 81, then prosecution proceeds aiui.
Then you have the situation where the breath limit is 35, yet prosecution does not proceed until 40.
That suggests to me there is a question mark about the accuracy of the breath result, or the conversion from one test to the other.
As I said a simplistic view and there have been reams written on here and elsewhere about it.
OK so we don't know if the current Govt is minded to move on this or not. However we have had 13 years of legislation too much of which has ended up criminalising people who were perhaps never a real problem in the first place, whereas the real problem children just carry on flicking the Vs in the face of society.
As said right from the outset in the OP, my personal circumstances on this are hardly likely to be affected so I can claim to be independant, but a change such as this could be described as a fine example of "no matter who you vote for the bloody Govt still gets in," e.g. same old same old.
F i F said:
herewego said:
F i F said:
I'm rather intrigued that nobody apart from GC8 has made any adverse comment relating to the removal of the right to samples and check tests in borderline cases.
Seems as if you've all accepted that the breath test technique is accurate as accurate can be.
Where's jith?
Probably, like me most don't know much about it having never been involved. The station breath test is an evidential machine isn't it and, from seeing car wars type programmes, prosecutions only follow if above a tolerance above the legal limit. The demand for a blood/urine test is a delaying tactic isn't it?Seems as if you've all accepted that the breath test technique is accurate as accurate can be.
Where's jith?
Some people do use it as a delaying tactic if they think their level is dropping, but that can work against them. Also with two samples, one of which they get it does allow them to get an independant check done if that test is also borderline. If the blood test result is 81, then prosecution proceeds aiui.
Then you have the situation where the breath limit is 35, yet prosecution does not proceed until 40.
That suggests to me there is a question mark about the accuracy of the breath result, or the conversion from one test to the other.
As I said a simplistic view and there have been reams written on here and elsewhere about it.
OK so we don't know if the current Govt is minded to move on this or not. However we have had 13 years of legislation too much of which has ended up criminalising people who were perhaps never a real problem in the first place, whereas the real problem children just carry on flicking the Vs in the face of society.
As said right from the outset in the OP, my personal circumstances on this are hardly likely to be affected so I can claim to be independant, but a change such as this could be described as a fine example of "no matter who you vote for the bloody Govt still gets in," e.g. same old same old.
The PC would not say why he disliked the editor but his opinion was shared by a number of his journos..
It was generally accepted, by the police and the paper's reporters, that it was done merely to p
s off the police. Whether it did this or not is a mattter for argument, but what was conceeded was the alternative blood test. So this one journo has cost this country £000s. Still, going by what the journos did with the MMR farce I suppose he should be awarded a medal.It was all a waste of time as there is no precise connection between the blood and breath readings as they are not directly compatible. A bit like bhp and torque. For one thing, one peaks before the other and for a shorter period.
The correlation between 35 and 80 limits is that if you were over the 35 in breath then you would always be over in blood whereas the reverse is not always the case.
I went out to where they (perhaps used to) make and calibrate the substantive breath testing machines in Wales. There I was told that, despite the machine being very accurate the government required the margin for error to be so high that they were, in essence, putting up the limit by over 10%. Add to that the prosecution limit being increased to 40 makes the blood option a bit iffy.
I remember the equivalent limit in blood being quoted as a de facto 105 but this was disputed as blood has a margin of error that was not built in to the calculations for breath, making it a little under 100 in blood according to some. What was not disputed was that it was much better to opt for breath rather than blood in most circumstance and probably best in all.
All due to pressure from the media.
So the upping of the prosectuion limit from 35 to 40 has nothing to do with supposedly inaccurate testing but just political pressure (and politicians?).
The main difference between the peaks of blood and breath is in timing: one goes higher earlier and the other later but for longer. But it is not that simple and there are variations depending on a number of variables.
I had one driver run on the spot whilst I was assembling the breath kit on scene. I never used to mess around when an arrest looked likely but I was really tempted to say something like: as an escape method, running on the spot sucks.
He blew, and blew positive, so I nicked and brought him back for blood. He still continued in calisthenics mode and had to be told that, as the doctor was reluctant to stick a needle in a moving target, unless he stopped jumping around he'd be done for refusal.
When the sergeant bailed him (I was writing up the forms) he said that expercise was as likely to up the reading as decrease it. The chap used this as an appeal, suggesting that the reading was therfore inaccurate. I got a full witness order but got a double booking so the sergeant had to go to explain why he said something stupid. Appeal against conviction refused.
Political Pain said:
rs1952 said:
Political Pain said:
If you have a 'local' then you will know full well that more than half the people leaving the pub in cars are over the limit
Are you living in a time warp? This was certainly the case in the 1970s, and still seen/ heard of in the 1980s, but I haven't seen it in 20 years.That's not to say that the odd one or two still fall into your category, but to suggest "more than half are over the limt" is nonsense.
Drinking habits have changed, in the past it seemed that drinking was confined to certain times of the week. Now the availability and cheapness has had an effect.
In the old days people got very drunk and a bit incapable on friday or saturday night, this happened because during the week it was not the way, now the same sort of people drink every day of the week, this builds a tolerance so whereas in the past a few pints gave the average chap the staggers, it doesn't happen for the most part now. But the level of drinking is pretty much the same.
In town people do use taxis, but out here they drive home, as a virtual non-drinker and an inveterate 'live and let live' kind of chap I do wonder sometimes how they manage it but they do, tolerance again I suppose.
So the half might be a bit of an upper estimate but a third is the lower.
I know everyone in my locals and I am not advocating anything in particular should be done, but I have seen some things over the last couple of years alone, a well chosen 'raid' would have netted a couple of Judges, an entire lodge, our esteemed ACC, Roundtablers, rugby club management, football club management, a world famous 'rockstar' [who drove off after at least a dozen 'VAT's in a 200mph £300k supercar] his entire entourage.
The oddest aspect though is that one local pub is regularly attended by car clubs, they never drink much, in fact the landlord thought of discouraging them as all they did was sit with cokes and chat for hours!
This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that car enthusiasts are quite good at the drink law-abiding thing and much of the rest of humanity largely ignores it.
I must live in a dipso's paradise!
From the possible clues in your profile, I'm thinking your neck of the woods might be North Somerset, an area in which I learned to drink very many years ago (especially rough cider in the Trout Tavern at Keynsham
) It was not unknown for drivers to leave pubs legless at 0230 in the morning (thinking Pensford now!) but I would still contend that, in recent years, the levels have dropped sharply, especially if they are driving back into Bristol or Bath.If you're talking about somebody getting plastered in Farmborough then driving home to Priston then you may well be right, but the numbers of people who use country locals AND live in the country are certainly in the minority these days. I occasionally use a village country pub in Wiltshire just a mile from the market town where I live, and the locals are hardly ever seen in there.
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.
DUH! The report is just what it is, a report. If the Condems change the law based on the recommendations, then one would be quite right to blame them. Something to do with them being in power and making the decisions?
JJ
P.S. conversely if they ignore the report and do diddley-squat, feel free to brown tongue them all you like
On the 6 O'clock news they show a picture of an accident, 'this driver was twice over the legal limit'
So HTF would a lower limit have prevented that accident had it been in force at the time?
The driver would have been 4 times over the limit but he still would have crashed!
I cannot see how it will make the slightest bit of difference by lowering the limit.
What will make a difference would be more roadside checks, stopping more cars.
I think it is just another way to get more drivers off the road, reduce the amount of traffic and reduce congestion.
It's bks.
So HTF would a lower limit have prevented that accident had it been in force at the time?
The driver would have been 4 times over the limit but he still would have crashed!
I cannot see how it will make the slightest bit of difference by lowering the limit.
What will make a difference would be more roadside checks, stopping more cars.
I think it is just another way to get more drivers off the road, reduce the amount of traffic and reduce congestion.
It's b
ks.I saw that and thought the same, then I remembered, logic has nothing to do with this. Labour produced the report and Labour were very good at one thing, appearing to do something when in fact the were doing nowt.
This proposal would make it seem like they were concerned for your welfare and were listening to the punters yet it would cost virtually nothing, perhaps a flashy ad campaign.
Hopefuly the new administration, one that promises to interfere less, will file it under bin
This proposal would make it seem like they were concerned for your welfare and were listening to the punters yet it would cost virtually nothing, perhaps a flashy ad campaign.
Hopefuly the new administration, one that promises to interfere less, will file it under bin
Edited by The real Apache on Wednesday 16th June 18:55
As the Government it's going to be interesting to see what they do. Politically they have to be seen to reviewing the proposals in the report in a serious and professional manner.
If Dave hadn't pulled defeat from the jaws of victory in the election and it was a Tory administration then I reckon in fairly short order they would indeed file the report in bin, say we aren't lowering it as we said in March 2010, there you are folks an election promise kept.
However they are in coalition with the Lib Dims who I suspect would be all over a lowering of the limit like a rash.
So it's a difficult one to call.
Clearly the ACPO (I think) bloke I was listening to on PM radio over the net was against a lowering. I only caught the second half of his interview but seemesd fairly sensible mainly as he was making similar points made on this thread.
Shock horror probe, PH and ACPO in agreement. Probably make page 7 of the Daily Bigot tomorrow.
If Dave hadn't pulled defeat from the jaws of victory in the election and it was a Tory administration then I reckon in fairly short order they would indeed file the report in bin, say we aren't lowering it as we said in March 2010, there you are folks an election promise kept.
However they are in coalition with the Lib Dims who I suspect would be all over a lowering of the limit like a rash.
So it's a difficult one to call.
Clearly the ACPO (I think) bloke I was listening to on PM radio over the net was against a lowering. I only caught the second half of his interview but seemesd fairly sensible mainly as he was making similar points made on this thread.
Shock horror probe, PH and ACPO in agreement. Probably make page 7 of the Daily Bigot tomorrow.
From the express,
MOTORISTS are to escape a draconian cut in drink-driving limits, it emerged last night.
Ministers signalled that they would not be bound by a report on drink and drug driving which yesterday called for a cut which would put most people over the limit after just one pint.
The report by Sir Peter North said the limit should be slashed from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/181405/Motoris...
MOTORISTS are to escape a draconian cut in drink-driving limits, it emerged last night.
Ministers signalled that they would not be bound by a report on drink and drug driving which yesterday called for a cut which would put most people over the limit after just one pint.
The report by Sir Peter North said the limit should be slashed from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/181405/Motoris...
Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said yesterday: "Sir Peter's report is a serious piece of work that covers a wide range of issues. We will need to carefully consider these with other Government departments. In doing so it is important that we fully investigate the economic and public service resource impact of any suggested changes to the law, taking account of the current financial and economic situation. Our priority will be to tackle drink and drug-driving in the most effective way possible to protect law-abiding road users. We will respond to Sir Peter in due course."
Note elsewhere the repeated references to "bringing us into line with the rest of Europe" ... so that'll be a zero limit then, or something else:-
Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary - 0.0 mg/ml
Norway, Poland, Sweden - 0.2 mg/ml
Lithuania - 0.4 mg/ml
Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Northern Cyprus - 0.5 mg/ml
UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland - 0.8 mg/ml
Southern Cyprus - 0.9 mg/ml
A report from European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) on 17 April 2007 showed that there had been an increase in drink driving deaths during the period of 1996-98 to 2005 in Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Spain and the UK - four of those countries having a limit less than ours.
Cutting the limit does not necessarily save lives. Further, Sir Peter North has no way of justifying his assertion that 168 deaths would be saved ... it's a statistical nonsense much along the lines of those infamously invented in 1999 by Roy Meadow (who doesn't deserve reference to his titles at the time).
Streaky
Note elsewhere the repeated references to "bringing us into line with the rest of Europe" ... so that'll be a zero limit then, or something else:-
Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary - 0.0 mg/ml
Norway, Poland, Sweden - 0.2 mg/ml
Lithuania - 0.4 mg/ml
Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Northern Cyprus - 0.5 mg/ml
UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland - 0.8 mg/ml
Southern Cyprus - 0.9 mg/ml
A report from European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) on 17 April 2007 showed that there had been an increase in drink driving deaths during the period of 1996-98 to 2005 in Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Spain and the UK - four of those countries having a limit less than ours.
Cutting the limit does not necessarily save lives. Further, Sir Peter North has no way of justifying his assertion that 168 deaths would be saved ... it's a statistical nonsense much along the lines of those infamously invented in 1999 by Roy Meadow (who doesn't deserve reference to his titles at the time).
Streaky
F i F said:
Streaky said:
Germany 0.5 (but 0.3 if you have an accident)
How does that work? In Germany the 0.5 mg limit applies unless you're picked up for another traffic offence, in which case it drops to 0.3mg; if you're over that, it'll be a criminal offence.
Beware of putting too much trust in Police operated equipment.
http://blog.motorists.org/400-dc-drivers-wrongly-c...
Edited by rewc on Thursday 17th June 07:46
rewc said:
F i F said:
Streaky said:
Germany 0.5 (but 0.3 if you have an accident)
How does that work? In Germany the 0.5 mg limit applies unless you're picked up for another traffic offence, in which case it drops to 0.3mg; if you're over that, it'll be a criminal offence.
Yes but that's completely illogical or am I missing something?
It's like saying the speed limit on this road is 70, but if we nick you for a light out then we will also nick you for exceeding 60. Or?
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.
OP said:
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.
Where is this persuasive case, with little argument against?The actual research with real data from the real world and real drivers involved (or not) in real accidents that supports the UK's current evidence-based limit is still valid.
Nothing has changed except more political correctness infecting people who then think they absorb wisdom from the air through their thick skin while spouting tosh with authority simply because they're asked (paid?) to write an 'official' report.
There is so little additional risk below 80 that it's not worth bothering with, except perhaps to insist on a BAC of 35 as this is obviously safer than zero if 50 is obviously safer than 80. As it happens 80 is fine, the meddlers should go back to interfering with their own judgement and try to improve it.
A the time of a previous BAC consultation/review the drop to 50 was claimed to be able to save 50 lives a year, how has this tripled? The Borkenstein Grand Rapids survey is likely to over-estimate the effect of BAC on accident risk since those drivers represented in the higher levels of BAC involved in accidents are likely to be those with a particular approach to risk, and arguably more likely to be involved in accidents with or without a BAC of whatever marginal level.
Having looked back, the last BAC consultation was just after nulab were elected, there must be something in the stars causing this.
In a roadside survey quoted in the previous consultation the % of Drivers with a non-zero BAC below 80 (2.3) was greater than the percentage below 80 in hospital admissions (2.1) and in fatal accidents (2.0). If having a BAC below 80 was impacting to uplift the last two figures above the first then there would be grounds for considering lowering the limit but there is no uplift.
The best type of crash to use in this type of comparison would be single vehicle only since while accidents involving pedestrians are more emotive there's the complication of drunken pedestrians - and even sober pedestrians don't discriminate over the driver's BAC when stepping out within the thinking distance to throw their careless carcass through the windscreen. Even so with no apparent selection on this basis and with precise levels around 40 to 80 carrying national lottery size odds of increased accident risk the entire exercise is a farce at a time when the coalition is meant to be reducing the nanny state and basing action on reason. If the braying of the uninformed is still dictating policy then nothing has changed.
In a roadside survey quoted in the previous consultation the % of Drivers with a non-zero BAC below 80 (2.3) was greater than the percentage below 80 in hospital admissions (2.1) and in fatal accidents (2.0). If having a BAC below 80 was impacting to uplift the last two figures above the first then there would be grounds for considering lowering the limit but there is no uplift.
The best type of crash to use in this type of comparison would be single vehicle only since while accidents involving pedestrians are more emotive there's the complication of drunken pedestrians - and even sober pedestrians don't discriminate over the driver's BAC when stepping out within the thinking distance to throw their careless carcass through the windscreen. Even so with no apparent selection on this basis and with precise levels around 40 to 80 carrying national lottery size odds of increased accident risk the entire exercise is a farce at a time when the coalition is meant to be reducing the nanny state and basing action on reason. If the braying of the uninformed is still dictating policy then nothing has changed.
turbobloke said:
the Borkenstein study
The report on the Borkenstein study was the justification for the Road Safety Act which brought in blood testing and on-street screening devices. His exhaustive research produced stats that were unarguable. There was, and still remains, some criticism of his justification for a direct relationship between breath and blood levels and such doubts is what gave up the 40 limit for breath.If you look at the graph, the current limit, if taken on breath, is just on the threshold of the steep rise. Further, these points are averages. Some people's accident risk will come consdierably earlier, some later.
"Nothing has changed"
Since this study there have been others which have refined the findings, although I know of none with quite so many participants. I remember one which compared regular heavy drinkers to the occasional and it was quite clear that if you are normally a light drinker and then have a night out you are much more liable to have an accident than someone who is a bit of a pisshead.
So I'd suggest that, far from proving the current limit is correct, Borkenstein shows that the 40 limit in breath is too high.
Just to clarify the limits.
Borkenstein worked with precise figures, or as precise as you can get something as volatile as alochol. The breath test works slightly differently. There is an experiemtnal error built in. Although the actual figure has not been published I was told it was 5%. I was also told that the labs, in order not to have their figures doubted, add a couple of points, a sort of ACPO guidelines thing, to the actual reading. This used to be readily admitted by the labs. So a blood reading of 81, the practical prescribed limit for prosection, was actually 87 or so.
It might seem on the face of it that the breath limit, supposedly at 35, is in fact 38. But there is a catch. When translating the blood level to breath an experimental error was built in. The precise figure has been impossible for me to find but let us assume it is 5%. That puts the breath limit at 40+. Now that, to my way of calculating (and I accpet that a maths O level, even an A, gives me little authority) gives in excess of 90 for blood. We are now close to the Borkenstein threshold.
Then, of course, with have that extra 5n points added to placate vociferous MPs. It is, of course, a little bit more than just 5 points given how corrupted the figures for breath are. But let's go with an actual level of 45. That's comfortably over 100 in blood.
Add to that the variation of effects of individuals and you can see, I think, my point of view.
Further, there have been other trials in the 50(?) or so years since the Borkenstein report which have, amogst others, shown that there is deterioration in spacial awareness from as little a two units of alcohol. Other studies have shown that whilst driving during the day might not be affected, driving at night gives lots of problems even when the driver is below the limit.
Whilst I accept that many of these later studies were out to prove something, they do prove something. And there have been, albeit mildish, criticisms of Borkenstein. As I say, many feel that the relationship between blood and breath levels is not quite so simple as he suggested.
Preventative measures should not be based on the norm. They should be there to ensure that no one drives whilst their ability to do so is impaired.
Given the over-representation of drivers with a less than precautionary attitude to risk in the Borkenstein Grand Rapids survey and given the lack of uplift in 'below 80' hospital stats and fatality stats over kerbside % (published in the last consultation so more recent than Borkenstein) the case for 50 is lost. Being contemporary, or not, has never been a cause to dismiss statistics in this type of field and given the interfering nature of political motivation and action in recent years as also evidenced in reading reports from our own Transport Research Laboratory over the last 30 years and the stark difference between police Stats19 and hospital medical data which show police reports on accident injury severity trends to be curiously in line with their targets rather than the patients' condition, it's a positive recommendation for a report to be a decade or more in print. There remains no rational reason to lower the 80 limit. Not sure if you agree or not Derek
There are plenty of threads on here advocating impairment testing alongside breath tests rather than breath tests alone but as this is unlikely to saisfy the braying ranks of uninformed individuals apparently influencing policy still, there's little hope of reason prevailing over mild hysteria.
Safety fascists must surely consider setting a linmit on the number of talkative passengers at some point.
Derek Smith said:
Preventative measures should not be based on the norm. They should be there to ensure that no one drives whilst their ability to do so is impaired.
On that there's no disagreement here, and BAC doesn't necessarily show impairment - particularly morning after with a culpable level not far above 80 but falling, which research shows does not reflect anything like the degree of impairment of a 'lawful' below 80 but rising BAC. Automatic bans following morning after testing will not always reflect justice to anybody. There are plenty of threads on here advocating impairment testing alongside breath tests rather than breath tests alone but as this is unlikely to saisfy the braying ranks of uninformed individuals apparently influencing policy still, there's little hope of reason prevailing over mild hysteria.
Safety fascists must surely consider setting a linmit on the number of talkative passengers at some point.
turbobloke said:
Given the over-representation of drivers with a less than precautionary attitude to risk in the Borkenstein Grand Rapids survey and given the lack of uplift in 'below 80' hospital stats and fatality stats over kerbside % (published in the last consultation so more recent than Borkenstein) the case for 50 is lost. Being contemporary, or not, has never been a cause to dismiss statistics in this type of field and given the interfering nature of political motivation and action in recent years as also evidenced in reading reports from our own Transport Research Laboratory over the last 30 years and the stark difference between police Stats19 and hospital medical data which show police reports on accident injury severity trends to be curiously in line with their targets rather than the patients' condition, it's a positive recommendation for a report to be a decade or more in print. There remains no rational reason to lower the 80 limit. Not sure if you agree or not Derek
There are plenty of threads on here advocating impairment testing alongside breath tests rather than breath tests alone but as this is unlikely to saisfy the braying ranks of uninformed individuals apparently influencing policy still, there's little hope of reason prevailing over mild hysteria.
Safety fascists must surely consider setting a linmit on the number of talkative passengers at some point.
No problem with disagreements. That's what a forum's for. It's just that you asked what my case was in the light of Borkenstein.Derek Smith said:
Preventative measures should not be based on the norm. They should be there to ensure that no one drives whilst their ability to do so is impaired.
On that there's no disagreement here, and BAC doesn't necessarily show impairment - particularly morning after with a culpable level not far above 80 but falling, which research shows does not reflect anything like the degree of impairment of a 'lawful' below 80 but rising BAC. Automatic bans following morning after testing will not always reflect justice to anybody. There are plenty of threads on here advocating impairment testing alongside breath tests rather than breath tests alone but as this is unlikely to saisfy the braying ranks of uninformed individuals apparently influencing policy still, there's little hope of reason prevailing over mild hysteria.
Safety fascists must surely consider setting a linmit on the number of talkative passengers at some point.
I couldn't agree more with impairment being the only fair method for prosecution. Research has shown that impairment can vary between individuals by a factor of over 2. It can can also vary in an individual. Blow 90 one day and you could be falling over. Blow 100 the next and you might well be able to ride a bike safely.
But practicalities creep in here. There was no objective test for drunkeness. It was all down to opinion. Defence solicitors called doctors time and again to court and gave them such a hard time, and without challenging the driver's impairment in any way, that it proved impossible to prosecute the offence.
I nicked a bloke who drove into the post box I was standing on (it's a long story). I jumped down, opened the door and the chap fell out. I got him standing, he failed to provide breath on-street and I nicked him. During the blood test procedure I mentioned to my sergeant that it was probably as positive as you could get and he told me a story of a chap who drove into two parked cars, he also fell out of his car and despite valient efforts to do so, was unable to run, walk or crawl away. My skipper, then a PC, did him for impairment. He got off, according to my sergeant, on the grounds that he was too drunk to perform the incapability tests.
It is lawyers who brought in a prescribed limit.
I accept that the figures are manipulated by governments. Who doesn't?
I didn't dismiss Borkenstein, I just showed that the baseline figures are not the same as those in our testing. Also questionable is the assumption that the figures translate from one country to all.
Furhter, whilst I wouldn't dismiss the figures just because they are old, what must be accepted is that road conditions have changed considerably in the ensuing 50 or so years. I've been driving for 40+ and I can say with some justification that margins for error have dropped considerably, because of congestion and engine power. With my first car, if you suddenly pressed the accelerator the car would actually slow down.
I remember reading an article in Motor Sport when I was a kid that featured all the cars in then current production which could exceed 100mph. It took up two pages I think. You'd need more than that or some very small type nowadays. I also remember later being stunned at the performance of a Bristol 406 a girlfriend's father owned. It had, I seem to remember, 110bhp. He made great play of the fact that it delivered more than 50bhp per litre. The girl performed well as well.
So times have changed and I would suggest that Borkenstein needs revisting.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff