Lib-con looking to lower blood alcohol limit

[The Black Flash]

F i F said:

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.

That was Phillip Hammond, the transport sec, on PM yesterday.
Not heard him before, he actually impressed me, which is rare in a polito.
ACPO put out a statement saying that they supported a reduction (surprise).

Basically said that the govt. position is that they are not convinced by the 50 limit, but that the report deserved consideration, so they would asses it and see. All fair enough.

I suspect a "long grassing" personally, which is fine with me.

[Derek Smith]

turbobloke said:

something regarding studies trying to prove a point

I would point out that there was much criticism at the time of Borkenstein because he was trying to sell his breath testing device and the report was used to lobby the American government to bring in the legislation.

I'm not suggesting the report was flawed as it's conclusions have been replicated, but it is an interesting point.

[turbobloke]

The data makes the point, not me.

This is the basis for making sound policy - evidence not opinion.

[F i F]

The Black Flash said:

F i F said:

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.

That was Phillip Hammond, the transport sec, on PM yesterday.
Not heard him before, he actually impressed me, which is rare in a polito.
ACPO put out a statement saying that they supported a reduction (surprise).

Basically said that the govt. position is that they are not convinced by the 50 limit, but that the report deserved consideration, so they would asses it and see. All fair enough.

I suspect a "long grassing" personally, which is fine with me.

Ah thanks for that, my internet connection went AWOL part way through and I missed part, and of course can't get iPlayer overseas. Plus I was getting hassle from the kitchen domestics.

Agreed though, the bit I heard he seemed reasonable.

I must have got confused because heard ACPO mentioned at some point, and that they were opposed because a lowering of the limit would drastically increase police work. Or did I mishear again?

The supposition seemed to be that all those people who now test 50-80 in the roadside pre-test would in future be arrested carted off etc. Well that's true of course but rather presupposes that everyone who does have a drink however little and then drives says to themselves, "Oh the law has changed, I'll not change my behaviour one little bit." That seems a rather daft supposition to me.

well.... thinking about it re mobile phone law perhaps sadly it isn't so daft a suggestion after all.

Anyway it turns out that PH and ACPO didn't agree after all then, I can sleep easy.

[The Black Flash]

F i F said:

I must have got confused because heard ACPO mentioned at some point, and that they were opposed because a lowering of the limit would drastically increase police work. Or did I mishear again?

Think you misheard - from what I remember, the ACPO definately supported the reduction, whereas Hammond was saying about the increase in police work.

[deeps]

I'd like to see a study of 1000 tee total motorists versus 1000 who enjoyed a pint then drove home under the current limit. Monitor them for accidents and convictions for a whole year, which group would show the lowest results?

I believe there would be a good possibility of the drinking group having lower results (less accidents and convictions). A greater percentage of people who have had a pint will drive with more deliberate attention to what they are doing (i.e. not use the phone, not be in a rush, not show off etc) than those that are simply jumping in the car once more.

Of course I do not include drunk drivers in the above, they are of course a menace and a danger.

[Derek Smith]

deeps said:

I'd like to see a study of 1000 tee total motorists versus 1000 who enjoyed a pint then drove home under the current limit. Monitor them for accidents and convictions for a whole year, which group would show the lowest results?

I believe there would be a good possibility of the drinking group having lower results (less accidents and convictions). A greater percentage of people who have had a pint will drive with more deliberate attention to what they are doing (i.e. not use the phone, not be in a rush, not show off etc) than those that are simply jumping in the car once more.

Of course I do not include drunk drivers in the above, they are of course a menace and a danger.

All research shows the opposite: all else being equal a sober person stands less chance of being involved in an accident than one who has drunk sufficient alcohol to affect him.

There are two howevers howeever to follow that statement. Firstly, you have to exclude 'research' funded by the drinks industry. (I seem to remember that Borkenstein did similar research which was widely quoted but was funded by a brewer. I might be wrong but it is one of those niggling 'facts' that might not be.)

Secondly, a significent percentage of those who are tee-total are so for medical reasons. This means that a direct comparison is flawed.

For instance, a lot of research over the years has shown that people who drink a little, well below the danger level, tend to live longer than those who do not drink at all. The difference is minor but significant. But what it fails to take into account is the number of alcoholics who are tee-total after damaging their health and those like me who can't drink due to medical reasons. Despite this repeatable research, others have shown that if you stop drinking before your 40s you will extend you life by a statistically significant time. The subjective joke has been done. And part of that increase is that you are less likely to injure yourself.

As someone who was forced into sobriety some years ago I tend to study research into the benefits or otherwise of alcohol. It doesn't make up for not being able to drink but it does mean I can bore drunks when they are sober so get my own back to an extent.

Alcohol is a depressant so restricts reaction time and also curtails the benefits of experience. It is very dangerous when mixed with driving. The evidence is clear. Would you be happy with a pilot who had had a few but reckoned that, knowing he was three sheets to the wind made him take a bit of care?

[The real Apache]

Derek Smith said:

Alcohol is a depressant so restricts reaction time and also curtails the benefits of experience. It is very dangerous when mixed with driving. The evidence is clear. Would you be happy with a pilot who had had a few but reckoned that, knowing he was three sheets to the wind made him take a bit of care?

Interesting subject and ,if, you can discuss it without hystrionics it does raise some debatable points. I found that I drove better, smoother and with a greater peripheral awareness after 1 or 2 beers, but any more and it declined rather rapidly.
I am talking about a 6' healthy chap with a predisposition for the odd pint back in the days when drink driving in the NE of Scotland was compulsory
As a biker I also felt more at one with my old HD

[streaky]

F i F said:

rewc said:

F i F said:

Streaky said:

Germany 0.5 (but 0.3 if you have an accident)

How does that work?

Like this:
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.

Another comedian, very good

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?

It is illogical as explained by rewc. It works like this:

- if you are stopped for any traffic offence the upper limit of 0.5 is used;

- if you are involved in an accident (even if you committed no offence), the lower limit of 0.3 is applied.

There's a difference between illogicality and sense. To be sensible, the lower limit might be applied to offences involving judgement (e.g. speeding), but the involvement in an accident is an easy, absolute test, thus is not liable to dispute or public opprobrium.

Streaky

[deeps]

Derek Smith said:

Alcohol is a depressant so restricts reaction time and also curtails the benefits of experience. It is very dangerous when mixed with driving. The evidence is clear. Would you be happy with a pilot who had had a few but reckoned that, knowing he was three sheets to the wind made him take a bit of care?

I'm talking about one or two pints over a couple of hours, that's nothing like three sheets to the wind for most people, as I said there is a huge difference between drink and drunk driving that is largely ignored by the media.

Pilots are a poor comparison IMO as they control their aircraft in a professional capacity and are highly trained to do so, I wouldn't expect a pilot to drink at work any more than I would a police officer for example.

I believe many motorists treat the task of controlling their vehicle as if it requires no skill or concentration at all, such as demonstrated by all those we see every night driving along with no lights on, Jesus christ they can't even remember that.

I strongy believe if drivers concentrated more on their driving there would be fewer accidents, and I believe that drivers who drink and drive below the limit will be concentrating more, thus will not be an increased danger and will actually perform better than many drivers.

[deeps]

BTW, I don't want to get into a debate I just thought I'd state what I truly believe, I also am quite certain the drink driving propaganda machine has made any sort of rational debate on this subject impossible with most people, as drink driving is on a par with child murderer.

[The real Apache]

deeps said:

BTW, I don't want to get into a debate I just thought I'd state what I truly believe, I also am quite certain the drink driving propaganda machine has made any sort of rational debate on this subject impossible with most people, as drink driving is on a par with child murderer.

FWIW, I agree 100% with you. I just wish people could see past the propaganda about this, it is a well worn tactic by the government to vilify to get their way and has been repeated with speeding, cigarettes in public, mobile phones, hunting and now MMGW.

[thunderbelmont]

They'd save more than a few hundred lives if they made everyone live in bungalows, with no items of furniture more than 2" high (so you can't climb up and fall off of it), because falls in the home account for more deaths than drink-driving.

According to HSE data, in 2007/8, 229 people were killed at work. So stopping people from working would save more lives than hyperthetically would by reducing the drink-driving BAL by 50%.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[pacman1]

I heard a stat some years ago which said that 70% of pedestrians involved in rta's were over the limit, but can't find anything on google to back it up, except maybe this

apologies if a repost, but the search function's been down all evening

Edited by pacman1 on Thursday 17th June 22:10

[Derek Smith]

The real Apache said:

Derek Smith said:

Alcohol is a depressant so restricts reaction time and also curtails the benefits of experience. It is very dangerous when mixed with driving. The evidence is clear.

I found that I drove better, smoother and with a greater peripheral awareness after 1 or 2 beers,

Firstly, the assessment of your ability to drive is subjective and therefore unlikely to be unbiased.

Secondly, such subjective assessment is made by someone who has thrown a depressent, which affects judgement, down his throat.

What I'm saying is that the driver who has had a drink or two is perhaps not the best judge of what is and what is not better driving.

There was a test done a few years ago with (van?) drivers where they were given two units of alcohol and then their driving along a slalom course was compared to when they were sober.

There were two major points to note: 1/ that the depth perception and spacial awareness was the first to go, and

2/ despite the driver making errors, including driving into the marker posts, their assessment of their driving ability was that they were driving very well.

I seem to remember reaction time was meansured as well.

I was part of an objective test of intoxication, not as a subject but as one of the testers.

Seven sober people had their reaction times checked. Not a massive test group I agree. The test consisted of a ruler being released. A note was made of the mark on the ruler the first time they were able to catch it between their forefinger and thumb. There was a surprisingly, to me at least, large variation in reaction times.

The idea was that after two units of alcohol or one hour, whichever came first, the test would be administered again and the reading taken. Then again after two hours/two units. This was a regular test conducted on the course I was on. I was told that there would be no third test.

Nobody maintained their reaction time after two units - no one manged to go an hour with just the two units. By four units most were so frustrated by their inability to catch the ruler at whatever depth they tried that the experiment was abandoned. This was, I was told, the norm.

At this stage everyone blew below the prescribed limit.

I know reaction time is just one part, and probably a small part at that, of what makes a safe driver. However, it did show how performance deteriorated very soon after drinking. There was one woman on the course and she was the only one who, on the first test, felt that she was affected sufficiently for it to be measured.

I accept that you should not read too much into such a test but what was remarkable was the drinkers' disbelief at how difficult it was to catch the ruler.

[Scraggles]

bit of a shame for all those country pubs that are going to go out of business, 1 pint or mild and over the limit

might make a guy I know think about sinking 6+ pints and driving a truck to work the next day

[Tiggsy]

The real Apache said:

Interesting subject and ,if, you can discuss it without hystrionics it does raise some debatable points. I found that I drove better, smoother and with a greater peripheral awareness after 1 or 2 beers

No, you found you felt yourself driving better.

[otolith]

Is it still the case that the statistics for alcohol related road deaths don't distinguish between those caused by drunk drivers and drunk pedestrians?

[streaky]

thunderbelmont said:

They'd save more than a few hundred lives if they made everyone live in bungalows, with no items of furniture more than 2" high (so you can't climb up and fall off of it), because falls in the home account for more deaths than drink-driving.

2" high furniture is a lot easier to trip over - Streaky

[otolith]

streaky said:

thunderbelmont said:

They'd save more than a few hundred lives if they made everyone live in bungalows, with no items of furniture more than 2" high (so you can't climb up and fall off of it), because falls in the home account for more deaths than drink-driving.

2" high furniture is a lot easier to trip over - Streaky

Not if you force everyone to crawl on all fours.