Drink drive laws, how do they calculate lives saved ?

[Nigel Worc's]

Hello chaps.

As a carry on from the new Jock limit, I've heard some programs on the radio debating this.

It would appear from what we are told that the public are largely in favour of this new limit, and would like it extended to England and Wales, not something I'm in favour of.

I've heard all the has beens under pressure (experts), saying how many lives it will save, 17 a year in Jockland, 43 across the entire UK if it was adopted here.

Our government are saying they have no plans to implement this, which probably means it will be law next week !

I'm not aware of any figures showing we have a problem with people below the current English limit, but above the new Jock one.

So if people between 50 & 80 aren't killing others, how does a lower limit save lives ?

[PurpleMoonlight]

Given that the police now breathalyse any driver involved in a fatality, I would say they can easily ascertain the numbers killed between any prescribed levels.

Of course, that is not to say the accident or death wouldn't have occurred had the driver been sober or a lower level, but the campaigners will claim so regardless.

Overall though, a lower limit is difficult to argue against.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 7th December 14:19

[Phatboy317]

Nigel Worc's said:

So if people between 50 & 80 aren't killing others, how does a lower limit save lives ?

It's supposed to be to discourage people from drinking and driving at all, or so we are told.

Which is presumably why the very first person to fall foul of the new limit was caught at 8:30 in the morning after the new limit came into force

Edited by Phatboy317 on Sunday 7th December 14:21

[Phatboy317]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Overall though, a lower limit is difficult to argue against.

Yes, it is difficult to argue against, but it's also difficult to argue for.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Phatboy317 said:

Yes, it is difficult to argue against, but it's also difficult to argue for.

Not really.

Alcohol impairs judgement. The limit is really about what level of impairment should be tolerated.

[MagneticMeerkat]

Give over Nigel - this, and the other one, point to some deep seated prejudice you alone appear to harbour against the lands to the North of Northumberland.

Scotland's contribution to humanity is well documented: just look at the history of great inventions, not to mention their bulging back catalogue of musical, artistic and literary achievement. The Scottish countryside is some of the finest in the world, however complemented by cosmopolitan society in the cities. The people, or at least the ones I have met, have been friendly, grounded and humorous. They even have nice food! Not to mention drink. I know there's abject poverty up there too, industrial ruin and social strife - but nothing to generate such ire. It doesn't directly affect the English.

Seriously, what gives? I'd possibly go for politics, your strange hypothesis that it's a secretive Marxist power bloc - poised to overrun Worcestershire with enforced wealth redistribution and compulsory tartan, seems the only rational hypothesis here.

Drink driving? I couldn't care less what the limit is, I don't do it. For the record I'm English-ish. Well a sundry European mongrel descendent of Catholic hard-liners anyway, definitely not Scottish by any metric.

[Toltec]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Not really.

Alcohol impairs judgement. The limit is really about what level of impairment should be tolerated.

I believe the idea is to move people out of the mindset where they try to calculate how many drinks they can get away with and to accept that no alcohol is the right way. The limit is there to stop you from getting nicked for trace amounts due to food or a couple the night before.

[Phatboy317]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Alcohol impairs judgement. The limit is really about what level of impairment should be tolerated.

There's a point below which the level of impairment becomes indistinguishable from other factors which may impact on driving, such as tiredness, having a cold, stress, minor distraction, too hot, too cold, too dark, etc.

The only real justification for reducing the limit is if those between the old and new limit are clearly and unambiguously over-represented in the accident stats.

Otherwise we're no less justified in starting to ban people for driving with a cold.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Sunday 7th December 15:22

[agtlaw]

The estimated figures originate from the North Report.

"A reduction to 50 mg/100 ml would undoubtedly save a significant number of lives. In the first year post-implementation, estimates range from at
least 43 to around 168 lives saved – as well as avoiding a larger number
of serious injuries – a conservative estimate is 280. At the other end of the range, avoiding as many as almost 16,000 injuries (including slight and serious) has been modelled. It is estimated that the impact of any lowering in the blood alcohol limit will actually increase over the first few years of implementation with an estimate of up to 303 lives annually saved by the 6th year. These figures do not fully reflect the additional lives that might be saved in Scotland who make up 7% of the drink drive-related casualties in Great Britain. While there are many uncertainties related to the data and the assumptions used in the modelling, nevertheless, they provide a helpful indication of what might be achieved by a reduction in the current limit. In the light of that, the current 80 mg/100 ml should be reduced to 50 mg/100 ml"

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100921...