Lowering of legal drink-drive limit 'to save lives' urged
Discussion
Lowering of legal drink-drive limit 'to save lives' urged
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39155282
"The legal drink-drive limit should be lowered in England and Wales to cut alcohol-related accidents, councils and fire authorities have urged.
The Local Government Association (LGA) and all fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales are calling for the current limit to be lowered from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. The move could save 170 lives in the first year, according to the LGA. The government said UK roads were "amongst the safest in the world"."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39155282
"The legal drink-drive limit should be lowered in England and Wales to cut alcohol-related accidents, councils and fire authorities have urged.
The Local Government Association (LGA) and all fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales are calling for the current limit to be lowered from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. The move could save 170 lives in the first year, according to the LGA. The government said UK roads were "amongst the safest in the world"."
"The Department for Transport spokesman said the government believed that rigorous enforcement and severe penalties for drink driving were a more effective deterrent than changing the drink-drive limit.
He said: "Those over the current drink driving limit cause a disproportionate amount of harm. These are the people we need to focus our efforts and resources upon."
Good lord, a spokesman that actually makes sense?!
The people that are the problem are the ones already over the limit by miles. They already don't care what he limit is and will drive anyway. I don't think the big problem is whether Pamela from Accounts decides to have one G&T at the work night out before driving home, it's the people who are getting totally bladdered and driving anyway because they don't care.
He said: "Those over the current drink driving limit cause a disproportionate amount of harm. These are the people we need to focus our efforts and resources upon."
Good lord, a spokesman that actually makes sense?!
The people that are the problem are the ones already over the limit by miles. They already don't care what he limit is and will drive anyway. I don't think the big problem is whether Pamela from Accounts decides to have one G&T at the work night out before driving home, it's the people who are getting totally bladdered and driving anyway because they don't care.
StottyGTR said:
So 170 fatalities are caused each year by people who are above 50mg and below 80mg/100ml of blood? That is what the local authorities appear to be claiming.
The department for transport spokesperson would appear to be a lot closer to the truth.
It's letting statistics get in the way of facts and common sense. Someone has probably done some calculation based on previous reductions in the limit and the reductions in road deaths as an apparent result. The reality isn't quite that straightforward. The same sort of logic is used with speed limits and all sorts of things to justify rules that don't tackle the real issue of blatant disrespect for law and society and just penalise those who aren't a problem.The department for transport spokesperson would appear to be a lot closer to the truth.
So the message is
"Don't drink and Drive"
Fair enough.
But assuming you are going to ignore that warning, does the level of the limit really significantly impact on the decision to break the law? I'm going to suggest the answer is 'NO'
There are basically three ways a person 'drinks and drives'
1) The "I DGAS" hardcore. They'll drink and drive whatever the limit, even if that limit if zero.
2) The "I'm only going out for one drink". This vast majority, can exceed the limit because they have more than one drink (or how ever many it take to push THEIR PARTICULAR blood alcohol level over the limit, which is not an exact science, and very difficult for the average person to work out. For these people, the only limit that could make a difference to behavior is a true ZERO limit. ie you can't drive if you'e had any alcohol.
3) The 'accidental' drink drivers. Those who are probably driving the next day, some significant time after they have been drinking, but they are still over the limit. Again, only a zero limit works here, and then that brings the very difficult question of how do you know you have a zero blood alcohol level??
When you think about that^^^ properly, it's very quickly obvious that below a certain bloody alcohol level it becomes extremely difficult to change peoples behavoir, right until the limit is fixed at zero, and then it becomes difficult for people themselves to know if they are actually at zero!!
Far, far, far better, would simply be more draconian penalties if you are caught drink driving over the current limit. For example, hows about a LIFETIME driving ban for being over the current limit? I suspect that would make the casual drink driver far more likely to moderate there behavoir than pointless and minor changes in the (fairly arbitrary) limits?
"Don't drink and Drive"
Fair enough.
But assuming you are going to ignore that warning, does the level of the limit really significantly impact on the decision to break the law? I'm going to suggest the answer is 'NO'
There are basically three ways a person 'drinks and drives'
1) The "I DGAS" hardcore. They'll drink and drive whatever the limit, even if that limit if zero.
2) The "I'm only going out for one drink". This vast majority, can exceed the limit because they have more than one drink (or how ever many it take to push THEIR PARTICULAR blood alcohol level over the limit, which is not an exact science, and very difficult for the average person to work out. For these people, the only limit that could make a difference to behavior is a true ZERO limit. ie you can't drive if you'e had any alcohol.
3) The 'accidental' drink drivers. Those who are probably driving the next day, some significant time after they have been drinking, but they are still over the limit. Again, only a zero limit works here, and then that brings the very difficult question of how do you know you have a zero blood alcohol level??
When you think about that^^^ properly, it's very quickly obvious that below a certain bloody alcohol level it becomes extremely difficult to change peoples behavoir, right until the limit is fixed at zero, and then it becomes difficult for people themselves to know if they are actually at zero!!
Far, far, far better, would simply be more draconian penalties if you are caught drink driving over the current limit. For example, hows about a LIFETIME driving ban for being over the current limit? I suspect that would make the casual drink driver far more likely to moderate there behavoir than pointless and minor changes in the (fairly arbitrary) limits?
jamoor said:
We should make it zero.
There are those that will do it no matter what, this doesn't affect them.
Why?There are those that will do it no matter what, this doesn't affect them.
Our limit may not be the lowest but we have very stiff penalties for drink driving, not all countries impose a years ban as a bare minimum and punishment is based on how much you've drunk, and our roads are much, much safer than they used to be.
I agree...it should be a zero drink limit for drivers. If you are driving then you don't touch a drop.
If you fancy drinking then arrange a taxi or whatever.
There's too many variables as to how alcohol affects people....weight, tolerance, food etc.
I'm no tree hugger but this is feel is required
If you fancy drinking then arrange a taxi or whatever.
There's too many variables as to how alcohol affects people....weight, tolerance, food etc.
I'm no tree hugger but this is feel is required
If I'm driving I never drink.
However let's say you have 6 beers or a bottle of wine with a meal the night before - at what time the ne t morning will you be zero?
What about chocolate Liqueur? Clearly you cannot Any any.
What about a sherry trifle - how long after eating it are you zero?
What about red wine jus or red wine gravy , again when are you zero?
What about Xmas pudding and brandy sauce - again how long after eating until you are zero?
What if someone cooks you a meal - you've walked there but consume no booze however unknown to you the cook has added some red wine to the cooking. She / he doesn't tell you as they assume you are not driving hence walking there - however on return home you pop out in the car for a reason get nibbled drink driving
However let's say you have 6 beers or a bottle of wine with a meal the night before - at what time the ne t morning will you be zero?
What about chocolate Liqueur? Clearly you cannot Any any.
What about a sherry trifle - how long after eating it are you zero?
What about red wine jus or red wine gravy , again when are you zero?
What about Xmas pudding and brandy sauce - again how long after eating until you are zero?
What if someone cooks you a meal - you've walked there but consume no booze however unknown to you the cook has added some red wine to the cooking. She / he doesn't tell you as they assume you are not driving hence walking there - however on return home you pop out in the car for a reason get nibbled drink driving
Doesnt a zero limit mean certain medications and other random factors could put you over the limit ?
I can see the argument for lowering it, it sends a message but banning someone who has had mouthwash, sherry trifle or a pint five hours ago, non of whom are impaired in any way just seems like a pointless way to ruin someones livelihood without actually getting a benefit, surely there should be some discretion, margin of error.
The proper piss heads will still drive whatever.
I can see the argument for lowering it, it sends a message but banning someone who has had mouthwash, sherry trifle or a pint five hours ago, non of whom are impaired in any way just seems like a pointless way to ruin someones livelihood without actually getting a benefit, surely there should be some discretion, margin of error.
The proper piss heads will still drive whatever.
StottyGTR said:
So 170 fatalities are caused each year by people who are above 50mg and below 80mg/100ml of blood? That is what the local authorities appear to be claiming.
The department for transport spokesperson would appear to be a lot closer to the truth.
Almost certainly a figure plucked from the air.The department for transport spokesperson would appear to be a lot closer to the truth.
Most people who drink drive don't give a f
k about whatever limit it may be, and so this will not stop them at all. This is just penalising the average bloke who drives to a pub to take his family out for lunch from having a pint.
TameRacingDriver said:
StottyGTR said:
So 170 fatalities are caused each year by people who are above 50mg and below 80mg/100ml of blood? That is what the local authorities appear to be claiming.
The department for transport spokesperson would appear to be a lot closer to the truth.
Almost certainly a figure plucked from the air.The department for transport spokesperson would appear to be a lot closer to the truth.
Most people who drink drive don't give a f
k about whatever limit it may be, and so this will not stop them at all. This is just penalising the average bloke who drives to a pub to take his family out for lunch from having a pint.I wonder what 50-80mg of alcohol in ones system actually feels like.
HTP99 said:
I wonder what 50-80mg of alcohol in ones system actually feels like.
And there is your problem Sir.It will feel different in every single one of us.
Have any of you ever experienced feeling too pissed to drive when in fact you are the designated driver and haven't touched a drop all evening, but everyone else has, and you just feel impaired by the atmosphere ?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff