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.”
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
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.
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.
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?
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.Shock horror probe, PH and ACPO in agreement. Probably make page 7 of the Daily Bigot tomorrow.
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.
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.
otolith said:
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
Sorry for resurrecting an old topic that had gone a bit off track but I have got to Annex L of the North Report.
Came across this data
I would argue that this suggests the biggest influence on alcohol related road deaths is not the limit, is also not necessarily the testing regime but a cultural thing.
What is Netherlands doing right though? Those crazy Dutch eh?
But I'd say UK police are targeting the drivers well while some forces eg Sweden
are targeting almost anything that moves based on a lower BAC limit to no effect.
edited for table formating grrrr and numptyism missing off a complete column.
Came across this data
| Country | BAC limit | Alcohol related deaths | Checks per driver % | Offences as % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | mg/100 ml | % of all road deaths | No of checks/No drivers | of driver population |
| UK | 80 | 17.0 | 1.7 | 0.3 |
| Sweden | 20 | 16.1 | 45.3 | 0.3 |
| Spain | 50 | 20.5 | 13.5 | 0.4 |
| Netherlands | 50 | 6.2 | 20.4 | 0.3 |
| Hungary | 0 (nil) | 8.7 | 18.2 | 0.6 |
| Finland | 50 | 27.3 | 22.0 | 0.9 |
| France | 50 | 27.3 | 29.9 | 0.9 |
| Czech Rep | 0 (nil) | 3.4 | 6.6 | 0.2 |
I would argue that this suggests the biggest influence on alcohol related road deaths is not the limit, is also not necessarily the testing regime but a cultural thing.
What is Netherlands doing right though? Those crazy Dutch eh?
But I'd say UK police are targeting the drivers well while some forces eg Sweden
are targeting almost anything that moves based on a lower BAC limit to no effect.edited for table formating grrrr and numptyism missing off a complete column.
Edited by F i F on Friday 25th June 10:08
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff