scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit

[technodup]

Red 4 said:

You could make the limit 0.
People would still drink and drive.

Well done, you got there in the end.

[Red 4]

Pwig said:

The uncomfortable truth is that there hasn't been a single study, which said that having a pint of beer doesn't make you a better driver.

Each pint of beer after that makes you worse.

There are lots of studies.

Here's one;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2543913...

Data from over 500,000 fatal collisions was examined.

After 1 beer you are 46% more likely to be solely at fault for the collision.

Also, there is no sharp drop off for impairment at the legal limit.

Ie You are similarly impaired at 0.7 compared to 0.8 - but you will only be charged at 0.8 - when the standard of driving will likely have been exactly the same.

In short, do not think you are safe/ the alcohol has no effect just because you are under the limit.

[s2art]

Red 4 said:

You are wrong.
It is medical fact that even small amounts of alcohol affect your ability to drive.

]

Nope. The evidence is that small amounts improve your ability.

[Red 4]

s2art said:

Red 4 said:

You are wrong.
It is medical fact that even small amounts of alcohol affect your ability to drive.

]

Nope. The evidence is that small amounts improve your ability.

Yeah, right. See above.

It's a bit early isn't it ?

How many have you had ?

[toppstuff]

s2art said:

Red 4 said:

You are wrong.
It is medical fact that even small amounts of alcohol affect your ability to drive.

]

Nope. The evidence is that small amounts improve your ability.

It think it depends on how powerfully built you are.

Powerfully built PH types have more muscle mass and 99% of statistics state that 84% of these people are not affected by a few pints of beer. Indeed it improves their ability to apply a dab of oppo when needed.

You must be new here and don’t know this.

[Bone Rat]

Hi, an interesting thread. My role involves this area, two comments.
Firstly regarding the map showing the legal limits across the continent. It's a little simplified as it seems to indicate that England and Wales are outliers with the higher limit. When you read the details you'll find that other countries with a lower limit have a graduated tarrif with fines not bans at the start with revocation at around the same point as E&W. We go straight for loss of licence not fine and points at a lower level, I have no opinion on this but would just like to point out that it's a bit more nuanced.

Secondly, I see the repeat offenders for DUI, the levels are not just over the limit but substantially over the limit echoing the paramedic poster above.
Often these are in a cluster of offences, typically 2x limit +, IN10,(no insurance) & driving outside of licence (typically no or prov licence). In summary someone who does not respect law anyway & feels it doesn't apply. The sanction for this is very likely limited

[heebeegeetee]

Red 4 said:

Einion Yrth said:

In my case between 20 and 150, depending on your definition of "affected". It's utterly irrelevant to your inability to comprehend that statistically there is no basis for the question, however. You have to first demonstrate that my, or any, death will be prevented/postponed by a reduction in the DD limit from 80mg/100ml to 50mg.100ml and you can't do that because the available figures do not bear it out. Please try to understand, your attitude isn't just emotional, it's emotional to the exclusion of rationality.

You consume alcohol (even small amounts) and your ability to drive is affected.

It really is that simple. There is nothing emotive about that. It is a fact.

You can argue about stats all you like.

Lowering the drink/ drive limit can only improve road safety.
It will not have the opposite effect.

Your guesses about the numbers of people affected by a single fatal RTC (although varying wildly) are also inaccurate.

I'll leave you to dig out some stats.
You seem to like them.

You could also look at costs of a single fatal RTC.
The figures may surprise you.

I think lowering the limit will have a very limited effect, and whilst personally I think motoring law is pretty well alright as it is (the lack of enforcement being a far bigger issue), my issue is that if you campaign for issues that will have a very limited effect, then you or the authorities are not dealing with bigger issues. You ask to look at the cost of single rtc, but why not look at the cost of multiple rtcs and deal with causes of that?

Yes, a small amount of alcohol can have an effect, just like multiple other things can: energy drinks, caffeine, tiredness, mood, age, gender, medication, well-being, and so on. I mean, do we have a base line of the perfect driver in perfect conditions and do we have a measurement of how much every aspect of life reduces this optimum by? I doubt it.

I tell you something: if you want to campaign to save lives in an area of motoring then campaign to get current laws enforced. Stop this nonsensical bandwagon of people constantly wanting to change or introduce one law or another, whilst current laws are all but ignored and get the current laws enforced.

Then you'll be doing something worthwhile.

[Red 4]

toppstuff said:

It think it depends on how powerfully built you are.

Powerfully built PH types have more muscle mass and 99% of statistics state that 84% of these people are not affected by a few pints of beer. Indeed it improves their ability to apply a dab of oppo when needed.

You must be new here and don’t know this.

You may be on to something.

I'd suggest it may be worthwhile some PH'ers leaving their bodies to medical science.

Some certainly appear to be, er, unique and the research will be of great benefit to mankind.
(In a kind of that's not normal and is just pain weird type of way).

[Red 4]

heebeegeetee said:

I think lowering the limit will have a very limited effect, and whilst personally I think motoring law is pretty well alright as it is (the lack of enforcement being a far bigger issue), my issue is that if you campaign for issues that will have a very limited effect, then you or the authorities are not dealing with bigger issues. You ask to look at the cost of single rtc, but why not look at the cost of multiple rtcs and deal with causes of that?

Yes, a small amount of alcohol can have an effect, just like multiple other things can: energy drinks, caffeine, tiredness, mood, age, gender, medication, well-being, and so on. I mean, do we have a base line of the perfect driver in perfect conditions and do we have a measurement of how much every aspect of life reduces this optimum by? I doubt it.

I tell you something: if you want to campaign to save lives in an area of motoring then campaign to get current laws enforced. Stop this nonsensical bandwagon of people constantly wanting to change or introduce one law or another, whilst current laws are all but ignored and get the current laws enforced.

Then you'll be doing something worthwhile.

Yep, I agree with much of what you have said. (Although not about drink drive limits).

Laws are pointless without enforcement which may be another reason why the drink/ drive casualty stats have remained much the same in Scotland.

I also agree about the other factors which contribute to collisions.

I was referring to the cost of a single fatal collision though (not collisions in general) which, apart from the obvious human cost, is staggering for a single incident.

With 1 in 7 fatals involving alcohol as a factor I think it's something which needs to be addressed in addition to - not to the detriment of - everything else.

With budgets being slashed and resources scarce (you say enforcement is the best way to address the issue) - practically - anything that helps or may cause someone to think twice is OK in my book.

Good post though. Thanks.

[Pwig]

You do realise that the 1-7 fatal stats include drunk pedestrians being hit by sober drivers don't you?

Oh and driving tired is much much MUCH more dangerous than driving drunk.

[heebeegeetee]

Red 4 said:

With 1 in 7 fatals involving alcohol as a factor
.

How many within the current limit and the proposed limit?

[Red 4]

Pwig said:

You do realise that the 1-7 fatal stats include drunk pedestrians being hit by sober drivers don't you?

Oh and driving tired is much much MUCH more dangerous than driving drunk.

1. The stats cover that, yes.

2. 18 hours without sleep, by some studies, is equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 0.5.

That's quite a claim you've made there.
Everything is relative though and essentially it's nonsense (again).

How about tired and drunk ?
The two often go hand in hand.

[heebeegeetee]

Red 4 said:

How about tired and drunk ?
The two often go hand in hand.

Driving drunk is already illegal. Now, if you want to take a look at driving tired... are any of in a fit state to drive home after a day's work? I've no doubt that even just a little tiredness makes us less safe, never mind the effect of having a st day at work. Banning driving home might save far more lives, eh?

Now, are there any figures on numbers of lives lost to people having had just the one drink and are within the current limit?

[Red 4]

heebeegeetee said:

Red 4 said:

How about tired and drunk ?
The two often go hand in hand.

Driving drunk is already illegal. Now, if you want to take a look at driving tired... are any of in a fit state to drive home after a day's work? I've no doubt that even just a little tiredness makes us less safe, never mind the effect of having a st day at work. Banning driving home might save far more lives, eh?

Now, are there any figures on numbers of lives lost to people having had just the one drink and are within the current limit?

There are potentially other offences if your driving falls below the standard of the notional careful and competent driver.
It's already legislated for (in effect).

I don't know re the stats you are asking for.
You could trawl The Lancet report ( a few pages back) and see if there are any clues.

I've provided links to studies which show you are 5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal collision after 1 drink.
Again, a page or two ago.

[heebeegeetee]

Red 4 said:

1. There are potentially other offences if your driving falls below the standard of the notional careful and competent driver.
It's already legislated for (in effect).

2. I don't know re the stats you are asking for.
You could trawl The Lancet report ( a few pages back) and see if there are any clues.

3. I've provided links to studies which show you are 5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal collision after 1 drink.
Again, a page or two ago.

1. But its still difficult/impossible to make straight case driving when tired.

2. I don't think the figures exist.

3. That's not the answer. The great majority of countries with the lower limits have higher road casualty rates than we do.

[Red 4]

heebeegeetee said:

1. But its still difficult/impossible to make straight case driving when tired.

2. I don't think the figures exist.

3. That's not the answer. The great majority of countries with the lower limits have higher road casualty rates than we do.

Not really.
There's no offence of driving whilst tired but the results of it can be an offence (as I said).

Re figures - I think you're right.

Comparing other countries to the UK will not provide you with any definitive answers.
Even if you narrow your comparison to the EU there are too many differences other than drink/ drive limits.
Road layout/ conditions, climate, attitudes, just to scratch the surface ...
We actually do extremely well casualty v head of population.
That doesn't mean things can't be improved.

[Pwig]

Red 4 said:

Pwig said:

You do realise that the 1-7 fatal stats include drunk pedestrians being hit by sober drivers don't you?

Oh and driving tired is much much MUCH more dangerous than driving drunk.

1. The stats cover that, yes.

2. 18 hours without sleep, by some studies, is equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 0.5.

That's quite a claim you've made there.
Everything is relative though and essentially it's nonsense (again).

How about tired and drunk ?
The two often go hand in hand.

The big different is when you are tired, if you fall into microsleeps (perhaps 2 or 3 seconds) you just don't react at all, at least when you are drunk you will react, albeit slower than a sober person.

I've nearly fallen asleep at the wheel, as I'm sure many other people have. It's bloody scary.

The thing is, one is illegal the other isn't. Get in a car with a driver who has had 3 points or someone who has been awake for 24 hours? I'll take the 3 pints thank you

Certainly take your point on tired and drunk.

[Red 4]

Pwig said:

The big different is when you are tired, if you fall into microsleeps (perhaps 2 or 3 seconds) you just don't react at all, at least when you are drunk you will react, albeit slower than a sober person.

I've nearly fallen asleep at the wheel, as I'm sure many other people have. It's bloody scary.

The thing is, one is illegal the other isn't.

How do you test for tiredness though ?

Give someone a test and they will likely suddenly be wide awake !

The legislators do what they can - tachographs, etc and if there is a serious enough incident then it's possible that someone's movements/ activities could be investigated.

It's not as simple as blowing into a device though.

Still an issue though, I agree.

[technodup]

Red 4 said:

How do you test for tiredness though ?

Ask the SNP. If it gives them the chance ban something and they'll dream something up.

[AJL308]

Red 4 said:

Oh dear.

Running off at the mouth again ?

How do you expect anyone to come up with the stats you are asking for (ie specifically quoting the level of alcohol in the body) ?

Fatal wise, excess alcohol is a factor in about 1 in 7.

As an overall picture excess alcohol is a factor in about 1 in 20 RTCs.

You can see that the fatal outcomes are massively disproportionate to the overall figures.

I've been to lots of RTCs and lots of fatals.

I've seen the devastation it causes.

I welcome anything that is likely to reduce those figures.

Edited by Red 4 on Friday 14th December 19:08

Then you don't "welcome" the Scottish breath alcohol reduction as it has been shown to have had precisely zero effect on reducing accidents.