Lowering the Drink Drive Limit
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8742769.stm
Wouldnt it be simpler & safer just to make the limit zero? (or maybe 10ml to allow for people who've had a drink the night before?)
Wouldnt it be simpler & safer just to make the limit zero? (or maybe 10ml to allow for people who've had a drink the night before?)
The big problem is people who drink heavily and then drive. The so called hard core of drink drivers.
Having a lower limit just means that they will be "more" over it when caught.
I think our current combination of a realitively high limit combined with harsh penaltise is a good one and it should be left alone. Maybe with more focus and drives to catch the hard core.
Having a lower limit just means that they will be "more" over it when caught.
I think our current combination of a realitively high limit combined with harsh penaltise is a good one and it should be left alone. Maybe with more focus and drives to catch the hard core.
What gets missed in this debate is whilst we have a relatively high limit compared to some other countries we have a very high penalty if you are over it. A lower limit, if we have one, should be matched by a lower penalty or at least staged penalties based on how far over the limit you are.
But you have to ask what is the point of this, they say 150 lives would be saved but that is a complete made up number, they have no idea. Just leave well alone is my view.
But you have to ask what is the point of this, they say 150 lives would be saved but that is a complete made up number, they have no idea. Just leave well alone is my view.
The other aspect of this, which seems to only get a passing mention in the reports, is drug driving. I remember seeing the stats on this, and the number of drivers involved in crashes who have taken drugs is shocking. I'd like more lives could be saved more quickly by focusing on that then stopping people having a glass of wine or a beer before driving.
ks. This means that 150 people have been killed by people driving under the current DD limit (but over the proposed one) It just seems to me that 50ml is a halfway house and will please no one, its high enough for people to think "I'll be ok with one" or to think that the session last night has worn off, but its so low that really innocent people will get caught. Unless they change the penalties to make them dependant on your BAL?
Long discussion previously including relevant bib opinions on here in SP&L
btw this isn't to be taken as a "repost police" post, just pointing to valuable stuff imo, but then I would say that being the OP of course.
My comments are on that thread.
btw this isn't to be taken as a "repost police" post, just pointing to valuable stuff imo, but then I would say that being the OP of course.
My comments are on that thread.
I asked the same thing, but my post got removed in the clean-up. 
There were a couple of women on BBC Breakfast this morning who'd lost a family member to a drunk driver who was three times over the current limit. Understandably they were waving the Zero Tolerence flag and were looking forward to a lower limit being imposed.
Luckily for common sense people the country over, Turnbull asked them if a lower limit would have made any difference to their incident.
"Er, well no, no in this case...blah blah"
Luckily for common sense people the country over, Turnbull asked them if a lower limit would have made any difference to their incident.
"Er, well no, no in this case...blah blah"
I don't quite understand the logic here. I may well be very wrong but I'd have thought that the people who are most dangerous are those who are well in excess of our already low limit. Thus, the limit itself is already sufficient (some may say already too draconian) for our needs is it not?
Oh, I don't drink at all when I drive. My concern with such a lowering however would mean it could easily cover those who last had a drink the night before and that is not what the law should be about IMHO.
Oh, I don't drink at all when I drive. My concern with such a lowering however would mean it could easily cover those who last had a drink the night before and that is not what the law should be about IMHO.
Would the average driver actually notice any effect of 50mg in the bloodstream at all?
Seems to me that if the level is so low you wouldn't know whether you're under or not,
(a) it's too low to be self-policing by responsible people who don't want or intend to drink-drive, and
(b) will catch a lot of morning-after drivers who aren't a danger but have no means of knowing whether they're legal or not
Seems to me that if the level is so low you wouldn't know whether you're under or not,
(a) it's too low to be self-policing by responsible people who don't want or intend to drink-drive, and
(b) will catch a lot of morning-after drivers who aren't a danger but have no means of knowing whether they're legal or not
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff