RE: UK Among Worst For Drink Driving
Discussion
RJE1966 said:
Neomagic said:
DamoLLb said:
Neomagic said:
I find this very hard to believe and contradictory to another recent study saying we where one of the better countries.
Either way 6% in 14,000 isn't what id regard as a problem.
are you joking? you know per cent means out of a hundred right?Either way 6% in 14,000 isn't what id regard as a problem.
Edited by Neomagic on Wednesday 2nd July 11:56
.....seems a miniscule amount to me.
NB I wonder what number were breathalised in other countries, anyone have a link to the actual figures?
There are 33,000,000 cars in the UK ( I dont know how many motorists) so that means in line with these stats there could be as many as 1,980,000 drink drivers on our roads!
Jackass said:
Isn't the Drink Drive limit in the UK one of the lowest in Europe? I thought Spain allowed almost twice the blood alcohol level (for example).
NO, the drink drive limit in Spain is actually lower beleive it or not! Over here you have 1 pint and not blow positive, in spain with 1 bottle ( roughly half a pint) you would blow a positive resultcowellsj said:
I don't see reducing the limit will make a lot of difference.
More roadside testing must be the only way of discouraging it.
+1More roadside testing must be the only way of discouraging it.
So, 94% of drivers tested were not over the drink/drive limit. Just out of interest, what are the criteria for being breathalyzed ? Moving traffic offence, erratic driving = suspicion, random roadside checks ? What ? Just interested.
edward1 said:
They always talk about lowering the limit, I can't see how this will help. If someone is drunk and behind the wheel how will a lower limit change that fact, a bit like all these 50 limits appearing on rural roads, if you break the 60 limit how will a 50 limit change your driving. If you currently have a drink then lowering the limit won't change that.
More pointless stats to be used against the british motorist
If you lower the limit, more people will be caught (Glass of whine for example) as a result. Which means more revenue gained from the fines and increased insurance premiums etc etc.More pointless stats to be used against the british motorist
Neomagic said:
edward1 said:
They always talk about lowering the limit, I can't see how this will help. If someone is drunk and behind the wheel how will a lower limit change that fact, a bit like all these 50 limits appearing on rural roads, if you break the 60 limit how will a 50 limit change your driving. If you currently have a drink then lowering the limit won't change that.
More pointless stats to be used against the british motorist
If you lower the limit, more people will be caught (Glass of whine for example) as a result. Which means more revenue gained from the fines and increased insurance premiums etc etc.More pointless stats to be used against the british motorist
Mattikake isn't so wrong here either....
"They missed the fact that UK citizens are the ones who most need drink. We get stomped on every which way by the system and the government. Getting wasted is our only release. Getting behind the wheel is just one poorly judged thought away.
Maybe if they didn't fk us so much we wouldn't feel the need to drown our sorrows so much?"
Now I an NOT condoning DD but the country seems to be heading towards a pressure cooker social situation and people are feeling more under REAL pressure day after day.
Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 2nd July 17:05
Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 2nd July 17:07
jfr said:
Jackass said:
Isn't the Drink Drive limit in the UK one of the lowest in Europe? I thought Spain allowed almost twice the blood alcohol level (for example).
NO, the drink drive limit in Spain is actually lower beleive it or not! Over here you have 1 pint and not blow positive, in spain with 1 bottle ( roughly half a pint) you would blow a positive resultthe punishment is lower.
DD in many Euro countries is a fining offence, not
a long ban like in the UK.
Oddly enough, plenty of car hating groups want to
bring in lower limits like the rest of Europe and *still*
have the long bans used in the UK.
That's like having your cake and eating it.
It's a national pastime in Italy ! and it's only a 3 week ban
Police units generally don't carry DUI kits - it's too expensive to equip them all - trafpol are generally the only one with kits on board
So the times i've been stopped - they've had to call another unit to bring a kit and generally they can't be arsed to do it
The other information these statistics will no doubt have missed is how easy it is to get let off the offence when you hand over a little "police tax"
I have paid off police in France / Italy / Russia and Spain. However British police are not open to a little extra in their pay packet. So it will always seem we have higher rates of all offences as we actually follow through and prosecute more often. At least DD is a real crime, unlike the great speeding scam.
I have paid off police in France / Italy / Russia and Spain. However British police are not open to a little extra in their pay packet. So it will always seem we have higher rates of all offences as we actually follow through and prosecute more often. At least DD is a real crime, unlike the great speeding scam.
woof said:
It's a national pastime in Italy ! and it's only a 3 week ban
Police units generally don't carry DUI kits - it's too expensive to equip them all - trafpol are generally the only one with kits on board
So the times i've been stopped - they've had to call another unit to bring a kit and generally they can't be arsed to do it
Belgium too in my experience having spent a lot of time there in the recent past - it is still considered socially acceptable to get plastered and drive home, particularly amongst the 30-50 age range - the only risk for many of them is getting caught but that is hardly a showstopper. There are plenty of stories of drunks totalling their cars (and other peoples) and ending up banned for 6-8 weeks!!!!!! hardly a deterrent is it.....Police units generally don't carry DUI kits - it's too expensive to equip them all - trafpol are generally the only one with kits on board
So the times i've been stopped - they've had to call another unit to bring a kit and generally they can't be arsed to do it
MitchT said:
UK Among Worst For Expensive And Inconvenient Public Transport
*Not that I ever condone driving while over the limit, but there's the answer.
But yes it is expensive and inconvenient public transport... so are cabs... "on it's way mate"
.........How much! a recent journey between 2 towns+12 miles+10 minutes on the dual carriage way= £30,
would have got a bus.... but they spend all day running around with no bugger on them so it's not worth running them at night.
gggggrrrrrr. With recession looming we can all stay in and be recluses......
TAXI DRIVERS MAKE YOUR FARES CHEAPER BY RUNNING ON AUTO GAS.
Here we go again, a 'study','survey' etc...etc...has revealed that...What were the perameters of the 'survey'? I have visited Tispol's website where there is a small passage on the survey - to be carried out 2-8 june - but there is no mention of where or what time it was carried out, nor is there any mention of the result! I just don't trust these oganisation not to manage these surveys in a way as to suit there own ends. No doubt the results will be 'massaged' and 'spun' to fit what was decided in the first place. We had the same with 'SPEED KILLS' where a govt study showed that speed was a 'significant factor' x% of road accidents. The govt then bases it road safety stratagy on statistics that have now been proved to be not only wrong but that wildly in-acurate as to be filed under utter, utter b#ll#cks. As a result we have fewer traffic cops and more cameras. Cut costs & take money. I see Adam Briggs wants to lower the limit. People who drive over the current limit and don't give a sh*t are hardly likely to say, oh the limit has dropped, I'll not have my normal 6 pints, I'll just have the one. He wants random breath tests. As the law stands ANY uniformed officer can stop ANY motor at ANY time for ANY reason. If you ask the police they will tell you that. So they already can stop cars at random and test the driver. Increase the penalty - what to? The magistrates are currently given guidance as to the mimimum penalty the can impose - a 'tariff'- but I don't know if there are upper limits as to what they can do. Enforcement and education is of course the answer. More traffic cops who have flexibility rather than a target, more education about drink and it's effect on driving. Carry on making it socially unacceptable as with smoking, the affect of your actions on others. As to lowering the limit, are drivers who are currently under the present limit but over the proposed limit causing loads of accidents? Nobody knows, they just guess and base there actions on that. If there are any facts, show them to us so the public can be kept informed and agree to the meassure. Rule with consensus. Nobody in their right mind agrees with drink-driving but it can happen when not 'intended' ie. the morning after the night before, especially if the lower limit goes through. Unfortunatly, both inforcement and education cost money. I believe these surveys are 'sound-byte' policies, grab the headline and get on and do what you were going to do anyway. At the bottom of Tispol's homepage there flutters the EU flag follwed by the text...CO-FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Oh, thats OK then, it must be based on fact and not a money-spinner ! I am a miserable old Hector today.
I was recently stopped at about 11 ish in the evening in Bavaria, the 1st time in 10 years here that has happened. Not for any offence, but they appeared to be looking for similar cars to mine.
You'd think they'd want to breathalise me as a standard procedure, right?
Nope & not 'cos I blatently hadn't been drinking but 'cos they had only 1 breathalizer kit available at that time of night in a town of 150,000 + inhabitants & the other patrol car on duty had it.
As an aside, I did some work some years back for the local Coca-Cola agent & their cheif Marketing/Sales bloke was very proud of his latest deal, installing Coca-Cola vending machines in all the police stations in his area (a good 200 or so)for the use of the police themselves. When I asked him 6 months later how the business was going he'd removed all the machines on the grounds that he was losing money on the deal. Turns out that the beer vending machines (oh yes, you read that correctly) were selling 6 bottles of beer to every 1 bottle of Coke he sold.
I don't wish to suggest the Bavarian police are all drunk on duty but they are responsible for a very lax attitide towards being drunk in public.
& therefore also in cars.
You'd think they'd want to breathalise me as a standard procedure, right?
Nope & not 'cos I blatently hadn't been drinking but 'cos they had only 1 breathalizer kit available at that time of night in a town of 150,000 + inhabitants & the other patrol car on duty had it.
As an aside, I did some work some years back for the local Coca-Cola agent & their cheif Marketing/Sales bloke was very proud of his latest deal, installing Coca-Cola vending machines in all the police stations in his area (a good 200 or so)for the use of the police themselves. When I asked him 6 months later how the business was going he'd removed all the machines on the grounds that he was losing money on the deal. Turns out that the beer vending machines (oh yes, you read that correctly) were selling 6 bottles of beer to every 1 bottle of Coke he sold.
I don't wish to suggest the Bavarian police are all drunk on duty but they are responsible for a very lax attitide towards being drunk in public.
& therefore also in cars.
The problem with all such surveys is that you nee both experts carrying them out and experts analysing the resutls. The problem is not statistics as such, the problem is the people using it. If you have strong pre-conceptions it is possible to design studies in a way to prove them. Politicians also often take the results out of context, with no regards to the disclaimers and limits of applicability, because it gives them something to shout about.
There is no piece of information in the article allowing anyone to conclude that the study was conducted well, or poorly and that the results are accurate, or totally wrong. Yet because it's going to be used for one reason or another everyone automatically cries foul.
I totally agree that a lower limit without any sort of increased checking won't do much. On the other hand I also agree that the current UK limit is on the high side. And I think that harsh drink and drive punishment is to be welcomed, not frowned upon. Add increased checking to that - a great idea. Measures such as a 0 promile limit for everyone in the first two years after passing the licence (and an automatic ban, if breached), a two year ban and having to retake the whole driver training (25-30 hours with an instructor) test if over twice the limit, and similar have done wonders for drink driving in Slovenia. Social unacceptability is even better.
And while I understand that there are many of us, who have the right attitude and would drive carefully after drinking and thereby not cause an accident, it's speaking of a minority of the driving population and it's too much of a risk to take. It's a bit like letting people shoot in a public space - sure, they will miss for the most part but the odd one might still hit an unanticipated 'target'.
Finally, a state of affairs, where there are no police checks on the road (or very few) is not helping. Those random checks some rant about make sure the numbers of uninsured, incapable, unlicenced and drunk drivers can be better kept in check (not that they necessarily always are). Not carrying out the checks in the first place only makes sure these things will never be appropriately controlled.
There is no piece of information in the article allowing anyone to conclude that the study was conducted well, or poorly and that the results are accurate, or totally wrong. Yet because it's going to be used for one reason or another everyone automatically cries foul.
I totally agree that a lower limit without any sort of increased checking won't do much. On the other hand I also agree that the current UK limit is on the high side. And I think that harsh drink and drive punishment is to be welcomed, not frowned upon. Add increased checking to that - a great idea. Measures such as a 0 promile limit for everyone in the first two years after passing the licence (and an automatic ban, if breached), a two year ban and having to retake the whole driver training (25-30 hours with an instructor) test if over twice the limit, and similar have done wonders for drink driving in Slovenia. Social unacceptability is even better.
And while I understand that there are many of us, who have the right attitude and would drive carefully after drinking and thereby not cause an accident, it's speaking of a minority of the driving population and it's too much of a risk to take. It's a bit like letting people shoot in a public space - sure, they will miss for the most part but the odd one might still hit an unanticipated 'target'.
Finally, a state of affairs, where there are no police checks on the road (or very few) is not helping. Those random checks some rant about make sure the numbers of uninsured, incapable, unlicenced and drunk drivers can be better kept in check (not that they necessarily always are). Not carrying out the checks in the first place only makes sure these things will never be appropriately controlled.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff