How much can I drink and still drive?
Discussion
Reg Local said:
And the 1/3 figure is complete nonsense I'm afraid. Only 5% of injury accidents in 2014 had "exceeding the speed limit" as a contributory factor and only 7% had "drivng too fast for the conditions" as a contributory factor.
That's what I was digging at.So the 4% includes all those who were involved in an accident even if they were below the limit etc
I agree drunk driving is stupid and dangerous but I am adult enough to make my mind up without been given false figures
The more lies I'm told the more distrustful I've become of the people who feed me figures.
This is a tricky subject. As Reg points out the limit was set at 80mg/100ml blood because that was what the research at the time showed was the point art which most subjects became sufficiently affected by the alcohol to significantly impair their driving. There's no argument, someone with that level of alcohol in their blood should not be driving and deserve to face the full force of the law.
What about driving with lower levels of alcohol? The dat that I have looked for and failed so far to find is the figures for accidents caused by drivers who have between 50 and 80mg/100ml. Basically, how much of a problem is it?
My instant is that the real problem remains those people who continue to drive when drunk regardless of what the limit may be. The person with 150mg/100ml doesn't care whether they are two or three time the drink drive limit.
Now someone will say, that drink drive accidents have decreased in Scotland since the new limit, but that may be because of all the publicity around the introduction of the new limit has focused attention on drink driving.
I'm not arguing in favour of drinking and driving at all. However we do allow people to drive when impaired by all sorts of other reasons, if the law was that you had to be 100% fit to drive, well it would certainly reduce the traffic.
There is data to show that when driving without having breakfast you are as impaired as someone who is at the current legal limit for alcohol. Should driving without breakfast be made a criminal offence?
What about driving with lower levels of alcohol? The dat that I have looked for and failed so far to find is the figures for accidents caused by drivers who have between 50 and 80mg/100ml. Basically, how much of a problem is it?
My instant is that the real problem remains those people who continue to drive when drunk regardless of what the limit may be. The person with 150mg/100ml doesn't care whether they are two or three time the drink drive limit.
Now someone will say, that drink drive accidents have decreased in Scotland since the new limit, but that may be because of all the publicity around the introduction of the new limit has focused attention on drink driving.
I'm not arguing in favour of drinking and driving at all. However we do allow people to drive when impaired by all sorts of other reasons, if the law was that you had to be 100% fit to drive, well it would certainly reduce the traffic.
There is data to show that when driving without having breakfast you are as impaired as someone who is at the current legal limit for alcohol. Should driving without breakfast be made a criminal offence?
I was the drink/drive rep for my force. I also used to teach officers how to use the substantive breath test machine (sbtm), the one used at the station.
If I am going to drive, I don’t drink alcohol, mainly because I’m tee-total.
I went on a course to become a sbtm instructor and during it the students had an evening where they drank alcohol and tested themselves. Whilst having just 8 students, less me, drinking, means the results are not statistically significant, the course instructors told us that our experiences were a repeat of all the other courses they’d run. That’s three courses a month.
Alcohol affects different people different ways. It affects different sexes differently as well. I haven’t got my notes but I think one chap blew positive after 3 units. He was very fit, lacked any fat whatsoever, and was the personification of Tigger. He felt the effects of alcohol after one unit.
Next was the female on our course, not skinny and not unknown to alcohol. But she too blew positive after three units but she drank quicker that our fit bloke. He peaked early, highest for three units and then dropped fairly rapidly. The woman peaked later and dropped more slowly.
The various other males all stated that they did not feel fit enough to drive after three units, even the fat rugby prop. Yet all of them blew negative.
However, their readings were all over the place. Some were close to the limit while others were half the level of others.
One chap tried something different and his results were unusual.
However, what everyone on our course, and on all the previous courses, said was that they would not have considered driving when they were well below the prescribed limit. This was the point of the course, to show the officers that they were taking dangerous drivers off the road.
What we, and all the others, proved was that there is no way you can say how many units you can drink before going over the limit.
There are no stats for accidents with lower than 35 readings because these people would not be put on the sbtm.
Tests at the time of the introduction of the Road Safety Act, and all of them since, have showed that even one unit of alcohol adversely affects the ability of a person to drive. There was a rather famous test with bus drivers and driving through a gap. One unit was enough to show a drop in judgement.
If I am going to drive, I don’t drink alcohol, mainly because I’m tee-total.
I went on a course to become a sbtm instructor and during it the students had an evening where they drank alcohol and tested themselves. Whilst having just 8 students, less me, drinking, means the results are not statistically significant, the course instructors told us that our experiences were a repeat of all the other courses they’d run. That’s three courses a month.
Alcohol affects different people different ways. It affects different sexes differently as well. I haven’t got my notes but I think one chap blew positive after 3 units. He was very fit, lacked any fat whatsoever, and was the personification of Tigger. He felt the effects of alcohol after one unit.
Next was the female on our course, not skinny and not unknown to alcohol. But she too blew positive after three units but she drank quicker that our fit bloke. He peaked early, highest for three units and then dropped fairly rapidly. The woman peaked later and dropped more slowly.
The various other males all stated that they did not feel fit enough to drive after three units, even the fat rugby prop. Yet all of them blew negative.
However, their readings were all over the place. Some were close to the limit while others were half the level of others.
One chap tried something different and his results were unusual.
However, what everyone on our course, and on all the previous courses, said was that they would not have considered driving when they were well below the prescribed limit. This was the point of the course, to show the officers that they were taking dangerous drivers off the road.
What we, and all the others, proved was that there is no way you can say how many units you can drink before going over the limit.
There are no stats for accidents with lower than 35 readings because these people would not be put on the sbtm.
Tests at the time of the introduction of the Road Safety Act, and all of them since, have showed that even one unit of alcohol adversely affects the ability of a person to drive. There was a rather famous test with bus drivers and driving through a gap. One unit was enough to show a drop in judgement.
Great post. Thanks for putting it up.
I'm a zero tolerance type (just drove home, dropped the car off and currently sat on a train to the pub!)
The thing that worries me is the morning after and what to do there. Like you say in your post, the sensation is so different and normally you want to get home / need to get to work.
Thought provoking stuff.
I'm a zero tolerance type (just drove home, dropped the car off and currently sat on a train to the pub!)
The thing that worries me is the morning after and what to do there. Like you say in your post, the sensation is so different and normally you want to get home / need to get to work.
Thought provoking stuff.
theboyfold said:
The thing that worries me is the morning after and what to do there. Like you say in your post, the sensation is so different and normally you want to get home / need to get to work.
I've reported a few drink drivers in my time and when the rule came in that we had to bag all drivers involved in an RTA I reckon that about 10% were 'night before' drinkers. Most appeared quite normal and some would be critical of me because they hadn't had a drink for five or six hours. I used to ask them: Then why did you have the accident? It often stopped them. I had one bloke start crying, not because of the change in his life the conviction would bring, but the fact that he'd injured the passenger in the car he hit. The powers that be seem reluctant to run experiments on someone who's had a skinful, slept on it, and then driven. Yet the accidents where I've had positives from the night before have always been bewildering: accidents that should not have happened. My biggest ever reading was a night before. The bloke was parked along the embankment and pulled out into the path of an oncoming car. Not that odd I suppose, but there was a queue of traffic. Cars were hammering past.
The main problem with drinking and driving is that the best judge of your ability is not someone who's had a skinful.
I bagged, the road screening device, a barrister in the Inner Temple. There'd been a do. He'd tried to get his car out of a bay and had hit another two parked ones. I arrested him for failing to provide and took him to the nick. He was mouthing off a bit, but people often do. He then told the sergeant who was going to do the station procedure that the Inner Temple was a Papal Peculiar and that he was only answerable to the pope. He even wrote it on the charge sheet as the reason for not providing a specimen.
He was kicked out of his chambers. A bit harsh I thought as the organiser of the do must have known he was driving.
He pleaded and I was asked by the bench (police prosecuted in those days) the normal question: Was he any trouble? I don't like telling lies to a court but I didn't want to increase the fine for the bloke, it was always 18mnths for a failure to provide at the station. I said: If anything, he was amusing.
A conviction for DD is a life altering event, more so now I think than originally. Yet I never felt sorry for taking one to court.
At Barts Hosp there was a casualty doctor who got fed up with treating innocent casualties of drunk drivers. Whenever he was on he'd nod through a request for a blood sample regardless of how bad the driver was injured. My nick never had one who subsequently died but it was a close run thing once or twice.
konark said:
Drawweight said:
Living in Scotland the amount I drink is zero.
Naturally, you're a nation renowned for its temperence.It's killing places like Golf clubs, but rather that than innocent drivers and/or passengers?
Helicopter123 said:
konark said:
Drawweight said:
Living in Scotland the amount I drink is zero.
Naturally, you're a nation renowned for its temperence.It's killing places like Golf clubs, but rather that than innocent drivers and/or passengers?
The older generation are the worst in my experience, maybe because we were brought up in an age before drink drive laws. My daughter and son-in-law (both 30 ish) always organise a lift or get a taxi if going out on the town. They see drink driving as totally unacceptable and anti-social behaviour.
The thing I find odd about drink driving is that in my generation at least (20s-30s), the reactions towards it don't make a lot of sense.
For example, I'll quite happily have a glass of wine with my meal and drive afterwards, or two glasses of wine if for instance I'm eating at 6, then staying out until past midnight. I'm confident I would remain well under the limit in that situation, but out of all the people I know in my age group, I can only think of a couple who'd do the same.
A lot of my other friends find the fact that I'll have a glass of wine and drive quite shocking. Yet, they're the same people who will happily drive around looking down at their phone, or drive after not sleeping for days, drive after taking drugs, or even drive the morning after getting utterly wasted the night before. And that makes absolutely no sense to me. They seem to equate illegal drink driving with simply having any amount of alcohol, and getting in the car.
For example, I'll quite happily have a glass of wine with my meal and drive afterwards, or two glasses of wine if for instance I'm eating at 6, then staying out until past midnight. I'm confident I would remain well under the limit in that situation, but out of all the people I know in my age group, I can only think of a couple who'd do the same.
A lot of my other friends find the fact that I'll have a glass of wine and drive quite shocking. Yet, they're the same people who will happily drive around looking down at their phone, or drive after not sleeping for days, drive after taking drugs, or even drive the morning after getting utterly wasted the night before. And that makes absolutely no sense to me. They seem to equate illegal drink driving with simply having any amount of alcohol, and getting in the car.
Helicopter123 said:
I'm the same, with the "new" law, it's just not worth having a Pint and then getting behind the wheel.
It's killing places like Golf clubs, but rather that than innocent drivers and/or passengers?
I went to a chat about the police enquiry into an accident in fog on the M25 where there were a number of deaths and serious injuries. Some of the casualties had been burned to death in their vehicles. The conclusion was that the drivers were going too fast for the circumstances, i.e. reduced visibility. It's killing places like Golf clubs, but rather that than innocent drivers and/or passengers?
Their proposal was to increase penalties to draconian levels as it was the only way to deter drivers. One chap wondered if the possibility of a fine would stop them when the thought of a gory death or life in a wheelchair didn't.
The same goes for drink driving. Regardless of the law, it is not worth having a pint and getting behind the wheel.
I'm a bit evangelical on the subject as I've been to accidents where alcohol was a factor and it seemed to be that the drunk was always walking afterwards and would protest their innocence but not be able to walk in a straight line.
Geekman said:
The thing I find odd about drink driving is that in my generation at least (20s-30s), the reactions towards it don't make a lot of sense.
For example, I'll quite happily have a glass of wine with my meal and drive afterwards, or two glasses of wine if for instance I'm eating at 6, then staying out until past midnight. I'm confident I would remain well under the limit in that situation, but out of all the people I know in my age group, I can only think of a couple who'd do the same.
A lot of my other friends find the fact that I'll have a glass of wine and drive quite shocking. Yet, they're the same people who will happily drive around looking down at their phone, or drive after not sleeping for days, drive after taking drugs, or even drive the morning after getting utterly wasted the night before. And that makes absolutely no sense to me. They seem to equate illegal drink driving with simply having any amount of alcohol, and getting in the car.
I researched an article recently about tiredness and driving. I found research from Canada and OZ which made it quite clear that tiredness was as dangerous as alcohol when driving. Even ignoring the 'one vehicle, no reason' accidents, there is significant evidence to suggest that as many people are killed through tired driving as DD. What seems odd is that this is not emphasised in government policy.For example, I'll quite happily have a glass of wine with my meal and drive afterwards, or two glasses of wine if for instance I'm eating at 6, then staying out until past midnight. I'm confident I would remain well under the limit in that situation, but out of all the people I know in my age group, I can only think of a couple who'd do the same.
A lot of my other friends find the fact that I'll have a glass of wine and drive quite shocking. Yet, they're the same people who will happily drive around looking down at their phone, or drive after not sleeping for days, drive after taking drugs, or even drive the morning after getting utterly wasted the night before. And that makes absolutely no sense to me. They seem to equate illegal drink driving with simply having any amount of alcohol, and getting in the car.
Drugged driving, be it through illegal or prescription drugs, or even drugs available over the counter, is now the biggest killer the stats suggest.
Derek Smith said:
I researched an article recently about tiredness and driving. I found research from Canada and OZ which made it quite clear that tiredness was as dangerous as alcohol when driving. Even ignoring the 'one vehicle, no reason' accidents, there is significant evidence to suggest that as many people are killed through tired driving as DD. What seems odd is that this is not emphasised in government policy.
I'm afraid the UK accident statistics don't back up the Canadian and Australian research. Fatigue was a contributory factor in just over 2000 accidents in the UK in 2014 (the latest year for which figures are available), which is less than half of the number caused by drivers impaired by alcohol. There are a couple of reasons for the difference - driving in Canada and Australia is significantly different to driving in the UK. Long, straight roads crossing vast continents lend themselves to fatigue-related accidents. It's also one of those contributory factors which people aren't honest about. "Did you fall asleep?" "No Officer - definitely not".I do agree with the principle that fatigue can be as dangerous as drink driving. Having suffered police shift patterns for 19 years, I'm as guilty as many other drivers of driving under the influence of fatigue and in my new job I'm currently working with a number of other local authorities in tackling fatigue in taxi and private hire drivers.
Derek Smith said:
Drugged driving, be it through illegal or prescription drugs, or even drugs available over the counter, is now the biggest killer the stats suggest.
Again, I'm afraid that's not correct. Drivers under the influence of drugs - both illicit and prescription - was a factor in 684 reportable accidents in 2014. That's just over 0.5% of the total. They factored in a higher percentage of fatal accidents - 47 fatals, which is around 3% of the total. I've posted the relevant section of the DFT statistics below:
Again, these figures might be slightly skewed - the process for roadside testing isn't as well established as that for drink-driving, so some drivers will slip through the net because officers simply haven't recognised that they're impaired, but it's safe to say that drugs are still a much less significant factor in accidents than alcohol. That's not to say they're not a serious problem of course.
I'll just pull out one small quote from your previous post:
Derek Smith said:
What seems odd is that this is not emphasised in government policy.
If you look in more detail at the DFT statistics you'll find whole swathes of figures which will make you question Government policy. Just look at the section on impairment above. The Government's own official statistics on road accidents show that "Driver using mobile phone" was a contributory factor in 492 reportable accidents in 2014. 492 is 0.43% of all accidents. Just from that small selection you can see that that's only slightly more than those caused by people "Not displaying lights at night or in poor visibility" and is less than those caused by "Rider wearing dark clothing"Have you seen any massive publicity campaigns encouraging people to wear bright clothing at night? Or calls for huge increases in the penalties for driving without lights? No, me neither.
There are some reasons that the figures for phone-related accidents are so low. People lie, of course. "Using my phone? No, definitely not". And the police will only seize and examine phones in the event of a serious or fatal bump, but even with those anomalies taken into account, there is no evidence that thousands of people are dying in fiery balls of charred flesh because they're driving on the phone.
But - with my cynical head on - mobile phone use is extremely visible. We see people on their phones all the time, we assume it's dangerous (don't get me wrong - it definitely does carry significant risks), and the politicians tap into this by promising that the deadly scourge of mobile phone use will be tackled by stronger penalties and policies.
What we don't see, because it's not always as obvious, are the numbers of drivers and riders who aren't looking properly. The ones who pull out without looking, or without checking their mirrors. The ones who look no further in front than their own windscreen wipers.
"Driver/Rider failed to look properly" was recorded as a contributory factor in 44% of all reportable accidents in 2014. 50,400 accidents - 379 of them fatal - were caused by drivers or riders simply not looking properly at where they are going and at what's going on around them.
If Government policy was genuinely designed to reduce injuries and deaths on the road, surely this would be a good one to start with, rather than mobile phone use or speeding (5% of all accidents)?
I should write a book.
Oh, hang on...
Reg Local said:
I'm afraid the UK accident statistics don't back up the Canadian and Australian research.
The difference between the research and the accident statistics in the UK is that the former is scientific. If you've had 19 years in the job you know as well as me that the reporting stats vary according to who is reporting. It was my job a couple of times to teach experienced traffic officers and one of the subjects I covered was accident statistics, this after pressure from the Home Office, their belief being that it was inaccurate. It was pointless. All I got was a litany of prejudice.
Further, there is no way a reporting officer can judge impairment through tiredness. Indeed, after an accident one would assume there would be an adrenaline boost.
And, of course, police report only a low percentage of all accidents.
The research from God's Own Countries was objective and proveable, coming at it from a different direction. They tested people after periods of lack of sleep. Their conclusions were logical. Further, their research tallied despite being independent. That said, one worked on the research of the other.
Not only that, one can be tired and then overcome it with caffeine. The fall off from the caffeine boost is also sharp enough to be classed as tiredness.
I can only think of one case where tiredness was used to support a case of dangerous driving, and that had what one might call special circumstances being causing death by DD.
The level of tiredness in drivers is difficult to prove directly. Testing will result in an adrenaline boost for most. So research, such as that in the colonies, opens a window and it suggest, strongly suggests, that it is an unreported problem.
Geekman said:
The thing I find odd about drink driving is that in my generation at least (20s-30s), the reactions towards it don't make a lot of sense.
For example, I'll quite happily have a glass of wine with my meal and drive afterwards, or two glasses of wine if for instance I'm eating at 6, then staying out until past midnight. I'm confident I would remain well under the limit in that situation, but out of all the people I know in my age group, I can only think of a couple who'd do the same.
A lot of my other friends find the fact that I'll have a glass of wine and drive quite shocking. Yet, they're the same people who will happily drive around looking down at their phone, or drive after not sleeping for days, drive after taking drugs, or even drive the morning after getting utterly wasted the night before. And that makes absolutely no sense to me. They seem to equate illegal drink driving with simply having any amount of alcohol, and getting in the car.
I find this really interesting. I'm 26 and I've made it a point that I will never drink alcohol if I need to drive myself home. Thats my personal choice, its what I feel confident in doing. At least I know there is absolutely NO doubt that I can honestly answer 'have you been drinking tonight?' and then there will be a 0 breath test to back that up.For example, I'll quite happily have a glass of wine with my meal and drive afterwards, or two glasses of wine if for instance I'm eating at 6, then staying out until past midnight. I'm confident I would remain well under the limit in that situation, but out of all the people I know in my age group, I can only think of a couple who'd do the same.
A lot of my other friends find the fact that I'll have a glass of wine and drive quite shocking. Yet, they're the same people who will happily drive around looking down at their phone, or drive after not sleeping for days, drive after taking drugs, or even drive the morning after getting utterly wasted the night before. And that makes absolutely no sense to me. They seem to equate illegal drink driving with simply having any amount of alcohol, and getting in the car.
My friends who are around my age and maybe a little older all mock me for this decision and will always try to tempt me into having one or two drinks as 'you'll be ok' to drive home after - they don't seem to understand why I made that choice and are almost encouraging me to drink and drive. So far, I've stuck to my principle, except once where the wife offered to drive instead - she drank water and then drove a very drunk ashleyman home.
The next day again I was probably well over still so I didn't drive, she did. A lot of my friends seem to think that 3 or 4 hours sleep will cure them of alcohol in their system, they'll sleep (but its more a nap) at a friends house, then wake up a few hours later and drive themselves home probably still over.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff