Discussion
I scored a positive roadside test and subsequent very close shave with the Intoximeter later at the station in the late '70s. I could vividly see my entire social life as well as my job being flushed down the pan during the ride back in the patrol car.
My car was impounded overnight as I'd passed the first but failed the second test. There were no taxis running that late and my old Chap called me a rude name and told me to fulking walk home when I rang whinging for him to come and pick me up from the station.
Lesson learned on the 12 mile schlep home in the rain
My car was impounded overnight as I'd passed the first but failed the second test. There were no taxis running that late and my old Chap called me a rude name and told me to fulking walk home when I rang whinging for him to come and pick me up from the station.
Lesson learned on the 12 mile schlep home in the rain
Krikkit said:
Personally I think it's fine as-is - the people who don't care about drink-driving tend to have a shedload and get behind the wheel.
In normal society people have a couple, or none at all (increasingly common) and take extra care. Given how little drinking or driving the young millennials do I don't think it'll be an issue for long.
Personally I'll have one, or perhaps two pints slowly with food.
This could have been written by me. In normal society people have a couple, or none at all (increasingly common) and take extra care. Given how little drinking or driving the young millennials do I don't think it'll be an issue for long.
Personally I'll have one, or perhaps two pints slowly with food.
What drink driving problems we have won't be solved by lowering the limits, but by increased enforcement of the limits that we already have.
The people who end up with a positive breath test always start off by saying "no I have not had a drink" then "it was only one beer/wine/drink" then they say, "well it was four or five hours ago", then "It can't be positive", then "someone must have spiked my drink"... oh the list goes on. Until finally in front of the magistrate you lose you licence, insurance rockets etc etc etc.....and your family and friends all know what you did. So do you really need a alcoholic drink? If you can't do without one for one evening you might have a problem.
kambites said:
I suppose the question is whether a lower limit would be an efficient way to improve road safety... people often hold up examples of people being involved in accidents when over the limit as evidence of the fact the limit needs to be lowered but that makes no sense to me, surely the question is whether people marginally under the current limit are causing proportionally more accidents than people who are well under the limit?
I have no particular basis for this but I suspect the number of accidents where alcohol is a significant contributor whilst the driver is under the current limit is probably vanishingly small. Certainly far smaller than the number of accidents caused by people driving when tired, for example.
Also worth pointing out that despite having a relatively high drink-driving limit, we have damned nearly the safest roads in the world by almost all metrics.
Age 65 I've been driving since I was 17, ie before the test came in I think.I have no particular basis for this but I suspect the number of accidents where alcohol is a significant contributor whilst the driver is under the current limit is probably vanishingly small. Certainly far smaller than the number of accidents caused by people driving when tired, for example.
Also worth pointing out that despite having a relatively high drink-driving limit, we have damned nearly the safest roads in the world by almost all metrics.
Regularly two, two or two and a half of an evening, often while watching a pub band. Now live in Scotland where the limit is lower (50) and apparently one pint can put you over the limit. I no longer go out of an evening. No doubt there are many others like me and it's killing the country pub.
And does the lower limit or even the 80 limit actually stop either the habitual or even the occasional well over the limit driver, I doubt it.
I recall the person who skittled a number of cyclists and killed, I think 3 of them, a number of years ago while swigging from a vodka bottle.
Sorry, probably get flamed but more attention should be paid to tailgaters, texters, stolen cars being raced and hitting pedestrians etc
I went on a course for potential instructors for the substantive breath test machine, that’s the one at the police station, used in evidence. As part of the course, the students were encouraged to spend an evening drinking and testing one-another. I’m tee-total so was additionally required to observe.
The one conclusion that was unchallengeable, and one, we were told, that merely reinforced those of previous courses, was that there is no rate of reading that was consistent with the amount of alcohol consumed. It varies from person to person, depending on many variables.
General observations of the evening which are supported by other courses:
Sex is important. A woman will read higher for the same quantity of alcohol than a man.
A young, fit, active bloke who weighs less than my belt blows higher and sooner than others.
Someone who is fit but fat – ex tighthead – will blow lower and peak later than others.
At two pints the behaviour of most people is noticeably impaired.
Eating a lot has little effect. Drinking a pint of milk had no effect on the reading (nor the hangover).
One person forewent the evening meal, drank a couple, maybe three, double shorts. He blew negative all through the evening but complained that he got little/no boost from the alcohol. The explanation is given later.
One person blew on the machine. He then engaged in exercise. We’re not talking about marathons here, merely keep fit. He was tested immediately after he got his breath back. He blew significantly higher. Most people went up steadily.
At 6 units, the conduct of all but one participant – the tighthead – was noticeably impaired. All said, including the rugby players, that there was no way they’d drive. One person said he felt impaired after a pint – the fit bloke and serve him right. At 4 units, most said they would not consider driving.
Regarding the spirit drinking on an empty stomach; we were told that the neat whisky had sunned the sphincter muscle at the bottom of his stomach, which stopped it going into his intestines, the quickest route for ingestion. It was unfortunate, the chap said, that it didn’t have a similar effect on the sphincter muscle at the other end of his digestive tract. He was still blowing over at noon. He said there was no way he’d drive in any case.
So don’t be too slim, too fit, or too active. Play rugby, but slowly. And, of course, don’t drink alcohol.
The idea of the evening getting drunk was to emphasise to the participants that getting a drunk driver off the road, even if only for a year or two, was a good job.
If you've been in the Job for a little while it is probable that you will turn up to an RTA and be breathed over by the one obviously at fault who reckons that he or she was driving perfectly.
Good job indeed.
The one conclusion that was unchallengeable, and one, we were told, that merely reinforced those of previous courses, was that there is no rate of reading that was consistent with the amount of alcohol consumed. It varies from person to person, depending on many variables.
General observations of the evening which are supported by other courses:
Sex is important. A woman will read higher for the same quantity of alcohol than a man.
A young, fit, active bloke who weighs less than my belt blows higher and sooner than others.
Someone who is fit but fat – ex tighthead – will blow lower and peak later than others.
At two pints the behaviour of most people is noticeably impaired.
Eating a lot has little effect. Drinking a pint of milk had no effect on the reading (nor the hangover).
One person forewent the evening meal, drank a couple, maybe three, double shorts. He blew negative all through the evening but complained that he got little/no boost from the alcohol. The explanation is given later.
One person blew on the machine. He then engaged in exercise. We’re not talking about marathons here, merely keep fit. He was tested immediately after he got his breath back. He blew significantly higher. Most people went up steadily.
At 6 units, the conduct of all but one participant – the tighthead – was noticeably impaired. All said, including the rugby players, that there was no way they’d drive. One person said he felt impaired after a pint – the fit bloke and serve him right. At 4 units, most said they would not consider driving.
Regarding the spirit drinking on an empty stomach; we were told that the neat whisky had sunned the sphincter muscle at the bottom of his stomach, which stopped it going into his intestines, the quickest route for ingestion. It was unfortunate, the chap said, that it didn’t have a similar effect on the sphincter muscle at the other end of his digestive tract. He was still blowing over at noon. He said there was no way he’d drive in any case.
So don’t be too slim, too fit, or too active. Play rugby, but slowly. And, of course, don’t drink alcohol.
The idea of the evening getting drunk was to emphasise to the participants that getting a drunk driver off the road, even if only for a year or two, was a good job.
If you've been in the Job for a little while it is probable that you will turn up to an RTA and be breathed over by the one obviously at fault who reckons that he or she was driving perfectly.
Good job indeed.
kambites said:
I suppose the question is whether a lower limit would be an efficient way to improve road safety... people often hold up examples of people being involved in accidents when over the limit as evidence of the fact the limit needs to be lowered but that makes no sense to me, surely the question is whether people marginally under the current limit are causing proportionally more accidents than people who are well under the limit?
I have no particular basis for this but I suspect the number of accidents where alcohol is a significant contributor whilst the driver is under the current limit is probably vanishingly small. Certainly far smaller than the number of accidents caused by people driving when tired, for example.
Also worth pointing out that despite having a relatively high drink-driving limit, we have damned nearly the safest roads in the world by almost all metrics.
Not wishing to patronise, but you make good points. I'm anti drink-driving but I'm not sure that lowering the limit will reduce deaths and accidents caused by those who've been drinking. I have no particular basis for this but I suspect the number of accidents where alcohol is a significant contributor whilst the driver is under the current limit is probably vanishingly small. Certainly far smaller than the number of accidents caused by people driving when tired, for example.
Also worth pointing out that despite having a relatively high drink-driving limit, we have damned nearly the safest roads in the world by almost all metrics.
You are quite right in that a test is the accidents caused by those just under the limit, but it is not the only one.
Someone who is just under the limit might well be going up or have just gone under, as the rate of climb/drop is controlled by time.
For most people, a couple of pints will materially affect the way they drive. There were tests done when the prescribed limit offence was introduced which showed that for some, three units was enough to change spacial awareness, a significant factor in accidents.
Further, most people now limit themselves to a pint or two of weak beer.
The lowering of the Scottish limit has changed my own behaviour: ten years ago I thought nothing of having a pint, perhaps a pint and a half over an evening with a meal then driving home. Now it is zero if I am driving. Same for many of my friends. I feel uncomfortable when I'm down south and folk have a pint and drive (even though they are likely fine by the English/Welsh limit).
Skyedriver said:
Age 65 I've been driving since I was 17, ie before the test came in I think.
Regularly two, two or two and a half of an evening, often while watching a pub band. Now live in Scotland where the limit is lower (50) and apparently one pint can put you over the limit. I no longer go out of an evening. No doubt there are many others like me and it's killing the country pub.
And does the lower limit or even the 80 limit actually stop either the habitual or even the occasional well over the limit driver, I doubt it.
I recall the person who skittled a number of cyclists and killed, I think 3 of them, a number of years ago while swigging from a vodka bottle.
Sorry, probably get flamed but more attention should be paid to tailgaters, texters, stolen cars being raced and hitting pedestrians etc
I’m being a bit stupid but what do you mean by “ regularly two,two or two and a half” Regularly two, two or two and a half of an evening, often while watching a pub band. Now live in Scotland where the limit is lower (50) and apparently one pint can put you over the limit. I no longer go out of an evening. No doubt there are many others like me and it's killing the country pub.
And does the lower limit or even the 80 limit actually stop either the habitual or even the occasional well over the limit driver, I doubt it.
I recall the person who skittled a number of cyclists and killed, I think 3 of them, a number of years ago while swigging from a vodka bottle.
Sorry, probably get flamed but more attention should be paid to tailgaters, texters, stolen cars being raced and hitting pedestrians etc
Road2Ruin said:
Don't try this as it's completely untrue. If the land has public access it's treated the same way as the public highway. For example, if the postman can gain access without your express permission or if you expect people to use your drive as access then it's the public highway and dui applies. There may be areas on the farm however which could be treated as private, but I doubt the drive could.
You are correct that drink drive laws apply to public places as well as roads but you are wrong stating that if the postman or other people use your drive to access your property that makes it a public place to which drink drive laws apply. Cat
NotBenny said:
What I don't like is when you read about a driver who has killed someone after they've had 10 pints, way over the limit, and people use this as a reason to reduce the drink drive limit. That person knows they are over the limit and is choosing to drive.
There's a bloke on the Dartford FC forum whose son was killed by, if I recall, a drunk, drugged up, uninsured/licenced/taxed etc driver.What's the guy campaigning for? Yup, you guessed it, blanket 20mph speed limits.
sjabrown said:
The lowering of the Scottish limit has changed my own behaviour: ten years ago I thought nothing of having a pint, perhaps a pint and a half over an evening with a meal then driving home. Now it is zero if I am driving. Same for many of my friends. I feel uncomfortable when I'm down south and folk have a pint and drive (even though they are likely fine by the English/Welsh limit).
Lower limit had zero impact on road safety. E, W and NI a better level - after all we ought to be allowed to make our own choices where ever possible?https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highland...
Doubt it will be reversed. Experts are only listened to when the nanny state likes what they hear.
LarsG said:
So do you really need a alcoholic drink? If you can't do without one for one evening you might have a problem.
Judging by this and your other post, I think your viewpoint is a little... "polarised" :-)No, I don't "need" an alcoholic drink, but I "want" one. I love lager. I don't love coke. I look forward to a pint of lovely, refreshing, tasty lager with my meal. I don't look forward to a pint of diet coke.
It's about choices. Life is not as black and white as you'd like it to be.
There are only so many things we should be "told" what to do in life. There has to be a balance.
And liking a beer/wine doesn't make you an alcoholic.
LarsG said:
So do you really need a alcoholic drink? If you can't do without one for one evening you might have a problem.
Yes, because famously people with a drinking problem go out for a pint of beer, have a chat with their mates then drive home under the drink drive limit. People with actual drinking problems (not people who drink too much - very very different thing) can't stop after one.I hate the idea that drinking too much means you're an alcoholic. It's about control/dependency, not quantity.
The current limits seem to be working fine but I can see the nanny state wanting to align with the lower Scottish limits. No arbirary limit will stop those determined to drive after a skilful, better enforcement is what's needed but traffic cameras dont catch drunk drivers and the number of traffic Police has been significantly reduced over the last 10 years. In the states mind there's now a bigger menace called drug driving, conviction rates for this seem to be going up rapidly.
Cat said:
Road2Ruin said:
Don't try this as it's completely untrue. If the land has public access it's treated the same way as the public highway. For example, if the postman can gain access without your express permission or if you expect people to use your drive as access then it's the public highway and dui applies. There may be areas on the farm however which could be treated as private, but I doubt the drive could.
You are correct that drink drive laws apply to public places as well as roads but you are wrong stating that if the postman or other people use your drive to access your property that makes it a public place to which drink drive laws apply. Cat
The postman example is utter tosh. In no way does that create public access to private land.The reason he/she can gain access without permission is because he/she has an implied licence to deliver mail to your door.
Without it RM would simply be unable to function.
I wonder if there is a logic to a lower limit helping reduce drink-driving... On the one hand, those who don't care still won't care, however it may reduce the instances of people who intended to have "just the one" but then got the taste for it.
I've been there in my 20s... A few times I went out with the intention of not drinking, then succumbed to "beer pressure". Difference was, I left my car and slept on a mate's floor. Now I am a bit older, if I go out to have one, I have one.
So if the limit is effectively zero (i.e equivalent to a half or less) then the 1-pinters with good intentions won't have the intended 1 pint which leads to another 3 accidental pints before they drive home?
Disclaimer: I bloody love wine, me. But not when I'm driving.
I've been there in my 20s... A few times I went out with the intention of not drinking, then succumbed to "beer pressure". Difference was, I left my car and slept on a mate's floor. Now I am a bit older, if I go out to have one, I have one.
So if the limit is effectively zero (i.e equivalent to a half or less) then the 1-pinters with good intentions won't have the intended 1 pint which leads to another 3 accidental pints before they drive home?
Disclaimer: I bloody love wine, me. But not when I'm driving.
donkmeister said:
I wonder if there is a logic to a lower limit helping reduce drink-driving... On the one hand, those who don't care still won't care,
There in lies the problem. The law only applies to those who agree to abide by it.People who'll have 10 pints and get behind the wheel think that the law doesn't apply to them and that they'll never get caught. Making the laws tougher won't change their opinions. The issue isn't with the law, it's with enforcement.
If drink driving is a problem (quick google says between 200 and 280 deaths a year) then we need to get more cops out there with breathalysers to catch people.
I've never been pulled over for a roadside test in the UK, back in Oz it was every 3-6 months as Western Australian police set up roadside checkpoints (known as "Booze Busses") and simply tested everyone (or as many cars as traffic would allow). I dont think that drink driving is a huge problem in the UK but I also think the various police forces should be doing more RBTs (Random Breathalyser Tests) on the road.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff