scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit

[Nickgnome]

AJL308 said:

Why do think that someone should criminalised for something shown to have no adverse effect on them?

Because politicians get a warm fuzzy feeling from "doing something".

I don't have kids.

Well at least you cannot risk their lives. Pity you consider other peoples children fair game

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

NomduJour said:

What next? Ban driving if you’ve had an argument with the wife? If you have a cold? With children in the car?

Why not just ban driving altogether - any risk of an accident is surely unacceptable.

That's just being stupid.

Would you get on a plane if the pilot has just had a couple of pints?

It's not being stupid at all. Run through the logic in your head;

Operating a motor vehicle involves an inherent risk of having an accident....

......not operating said vehicle eliminates any risk of an accident, totally and completely.....

......If you do not need to operate a motor vehicle then it is not unreasonable for you not to do so and, hence, not unreasonable per-se for society to provide a criminal sanction to.

If you do not realise the differences between a car driver and a commercial pilot then I think the debate is a bit advanced for you.

[AJL308]

Nickgnome said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

Nickgnome said:

Let’s hope we can follow Scotland’s lead and extend to England as well in the near future.

Keep it simple. If you want a drink do not drive.

Why? you can see its doesn't make any difference.

All it does is criminalize people for no productive outcome or is the productivity of it just making idealistic child like minded people like you feel nice inside?

How can you say it will make no difference to every or any driver. That is unsubstantiated.

You wont be criminalised if you don’t break the law. Bit like speeding really.

The Lancet has published a paper saying that it has made zero difference in Scotland. They are a highly regarded scientific journal with no dog in the fight, so to speak.

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

tannhauser said:

RogueTrooper said:

Drumroll said:

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

Care to actually link that statement to some actual evidence? Should be easy for you as there is "repeated studies"

The original study/studies of which I'm aware somewhat predate the internet, by decades, so might not be so easy to link to.

Have a look into the "Borkenstein dip" - it's interesting historical reading for those with an interest in drink-driving legislation or enforcement.

I too am very interested in this - I have heard it before, it kind of makes sense and indeed often I feel a lot more alert, confident and coordinated after perhaps one drink, which then of course tails off rapidly the more I have - obviously in non-driving situations mind!

I was also going to cry the (rather tiresome!) "source?!" tagline, however yes it probably pre-dates the internet, and it's obviously something that people wouldn't want to admit or publicise, with the fear of appearing to advocate any element of having a drink and driving as being OK.

Happy to see this b ks Scottish law has made sweet FA difference. Tossers.

Here's the drink drive limits across Europe.



Still think the "Scottish law" is "b ks"?

If you do something simply because everyone else does it and you either know that it will make no difference or is shown to make no difference then yes, it's bks.

Presumably if all of Europe upped their limits to match England you'd be in favor of Scotland doing the same, simply on the basis of following the herd?

[Nickgnome]

AJL308 said:

Edinburger said:

NomduJour said:

What next? Ban driving if you’ve had an argument with the wife? If you have a cold? With children in the car?

Why not just ban driving altogether - any risk of an accident is surely unacceptable.

That's just being stupid.

Would you get on a plane if the pilot has just had a couple of pints?

It's not being stupid at all. Run through the logic in your head;

Operating a motor vehicle involves an inherent risk of having an accident....

......not operating said vehicle eliminates any risk of an accident, totally and completely.....

......If you do not need to operate a motor vehicle then it is not unreasonable for you not to do so and, hence, not unreasonable per-se for society to provide a criminal sanction to.

If you do not realise the differences between a car driver and a commercial pilot then I think the debate is a bit advanced for you.

I do not follow your argument at all. It is incoherent.

So are you saying that it is quite OK with you in your people carryier to take you and your family and child relations and it is also ok for a pilot whether commercial or private to fly with the exact same passengers after a couple of pints?

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

NomduJour said:

Edinburger said:

That's just being stupid.

Would you get on a plane if the pilot has just had a couple of pints?

It’s a stupid analogy, but I’d wager you’d never know the difference in such a controlled environment.

It's not a stupid analogy!

If a surgeon had a couple of pints before your operation, would you be happy?

An even stupider analogy.

[Nickgnome]

AJL308 said:

An even stupider analogy.

When you are in a hole its best to stop digging

[bodhi]

Nickgnome said:

I do not follow your argument at all. It is incoherent.

So are you saying that it is quite OK with you in your people carryier to take you and your family and child relations and it is also ok for a pilot whether commercial or private to fly with the exact same passengers after a couple of pints?

After flying RyanAir I'd be happy if they kept it to just the two

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

Rovinghawk said:

Edinburger said:

Why do you think should drink and drive?

Very provocative phrasing. I don't think one "should" drink & drive but I do think that lowering the limit is insignificant virtue signalling.

Edinburger said:

Why do you think Scotland's limit is now in line with most of the rest of Europe?

Because it's an interfering nanny state which acts without thinking. It's notable that they haven't reduced the penalties to match Europe, just the limits. Our system has a different method, ie stronger enforcement of a higher limt- Europe isn't 'better', just different.

Edinburger said:

Question: would you let your kids go in the car with someone who has had a pint or two?

Another bit of provocative phrasing. Whilst I wouldn't let kids in a car with a drunk driver, I wouldn't see major harm with a driver who'd consumed insufficient to cause impairment.

Drink driving is wrong & the perpetrators deserve draconian punishment but some leeway must be given before such punishment can be enacted. If it's not a problem then let's not make it a problem.

You said "lowering the limit is insignificant virtue signalling" and "I wouldn't see major harm with a driver who'd consumed insufficient to cause impairment".

How much alcohol causes impairment? Tonight you might feel fine after three of four. What about tomorrow and the day after?

I'll turn it around: why do you think it's okay for someone to drink after having alcohol?

What we can say with pretty reasonable certainty is that alcohol consumption sufficient to blow .08 on the machine causes no more impairment than blowing .05. That has been established in a peer-reviewed paper published by a highly respected scientific journal. Why, then, is it right to prevent people doing something which is proven to cause zero harm?

[Nickgnome]

AJL308 said:

Edinburger said:

BlackLabel said:

Reduced drink-drive limit in Scotland has no impact on cutting road accidents.






https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/...

Are you suggesting the reduction was a mistake.

No one should be behind the wheel under the influence of any alcohol. End of.

Surely if lowering the limit had "no effect" then it is reasonable to conclude that no one was "under the influence" of anything?

I’m not sure how you can come to that conclusion.

It would be necessary in the first instance to evidence that drivers were actually drinking less and complying with the new law.

Furthermore 2 years is way to short to accurately ascertain the impact.

How do you get a control group against which to ascertain any change?

I find it odd that your attitude can be so cavalier with other peoples wellbeing at stake all for the sake of a selfish desire.

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

NomduJour said:

Ah, Europe - fantastic, cosmopolitan, progressive Europe! They clearly know what’s good for us.

People having a pint with their dinner aren’t a problem, so why the desire to interfere with and control their existence? Do you think that all the people who currently drive after a skinful will pause for reflection on news of a zero limit, and suddenly reassess and change their behaviour?

No. But I don't think anyone should drink after a pint at any time.

I assume you mean "drive after a pint"?

Why do you hold to a belief that has been proven to be fallacious?

Regardless of what you "think" why do you feel that people who be stopped from doing something which causes no harm?

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

NomduJour said:

Ah, Europe - fantastic, cosmopolitan, progressive Europe! They clearly know what’s good for us.

People having a pint with their dinner aren’t a problem, so why the desire to interfere with and control their existence? Do you think that all the people who currently drive after a skinful will pause for reflection on news of a zero limit, and suddenly reassess and change their behaviour?

No. But I don't think anyone should drink after a pint at any time.

I assume you mean "drive after a pint"?

Why do you hold to a belief that has been proven to be fallacious?

Regardless of what you "think" why do you feel that people should be stopped from doing something which causes no harm?

[Nickgnome]

bodhi said:

Nickgnome said:

I do not follow your argument at all. It is incoherent.

So are you saying that it is quite OK with you in your people carryier to take you and your family and child relations and it is also ok for a pilot whether commercial or private to fly with the exact same passengers after a couple of pints?

After flying RyanAir I'd be happy if they kept it to just the two

I’d rather a teacher, doctor solicitor, coach driver or whoever was not under the influence of any alcohol.

The main problem with driving is the impact on others.

Peoples arrogance in this regard is staggering.

The sooner self driving cars come the better.

[bodhi]

Nickgnome said:

I’d rather a teacher, doctor solicitor, coach driver or whoever was not under the influence of any alcohol.

The main problem with driving is the impact on others.

Peoples arrogance in this regard is staggering.

The sooner self driving cars come the better.

The data suggests that the impact on others of this policy has been zero. Zilch. Nada.

So what's the point? It hasn't decreased the risk of an already risky exercise, but just serves to criminalise someone for being over an arbitrary figure.

Personally, I'd rather you were kept far away from suggesting any rules whatsoever based on your posts here.

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

Rovinghawk said:

Nickgnome said:

No I think it is a good and pragmatic start.

A good start to what, exactly? That map doesn't show the tiny detail that penalties for minor infringement are massively higher in UK than abroad.

Compare like with like or don't bother.

Nickgnome said:

I didn’t think ‘if you want a drink don’t drive’. was such an issue to some.

That's not the issue so much as legislation for the emotive sake of it rather than backed up by any form of science or meaningful facts & figures.

Nickgnome said:

If it wasn’t for the other people caught up in the literal car crash it would be a sensible Darwinian approach to allow those drivers to drink as much as they thought they were capable of taking.

You seem to be talking about drunken lunatics rather than those relative moderates who would be caught between the new & old limits. Take the emotion out & look at the facts.

With respect, I think it's you who should look at the facts.

The "facts", as established by a peer-reviewed scientific study are that there has been zero benefit in reducing the breath alcohol limit in Scotland.

I am not aware of any evidence or study which demonstrates that reducing the limit further, or to 0.00 would have any effect either.

[Nickgnome]

AJL308 said:

I assume you mean "drive after a pint"?

Why do you hold to a belief that has been proven to be fallacious?

Regardless of what you "think" why do you feel that people should be stopped from doing something which causes no harm?

There is no evidenced based proof for your assertion. The Lancit report is Just a high level summary over an initial 2 years.

Your argument is completely flawed.

The similarity with smoking and the impact on others is uncannily close in principal.

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

Rovinghawk said:

Edinburger said:

I've never ever seen the point in "having one". If I'm drinking, I'm drinking. Just having one or two is pointless, to me.

I'm one of those with sufficient self-control to have one followed by soft drinks until it's time to go home, but each to their own.

But with insufficient self-control to not drink anything at all if you're driving?

If he has the self control to have one then go to soft drinks then he obviously has the self-control to have none. He has one because he legally can!

[Nickgnome]

bodhi said:

The data suggests that the impact on others of this policy has been zero. Zilch. Nada.

So what's the point? It hasn't decreased the risk of an already risky exercise, but just serves to criminalise someone for being over an arbitrary figure.

Personally, I'd rather you were kept far away from suggesting any rules whatsoever based on your posts here.

Interesting attitude. Fortunately i can canvass and speak to my MP as I do just as you can.

You will only be a criminal if you break the law. Simple isn’t it.

As to the data. There is none that is control group certified.

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

Rovinghawk said:

Edinburger said:

With respect, I think it's you who should look at the facts.

Let's look at the facts together: what percentage (or absolute number) of killed/seriously injured have as a primary or major causation a driver who has consumed between the old limit and the new one?

This is the presumable motivation for the change unless you have a better explanation. What effect will it have?

I say it's a tiny number, statistically insignificant (spoken as a cold-blooded engineer rather than from an emotive viewpoint). Do you think that's a huge number necessitating action that will potentially cause hardship to many who were previously law-abiding?

Leave out any emotional response & stick to facts & figures, if you will.

Hang on a second, it's not the reduced limit which "will potentially cause hardship to many who were previously law-abiding". You should not drink alcohol if you're going to drive a car. That's it. It really is as simple as that.

I'd suggest the timescale of the new limit is too short to do a meaningful comparision.

Would you accept an operation from a surgeon who's had a pint or two? Would you get on a plane after the pilot has had a pint or two? if not, why not?

It's a peer-reviewed study done by intelligent people. If the time scale was too short to be meaningful then surely it would have been brought up in review?

The analogies in your last line are still ridiculous and completely irrelevant to driving a car.

[AJL308]

Edinburger said:

NomduJour said:

Nickgnome said:

Still find it odd that you are happy to have your children in the car with you after you have had a drink or two.

I haven’t said that. I find it odd that you are so keen to support interference in and regulation of other people’s lives - particularly where the effect of a certain restriction provides no measurable benefit to anyone.

Maybe the world (and Scotland, even) would be a better place if all that nanny state control freakery was focused towards something useful to society, instead of an insidious attempt to turn responsible adults into criminals.

Yeah, I mean why have any laws and rules interfering in and regulating people's lives. We need anarchy. That's the way forward

That isn't what he said!