scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit

[AJL308]

Nickgnome said:

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

How about addressing my first point as it was actually a response to a point of yours?

Why should someone be prevented by law from doing something which has no adverse affect on anyone?

If something has no adverse affect then if I do it I cannot be putting other peoples kids at risk of anything.

[Nickgnome]

NomduJour said:

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.

Perhaps because i have a close friend who is a doctor in A&E and another who was a fireman.

The fireman’s accounts were by far the most harrowing. Drivers who had been drinking but just under the limit when tested.

You use words like measurable benefit in relation to injury and sometimes worse. Nice.

[Rovinghawk]

Nickgnome said:

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

Lancet is the product of the BMA- a lot of doctors who presumably know a bit about the body & the effects of drugs on it. I suggest that they know more than you. I further suggest that if the time period was too short then the peer-review would rip into this or any other errors.

Nickgnome said:

Your argument is completely flawed.

How so? We've shown your flaw, please show the one you suggest exists.

Nickgnome said:

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

Smoking was proven by the same dudes to be harmful; we can therefore presume that they don't just give the ok to anything but instead work on evidence. Where is your evidence?

[AJL308]

Nickgnome said:

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?

It isn't incoherent at all. The point I am making is simple; simply operating a motor vehicle carries a certain risk - both to its operator and to third parties. If you do not need to operate it then it is reasonable that the law should prevent you, surely? So, it follows that it is reasonable to ban the use of motor vehicles for pleasure?

If you do not understand the differences between operating an aircraft after alcohol and a road vehicle then you really shouldn't be debating it.

[AJL308]

Nickgnome said:

AJL308 said:

An even stupider analogy.

When you are in a hole its best to stop digging

I'm not. It was a stupid analogy entirely unrelated to driving.

[simoid]

A few points:

I don’t think that the Lancet journal article has not said anything about how safe or otherwise it is to drive at the new or old limit, I think it’s basically just a commentary on statistics?

I’m quite sure none of us want to drive around while noticeably impaired by alcohol.

I’m absolutely certain of us want other people to drive around while noticeably impaired by alcohol.

Some of us are frustrated that, as law abiding citizens, our freedom of choice to enjoy a beer with a meal has been restricted and it appears to have had no effect on road safety so far.

Russia has a lower alcohol limit than us and they have some of the highest drunk driving and accident fatality rates in the world, so obviously more is at play here than JUST a limit.

[Nickgnome]

AJL308 said:

It isn't incoherent at all. The point I am making is simple; simply operating a motor vehicle carries a certain risk - both to its operator and to third parties. If you do not need to operate it then it is reasonable that the law should prevent you, surely? So, it follows that it is reasonable to ban the use of motor vehicles for pleasure?

If you do not understand the differences between operating an aircraft after alcohol and a road vehicle then you really shouldn't be debating it.

As it happens my Dad was a pilot. He said it was much easier than driving a car. I had a couple of lessons as he would have liked me to get my ppl. I just didn’t get anything out of it so didn’t follow through.

Please explain why it is so different precisely.

[Nickgnome]

AJL308 said:

How about addressing my first point as it was actually a response to a point of yours?

Why should someone be prevented by law from doing something which has no adverse affect on anyone?

If something has no adverse affect then if I do it I cannot be putting other peoples kids at risk of anything.

Because there is absolutely no evidence that, at the individual level, what impact varying amounts of alcohol has. It varies significantly from person to person.

[AJL308]

Nickgnome said:

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.

It's easy to arrive at that conclusion; the limit has been reduced yet the rate of accidents has not. The whole point was to reduce accidents. It has failed. It has had no effect.

Two years is two years. It has had zero effect in two years. Why would it only have an affect after two years? And, as I said, it was a peer-reviewed study. If the time period it was done over was meaningless for the purposes it was designed for then it would not have passed review, surely?

Don't call me cavalier with other people's well being. I don't drive after a pint. I'm asking why people are insistent that no one should be allowed to (or that this reduction is justified) when it has been clearly shown to not cause any danger to other people?

[Nickgnome]

Rovinghawk said:

Smoking was proven by the same dudes to be harmful; we can therefore presume that they don't just give the ok to anything but instead work on evidence. Where is your evidence?

Too many people died through secondary smoking because of libertines like yourself. We are in the same place now with the alcohol industry but it will take many more studies before we get there. Meanwhile you are content to risk the wellbeing of others.

[AJL308]

Nickgnome said:

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.

To repeat - the study has shown that it has zero effect. It has not reduced the number of accidents nor has it made anyone safer.

If it had shown a significant reduction in accidents would you still be saying that two years was an insufficient time period? Of course you wouldn't.

[AJL308]

Nickgnome said:

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.

Surely the control group is the number of drinkers and drivers before the law change?

[Nickgnome]

AJL308 said:

Surely the control group is the number of drinkers and drivers before the law change?

It could have been but only if you measured the alcohol intake to evidence that everyone was adhering to the law both before and after.

It could be that none changes there habits. We just can’t know.

[AJL308]

Nickgnome said:

AJL308 said:

It isn't incoherent at all. The point I am making is simple; simply operating a motor vehicle carries a certain risk - both to its operator and to third parties. If you do not need to operate it then it is reasonable that the law should prevent you, surely? So, it follows that it is reasonable to ban the use of motor vehicles for pleasure?

If you do not understand the differences between operating an aircraft after alcohol and a road vehicle then you really shouldn't be debating it.

As it happens my Dad was a pilot. He said it was much easier than driving a car. I had a couple of lessons as he would have liked me to get my ppl. I just didn’t get anything out of it so didn’t follow through.

Please explain why it is so different precisely.

I did it years ago and it is not "much easier than driving a car". The statement is ridiculous.

Add to that the very different relationship that alcohol and altitude have with the human body and you'll see that the analogy made before is obviously stupid.

[Drumroll]

bodhi said:

I'll answer that one. Given that 45 minutes after you have a pint your liver will start to process one unit every hour. If we talk a pint of Tennent's we have 2.1 units per drink. The UK limit is 5 units (1 unit results in a blood reading of 15mg), and the Scottish limit is 3.

So a single pint of normal lager will keep you under the limit, and is gone 2 - 3 hours later. So at no point would any of the participants be breaking the law, hence I wouldn't have an issue letting my family travel with them. Unless it was a pint of cider, in which case no way.

The problem with that analogy is that different people metabolise alcohol at different rates. You metabolise alcohol at different rates.

If it was clear cut, then it could be put up in pubs and on bottles of booze stating what you have, and of course guaranteeing that you would be under the DD limit. Not going to happen is it?

[Red 4]

Rovinghawk said:

I'll ask again, though- what percentage or absolute number of deaths or serious injuries are caused significantly by drivers in the band affected the the lowering of the limit?

I say it's tiny & make the change in the law excessive & unreasonable. Please show to the contrary.

Oh dear.

Running off at the mouth again ?

How do you expect anyone to come up with the stats you are asking for (ie specifically quoting the level of alcohol in the body) ?

Fatal wise, excess alcohol is a factor in about 1 in 7.

As an overall picture excess alcohol is a factor in about 1 in 20 RTCs.

You can see that the fatal outcomes are massively disproportionate to the overall figures.

I've been to lots of RTCs and lots of fatals.

I've seen the devastation it causes.

I welcome anything that is likely to reduce those figures.

Edited by Red 4 on Friday 14th December 19:08

[eldar]

Pre the reduced limit, Scotland was a less safe place to drive than England.

2 years after Scotland reduced the limit, it is less safe to drive in Scotland, increasingly a less safe place to drive than England.

Edited by eldar on Friday 14th December 19:13

[AJL308]

Nickgnome said:

AJL308 said:

How about addressing my first point as it was actually a response to a point of yours?

Why should someone be prevented by law from doing something which has no adverse affect on anyone?

If something has no adverse affect then if I do it I cannot be putting other peoples kids at risk of anything.

Because there is absolutely no evidence that, at the individual level, what impact varying amounts of alcohol has. It varies significantly from person to person.

But there has been no reduction in accidents from the reduction in the limit in Scotland. Therefore, it is a pointless exercise and has served to accomplish nothing other than to criminalise something which is statistically harmless.

[Nickgnome]

AJL308 said:

I did it years ago and it is not "much easier than driving a car". The statement is ridiculous.

Add to that the very different relationship that alcohol and altitude have with the human body and you'll see that the analogy made before is obviously stupid.

He was an RAF pilot. 1942 onward. I will go with his comparison thank you. Not sure why you would say it is ridiculous if you never had many hours flying experience. Although he gave up when he left the RAF after about 10 years he went flying again when he was 75. He maintained it was like getting back on his bike.

I accept fully alcohol is absorbed more rapidly at altitude. I’d like to see how once it is absorbed if performance differs with the same absorbed state in anyone else.

I am not going to engage further with you as it’s Friday night and we are going for a drink at the sailing club. Walking as it happens.

We will always disagree but you are the only one of the two of us who may be, but hopefully not, involved in an accident whilst under the influence of alcohol even if under the current limit.

[chrisgtx]

Nickgnome said:

NomduJour said:

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.

Perhaps because i have a close friend who is a doctor in A&E and another who was a fireman.

The fireman’s accounts were by far the most harrowing. Drivers who had been drinking but just under the limit when tested.

You use words like measurable benefit in relation to injury and sometimes worse. Nice.

20 years served paramedic here.
All of the drink drivers I've been to who have had an accident have been well over the limit, never 'just' over, the types who drink drive regularly will do it regardless of the limit,the ones who jump in a car after a pissed argument etc aren't thinking straight anyway.
I'm glad the Scotland experiment failed. It just goes to show our misguided approach to road safety by dumbing down limits being either alcohol and speed isn't working. I've been to a few incidents where the driver obviously at fault from just pure bad driving said 'but I wasn't speeding!' Is quite scary, and being a cyclist the most near misses have been from people not concentrating (mostly elderly I have to say) .
I think I saw someone on here say 1-7 fatals are drink related, fair enough, but what about the other 6,why isn't anyone looking at sorting that out?, no, because its hard, it'll involve far more police on the roads, re testing, eye tests, education etc.