scotland to reduce Drink Drive limit
Discussion
AJL308 said:
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.
No one has actually found the reason though. it is like almost any statistic you can make it say what you want. I have taken just one bit from the report that may explain the outcome.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/...
"This drink-drive limit change occurred in the context of a lack of additional police enforcement and without random breath testing measures in place. Our finding of no effect of the intervention of reducing the BAC driving limit from 0·08 g/dL to 0·05 g/dL supports the hypothesis that enhanced enforcement might be necessary to improve RTA outcomes. However, further research is required to test whether appropriate enforcement of a change in drink-drive legislation from a BAC limit of 0·08 g/dL to 0·05 g/dL would improve outcomes."
chrisgtx said:
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.
Firstly - sorting out the (many) reasons for the other fatalities is difficult, for many varied reasons.Look at it another way though.
Those 250 ( per year) alcohol related fatals may well have been avoided.
How many people do you think those deaths have affected ?
Red 4 said:
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) ?
The stats are readily available- they're in the Lancet study referred to several times. In short, the new limits achieved nothing.Red 4 said:
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.
The question was regarding alcohol between the new & old limits as a major factor- your numbers are nothing like the number from the peer-reviewed Lancet study for the subject under discussion.Red 4 said:
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.
According to the Lancet study this has not reduced those figures. Why not scrap it & try something else that might work?I've seen the devastation it causes.
I welcome anything that is likely to reduce those figures.
Why am I not surprised Edinburgher presumes to know better than anyone else and favours a nanny state policy shown not to work?
Devolution. They can't do anything real governments do so they waste their time and our money dreaming up ever more intrusive yet futile gesture policies to make themselves feel important.
Shower of
s.
Devolution. They can't do anything real governments do so they waste their time and our money dreaming up ever more intrusive yet futile gesture policies to make themselves feel important.
Shower of
s.Rovinghawk said:
According to the Lancet study this has not reduced those figures. Why not scrap it & try something else that might work?
If you've got a link to the study I'll have a read of it.Ta.
As an aside, all sorts of things have been tried to reduce casualty stats yet they have remained basically the same for years.
Red 4 said:
If you've got a link to the study I'll have a read of it.
Ta.
Referred to many times in the previous few pages.Ta.
Red 4 said:
all sorts of things have been tried to reduce casualty stats yet they have remained basically the same for years.
And in the case of this pointless limit reduction why don't they scrap it as it doesn't work? The more emotive support it but don't seem to have valid reason.technodup said:
Why am I not surprised Edinburgher presumes to know better than anyone else and favours a nanny state policy shown not to work?
Devolution. They can't do anything real governments do so they waste their time and our money dreaming up ever more intrusive yet futile gesture policies to make themselves feel important.
Shower ofs.
About the long and short of it.Devolution. They can't do anything real governments do so they waste their time and our money dreaming up ever more intrusive yet futile gesture policies to make themselves feel important.
Shower of
s.Drumroll said:
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?
Well my analogy is taken from the 3 day course they offer to Drink Drivers to rehabilitate and reduce their sentencing, so we could work out when it was safe to drive after having a drink. We were told absorption rates may differ, but the 1 unit per hour does not. 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?
Rovinghawk said:
And in the case of this pointless limit reduction why don't they scrap it as it doesn't work? The more emotive support it but don't seem to have valid reason.
I've read the summary.The reasons why the lowering of the limit does not appear to have worked could be due to many factors.
A hardcore of drink drivers.
Limited enforcement.
Geography.
Attitudes (the message is not sinking in).
It is, however, impossible to quantify the number of RTCs that may have been avoided.
Drink/ drive figures actually increased in my force area last year.
I think everyone agrees that alcohol (in whatever amount) leads to impairment.
Like I've said, I support a reduction.
Red 4 said:
I've read the summary.
The reasons why the lowering of the limit does not appear to have worked could be due to many factors.
A hardcore of drink drivers.
Limited enforcement.
Geography.
Attitudes (the message is not sinking in).
It is, however, impossible to quantify the number of RTCs that may have been avoided.
Drink/ drive figures actually increased in my force area last year.
I think everyone agrees that alcohol (in whatever amount) leads to impairment.
Like I've said, I support a reduction.
I don't agree with "in whatever amount" and published studies don't seem to bear it out, either. Too much, is very certainly deleterious, "some" is not so clear.The reasons why the lowering of the limit does not appear to have worked could be due to many factors.
A hardcore of drink drivers.
Limited enforcement.
Geography.
Attitudes (the message is not sinking in).
It is, however, impossible to quantify the number of RTCs that may have been avoided.
Drink/ drive figures actually increased in my force area last year.
I think everyone agrees that alcohol (in whatever amount) leads to impairment.
Like I've said, I support a reduction.
Einion Yrth said:
I don't agree with "in whatever amount" and published studies don't seem to bear it out, either. Too much, is very certainly deleterious, "some" is not so clear.
Even small amounts will affect your ability to drive.Eyesight, processing information, reaction times are all affected.
Everyone is different, obviously.
The limit is what it is though.
I've had people 4 or 5 times over the limit whose driving was OK.
Similarly, I've had people who have literally fallen out of the car who were not that much over.
It depends on lots of factors, so you can't say even a small amount of alcohol will not affect you.
I don't drink (body is a temple and all that
) and I am sure that I would be affected by even a pint.Red 4 said:
I don't drink (body is a temple and all that ) and I am sure that I would be affected by even a pint.
If you don't drink, you'd be witless after a half. I don't personally care how much people have drunk just so long as they are driving safely. It's hard to judge "driving safely" I'll admit, but merely reducing already arbitrary numerical limits is unlikely to improve things. There might conceivably come a time when none of the RT[A|C]s you attend involve anyone over any arbitrary numerical limit, what do you blame it on then? Unlikely that the numbers of attendances will be significantly reduced from the current. Better engineering will save lives, as it already has, criminalising people who are perfectly sober, but have had a drink, will not. ) and I am sure that I would be affected by even a pint.Red 4 said:
Rovinghawk said:
And in the case of this pointless limit reduction why don't they scrap it as it doesn't work? The more emotive support it but don't seem to have valid reason.
I've read the summary.The reasons why the lowering of the limit does not appear to have worked could be due to many factors.
A hardcore of drink drivers.
Limited enforcement.
Geography.
Attitudes (the message is not sinking in).
It is, however, impossible to quantify the number of RTCs that may have been avoided.
Drink/ drive figures actually increased in my force area last year.
I think everyone agrees that alcohol (in whatever amount) leads to impairment.
Like I've said, I support a reduction.
Of course it's a very good diversion from the Methadone scandal in Scotland that really DOES affect all sectors of Scottish society.
I wonder if those so vocal about the creation of an artificial falsehood 're the drink driving limit would care to comment on the failures of the Scot Gov and NHS Scotland in this respect.
I wonder if those so vocal about the creation of an artificial falsehood 're the drink driving limit would care to comment on the failures of the Scot Gov and NHS Scotland in this respect.
Dr Jekyll said:
No, it isn't. There was no statistically significant reduction, in fact compared with trends in England and Wales there was an increase. So unless you make an ad hoc assumption that fatalities would have increased in Scotland for some unexplained reason which didn't affect England and Wales (the kind of assumption a formerly prolific police poster would have made interestingly enough) then you can quantify the number as very small, with no way of knowing whether it was positive or negative.
OK. Well, let's assume there was no significant reduction - which appears fair enough.If the reduction avoided a small number of KSIs would that be enough ?
Red 4 said:
Drink/ drive figures actually increased in my force area last year.
Your area isn't where the limit was reduced was it? There was no increase there.You're saying (as are others) that you support a reduction even though it's been shown to have no effect. I don't see the logic.
Red 4 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
No, it isn't. There was no statistically significant reduction, in fact compared with trends in England and Wales there was an increase. So unless you make an ad hoc assumption that fatalities would have increased in Scotland for some unexplained reason which didn't affect England and Wales (the kind of assumption a formerly prolific police poster would have made interestingly enough) then you can quantify the number as very small, with no way of knowing whether it was positive or negative.
OK. Well, let's assume there was no significant reduction - which appears fair enough.If the reduction avoided a small number of KSIs would that be enough ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff