Rural drink-driving
Discussion
Pistom said:
Teddy Lop said:
Gecko1978 said:
Driver101 said:
Pistom said:
Clearly alcohol must have some impairment but the risk of getting caught is virtually none, the liklihood of causing an accident virtually none so should anyone care?
In 2019 there was 8000 people killed or injured due to drink driving crashes. It dropped to 6500 in 2020. Pubs were closed and people covering less miles. The true figure of the amount of crashes, bumps and scrapes will be massively higher. Alcohol heavily affects people's reactions and ability. A few drinks and they feel more confident, but don't realise they are impaired. Head along to an A&E department on a weekend evening. The place is full of people having alcohol related accidents.
I don't agree that there is virtually no likelihood of causing an accident.
Given the pubs were shut most of the year - and driving itself restricted for many - the fact that by his figures the casualty rate dropped less than 20% is interesting.
Clearly it's a lot of people and sad if it could have been avoided had drink not been involved but we just don't have the detail to really know.
What is missing here is nuanced thinking as is evidenced elsewhere when people talk about drivers being 2,3 or 4 times over the limit. Just one point over the limit will put you in the position of not being permitted to drive but that doesn't make the driver unsafe - simply more impaired. I find it hard to imagine anyone over the limit 3 times as not being seriously impaired so why use that as an argument?
In any case, arguing that it's OK to drink and drive will never be supported no matter how much evidence is presented as society has gone too far down the road of "if it saves only one life" type thinking, regardless of the impact it has on social freedoms.
Generally speaking, the law seems to be sensibly administered unlike say speeding laws.
Potentially the issue at the heart of this is the obsession with easily obtainable evidence which can be relied upon for a prosecution. And prosecution being the panacea for law enforcement.
Police use the breath test to check for alcohol and if they find it in sufficient quantity you're nicked. This is regardless to all other factors.
Many of these stories of rural drunk drivers who habitually / routinely drive with alcohol in their system aren't necessarily more or less dangerous on the roads simply because of this single factor and there isn't conclusive evidence or data because it's unobtainable.
ingenieur said:
Many of these stories of rural drunk drivers who habitually / routinely drive with alcohol in their system aren't necessarily more or less dangerous on the roads simply because of this single factor and there isn't conclusive evidence or data because it's unobtainable.
You keep saying this but it's simply untrue. There are thousands of well-conducted studies that show that driving after drinking increases accident rates significantly. I have no idea why you're banging this easily-debunked drum.ingenieur said:
Many of these stories of rural drunk drivers who habitually / routinely drive with alcohol in their system aren't necessarily more or less dangerous on the roads simply because of this single factor and there isn't conclusive evidence or data because it's unobtainable.
What data is unobtainable?Buy rural folk's own admission, it seems to be a bit of a factor, hilariously when they are trying to a make a point its not. And some extortion goes a long way to repairing all the damage without involving the police.
Honeywell said:
So it happens a lot in rural areas with very little practical negative impact........
..... about ten cars a year crash through them. It's usually between midnight and 7am. ...... ended up on his roof at two a.m. last year outside my place (nasty off camber bend) and stank of booze and the police turned out and much to my surprise didn't have a breathalyser kit and sent him in his way (it was a busy Saturday night).
Most commonly the crashed cars are "recovered" by extended family members the next day and I leave a note on the windscreen asking them to contact me about repairing the hedge without me sending pictures to the police and my insurers. I generally ask for and gt about £250 for a few posts and rails to fill the gap.
The most common trend I note is the appalling number of vehicles with illegally worn tyres.
So a little bit of extortion helps those illegally worn tires from being reported eh?..... about ten cars a year crash through them. It's usually between midnight and 7am. ...... ended up on his roof at two a.m. last year outside my place (nasty off camber bend) and stank of booze and the police turned out and much to my surprise didn't have a breathalyser kit and sent him in his way (it was a busy Saturday night).
Most commonly the crashed cars are "recovered" by extended family members the next day and I leave a note on the windscreen asking them to contact me about repairing the hedge without me sending pictures to the police and my insurers. I generally ask for and gt about £250 for a few posts and rails to fill the gap.
The most common trend I note is the appalling number of vehicles with illegally worn tyres.
I think you will find a fair bit of data on drink driving.
ingenieur said:
This is along similar lines to what I'm debating here.
Potentially the issue at the heart of this is the obsession with easily obtainable evidence which can be relied upon for a prosecution. And prosecution being the panacea for law enforcement.
Police use the breath test to check for alcohol and if they find it in sufficient quantity you're nicked. This is regardless to all other factors.
Many of these stories of rural drunk drivers who habitually / routinely drive with alcohol in their system aren't necessarily more or less dangerous on the roads simply because of this single factor and there isn't conclusive evidence or data because it's unobtainable.
Is the solution for professionalPotentially the issue at the heart of this is the obsession with easily obtainable evidence which can be relied upon for a prosecution. And prosecution being the panacea for law enforcement.
Police use the breath test to check for alcohol and if they find it in sufficient quantity you're nicked. This is regardless to all other factors.
Many of these stories of rural drunk drivers who habitually / routinely drive with alcohol in their system aren't necessarily more or less dangerous on the roads simply because of this single factor and there isn't conclusive evidence or data because it's unobtainable.
Drink drivers to need to apply for a drink drive license? Would be easy enough to set up. The drink driver simply pays £1000 to book a test, they drink 5 pints of robust Bavarian marching lager and then have their ability to drive tested.
Society doesn't want drink drivers on the road but maybe if they pay to pass a dedicated test that proves they're completely safe then that would be ok?
deckster said:
You keep saying this but it's simply untrue. There are thousands of well-conducted studies that show that driving after drinking increases accident rates significantly. I have no idea why you're banging this easily-debunked drum.
Not sure anyone is suggesting that a certain level of alcohol doesn’t impair driving ability, but reported accidents of all kinds where one driver or rider was over the drink-drive limit account for less than 5% of the total in the UK. Scotland has now had nearly eight years of pointlessly lower limits which have had absolutely no effect on reducing accidents whatsoever.
NomduJour said:
deckster said:
You keep saying this but it's simply untrue. There are thousands of well-conducted studies that show that driving after drinking increases accident rates significantly. I have no idea why you're banging this easily-debunked drum.
Not sure anyone is suggesting that a certain level of alcohol doesn’t impair driving ability, but reported accidents of all kinds where one driver or rider was over the drink-drive limit account for less than 5% of the total in the UK. Scotland has now had nearly eight years of pointlessly lower limits which have had absolutely no effect on reducing accidents whatsoever.
And that 5% may be a small number but it doesn't mean we should tollerate it. However, the current laws are arguably absolutely fine and the simple reality is that you can never enforce a greater reduction with greater policing due to cost. Arguably the only thing you could do would be to fit all car ignitions with breathalysers.
NomduJour said:
deckster said:
You keep saying this but it's simply untrue. There are thousands of well-conducted studies that show that driving after drinking increases accident rates significantly. I have no idea why you're banging this easily-debunked drum.
Not sure anyone is suggesting that a certain level of alcohol doesn’t impair driving ability, but reported accidents of all kinds where one driver or rider was over the drink-drive limit account for less than 5% of the total in the UK. Scotland has now had nearly eight years of pointlessly lower limits which have had absolutely no effect on reducing accidents whatsoever.
...not YOU NDJ, that was a collective 'you'....
Edited by biggbn on Thursday 11th August 13:20
Hundreds of thousands of people drive after drinking, every day. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be a country pub or restaurant still in business - the reality is that the vast, vast majority of those people do so responsibly.
Nobody benefits from even lower limits, as Scotland’s experience shows - the people actually getting into the car half-cut don’t care whether the limit is two pints, one pint or no pints. Same for drug-driving, driving cars with bald tyres and no brakes etc.
Nobody benefits from even lower limits, as Scotland’s experience shows - the people actually getting into the car half-cut don’t care whether the limit is two pints, one pint or no pints. Same for drug-driving, driving cars with bald tyres and no brakes etc.
Silvanus said:
Honeywell said:
But there needs to be a spectrum below that where somebody on four pints quietly making their way home causing no grief to others gets a slapped wrist that doesn't lose them their license. There also needs to be much fairer focus on drugs other than alcohol.
I can't believe comments like this, absolute nonsense! An average person who's had 4 pints will definitely be feeling the effects of alcohol and their ability to drive safely. You never know who's going to be in the road or whats round the next bend. I went in my local last night whilst waiting for a curry, had two pints in quick succession (we were on foot) and I could certainly feel that, San Miguel, which is about 5 percent. My Mate was with me and he is literally incapable of getting drunk, it is freaky, I can be utterly hammered and have drunk the same and he doesn't show it, sure his blood will but good god the man is a freak of nature, eight pints, doesn't look or sound any different.
Point being, 3 percent vs 5 percent doesnt sound much, two percent, innit, well, not really, it is actually forty percent difference in strength so can certainly see how a big (19 stone my dads mate) bloke drinking four pints of lower strength beer over a four hour period can imbibe and not be over the limit, after all it gets processed at 1 unit per hour or thereabouts and was only maybe six units in total.
NomduJour said:
Nobody benefits from even lower limits, as Scotland’s experience shows
Do you have this data per chance?I'm going to take a guess that the enforcement and slow turn of public opinion on drink driving has had a reduction in injuries and deaths due to drink driving. Before I go looking for the stats, it would be good to understand what you are saying.
Killboy said:
ingenieur said:
Many of these stories of rural drunk drivers who habitually / routinely drive with alcohol in their system aren't necessarily more or less dangerous on the roads simply because of this single factor and there isn't conclusive evidence or data because it's unobtainable.
What data is unobtainable?NomduJour said:
Hundreds of thousands of people drive after drinking, every day. If they didn’t, there wouldn’t be a country pub or restaurant still in business - the reality is that the vast, vast majority of those people do so responsibly.
Nobody benefits from even lower limits, as Scotland’s experience shows - the people actually getting into the car half-cut don’t care whether the limit is two pints, one pint or no pints. Same for drug-driving, driving cars with bald tyres and no brakes etc.
Scotland's lower alcohol limit (50mg/100ml) has demonstrated no safety improvement over the previous 80 limit. Those involved in drink-driving incidents are way over both limits. But more drivers under 80 have been caught and criminalised.Nobody benefits from even lower limits, as Scotland’s experience shows - the people actually getting into the car half-cut don’t care whether the limit is two pints, one pint or no pints. Same for drug-driving, driving cars with bald tyres and no brakes etc.
The 50 limit is virtue signalling, just like ever lower speed limits. And that alone is sufficient justification...
bigothunter said:
Scotland's lower alcohol limit (50mg/100ml) has demonstrated no safety improvement over the previous 80 limit. Those involved in drink-driving incidents are way over both limits. But more drivers under 80 have been caught and criminalised.
The 50 limit is virtue signalling, just like ever lower speed limits. And that alone is sufficient justification...
So you're half right. There has indeed been no noticeable impact on safety stats.The 50 limit is virtue signalling, just like ever lower speed limits. And that alone is sufficient justification...
But what you call virtue signalling, others call a deliberate policy of making even small amounts of drinking before driving socially unacceptable. None of my Scottish friends will now drink, at all, before driving. Most of my English friends (me included) will have a pint with lunch no issue.
Personally I am split. As I say, I see no issue with having a pint and then driving. But I'm also aware that the studies show that even that much is enough to materially raise the risk of my having an accident. If I'm in Scotland, then I just won't drink. Because of the risk of being caught, not because of being safer. Even though I know I am empirically speaking more likely to have an accident.
At the end of the day, driving a car is inherently a dangerous thing to do. And drinking, even a small amount, makes it more dangerous. None of us need to drink before driving; there quite literally is no advantage to doing so. No need, whatsoever. So it's a danger that simply doesn't need to exist.
Nanny state? Abrogation of personal responsibility? Perhaps. Probably, even. But it's a policy that I can understand, precisely because I don't follow it myself even though I intellectually know I probably should.
Not so many years ago I lived opposite a very nice village pub. My housemate was a big drinker, so we'd go 3 or 4 times a week depending on work, and routinely have 5 or 6 pints, generally with the same bunch of locals. Everybody lived in the village, so the main danger was falling in the canal on the way home...
Apart from one guy who lived a couple of villages away. He would drive to the pub, drink the same as us, and then drive home. I never really thought all that much about it until I saw him late one night in the local town, which was a couple of miles or so from our village, and further from his. I'd stopped at a burger van to get something to eat after getting home from a late job, so I was sober, but he was there after a night at the pub, and visibly pissed. He then got in his car and drove home.
Not sure how he did it to be honest, he used to work on big scale plumbing jobs in London (football stadiums and the like), so he'd often have to be up early as well as it was a couple of hours drive in the morning.
Apart from one guy who lived a couple of villages away. He would drive to the pub, drink the same as us, and then drive home. I never really thought all that much about it until I saw him late one night in the local town, which was a couple of miles or so from our village, and further from his. I'd stopped at a burger van to get something to eat after getting home from a late job, so I was sober, but he was there after a night at the pub, and visibly pissed. He then got in his car and drove home.
Not sure how he did it to be honest, he used to work on big scale plumbing jobs in London (football stadiums and the like), so he'd often have to be up early as well as it was a couple of hours drive in the morning.
Killboy said:
Interestingly this was posted to reddit this morning.
If you dig into the story it gets even worse. But this drunk driver wasn't far off the numbers people are suggesting here.
Nom makes the perfectly valid observation that there is no stopping the people who ultimately end up doing something like that. The current laws are fine. The issue is that total enforcement isn't viable. If you dig into the story it gets even worse. But this drunk driver wasn't far off the numbers people are suggesting here.
Since speed cameras were widely adopted and road 'safety' became automated, we mainly just enforce what can easily be measured by technology.
I live in a rural area and never see Police on the roads (except for the odd speed camera van), I'm pretty sure I could get away with driving home pissed from the local pub any night of the week (I don't BTW).
Not just driving but also burglaries etc. as per the news today.
The way of the modern world; mass CCTV/surveillance whose only purpose seems to be issuing fines for breaking the 'rules' but relative inaction on stuff that matters, a combination of poor Government decisions, cutbacks, laziness and cowardice IMO.
I live in a rural area and never see Police on the roads (except for the odd speed camera van), I'm pretty sure I could get away with driving home pissed from the local pub any night of the week (I don't BTW).
Not just driving but also burglaries etc. as per the news today.
The way of the modern world; mass CCTV/surveillance whose only purpose seems to be issuing fines for breaking the 'rules' but relative inaction on stuff that matters, a combination of poor Government decisions, cutbacks, laziness and cowardice IMO.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff