Rural drink-driving
Discussion
deckster said:
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.
That's not true. Heavy drinkers don't feel normal until they've had something. I used to know an alcoholic... like a proper one (who died young) and he would be a mess before having his first drink of the day. Kept getting banned over and over and in the end moved to Spain for the cheap wine. Killboy said:
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.
Guess away. 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.
Academic Study said:
Whilst a lower drink drive limit has helped to harden anti-drink drive sentiment among the public, the change in law appears not to have targeted those who cause the majority of alcohol-related road accidents: those who drink heavily and still drive
https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/introduction-...https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/...
mike80 said:
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.
It's rife in this area too regarding the village pubs, some only live several hundred yards away, others are doing the rounds from pub to pub and still choose to drive, with itemised tabs the bar staff could easily check and do more by using their discretion to refuse to serve the worst offenders and without having to give a reason. 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.
Another concern is the drug driving and weed in particular which seems to be on the increase, a neighbour locally objected to another neighbours smell of weed wafting into her garden, she kept a record of his smoking and driving habits going back weeks if not months and tipped off the police, yesterday
(saw it all happen in front of me) the traffic police pulled him over and did a drugs test, not sure of the outcome, my guess would be his arrogance and complacency has finally caught up with him, this is someone in their 60s with a new SUV!
Old HippyTime for a beer
(we're on the mountain bikes today)deckster said:
So you're half right. There has indeed been no noticeable impact on safety stats.
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.
Thanks for this, good postBut 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.
Silvanus said:
rockandrollmark said:
Just here to say, shame on you for those defending this behaviour. If someone fancies drink then it’s on them to work out a way of getting home that doesn’t risk taking out an innocent party.
I see a lot of this in the villages around my way. Smacks of arrogance. Impaired is impaired. You don’t get to choose how the law applies to you as and when it suits you.
completely agree, drink drivers are selfish aI see a lot of this in the villages around my way. Smacks of arrogance. Impaired is impaired. You don’t get to choose how the law applies to you as and when it suits you.
holes that deserve to lose their licences, same for all drug drivers too, even if it is only a couple of spliffs, knobs Well said, I couldn’t agree more. If you want to go out drinking get someone else to drive
Like a Taxi
deckster said:
So you're half right. There has indeed been no noticeable impact on safety stats.
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.
Do you have data to endorse that assertion? Is safety statistically improved when the limit drops from 80 to 50 mg/100ml ? Would a further reduction from 50 to body background level, yield even greater safety benefits?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.
Or is it all conjecture and posturing?
bigothunter said:
deckster said:
So you're half right. There has indeed been no noticeable impact on safety stats.
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.
Do you have data to endorse that assertion? Is safety statistically improved when the limit drops from 80 to 50 mg/100ml ? Would a further reduction from 50 to body background level, yield even greater safety benefits?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.
Or is it all conjecture and posturing?
bigothunter said:
deckster said:
So you're half right. There has indeed been no noticeable impact on safety stats.
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.
Do you have data to endorse that assertion? Is safety statistically improved when the limit drops from 80 to 50 mg/100ml ? Would a further reduction from 50 to body background level, yield even greater safety benefits?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.
Or is it all conjecture and posturing?
Scotland has taught us that changing the limit from low to lower doesn't reduce DD deaths. Maybe if they'd left the limit alone, but spent the money paid in tax by the businesses they didn't destroy with the 50 limit on greater enforcement of the people who don't pay any heed to the limits at all, then they'd have had more success on DD deaths.
As it stands: total failure on main objective + unpleasant unintended consequences. Situation: normal.
SpeckledJim said:
Well, it helped to kill a lot of businesses and spoil a lot of fun.
Scotland has taught us that changing the limit from low to lower doesn't reduce DD deaths. Maybe if they'd left the limit alone, but spent the money paid in tax by the businesses they didn't destroy with the 50 limit on greater enforcement of the people who don't pay any heed to the limits at all, then they'd have had more success on DD deaths.
As it stands: total failure on main objective + unpleasant unintended consequences. Situation: normal.
May cut NHS costs, increase worker productivity etc. it's hard to say whether the long term savings and returns from a healthier population could be greater than the closure of some pubs?Scotland has taught us that changing the limit from low to lower doesn't reduce DD deaths. Maybe if they'd left the limit alone, but spent the money paid in tax by the businesses they didn't destroy with the 50 limit on greater enforcement of the people who don't pay any heed to the limits at all, then they'd have had more success on DD deaths.
As it stands: total failure on main objective + unpleasant unintended consequences. Situation: normal.
But we probably all suspect that it's different in Scotland because their government is insecure and is constantly driven to go 'one higher' then their absolutely atrocious and evil overlord to the South. A bit like Wales seeing London implement some 20 zones and deciding to blanket their entire country so as to look superior despite the likely economic damage it'll do to them.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 11th August 16:09
DonkeyApple said:
SpeckledJim said:
Well, it helped to kill a lot of businesses and spoil a lot of fun.
Scotland has taught us that changing the limit from low to lower doesn't reduce DD deaths. Maybe if they'd left the limit alone, but spent the money paid in tax by the businesses they didn't destroy with the 50 limit on greater enforcement of the people who don't pay any heed to the limits at all, then they'd have had more success on DD deaths.
As it stands: total failure on main objective + unpleasant unintended consequences. Situation: normal.
May cut NHS costs, increase worker productivity etc. it's hard to say whether the long term savings and returns from a healthier population could be greater than the closure of some pubs?Scotland has taught us that changing the limit from low to lower doesn't reduce DD deaths. Maybe if they'd left the limit alone, but spent the money paid in tax by the businesses they didn't destroy with the 50 limit on greater enforcement of the people who don't pay any heed to the limits at all, then they'd have had more success on DD deaths.
As it stands: total failure on main objective + unpleasant unintended consequences. Situation: normal.
But we probably all suspect that it's different in Scotland because their government is insecure and is constantly driven to go 'one higher' then their absolutely atrocious and evil overlord to the South. A bit like Wales seeing London implement some 20 zones and deciding to blanket their entire country so as to look superior despite the likely economic damage it'll do to them.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 11th August 16:09
power crazed fiddlers
deckster said:
Which assertion? I went to some pains to emphasise that this is all my personal take on things and that I agreed there was no noticeable impact on the overall Scottish accident rate.
deckster said:
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.
Both emboldened sections above suggest that safety benefits are proven by evidence. I was merely asking for a reference(s) to that data.NomduJour said:
https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/introduction-...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/...
Interesting all the studies seem to suggest lack of enforcement being the biggest factor? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/...
soxboy said:
There was someone in one of the Dales villages up the road from me who got done for DD. To be fair it was at the level where most people wouldn’t be able to find their car, let alone drive it.
I mentioned this to a colleague who lived in the same village, she said ‘well it was only a matter of time, the police have given him enough warnings’!
I've arrested a fair number of repeat drunk drivers, took them back to PD for photos and fingerprints, then off to the county jail where they would bond out within hours and go and collect their car from the impound yard. Something wrong about returning a deadly weapon to someone who has repeatedly shown that's he's a danger to everyone if allowed to own and operate such a weapon.I mentioned this to a colleague who lived in the same village, she said ‘well it was only a matter of time, the police have given him enough warnings’!
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/06/10/repeat-dui-...
NMNeil said:
I've arrested a fair number of repeat drunk drivers, took them back to PD for photos and fingerprints, then off to the county jail where they would bond out within hours and go and collect their car from the impound yard. Something wrong about returning a deadly weapon to someone who has repeatedly shown that's he's a danger to everyone if allowed to own and operate such a weapon.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/06/10/repeat-dui-...
I thought cars were modes of transport not an alternative to guns? https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/06/10/repeat-dui-...
bigothunter said:
deckster said:
So you're half right. There has indeed been no noticeable impact on safety stats.
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.
Do you have data to endorse that assertion? Is safety statistically improved when the limit drops from 80 to 50 mg/100ml ? Would a further reduction from 50 to body background level, yield even greater safety benefits?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.
Or is it all conjecture and posturing?
Getting caught is unlikely unless you're totally smashed but having any kind of bump on a Saturday night (for instance) is likely to get you breathalysed if the police are involved.
Essentially the lower limit has changed having one pint from 'it'll definitely be ok' to 'it'll probably be ok' for those of us that don't normally drive home pissed.
Obviously the people that think it's fine to drive after 2+ pints are unaffected.
deckster said:
ingenieur said:
Also Wales:
power crazed fiddlers
Minimum alcohol pricing is another matter entirely. Clearly it's only poor alcoholics that cause all the problems. Quaffing Dom Perignon and Remy Martin Loius XIII all day is perfectly acceptable.power crazed fiddlers
Speed addicted said:
Small sample size but in the group of people I know the lower limit stopped any of having a pint with a meal, it's just not worth the risk.
Getting caught is unlikely unless you're totally smashed but having any kind of bump on a Saturday night (for instance) is likely to get you breathalysed if the police are involved.
Essentially the lower limit has changed having one pint from 'it'll definitely be ok' to 'it'll probably be ok' for those of us that don't normally drive home pissed.
Obviously the people that think it's fine to drive after 2+ pints are unaffected.
But does this lower 50 limit actually improve safety? Or has it been imposed for other reasons?Getting caught is unlikely unless you're totally smashed but having any kind of bump on a Saturday night (for instance) is likely to get you breathalysed if the police are involved.
Essentially the lower limit has changed having one pint from 'it'll definitely be ok' to 'it'll probably be ok' for those of us that don't normally drive home pissed.
Obviously the people that think it's fine to drive after 2+ pints are unaffected.
bigothunter said:
deckster said:
Which assertion? I went to some pains to emphasise that this is all my personal take on things and that I agreed there was no noticeable impact on the overall Scottish accident rate.
deckster said:
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.
Both emboldened sections above suggest that safety benefits are proven by evidence. I was merely asking for a reference(s) to that data.Study said:
In this study, an OR of 1.75 (95% CI: 1.43 – 2.14) per 0.02 % rise in BAC was found, whereas for no-fatal motor vehicle injury the OR was 1.24 (95% CI: 1.18–1.31) for approximately a 1 drink increase (which generally results in a BAC of about 0.02%)
Or more visually:
The effects are relatively small at low alcohol levels, but undeniably non-zero. Of course there is a real acceleration in accident risk after 0.08 BAC, but that doesn't mean that there are none below that.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff