# Drink Drive Limit



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

Scotland are reducing their drink drive limit for Xmas 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29750001

So should England be following suit and should it be permanent ?

My answer is yes to both


----------



## Coatsy79 (Oct 24, 2014)

I say if your driving don't drink anything

0% alcohol is perfectly palatable nowadays if your really must feel like your fitting in


----------



## USER1999 (Oct 24, 2014)

No, it's fine as it is. 

In general, people drive like idiots. Alcohol has nothing to do with it. 

I saw a guy in a brand new Maserati this morning, holding a phone to his head. It must have hands free, it's a 100 grand motor. 

I regularly see people driving on the wrong side of the road, driving the wrong way around round a bouts, turning left from a turn right lane, turning right from the turn left lane, driving in bus lanes, on the pavement, what ever. Does having a pint and driving change this? No. It just doesn't. 

Clamp down on idiots. That's the answer.


----------



## HDID Kenny (Oct 24, 2014)

This is not for Xmas this is for keeps, personally I'm honest enough to say I enjoyed A pint after a round of golf, now this may be a borderline fail therefore it will be a shandy for me from now on, how many folk will just finish golf jump in the car and bugger off home, could be the final nail for some golf clubs as not only does drink revenue drop so does food.


----------



## Slime (Oct 24, 2014)

My answer is 'NO' to both.
Too many pubs are closing every week as it is ........................... this could be the final nail in their coffin.
Besides, I enjoy a pint after a game of golf.


*Slime*.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

So most people are worried about not being able to have a pint after a game of golf ?!


----------



## Imurg (Oct 24, 2014)

murphthemog said:



			No, it's fine as it is. 

In general, people drive like idiots. Alcohol has nothing to do with it. 

I saw a guy in a brand new Maserati this morning, holding a phone to his head. It must have hands free, it's a 100 grand motor. 

I regularly see people driving on the wrong side of the road, driving the wrong way around round a bouts, turning left from a turn right lane, turning right from the turn left lane, driving in bus lanes, on the pavement, what ever. Does having a pint and driving change this? No. It just doesn't. 

Clamp down on idiots. That's the answer.
		
Click to expand...

You been sitting in my car recently Murph..?

Sounds like a standard day for my eyes.
Lowering the limit won't prevent many crashes.
If you're going to cause a crash at just under the limit now then you're going to cause the same crash at half that amount.


----------



## HDID Kenny (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So most people are worried about not being able to have a pint after a game of golf ?!
		
Click to expand...

I am can't speak for everyone, don't currently see a problem with that view, that will change with the law.


----------



## Khamelion (Oct 24, 2014)

Should be zero tolerance to drinking and driving.

Simple answer if you are going to have a drink then do not drive.

Be it a mouthful, half a pint, or many pints, if you have alcohol in your system then you should not be behind the wheel and that includes the consumption of booze laced cakes, sherry trifle etc...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

HDID Kenny said:



			I am can't speak for everyone, don't currently see a problem with that view, that will change with the law.
		
Click to expand...

You can still have your pint - then take a taxi home or get a lift


----------



## Slime (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So most people are worried about not being able to have a pint after a game of golf ?!
		
Click to expand...

Are they? 
Where did you get that little nugget from?
I, for one, am most certainly not.


*Slime*.


----------



## HDID Kenny (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You can still have your pint - then take a taxi home or get a lift
		
Click to expand...

No thanks too much hassle, just have my shandy now.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

Slime said:



			Are they? 
Where did you get that little nugget from?
I, for one, am most certainly not.


*Slime*.
		
Click to expand...

Your first post suggests otherwise 

"Besides, I enjoy a pint after a game of golf"


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 24, 2014)

0% is a bit too harsh for me. Not too bothered about having a drink if I'm driving, but if you have a decent night out, then how do you know when the blood alcohol has reached zero the next day? I'd say the current limit, coupled with harsh penalties is about right..


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

bluewolf said:



			0% is a bit too harsh for me. Not too bothered about having a drink if I'm driving, but if you have a decent night out, then how do you know when the blood alcohol has reached zero the next day? I'd say the current limit, coupled with harsh penalties is about right..
		
Click to expand...


Don't think any country has zero limit - very hard to have zero 

But a reduced limit imo is good


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Don't think any country has zero limit - very hard to have zero 

But a reduced limit imo is good
		
Click to expand...

I think the current limit is fine TBH.. I'm sure I heard somewhere that 9/10 car accidents are caused by poor driving, not drunk driving.. We need to address the big problems before we address the small one..


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

bluewolf said:



			I think the current limit is fine TBH.. I'm sure I heard somewhere that 9/10 car accidents are caused by poor driving, not drunk driving.. We need to address the big problems before we address the small one..
		
Click to expand...


Oh certainly need to sort out lots of issues in regards driving 

Drink drive limit to put us alongside the other countries on the continent is a quick and easy start whilst also looking at the other issues


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 24, 2014)

bluewolf said:



			I think the current limit is fine TBH.. I'm sure I heard somewhere that 9/10 car accidents are caused by poor driving, not drunk driving.. We need to address the big problems before we address the small one..
		
Click to expand...

Thats right.   You have to drive carefully after 5 pints


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You can still have your pint - then take a taxi home or get a lift
		
Click to expand...

Perfect in every way Phil


----------



## Imurg (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But a reduced limit imo is good
		
Click to expand...

What are the benefits of a reduced limit?
Is there much real difference between what we have and a limit half of that?


----------



## c1973 (Oct 24, 2014)

Think it's more of a money making scheme (through fines) rather than a well thought out plan in terms of road safety (like most road safety initiatives tbf). 

As far as I'm aware the weight of evidence with regard to drink related accidents are when people are blotto, not after a small glass of wine with lunch. 

I'd much rather efforts were made to make people better drivers, which imo would have a far greater effect on road safety if not the govt/police coffers. 

For my mind, tiredness (to pick one example) is far more dangerous than the aforementioned small glass of wine when driving. And how many on here have (or would admit to, is more to the point) driving whilst tired? Up all night with the sick child and driving to work with little sleep perhaps?  I'm willing to bet the vast majority of drivers have driven when they really are to tired to do so without adverse effect on their ability.

As for the zero alcohol brigade? That argument merely illustrates an ignorance of the issue. Plenty of medicines (perhaps even some you take) contain alcohol and would put you over the limit (even if only fractionally). There is a limit for that very reason.


Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't drive after drinking myself, I stick to coke if I'm driving (not the Peruvian coke btw). 

However.

I refuse to take advice regarding alcohol seriously from a (pretend) parliament that advocates minimum pricing on alcohol for the plebs while enjoying a number of subsidised bars at Holyrood. Hypocrisy of the highest order! 
Nor will I take seriously a guy advocating the change in law who can enjoy a wee half whilst promoting the whisky industry safe in the knowledge the chauffeur driven car awaits!

'_lead by example or allow others to lead_


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/535592.stm

Favours from the Chief Constable perhaps?


----------



## williamalex1 (Oct 24, 2014)

Taxi taxi ! .


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Oct 24, 2014)

No zero tolerance in Europre but some pretty tight controls elsewhere

http://www.safetravel.co.uk/EuropeDrinkDrivingLimits.html


----------



## Slime (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You can still have your pint - then take a taxi home or get a lift
		
Click to expand...

Meanwhile ...................................back in the real world!


*Slime*.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

Slime said:



			Meanwhile ...................................back in the real world!


*Slime*.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry is it that hard to get picked up ?

I drive my two fc to golf each weekend - that allows them a couple of pints 

See plenty get lifts with mates to enable them to have a drink 

Have a few that drink thrn drive home - I would like to see coppers to sit outside golf clubs - would certainly catch their fair share amount of drink drivers


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

Imurg said:



			What are the benefits of a reduced limit?
Is there much real difference between what we have and a limit half of that?
		
Click to expand...

Well currently people may have two pints and whilst be just under or on the limit will be effected by the effects alcohol brings to a person 

Reducing it under a pint would then reduce possibly the amount of people that push the limit and will hopefully have the one half pint or shandy and stop thereby not being as effected as much 

Some people can be effected by two pints or even a pint and a half or even one glass of wine


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

SocketRocket said:



			Perfect in every way Phil 

Click to expand...


I prefer not to drink anything if I have to drive


----------



## williamalex1 (Oct 24, 2014)

Is there any data available about the numbers of accidents involving alcohol over the last few years,  compared to non alcohol  related accidents. ????


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			Is there any data available about the numbers of accidents involving alcohol over the last few years,  compared to non alcohol  related accidents. ????
		
Click to expand...


Last year the amount of drink drive accidents rose by25%

1 in 6 accidents caused by someone over the limit 

http://www.drinkdrivingfacts.com/drinkdriving/drink_driving_facts.aspx


----------



## c1973 (Oct 24, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			Is there any data available about the numbers of accidents involving alcohol over the last few years,  verses non alcohol accidents.
		
Click to expand...

It's estimated that 4% of all accidents were alcohol related, Govt figures. (2012 figures).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29750001

Bit of a worry when laws are based on estimated figures tbh. You would think they would have actual quantitative data.


----------



## c1973 (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Last year the amount of drink drive accidents rose by25%

1 in 6 accidents caused by someone over the limit 

http://www.drinkdrivingfacts.com/drinkdriving/drink_driving_facts.aspx

Click to expand...

That figure is skewed a wee bit due to the sharp drop in previous years though. Still 25% less than 2009 and 40% less than the 2005 -2009 average. A steady decline over the years, one would expect the odd spike though, even if the spike is still lower than most previous years figures.  Statistics, eh.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23529736


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			1 in 6 accidents caused by someone over the limit 

http://www.drinkdrivingfacts.com/drinkdriving/drink_driving_facts.aspx

Click to expand...

Thats not what it says Phil... It says 1 in 6 fatal accidents are caused by Drivers over the limit.. It also appears to be giving statistics from 2004 for some unknown reason..

The site you've linked to also appears to be a website advising drivers who have been caught Drink Driving how to escape punishment.. Not exactly the best source to prove your point..


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

bluewolf said:



			Thats not what it says Phil... It says 1 in 6 fatal accidents are caused by Drivers over the limit.. It also appears to be giving statistics from 2004 for some unknown reason..

The site you've linked to also appears to be a website advising drivers who have been caught Drink Driving how to escape punishment.. Not exactly the best source to prove your point..
		
Click to expand...

Sorry pasted the wrong website 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras51-reported-drinking-and-driving

At the end of the day - one is one too many and each one could possibly have been avoided 

I will never understand why people would ever be against have a very low drink drive limit 

Surely it's being done to try and save lives


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry pasted the wrong website 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras51-reported-drinking-and-driving

At the end of the day - one is one too many and each one could possibly have been avoided 

I will never understand why people would ever be against have a very low drink drive limit 

Surely it's being done to try and save lives
		
Click to expand...

The very first table shows that the methods already being taken have proven very effective in bringing down the accident rate. It should also be noted that there is no way of stating that the current accident rate would diminish with a lower level. You can't state that the alcohol was the determining factor in any of the accidents listed.

Whilst I agree that even a single death is too many, there is absolutely no way in hell of making car travel totally safe. If you want to reduce road deaths to zero, then you'll have to get rid of all traffic on them. Even then someone could trip over a poorly fitted grid and break their neck.. What then? Ban leaving the house? 

Your argument is flawed at its most basic level. You cannot make every aspect of every persons life totally safe. We take risks every day. I'm taking a risk using this computer. We can make every reasonable effort to safeguard people, but you can't make everyone safe all the time..


----------



## JCW (Oct 24, 2014)

It should be a zero rating , not a drop then everyone knows where they stand , thats how it was in my job for years , zero for drinks and drugs so everyone knows where they stand , wanna drink then dont drive


----------



## williamalex1 (Oct 24, 2014)

I'm not against a very low limit , but a zero limit a step too far.  I think they would be better targeting the causes of other 5 out of 6 fatal accident.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

bluewolf said:



			The very first table shows that the methods already being taken have proven very effective in bringing down the accident rate. It should also be noted that there is no way of stating that the current accident rate would diminish with a lower level. You can't state that the alcohol was the determining factor in any of the accidents listed.

Whilst I agree that even a single death is too many, there is absolutely no way in hell of making car travel totally safe. If you want to reduce road deaths to zero, then you'll have to get rid of all traffic on them. Even then someone could trip over a poorly fitted grid and break their neck.. What then? Ban leaving the house? 

Your argument is flawed at its most basic level. You cannot make every aspect of every persons life totally safe. We take risks every day. I'm taking a risk using this computer. We can make every reasonable effort to safeguard people, but you can't make everyone safe all the time..

Click to expand...

Again why not reduce the risk as much as we possibly can ?

Is reducing the drink driving limit going to bring an increase in accidents ?

Why are people so against a reduction in the level

Is having that one more drink that important before they drive ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

williamalex1 said:



			I'm not against a very low limit , but a zero limit a step too far.  I think they would be better targeting the causes of other 5 out of 6 fatal accident.
		
Click to expand...

Would think they would be better trying to reduce all accidents as best a humanly possible 

Reducing the limit is a rule they can bring In easily for starters


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Again why not reduce the risk as much as we possibly can ?

Is reducing the drink driving limit going to bring an increase in accidents ?

Why are people so against a reduction in the level

Is having that one more drink that important before they drive ?
		
Click to expand...

But you have no proof that a lower level would be reducing the risk! The statistics show that most people caught over the limit, are over by a significant amount. They know the limit and have ignored it. They would just as easily ignore a lower limit. Make more effort to catch the serial offenders (even though several on here would then complain that the Police were persecuting motorists).

I haven't researched this, but how does the UK DD accident rate compare to countries who have a lower or even zero limit? Are the UK roads so much more unsafe than other countries?

A quick google has found these graphs.. I haven't checked their validity though... http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm


----------



## Blue in Munich (Oct 24, 2014)

Practically every post I've read has missed the most pertinent point; it's not the limit that is the issue, it is the chances of being caught that will determine compliance with the limit.  As traffic police are replaced with speed cameras, more people will take a chance as they know they are unlikely to be caught regardless of what that limit is.

And don't gets me started on a zero limitâ€¦ :angry:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

bluewolf said:



			But you have no proof that a lower level would be reducing the risk! The statistics show that most people caught over the limit, are over by a significant amount. They know the limit and have ignored it. They would just as easily ignore a lower limit. Make more effort to catch the serial offenders (even though several on here would then complain that the Police were persecuting motorists).

I haven't researched this, but how does the UK DD accident rate compare to countries who have a lower or even zero limit? Are the UK roads so much more unsafe than other countries?

A quick google has found these graphs.. I haven't checked their validity though... http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm

Click to expand...

Why are you against reducing the level ?

It's easy to implement 

Does it effect you that much ?

The less alcohol in a person's body whilst behind the wheel of car imo will reduce the risk of something going wrong - even down to the persons reactions which have been proven slow down due to alcohol intake 

So what is the problem with reducing the level to what is being suggested ( which is still above most countries in Europe )


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 24, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why are you against reducing the level ?

It's easy to implement 

Does it effect you that much ?

The less alcohol in a person's body whilst behind the wheel of car imo will reduce the risk of something going wrong - even down to the persons reactions which have been proven slow down due to alcohol intake 

So what is the problem with reducing the level to what is being suggested ( which is still above most countries in Europe )
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't affect me in the slightest. I don't drink at all when I'm driving. The reason I'm against it is that you cannot prove that it will make any difference whatsoever.. We have some of the safest roads in the World. That is a fact..

I would argue that one of the biggest factors in the reduction of accidents involving Drink Driving is the fact that our punishments are harsh (compared to other countries). Another contributing factor is that we as a society are now programmed to demonise anyone caught Drunk Driving..

Can you prove that a reduced limit would make any difference at all to the accident rate? If not, then you are advocating change for the sake of change. It doesn't help...


----------



## c1973 (Oct 24, 2014)

It's a money making scheme and a headline grabber. No more and no less. 
I've already shown the figures were dropping in the long-term anyway. 
No evidence whatsoever to show that this reduction will reduce accidents.
Hypocrisy of the highest order. 
Did I mention its no more than a money making scheme? 
Oh, and its hypocrisy of the highest order......did I mention that?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

bluewolf said:



			It doesn't affect me in the slightest. I don't drink at all when I'm driving. The reason I'm against it is that you cannot prove that it will make any difference whatsoever.. We have some of the safest roads in the World. That is a fact..

I would argue that one of the biggest factors in the reduction of accidents involving Drink Driving is the fact that our punishments are harsh (compared to other countries). Another contributing factor is that we as a society are now programmed to demonise anyone caught Drunk Driving..

Can you prove that a reduced limit would make any difference at all to the accident rate? If not, then you are advocating change for the sake of change. It doesn't help...
		
Click to expand...

Sandy Allan, Rospa's Road Safety Manager in Scotland, said he believed the move would save lives and prevent injuries on Scotland's roads.
He added: "There is a considerable body of research which shows that reducing drink drive limits is effective in reducing drink-drive deaths and injuries. We would like to see the rest of the UK follow Scotland's example."


-

I'll bow to their knowledge :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 24, 2014)

c1973 said:



			It's a money making scheme and a headline grabber. No more and no less. 
I've already shown the figures were dropping in the long-term anyway. 
No evidence whatsoever to show that this reduction will reduce accidents.
Hypocrisy of the highest order. 
Did I mention its no more than a money making scheme? 
Oh, and its hypocrisy of the highest order......did I mention that?
		
Click to expand...

Do you have a drink before you drive ?


----------



## c1973 (Oct 25, 2014)

However, speaking on BBC Radio Scotland, George Goldie from the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said he did not believe the change would improve road safety and he questioned the motivation behind it saying it would "increase income" gathered from fines.

He added: "*We have very few statistics, if any, to show how many accidents are caused by people who are marginally over the limit. Most of the accidents are caused by people who are blatantly blitzed.*

"I'm much more concerned about improving driving, as opposed to improving the one in 10. I am much, much more interested in improving the nine in 10."


----------



## c1973 (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you have a drink before you drive ?
		
Click to expand...

Post 21. :thup:


----------



## williamalex1 (Oct 25, 2014)

No I don't, but there does seem to be a lot more drunken pedestrians staggering about up here, because they're not allowed to drive home . It's getting quite hard to avoid them now even when I'm sober.:rofl:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 25, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Post 21. :thup:
		
Click to expand...


So is it possible that reducing the limit will save at least one life ?


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So is it possible that reducing the limit will save at least one life ?
		
Click to expand...

Is it possible that leaving it as it is will make no difference?


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So is it possible that reducing the limit will save at least one life ?
		
Click to expand...

It's possible, but so difficult to quantify.

Same as the argument to increase speed limits from 30 to 40 on the basis that the accident that happened at 30 mph wouldn't have happened at 40 mph as the car would be well past the point on the timeline .

And for the record a pint of lager shandy does me when out and driving


----------



## bluewolf (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sandy Allan, Rospa's Road Safety Manager in Scotland, said he believed the move would save lives and prevent injuries on Scotland's roads.
He added: "There is a considerable body of research which shows that reducing drink drive limits is effective in reducing drink-drive deaths and injuries. We would like to see the rest of the UK follow Scotland's example."


-

I'll bow to their knowledge :thup:
		
Click to expand...

And yet the Institute of Advanced Motorists have not come out in support of this change yet? Possibly because they understand that the recent rise in Alcohol related accidents is most likely related to the recent budget cuts applied to the Police Service. And, if the rise is linked to a lack of Police on the roads, then you can lower the limit all you want.. No one will be there to catch them. You'll have the exact same accident rate, but more people convicted after the fact.

Make roads safer 
Make punishment more stringent
Put more Police on the roads (not popular with the regular speeders I suppose).


----------



## c1973 (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So is it possible that reducing the limit will save at least one life ?
		
Click to expand...

Of course.

It's also possible that you could increase it and less accidents would occur. 

Remember, as has been shown with my links, the accident rate has dropped year on year in the long term. 
That's with more cars on the road year on year as well. 

It's nothing but a money making scheme and headline grabber. 

Anyway, I'm off to me bed, driving in the morning and wouldn't want to be tired.........plenty of evidence that shows its just as dangerous as alcohol when behind the wheel.


----------



## Fish (Oct 25, 2014)

I want to see a mandatory retest done at age 60 and then every 5yrs thereafter, older people on the road are a pain and much more dangerous than someone after a sherry or couple of pints, it takes them 10 minutes to get into the car so their a danger to themselves as they'd never be able to get out in an accident, they can't keep up or understand the new road markings, signs etc and are all over the shop, I'd like to see more of a campaign to get old people off the road and put on public transport


----------



## Imurg (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So is it possible that reducing the limit will save at least one life ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes



SocketRocket said:



			Is it possible that leaving it as it is will make no difference?
		
Click to expand...

Yes

Who knows....? Reducing the limit as a vote winner is not the reason to be reducing it.
Prove that reducing it will save lives and there's a case for it.

I think its safe to assume that the current limit is in place as that level of alcohol in the system has a minimal effect on ones ability to drive.
Lowering it, therefore, will have a negligible effect in lowering the number of crashes.
The vast majority of crashes involving alcohol are, I believe, caused by those significantly over the limit.
Lowering the limit will not change that.

If you really want to save lives, reduce the speed limit to 20 mph around town, 30 on rural roads and 40 on motorways.....


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 25, 2014)

Or maybe we should stop driving totally and go back to Horses, as driving is so dangerous.
As nobody ever fell off one or got trampled or bitten by a horse

Have they?


----------



## Slime (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry is it that hard to get picked up ?

I drive my two fc to golf each weekend - that allows them a couple of pints 

See plenty get lifts with mates to enable them to have a drink 

Have a few that drink then drive home - *I would like to see coppers to sit outside golf clubs - would certainly catch their fair share amount of drink drivers*

Click to expand...

And certainly discourage golfers from spending money in the bar too!        Lose ............. lose!


*Slime*.


----------



## HDID Kenny (Oct 25, 2014)

It took 2 years for this law to be brought in due to the time (no doubt money) involved in re-calibrating breath kits etc. Like Robin has just said, older people unregulated cause a risk on the road, smoking whilst driving is the same, have you been sat at traffic lights and hear the boom boom beat from the car pulled up beside you even with window closed?

All dangers to themselves and others but not addressed. As for aligning with Europe they have some of the worse driving in the world hardly a benchmark to set.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 25, 2014)

Slime said:



			And certainly discourage golfers from spending money in the bar too!        Lose ............. lose!


*Slime*.
		
Click to expand...

Surely a wind up ?

Is bar profits more important than people drink driving ?


----------



## Ethan (Oct 25, 2014)

Wow, a lot of interesting and bizarre arguments being made. 

As stated by many above, UK drink driving limits are pretty high by civilised country standards. 50mg is a reasonable limit and I think it should apply across the UK. If it has the effect of making some people reluctantly stop drinking at all before driving, good. That is the wise course of action anyway.

As to the suggestion that the current limit is fine, and that it represents some sort of safe level of alcohol, that is simply false. Driving performance is impaired at 50-80 mg in many drivers. They may or may not be aware that it is, but it is. Reaction times, in particular, as well as an enhanced sense of bravado. 

The argument that most accidents are caused by bad driving sober drivers is certainly true, but beside the point. The same logic would say that we should allow people to carry guns because most murders are currently with knives. A nonsensical argument. 

Of course individual responses to alcohol vary, and base driving skill levels also vary. There is no way around this, except to make the clear clear and specific, and that is what the drink driving laws do. Some of us are old enough to remember the days before, when stories would be told about someone having a skinful and driving a car home from the golf club only for the car to end up in a bunker near the club gates and the drunk slept the night there.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Some of us are old enough to remember the days before, when stories would be told about someone having a skinful and driving a car home from the golf club only for the car to end up in a bunker near the club gates and the drunk slept the night there.
		
Click to expand...

And some of us know members who, even today, will have at least have 5-7 pints and drive home. One of them does it every day, even though he's been banned twice. Limits won't stop the die hard drinkers, but more severe punishments might.


----------



## Beezerk (Oct 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			And some of us know members who, even today, will have at least have 5-7 pints and drive home. One of them does it every day, even though he's been banned twice. Limits won't stop the die hard drinkers, but more severe punishments might.
		
Click to expand...

The gas chamber is too humane for tw@ts like this!


----------



## CMAC (Oct 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Wow, a lot of interesting and bizarre arguments being made. 

As stated by many above, UK drink driving limits are pretty high by civilised country standards. 50mg is a reasonable limit and I think it should apply across the UK. If it has the effect of making some people reluctantly stop drinking at all before driving, good. That is the wise course of action anyway.

As to the suggestion that the current limit is fine, and that it represents some sort of safe level of alcohol, that is simply false. Driving performance is impaired at 50-80 mg in many drivers. They may or may not be aware that it is, but it is. Reaction times, in particular, as well as an enhanced sense of bravado. 

*The argument that most accidents are caused by bad driving sober drivers is certainly true, but beside the point. The same logic would say that we should allow people to carry guns because most murders are currently with knives. A nonsensical argument. *

Of course individual responses to alcohol vary, and base driving skill levels also vary. There is no way around this, except to make the clear clear and specific, and that is what the drink driving laws do. Some of us are old enough to remember the days before, when stories would be told about someone having a skinful and driving a car home from the golf club only for the car to end up in a bunker near the club gates and the drunk slept the night there.
		
Click to expand...

Good post particularly the part in Bold.


Anyone who thinks it's ok to have a pint then drive is an idiot! Selfish! and hasn't come across the total devastation a drink affected accident causes to countless families for generations.

If you *must* have a pint when out you have a more serious issue than desire.


----------



## NST (Oct 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			And some of us know members who, even today, will have at least have 5-7 pints and drive home. One of them does it every day, even though he's been banned twice. Limits won't stop the die hard drinkers, but more severe punishments might.
		
Click to expand...

I had 5 pints, was stopped on the way home and blew 35. Which is right on the limit and a pass in the UK.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 25, 2014)

Being brutally honest, I do not think it will lessen road deaths.
Drunk drivers are generally well over the present limit so if it is not working now it will not change.

In my area speeding on rural roads is by far the biggest killer.
How many police cars/cameras do we see?... none.
They are all policing the safest place to drive, the motorway.


----------



## Ethan (Oct 25, 2014)

Hobbit said:



			And some of us know members who, even today, will have at least have 5-7 pints and drive home. One of them does it every day, even though he's been banned twice. Limits won't stop the die hard drinkers, but more severe punishments might.
		
Click to expand...

Nowadays, if you saw some idiot do that, you should ring the police. I would.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 25, 2014)

Imurg said:



			Yes



Yes

Who knows....? Reducing the limit as a vote winner is not the reason to be reducing it.
Prove that reducing it will save lives and there's a case for it.

I think its safe to assume that the current limit is in place as that level of alcohol in the system has a minimal effect on ones ability to drive.
Lowering it, therefore, will have a negligible effect in lowering the number of crashes.
The vast majority of crashes involving alcohol are, I believe, caused by those significantly over the limit.
Lowering the limit will not change that.

If you really want to save lives, reduce the speed limit to 20 mph around town, 30 on rural roads and 40 on motorways.....
		
Click to expand...

I thought it has been proven that 1 unit gives people a false confidence whilst reducing the reactions 

2 units gives an even bigger false confidence and reduced reactions


----------



## c1973 (Oct 25, 2014)

Fish said:



			I want to see a mandatory retest done at age 60 and then every 5yrs thereafter, older people on the road are a pain and much more dangerous than someone after a sherry or couple of pints, it takes them 10 minutes to get into the car so their a danger to themselves as they'd never be able to get out in an accident, they can't keep up or understand the new road markings, signs etc and are all over the shop, I'd like to see more of a campaign to get old people off the road and put on public transport 

Click to expand...


Indeed. And as for women drivers! Sheesh, let's not go there! Driving in high heels while putting on make up and shouting at the kids in the backseat. Sheer lunacy I tell you. They cause more traffic jams in car parks across the country than the rest of the driving public put together. No sense of direction, spatial awareness of a blind quadruple amputee and two speeds in traffic (flat out or emergency stop). 

Ban them all I say.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 25, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Indeed. And as for women drivers! Sheesh, let's not go there! Driving in high heels while putting on make up and shouting at the kids in the backseat. Sheer lunacy I tell you. They cause more traffic jams in car parks across the country than the rest of the driving public put together. No sense of direction, spatial awareness of a blind quadruple amputee and two speeds in traffic (flat out or emergency stop). 

Ban them all I say. 

Click to expand...

As for the drunken 70yr old guy in high heels, smoking a pipe...


----------



## Khamelion (Oct 25, 2014)

NST said:



			I had 5 pints, was stopped on the way home and blew 35. Which is right on the limit and a pass in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

That's not something to boast about.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 25, 2014)

NST said:



			I had 5 pints, was stopped on the way home and blew 35. Which is right on the limit and a pass in the UK.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I'm calling that rubbish 

Sorry but only a selfish moron gets behind the wheel of a car after drinking 5 pints


----------



## DanFST (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but I'm calling that rubbish 

Sorry but only a selfish moron gets behind the wheel of a car after drinking 5 pints
		
Click to expand...

Only a selfish moron that is well within the law. Unless he failed to mention he drove into a bus full of orphans on the way back! I am also calling rubbish however. 

There is no problem with the limit as it is. It may make the roads safer, it may not. It is all conjuncture. I'll stick with my pint and a half after golf and watching the football or after golf.


----------



## NST (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but I'm calling that rubbish 

Sorry but only a selfish moron gets behind the wheel of a car after drinking 5 pints
		
Click to expand...

It was over about 4 hours, with dinner too.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 25, 2014)

NST said:



			It was over about 4 hours, with dinner too.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but it's rubbish - and it's a disgrace why anyone would step behind a wheel of a car after 5 pints


----------



## c1973 (Oct 25, 2014)

Another thing. 

If road safety is genuinely the only reason for this proposal then would it not he a good idea to bring all drivers in line with HGV/LGV drivers hours? Limit everybody's driving to (European rules if working or domestic rules if not) no more than 90 hrs over a 2 weeks rolling period, average of around 48 hrs per week over a 17 week rolling period, no more than 10 hrs per day with the requisite 45 minutes break at the correct time.* Put digital tachographs in all cars, obviously, to ensure adherence, spot checks from the police and DVSA to ensure compliance. 

After all, these driving regs are obviously there for a good reason (safety being one) and protect other road users from drivers who have been on the road too long and who will obviously be tired, and we know tiredness kills as it's on motorway gantrys. 

Would those advocating zero alcohol limits and/or supportive of the cut in the lower limit be supportive of and accept the above? After all it might, perhaps, just possibly make the roads safer? 




* figures may be slightly out (doing this from memory) but they're as near as dammit.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 25, 2014)

Yes I would be in favour :thup:

Would be in favour of anything that helps the roads become safer


----------



## DanFST (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes I would be in favour :thup:

Would be in favour of anything that helps the roads become safer
		
Click to expand...

And would it actually make the roads safer?


----------



## c1973 (Oct 25, 2014)

Also meant to add the following to my post above (too late to edit).

You would also have to undertake 40hrs training every 5yrs, pass a medical every 5yrs (once you turn 45?) and every year once you turn 60 in order to keep your licence. All paid for out of your own pocket btw.

Oh, you have to pay for your digital tachograph card as well, and update it every 5yrs.....paid for by yourself obviously.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 25, 2014)

Medical yes - small test - yes but only undertake training if deemed to require it. 

Drivers do need to be examined at regular intervals in their lives


----------



## c1973 (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Medical yes - small test - yes but only undertake training if deemed to require it. 

Drivers do need to be examined at regular intervals in their lives
		
Click to expand...

Nope, the training is mandatory, doesn't matter if you need it. 

Obviously, given your acceptance of the above and your (correct imo) assertion that drivers need to be examined at regular intervals, you will of course have been out with a driving instructor to assess your driving ability since passing your test? :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 25, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Nope, the training is mandatory, doesn't matter if you need it. 

Obviously, given your acceptance of the above and your (correct imo) assertion that drivers need to be examined at regular intervals, you will of course have been out with a driving instructor to assess your driving ability since passing your test? :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Last out with an instructor two years ago when updating my Land Rover license for the RAF when last going to desert :thup:


Unfortunatly your ideas just won't be practical for every single driver on the roads in the country


----------



## c1973 (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Last out with an instructor two years ago when updating my Land Rover license for the RAF when last going to desert :thup:


Unfortunatly your ideas just won't be practical for every single driver on the roads in the country
		
Click to expand...

I had a funny feeling you would have done.  :rofl:

Why wouldn't they be though? It's about road safety and its just a little card in a box, even tells the officers what speed you've been doing. That and another card you need to carry alongside your driving licence. 

Much more effective than reducing the lower limit of alcohol imo.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 25, 2014)

c1973 said:



			I had a funny feeling you would have done.  :rofl:

Why wouldn't they be though? It's about road safety and its just a little card in a box, even tells the officers what speed you've been doing. That and another card you need to carry alongside your driving licence. 

Much more effective than reducing the lower limit of alcohol imo.
		
Click to expand...


We had to do regular driver "refreshers" 

The 40 hours of training etc would be impractical 

Having a monitor in your car isn't a bad idea - would be hard to make it law ( even the MP's would vote against it ) but I think right now you can get devices put into your car to track your speed and hours - used by insurance companies I believe


----------



## Slime (Oct 25, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



*Surely a wind up ?*

*Is bar profits more important than people drink driving ?*

Click to expand...

Yes ....................... I forgot to add the smiley ...... doh!
No, of course not.

However, I still enjoy my pint after a round of golf.
I also believe that, when I drive home, I do so a damned sight more safely than many of the 100% sober muppets I see on the road!
I may drive with a pint of beer in my belly but never with a phone pressed to my ear.
I may have done once or twice in the past, but not anymore.


*Slime*.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Oct 25, 2014)

My dad had an accident back in the 70's and injured a kid after a few drinks. He never got over it until his death. Bearing in mind this was a totally different era when drink driving. As for now... we have idiots that have a lot to drink and still drive. What can you do. Even if you call the police they will rarely follow it up after the event


----------



## Imurg (Oct 25, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Why wouldn't they be though? It's about road safety and its just a little card in a box, even tells the officers what speed you've been doing. That and another card you need to carry alongside your driving licence. 

.
		
Click to expand...

All of it - box, training, etc etc - wouldn't work down to one thing...

Cost.

Even if you had to pay it yourself it just wouldn't happen.
And I know that because 7 years ago I asked the Chief Exec of the Driving Standards Agency virtually the same questions and that was the answer I got.


----------



## anotherdouble (Oct 25, 2014)

You can't have a zero limit due to some harmless things containing alcohol. Mouthwash for example. You eat out in a restaurant, don't have a drink but the sauce with your steak has Madeira in it.


----------



## freddielong (Oct 25, 2014)

the problem with zero tolerance is when are you at zero at what time the day after, if there is wine in a sauce or in a desert will that show up


----------



## Ethan (Oct 25, 2014)

freddielong said:



			the problem with zero tolerance is when are you at zero at what time the day after, if there is wine in a sauce or in a desert will that show up
		
Click to expand...

You can set up the test to overlook a certain minimal amount of alcohol. And you get very very little (probably immeasurable) from madeira sauce, tiramisu or wine gums. You shouldn't swallow mouthwash, and very little will be absorbed by the mucous membranes in your mouth.


----------



## anotherdouble (Oct 25, 2014)

Ethan said:



			You can set up the test to overlook a certain minimal amount of alcohol. And you get very very little (probably immeasurable) from madeira sauce, tiramisu or wine gums. You shouldn't swallow mouthwash, and very little will be absorbed by the mucous membranes in your mouth.
		
Click to expand...

If you overlook a minimal amount then that is not zero tolerance and you are still setting a set tariff but a lot lower than present


----------



## ColchesterFC (Oct 25, 2014)

CMAC said:



			Anyone who thinks it's ok to have a pint then drive is an idiot! Selfish! and hasn't come across the total devastation a drink affected accident causes to countless families for generations.

If you *must* have a pint when out you have a more serious issue than desire.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you consider me to be an idiot for having a pint when I go out for dinner and then driving home? I think it's fair to say that one pint won't put me over the legal limit to drive home, especially if I am then going to sit down for an hour and a half or more and have a meal. The drink drive limit is there in law and by implication from your statement you believe all politicians that have agreed that this limit is correct to be idiots.

And it's not a case that I "must" have a pint. I enjoy a pint before my meal as I know I won't drink wine (or anything else) during the meal. If I fancy another pint then I won't be driving home but don't see why having one pint means I'm an idiot.


----------



## c1973 (Oct 25, 2014)

Zero tolerance? 

Watch your diet and where you work/what you work with. 

http://www.ehow.com/info_8345134_causes-false-positive-alcohol-test.html


----------



## CMAC (Oct 25, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			Why do you consider me to be an idiot for having a pint when I go out for dinner and then driving home?* I think it's fair to say that one pint won't put me over the legal limit to drive home*, especially if I am then going to sit down for an hour and a half or more and have a meal. The drink drive limit is there in law and by implication from your statement you believe all politicians that have agreed that this limit is correct to be idiots.

And it's not a case that I "must" have a pint. I enjoy a pint before my meal as I know I won't drink wine (or anything else) during the meal. If I fancy another pint then I won't be driving home but don't see why having one pint means I'm an idiot.
		
Click to expand...

how do you know this? how do you know your reactions are not dulled down? a fraction could be the difference between life and death for you or some innocent. You are comfortable taking that risk, I and many others aren't especially as I can leave it till later secure in knowing my faculties are not impaired by chemicals.

Again, anyone prepared to take that risk for the sake of one pint, imo, is an idiot!


On a point of clarification, I am an idiot, I have done so, many many years ago and I still think of what could have happened, thank God nothing did.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Oct 25, 2014)

ColchesterFC said:



			I think it's fair to say that one pint won't put me over the legal limit to drive home
		
Click to expand...




CMAC said:



			how do you know this?
		
Click to expand...

Because in my job we get tested regularly and have in the past got to play with the testing equipment. I was tested before I went for my lunch break (12-30pm) having not drunk anything and passed the test. I then went to the pub, with the HSE guy that did the testing, and had one pint of lager. I still passed the test. I then had a second pint which put me right on the drink drive limit. But this was two pints within half an hour and being tested right away, not one pint and then sitting down for over an hour to have something to eat. 

I was tested again before going home at 6pm and recorded a zero reading.


----------



## Ethan (Oct 26, 2014)

anotherdouble said:



			If you overlook a minimal amount then that is not zero tolerance and you are still setting a set tariff but a lot lower than present
		
Click to expand...

Well, every lab test has what they call a Lower Limit of Quantification, which in layman terms is the lowest level you can safely detect without interference from false positive signals, i.e. other things that can give a positive signal but which aren't what you are looking for. For breath alcohol this might be 5mg, say, which would cover a heck of a lot of madeira sauce.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 26, 2014)

CMAC said:



			how do you know this? how do you know your reactions are not dulled down? a fraction could be the difference between life and death for you or some innocent. You are comfortable taking that risk, I and many others aren't especially as I can leave it till later secure in knowing my faculties are not impaired by chemicals.

Again, anyone prepared to take that risk for the sake of one pint, imo, is an idiot!


On a point of clarification, I am an idiot, I have done so, many many years ago and I still think of what could have happened, thank God nothing did.
		
Click to expand...

How sweet to be an idiot.....


----------



## palindromicbob (Oct 26, 2014)

c1973 said:



			Zero tolerance? 

Watch your diet and where you work/what you work with. 

http://www.ehow.com/info_8345134_causes-false-positive-alcohol-test.html

Click to expand...


A bit like the poppy seed bagels in america triggering false positives for cocaine. That caused quiet a few issues.


----------



## delc (Oct 26, 2014)

If 10% of accidents are caused by drunken drivers, then Lord protect me from sober drivers, because they cause 90% of the accidents! :mmm:


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 27, 2014)

To be perfectly honest I am happy to have it at 1 pint or a standard glass of wine.  Show me some stats that proves that reducing it further will save lives and I may change my mind.  I am no way an alcoholic but I like the taste and also the social element of having a pint with mates after playing golf or other sporting/social occasions.

I have heard from several places over the years that the current limit is on average around 2 pints of average strength beer for the average man, but rightly this is not really published as people may see it as the limit they can drink to.  Now of course there are a lot of averages involved and different people process alcohol at vastly different speeds due to many reasons (age, how long since you ate, size and weight etc).  And also the average strength of beer has increased a bit over the years.  So having 2 pints of say Stella on an empty stomach in 30 minutes on a hot day directly after playing a round of golf if you are 8 stone soaking wet and then driving is not a wise thing.  

But I see no issue at all with having one pint of average strength beer over a longer time, may be with some food as well.  Most people know how they feel after one pint. I also know that as soon as I take a drink my reaction times will start to diminish.  But reduce to what.  The level of a elderly driver with fading eyesight?  The level of someone who is concentrating on the touchscreen entertainment system most new cars have in them nowadays?  The level of someone who has had just 3 hours sleep?  The level of someone trying to shut of screaming kids in the back of the car?

I hope I am not trying to justify deliberately reducing your reaction times, but there are so many ways in ways in which your reaction times will be different to start with.  And if someone is gong to be castigated for having one pint then there are hundreds of other things that will be castigated and probably need legislating against then when driving.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			To be perfectly honest I am happy to have it at 1 pint or a standard glass of wine.  Show me some stats that proves that reducing it further will save lives and I may change my mind.  I am no way an alcoholic but I like the taste and also the social element of having a pint with mates after playing golf or other sporting/social occasions.

I have heard from several places over the years that the current limit is on average around 2 pints of average strength beer for the average man, but rightly this is not really published as people may see it as the limit they can drink to.  Now of course there are a lot of averages involved and different people process alcohol at vastly different speeds due to many reasons (age, how long since you ate, size and weight etc).  And also the average strength of beer has increased a bit over the years.  So having 2 pints of say Stella on an empty stomach in 30 minutes on a hot day directly after playing a round of golf if you are 8 stone soaking wet and then driving is not a wise thing.  

But I see no issue at all with having one pint of average strength beer over a longer time, may be with some food as well.  Most people know how they feel after one pint. I also know that as soon as I take a drink my reaction times will start to diminish.  But reduce to what.  The level of a elderly driver with fading eyesight?  The level of someone who is concentrating on the touchscreen entertainment system most new cars have in them nowadays?  The level of someone who has had just 3 hours sleep?  The level of someone trying to shut of screaming kids in the back of the car?

I hope I am not trying to justify deliberately reducing your reaction times, but there are so many ways in ways in which your reaction times will be different to start with.  *And if someone is gong to be castigated for having one pint then there are hundreds of other things that will be castigated and probably need legislating against then when driving.*

Click to expand...

And if an accident is caused by everything you suggest then the person will be charged with driving without due care and attention 

The say that the car is the most lethal legal weapon we can have in our possession

Anything that reduces the level of reaction is potentially harmful

If done deliberatly then thats just stupid


----------



## delc (Oct 27, 2014)

I have been stopped and breathalyzed by the Police several times after consuming 2 or 3 pints of beer, or the equivalent amount of wine, over a long day with a meal (typical golf day?!), and either registered zero or just off the bottom of the scale. So the rate at which you drink and the rate at which your body eliminates alcohol (i unit per hour) should be be taken into consideration, not just don't drink more than x units. Tipping 2 pints down your neck just before closing time and then driving home is definitely not sensible! :mmm:


----------



## c1973 (Oct 27, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			To be perfectly honest I am happy to have it at 1 pint or a standard glass of wine.  Show me some stats that proves that reducing it further will save lives and I may change my mind.  I am no way an alcoholic but I like the taste and also the social element of having a pint with mates after playing golf or other sporting/social occasions.

I have heard from several places over the years that the current limit is on average around 2 pints of average strength beer for the average man, but rightly this is not really published as people may see it as the limit they can drink to.  Now of course there are a lot of averages involved and different people process alcohol at vastly different speeds due to many reasons (age, how long since you ate, size and weight etc).  And also the average strength of beer has increased a bit over the years.  So having 2 pints of say Stella on an empty stomach in 30 minutes on a hot day directly after playing a round of golf if you are 8 stone soaking wet and then driving is not a wise thing.  

But I see no issue at all with having one pint of average strength beer over a longer time, may be with some food as well.  Most people know how they feel after one pint. I also know that as soon as I take a drink my reaction times will start to diminish.  But reduce to what.  The level of a elderly driver with fading eyesight?  The level of someone who is concentrating on the touchscreen entertainment system most new cars have in them nowadays?  The level of someone who has had just 3 hours sleep?  The level of someone trying to shut of screaming kids in the back of the car?

I hope I am not trying to justify deliberately reducing your reaction times, but there are so many ways in ways in which your reaction times will be different to start with.  And if someone is gong to be castigated for having one pint then there are hundreds of other things that will be castigated and probably need legislating against then when driving.
		
Click to expand...


Very good, sensible post. 

Who'd have thought using common sense and knowing your own body could be the way to go.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 27, 2014)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And if an accident is caused by everything you suggest then the person will be charged with driving without due care and attention 

The say that the car is the most lethal legal weapon we can have in our possession

Anything that reduces the level of reaction is potentially harmful

If done deliberatly then thats just stupid
		
Click to expand...

Driving without due care and attention because they were changing the radio station on the touchscreen system?  Driving without due care and attention because they had only had a few hours sleep?  Driving without due care and attention because you are old and your reaction times are relatively slow?

There are many reason that mean you are not driving at 100% all of the time, and most of them would not result in a conviction. Calling someone stupid because they have had a pint and then drive sounds like puritanism of the highest order.  For the vast majority of people it is well within the current legal limit.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Oct 27, 2014)

I honestly cannot wait for the day when we have the iCar or the Google Car or such like, and it takes all of this out of our hands. I don't think we should be in charge of cars, in all honesty. (Yes, I'm a hypocrite as I enjoy my driving, but for the good of  the population it would be much safer without them)


----------



## Slime (Oct 27, 2014)

I'm assuming that everybody on here who has branded people such as myself as stupid, never drives above the speed limit ........................... yeah, right!


*Slime*.


----------



## JCW (Oct 27, 2014)

Should be ZERO , End off , wanna drink then do no not drive , no need for limits then


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 27, 2014)

bluewolf said:



			0% is a bit too harsh for me. Not too bothered about having a drink if I'm driving, but if you have a decent night out, then how do you know when the blood alcohol has reached zero the next day?
		
Click to expand...

On this I'll note that French law requires all drivers to have a breathalyser kit with them when driving.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 27, 2014)

Slime said:



			I'm assuming that everybody on here who has branded people such as myself as stupid, never drives above the speed limit ........................... yeah, right!


*Slime*.
		
Click to expand...

I'm assuming they also sit in the golf club bar shouting out

_'you're stupid, 
you're stupid, 
you're particularly stupid as you are drinking Fosters so as well as turning yourself into a driving time bomb you are also drinking horrible beer flavoured water so at least get a pint that tastes of something, 
you're stupid, 
nicely tucked in shirt but you're still stupid'

_


----------



## Ethan (Oct 27, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			Driving without due care and attention because they were changing the radio station on the touchscreen system?  Driving without due care and attention because they had only had a few hours sleep?  Driving without due care and attention because you are old and your reaction times are relatively slow?

There are many reason that mean you are not driving at 100% all of the time, and most of them would not result in a conviction. Calling someone stupid because they have had a pint and then drive sounds like puritanism of the highest order.  For the vast majority of people it is well within the current legal limit.
		
Click to expand...

Specious argument. The fact there are other causes for accidents is irrelevant to drink driving laws. Each of those issues has to be dealt with separately on its own merits, but you will obviously realise that measuring if someone is tired is a bit more imprecise than measuring their breath or blood alcohol level.

In any case, the underlying idea should not be that one would drink to as close as the limit as possible. The idea is to discourage drinking and driving. It isn't puritanism of any sort, it is simple and obvious road safety. You can drink as much as you like, until you lie in a pool of your own fluids if you so desire, just don't operate a lethal weapon afterwards.


----------



## delc (Oct 27, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			I'm assuming they also sit in the golf club bar shouting out

_'you're stupid, 
you're stupid, 
you're particularly stupid as you are drinking Fosters so as well as turning yourself into a driving time bomb you are also drinking horrible beer flavoured water so at least get a pint that tastes of something, 
you're stupid, 
nicely tucked in shirt but you're still stupid'

_
View attachment 12722

Click to expand...

Agree with the Fosters bit! :thup:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 27, 2014)

This is one of these topics that always generates loads of 'whitabootery'.  This is about driving with alcohol in your bloodstream.  

Why do we drink alcohol?  We drink it because it tastes good and also because it makes us *feel * good.  If one pint of beer did not make me feel different then I might as well drink non-alcoholic beer.  But it makes me feel good.  And by making me feel good it is clearly mind-altering and hence my perception of reality changes - albeit perhaps not very much.  So whilst the change in my perception may be minimal it will change what I see and how I think when driving - and risk of error increases.  Problem is also that my brain likes things that make me feel good it wants me to have more.  Most of us can resist this but many cannot.  It may only be a second pint, but...you can't get drunk if you don;t take the first drink.

And on non-alcoholic beer - if you haven't tried it recently it is so much better than 'back in the day'.  Roll on when we have some of the excellent German draught zero-alcohol beers and Belgian zero-alcohol fruit beers.  A pint of beer does not need to have alcohol in it to be tasty and refreshing.


----------



## Slab (Oct 27, 2014)

On the face of it it doesnâ€™t seem unreasonable but I canâ€™t find the only stat that really matters. 

How many accidents that the police attended were caused by the responsible driver registering between 51mg-80mg of alcohol in every 100ml of blood?

That will be a good guide of the effectiveness of a reduction in the limit (& the above stat must exist)


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 27, 2014)

Ethan said:



			Specious argument. *The fact there are other causes for accidents is irrelevant to drink driving laws. *Each of those issues has to be dealt with separately on its own merits, but you will obviously realise that measuring if someone is tired is a bit more imprecise than measuring their breath or blood alcohol level.

In any case, the underlying idea should not be that one would drink to as close as the limit as possible. The idea is to discourage drinking and driving. It isn't puritanism of any sort, it is simple and obvious road safety. You can drink as much as you like, until you lie in a pool of your own fluids if you so desire, just don't operate a lethal weapon afterwards.
		
Click to expand...

I'd argue not as the end game is to reduce the number of deaths/accidents on the roads in a planned and coordinated manner. And if you are just focusing on one thing that statistically has a relatively small influence to begin with and ignoring other things that are just as significant, if not more, than it doesn't seem a well thought out strategy to me.

If there is statistical evidence for the need to do this and it is done in conjunction with other measures tackling the number of accidents then great, go ahead.  But just doing it in isolation with no statistics to back it up is at best a box ticking exercise, and at worst diverting attention/resources away from other more statistically significant causes of accidents/fatalities.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 27, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			I'd argue not as the end game is to reduce the number of deaths/accidents on the roads in a planned and coordinated manner. And if you are just focusing on one thing that statistically has a relatively small influence to begin with and ignoring other things that are just as significant, if not more, than it doesn't seem a well thought out strategy to me.

If there is statistical evidence for the need to do this and it is done in conjunction with other measures tackling the number of accidents then great, go ahead.  But just doing it in isolation with no statistics to back it up is at best a box ticking exercise, and at worst diverting attention/resources away from other more statistically significant causes of accidents/fatalities.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with @Ethan.  Too many debates of this nature are 'diverted' by what I referred to as 'whitabootery'.  Comparisons are simply diversionary.  The drink driving question is a question in it's own right with absolutely no links to any other driver activity that may increase the risk of accident.  If you do not change anything about drink driving when it is known that drink increases the risk of accident - then the same 'whitabootery' diversionary tactics will be raised citing drink driving when discussing , say, mobile phones while driving.  And there is little point in defending the status quo using your own 'good behaviour' and strict adherence to limits on drink - as these don't matter a jot when you are not to blame.


----------



## Ethan (Oct 27, 2014)

Hacker Khan said:



			I'd argue not as the end game is to reduce the number of deaths/accidents on the roads in a planned and coordinated manner. And if you are just focusing on one thing that statistically has a relatively small influence to begin with and ignoring other things that are just as significant, if not more, than it doesn't seem a well thought out strategy to me.

If there is statistical evidence for the need to do this and it is done in conjunction with other measures tackling the number of accidents then great, go ahead.  But just doing it in isolation with no statistics to back it up is at best a box ticking exercise, and at worst diverting attention/resources away from other more statistically significant causes of accidents/fatalities.
		
Click to expand...

But you are wrong if you imagine this is the only plank of accident prevention. It isn't. HMG is also going after speeding, middle land hogging, texting, drugs use, poor condition vehicles etc etc. 

It is also a more unequivocal one. If you have drink in you, your driving performance is impaired. It is as simple as that. Now, the level of impairment society will tolerate is an interesting debate between your freedom to have a pint and that kid's freedom not to get knocked off their bike. The safest alcohol level is 0. The same is not true of other things. Slow speed may be dangerous, changing the radio station or sat nav is not necessarily always dangerous.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Oct 27, 2014)

I think the current laws are about right in balancing the risks of causing an accident against the practical enforcement of the law. Things can always be made safer in any situation but have to be proportionate to the problem. Driving a car after a glass of beer isn't IMHO a significant problem in our society. Doing so after 4,5,6 etc is. We should be concentrating on the idiots who do that and probably cause 99% of deaths attributable to alcohol and not at the bottom end where any affect will most probably be negligible at best.

I know one death is one too many but the real world has to have risks. Otherwise we would still have the man with the red flag.


----------



## Slime (Oct 27, 2014)

Slime said:



			I'm assuming that everybody on here who has branded  people such as myself as stupid, never drives above the *speed limit*  ........................... yeah, right!


*Slime*.
		
Click to expand...




JCW said:



			Should be ZERO , End off , wanna drink then do no not drive , *no need for limits then*

Click to expand...

Just about the most ridiculous thing I've heard in years!


*Slime*.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Oct 27, 2014)

When I use to drink regularly (every night) HID would sometimes pick me up at closing if the weather was crap (I know what a diamond she is). Police saw us leaving regularly and a number of times she got stopped on the assumption she must have been drinking. Funnily enough she even had the PJ's under her coat one time and they still didn't believe she'd literally come to pick me up.

As she's virtually teatotal (she wishes she'd stuck to that after lunch yesterday) you should see the look of utter disappointment when it didn't register a drop on her breath. In the end, she was getting pulled, they'd see who was driving, mumble some excuse and we'd be on our way


----------

