# Drink Driving Limit - Should it Be reduced



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

Another thread was talking about golf clubs drinking and it was starting to merge into a thread about the limits for drink driving 

For me its clear - the less alcohol in your system whilst in charge of a car is better - i would actually prefer to have the lowest possible limit to reduce as much as possible the chances of a drink driver causing harm - i have in the past lost two friends and seen one workmate paralysed due to drink drivers.

I dont see any negatives in reducing the limit that outweighs everyones safety .

Yes there the obvious policing issues and trying to enforce it which are imo a different issue

So the question is - should the limit be reduced - if yes down to what and if no why


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Another thread was talking about golf clubs drinking and it was starting to merge into a thread about the limits for drink driving 

For me its clear - the less alcohol in your system whilst in charge of a car is better - i would actually prefer to have the lowest possible limit to reduce as much as possible the chances of a drink driver causing harm - i have in the past lost two friends and seen one workmate paralysed due to drink drivers.

I dont see any negatives in reducing the limit that outweighs everyones safety .

Yes there the obvious policing issues and trying to enforce it which are imo a different issue

So the question is - should the limit be reduced - if yes down to what and if no why
		
Click to expand...

I assume this is an England/Wales only subject.

Yes, you should follow Scotland/Europe's example.

Before the Scottish law was changed I would occasionally have a second drink at home thinking I would probably still be legal for driving in an emergency.
I don't do that now.


----------



## Digger (Dec 3, 2017)

The only safe and fair limit is zero.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 3, 2017)

Digger said:



			The only safe and fair limit is zero.
		
Click to expand...

Only way really, then there is no way of making a mistake.


----------



## BrianM (Dec 3, 2017)

Pretty much zero tolerance in Scotland, I donâ€™t bother having a drink playing golf or after when driving.
If Iâ€™m playing on a Friday we normally get a taxi, so will have a couple of drams.
You have to watch the morning after as well.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Dec 3, 2017)

Digger said:



			The only safe and fair limit is zero.
		
Click to expand...

But how long would it take to have zero after youâ€™ve had a few beers?


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

Pin-seeker said:



			But how long would it take to have zero after youâ€™ve had a few beers?
		
Click to expand...

1hr per 1 ounce or 1 pint of beer will take 2hrs to break down.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 3, 2017)

The only safe way personally is zero, but that makes me a hypocrite as Iâ€™ll have a pint & drive now. Wonâ€™t do 2 anymore though, I might be safe/might not, I canâ€™t risk it.
How does zero tolerance deal with the day after? & medication etc?


----------



## Captainron (Dec 3, 2017)

The alcohol free beers available usually have 0.5% in them so I donâ€™t think it should be absolute zero. I think this should be reflected in the limit. If you drink these options then you will blow something above zero. 

Get 50 average people to drink 5 of these over 3 hours. Take a reading and use the mean reading plus 10% and make that the number.


----------



## Maninblack4612 (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			- i have in the past lost two friends and seen one workmate paralysed due to drink drivers.
		
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet they were all caused by people over the *current* limit which negates the argument that reducing the limit further will make things significantly safer. Increased detection would be a better deterrent. What's wrong with random checks outside pubs & clubs? If you're innocent you've nothing to fear. I'm certain that a number of our members drive home over the limit. A police car outside the gates would be a sobering (not literally!) reminder. 

The trouble with a zero limit is how do we know when all the alcohol has left our system? What about cough medicine? A reduction may be appropriate but not zero. 

The statistics are not available, I'm sure but to say "accidents are caused by people over the limit so let's reduce the limit" doesn't make sense.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

therod said:



			The only safe way personally is zero, but that makes me a hypocrite as Iâ€™ll have a pint & drive now. Wonâ€™t do 2 anymore though, I might be safe/might not, I canâ€™t risk it.
How does zero tolerance deal with the day after? & medication etc?
		
Click to expand...

I dont think it can be a zero limit- there will always be some very minimal limit of alcohol in the body. I would prefer to have the limit at a level where its not zero but you cant have one pint or even one unit


----------



## User20205 (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I dont think it can be a zero limit- there will always be some very minimal limit of alcohol in the body. I would prefer to have the limit at a level where its not zero but you cant have one pint or even one unit
		
Click to expand...

Maybe the Scottish way is the future....less than 1 pint? Trailblazers them Scottish!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2017)

Captainron said:



			The alcohol free beers available usually have 0.5% in them so I donâ€™t think it should be absolute zero. I think this should be reflected in the limit. If you drink these options then you will blow something above zero. 

Get 50 average people to drink 5 of these over 3 hours. Take a reading and use the mean reading plus 10% and make that the number.
		
Click to expand...

For a joke my SIL once served up a champagne trifle which was deadly, got TT Lady Doon quite tipsy.
So, not just drinks.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 3, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			For a joke my SIL once served up a champagne trifle which was deadly, got TT Lady Doon quite tipsy.
So, not just drinks.
		
Click to expand...

Bet that was a fun night in the Doon household? Did you show her the contents of your sporran?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 3, 2017)

I'd go with the Scottish limit. That allows for the sherry trifle, white wine sauce etc but not two pints or the large glasses of wine that many women now have like lemonade. Some of the old fashioned comments on the other thread have shocked me.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 3, 2017)

It can never be zero, there are medications that can cause false positives as well as some chemicals.

How much Police time would be wasted by people appealing and going through the mill?

Also some medications contain alcohol.

What is the justification for reducing it? Have we seen an increase in drink driving?
Personally believe weâ€™d be better off leaving the level were it is and go after the drug drivers.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I dont think it can be a zero limit- there will always be some very minimal limit of alcohol in the body. I would prefer to have the limit at a level where its not zero but you cant have one pint or even one unit
		
Click to expand...

In theory yes. 
But not sure itâ€™s that simple. 
If a 16st man as 1pint with a 3 course meal itâ€™s totally different to a 9st man with an empty stomach having 1pint.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 3, 2017)

Justification for reducing it in my eyes is too many people are riding on the edge or beyond the current one. "Two pints, fine, I can take my beer, I'm big, I can take three pints." The Scottish figure makes the situation very clear, one beer max, many not even chancing that now.


----------



## Jensen (Dec 3, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Justification for reducing it in my eyes is too many people are riding on the edge or beyond the current one. "Two pints, fine, I can take my beer, I'm big, I can take three pints." The Scottish figure makes the situation very clear, one beer max, many not even chancing that now.
		
Click to expand...

This &#128077;


----------



## hovis (Dec 3, 2017)

i attend more car crashes from elderly people not being aware than drunk driving,  drug driving and careless driving combined.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

hovis said:



			i attend more car crashes from elderly people not being aware than drunk driving,  drug driving and careless driving combined.
		
Click to expand...

So thatâ€™s a reason not to reduce the limit when looking at Alcohol specifically ?

http://www.ias.org.uk/News/2017/02-...-while-still-no-progress-reducing-deaths.aspx


----------



## Dellboy (Dec 3, 2017)

Leave it as is, just police it better.

Scotland only lowered it as they have a massive problem with drinking up there.


----------



## hovis (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So thatâ€™s a reason not to reduce the limit when looking at Alcohol specifically ?

http://www.ias.org.uk/News/2017/02-...-while-still-no-progress-reducing-deaths.aspx

Click to expand...

I'm simply saying that alot of emphasis gets put on alcohol limit and zero gets put on people that should no longer be behind the wheel.  

you have two types of drink drivers.   the ones that get hammered and drive and the ones that are aware they maybe just over the limit so concentrate harder.   I'd be willing to bet the person just over the limit and aware of it would be less likely to have an incident than Joe blogs driving to adsa


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 3, 2017)

hovis said:



			i attend more car crashes from elderly people not being aware than drunk driving,  drug driving and careless driving combined.
		
Click to expand...

My MiL is not safe to drive now, hasn't been for 12 months. She won't accept it, my FiL is bottling it. We tell them constantly and I have blocked her taking my kids in the car with her. Nothing we can do legally though. People should be 're-tested at 70 and every 3 years after that.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 3, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			My MiL is not safe to drive now, hasn't been for 12 months. She won't accept it, my FiL is bottling it. We tell them constantly and I have blocked her taking my kids in the car with her. Nothing we can do legally though. People should be 're-tested at 70 and every 3 years after that.
		
Click to expand...

Why 70?


----------



## hovis (Dec 3, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			My MiL is not safe to drive now, hasn't been for 12 months. She won't accept it, my FiL is bottling it. We tell them constantly and I have blocked her taking my kids in the car with her. Nothing we can do legally though. People should be 're-tested at 70 and every 3 years after that.
		
Click to expand...

there was a programme on not long ago about the elderly taking voluntary "assessments"   it was quite shocking to see how they drive and their refusal to accept they where a liability


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 3, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Why 70?
		
Click to expand...

I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere, personally think 70 these days is a bit low.

Lot of talk of the Scottish method on DD, how does that compensate for body mass and food intake, interested as I didn't realize it was different in Scotland.


----------



## patricks148 (Dec 3, 2017)

lets be honest here its not people slightly over the limit thats the problem its people who happily have way over, its an education thing. Look at mobile phones use while driving, illegal with a hefty penalty, yet you see people on a daily basis using them while driving.

theirs a few old guys at my club who drink heavily and get in the car after , ironically some of them live 2 min walk away. Someone had tipped the Police off as a couple of weeks ago they were waiting outside the gates to the club and stopping cars coming out.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2017)

Dellboy said:



			Leave it as is, just police it better.

Scotland only lowered it as they have a massive problem with drinking up there.
		
Click to expand...

Not true re drink driving..


37.5k charged in EngWaland
3.7 In Scotland


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 3, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere, personally think 70 these days is a bit low.

Lot of talk of the Scottish method on DD, how does that compensate for body mass and food intake, interested as I didn't realize it was different in Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™ve no issue with retests, my dad drove until his mid 80â€™s and was shocking, he denied it no matter how much we spoke to him about it, fair enough he never had an accident, but I wonder if he caused some.

Like you say 70 maybe low, but there has to be a line, wondered if Lord T based it on something.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 3, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Not true re drink driving..


37.5k charged in EngWaland
3.7 In Scotland
		
Click to expand...

Is that a % of population and from when we had the same limit?


----------



## jim8flog (Dec 3, 2017)

The trouble with a zero limit is that it is fairly easy to get alcohol in to one's system without actually taking it as a drink eg in some medicines.

It is a bit like having a zero drugs policy and the guy who lost his job after a drug test. The drug was in his system because he regularly ate seeded bread which contained poppy seeds.


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere, personally think 70 these days is a bit low.

Lot of talk of the Scottish method on DD, how does that compensate for body mass and food intake, interested as I didn't realize it was different in Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

There wouldn't need to be an age limit if doctors were allowed to report medical issues direct to the DVLC if driving is an issue, telling a patient they shouldn't drive isn't enough and won't be accepted by the elderly and those in denial!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Is that a % of population and from when we had the same limit?
		
Click to expand...

% of population does not apply, figures are number of convictions.

2015 figures, first year of new figures.......stating 14% drop.
So like for like must still have been marginally less in 2014 in Scotland

Not the 'massive' as poster stated.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 3, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			% of population does not apply, figures are number of convictions.

2015 figures, first year of new figures.......stating 14% drop.
So like for like must still have been marginally less in 2014 in Scotland

Not the 'massive' as poster stated.
		
Click to expand...

Good to see the figures drop, but the rest is guesswork, surely % matters, how many breath tests were carried out, Scotland could of had a massive clampdown or eased off due to new limit.

It needs to be a level playing field or the numbers tell you nothing.


----------



## Imurg (Dec 3, 2017)

Is the person 1% below the limit really much safer than the person 1% over?
Although being over the limit obviously isn't good, if you're just over it you're very marginally more dangerous than someone marginally under it.
The serial offenders 2-3-4 times over are the dangerous ones and no reduction in the limit is going to have an effect on them..
And, although over the limit, a serial drinker who is just over could be safer than an occasional drinker just under as the Wino may have built up a "resistance" to the effects.
Add into that then fact that you've actually got to try quite hard to get caught as there's simply not enough Police patrols to catch offenders

 C&P from the Bar Levy thread....

I think going after Drug Drivers is becoming more necessary than dropping the drink limit. 
I follow the local police on twitter and 3-4 times a week they post that they've stopped someone with drugs in their system...


----------



## Tashyboy (Dec 3, 2017)

jim8flog said:



			The trouble with a zero limit is that it is fairly easy to get alcohol in to one's system without actually taking it as a drink eg in some medicines.

It is a bit like having a zero drugs policy and the guy who lost his job after a drug test. The drug was in his system because he regularly ate seeded bread which contained poppy seeds.
		
Click to expand...

This,&#128077;. there was a guy at work who failed a random drug test. He dosent drink and certainly doesn't do drugs. Not only did he fail it he had to let the fire service know. He was retained. They were fantastic, it was them who picked up on his seeded bread drug addiction. All was well in the end.
Re alcohol drink or drive. It should be one or the other. Problem is now is that it is the " culture " of some Eastern Europeans to drink and drive.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

Seen since the limit was reduced in Scotland there have been a reduction in deaths on the road - the level been reduced in Sweden also resulted in a reduction in the level of deaths on the road and drink driving incidents 

Yes there are other areas to look at including speed and the old age drivers and people on drugs ( same level required - lowest possible ) 

So far a number have voted no but not seen any reasons why we shouldnâ€™t reduce the level that outweigh the possibility of saving a life ?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 3, 2017)

I voted No because simply lowering it isnâ€™t enough on itâ€™s own, it doesnâ€™t target the serial offenders.

Using Scotland as the example, there is an increase in the amount of people getting done the next day when they thought they were ok.

Countries in Europe who have the lower level also introduced incremental penalties, ie. Today 51mg is fine, tomorrow 51mg gets you a 12 month ban and a fine, maybe itâ€™s a lesser fine or ban and accumalative if caught again.

We donâ€™t have enough Police to enforce it.

One other bit is, I believe in Scotland it also led to pub/restaurants going out of business which is also putting more on the dole queue and loss of revenue to the government.

Happy to see it reduced if done sensibly and with measures put in place.


----------



## bigslice (Dec 3, 2017)

My neighbour will say in his late 50s. Was at his partners house for dinner 5 streets away. Had his car with him and swears he had 2 glasses if wine. Drove home about 2 am. Got stopped and done lost his license. Only stopped him cos it was a big flash dear car incase it had been stolen. That for me made me think about the 1 or two drinks i may have. Never again


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 3, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Why 70?
		
Click to expand...

I like a nice neat number &#128513;. Take your pick, 65, 68, 70. I wouldn't go later than 70 for the first 're-test. No I can not back that up with a published university study following 27,000 elderly drivers, but me eyes and experience suggest that reactions and dangerous driving happens with a greater proportion of drivers at 70+ than 50+.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 3, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Not true re drink driving..


37.5k charged in EngWaland
3.7 In Scotland
		
Click to expand...

The problem in Scotland is not just about drink driving, it's about heavy drinking full stop. The gov't are trying to tackle that and I applaud them for it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 3, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I like a nice neat number ðŸ˜. Take your pick, 65, 68, 70. I wouldn't go later than 70 for the first 're-test. No I can not back that up with a published university study following 27,000 elderly drivers, but me eyes and experience suggest that reactions and dangerous driving happens with a greater proportion of drivers at 70+ than 50+.
		
Click to expand...

Just wondered :thup: with the rise in pension age weâ€™ll end up with the majority still working when they get to 70.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 3, 2017)

That's true but it doesn't mean they are all safe to drive.

The increase in pension age is a huge issue. People having to work when they may not want to. Employees having to keep people on when they are simply not up to it anymore. Younger workers blocked from progressing upwards. Easy for politicians to increase it when they are not affected.


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

bigslice said:



			My neighbour will say in his late 50s. Was at his partners house for dinner 5 streets away. Had his car with him and swears he had 2 glasses if wine. Drove home about 2 am. Got stopped and done lost his license. Only stopped him cos it was a big flash dear car incase it had been stolen. That for me made me think about the 1 or two drinks i may have. Never again
		
Click to expand...

The barometer isnâ€™t 2 glasses of anything, which he found out!

A glass of wine has more [units] than a beer (ale) which is 2 units, a strong lager or cider is 3 units, so just saying Iâ€™ve had 2 glasses of anything alcoholic isnâ€™t a good judgment call. Plus many wines are now served and pushed in larger glass sizes, 2 large glasses of wine would be the equivalent to drinking 3 pints of beer, but Iâ€™ve only had 2 glasses ossifer ðŸ˜œ


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2017)

Two glasses is half a bottle in many establishments.

I remember my old mum complaining of feeling tipsy when she had 'only' had two glasses.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The problem in Scotland is not just about drink driving, it's about heavy drinking full stop. The gov't are trying to tackle that and I applaud them for it.
		
Click to expand...

They are doing a really good job on alcohol abuse, stopping sectarian rubbish at fitba and child protection.

It is amazing how much criticism they receive from 'certain quarters' for tackling these three problem areas.

Surprised by the GM poll so far.......The Scots were largely in favour of the alcohol move.


----------



## jim8flog (Dec 3, 2017)

Fish said:



			The barometer isnâ€™t 2 glasses of anything, which he found out!

A glass of wine has more [units] than a beer (ale) which is 2 units, a strong lager or cider is 3 units, so just saying Iâ€™ve had 2 glasses of anything alcoholic isnâ€™t a good judgment call. Plus many wines are now served and pushed in larger glass sizes, 2 large glasses of wine would be the equivalent to drinking 3 pints of beer, but Iâ€™ve only had 2 glasses ossifer ï˜œ
		
Click to expand...

This reminded me of going in to hospital for a pre med questionnaire- when it came to the amount of units I drank a week it made the nurse realise that the NHS unit value for wine was way off. The unit value had probably been calculated when most wines were around 8-10 proof instead of the current 12-15 proof.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2017)

I've voted no. The why is quite simple, for me. How many people just under the current England/Wales limit have caused an accident due to drink? The answer is no one knows. Provide evidence for a case for a change and I'm sure supporting it wouldn't be a problem.

The "it should be zero" seems such a knee jerk, emotional response. Where's the evidence to support zero being the right option? "Yes but it might save one life." Really, and the evidence is...

If we're going to go down the road, no pun intended, of looking at what things can cause problems when driving, where do we draw the line? "I've just done a 14 hour shift, therefore its illegal to drive." "I've just had a double shot mocha, and I'm wired to the moon, therefore I shouldn't drive." "I haven't eaten since breakfast, therefore I shouldn't drive."

Should we draw a line on age, and say mandatory retests? My dad drove similar miles to me, 20k to 30k, a year. In his last 5 years he scared the living daylights out of me. Many years ago our neighbour used to count 3 cars at a junction then pull out regardless.

I agree with Fish that for any conditions that might inhibit driving the doctor should inform the DVLA. However, like the drunk driver, that only sends a message that they shouldn't drive.


----------



## jim8flog (Dec 3, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Two glasses is half a bottle in many establishments.

I remember my old mum complaining of feeling tipsy when she had 'only' had two glasses.
		
Click to expand...

In a lot of places a large wine is now 250ml with just 750ml in a bottle.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 3, 2017)

Digger said:



			The only safe and fair limit is zero.
		
Click to expand...

Completely impractical and counterproductive; you'll end up picking up more "drink drivers" in morning after rush hour RTA's as you will tools who get completely hammered and who really are a danger.



Captainron said:



			The alcohol free beers available usually have 0.5% in them so I donâ€™t think it should be absolute zero. I think this should be reflected in the limit. If you drink these options then you will blow something above zero. 

Get 50 average people to drink 5 of these over 3 hours. Take a reading and use the mean reading plus 10% and make that the number.
		
Click to expand...

Like the thinking. 



Maninblack4612 said:



			I'm willing to bet they were all caused by people over the *current* limit which negates the argument that reducing the limit further will make things significantly safer. Increased detection would be a better deterrent. What's wrong with random checks outside pubs & clubs? If you're innocent you've nothing to fear. I'm certain that a number of our members drive home over the limit. A police car outside the gates would be a sobering (not literally!) reminder. 

The trouble with a zero limit is how do we know when all the alcohol has left our system? What about cough medicine? A reduction may be appropriate but not zero. 

The statistics are not available, I'm sure but to say "accidents are caused by people over the limit so let's reduce the limit" doesn't make sense.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on.



hovis said:



			i attend more car crashes from elderly people not being aware than drunk driving,  drug driving and careless driving combined.
		
Click to expand...

I can quite believe that.



Dellboy said:



			Leave it as is, just police it better.
		
Click to expand...

Is the correct answer. :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

So with the reduction in crashes and deaths as a result in alcohol in both Scotland and Sweden after they decided to reduce the level not justification to look at the drink drive limits ?

What harm would it cause to reduce to the same limit as Scotland where itâ€™s shown to help ? 

If just one single unit can impairs someone ability to drive just a touch isnâ€™t it worth then to reduce the limit ? 

Do people really need to have that second unit when they are going to drive ? 

Would the world stop turning if someone didnâ€™t have that second pint at the club 

Iâ€™m certainly all for police cars outside golf clubs - wish they did it to ours because there are certain people that do drive after having more than the little.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Iâ€™m certainly all for police cars outside golf clubs - wish they did it to ours because there are certain people that do drive after having more than the little.
		
Click to expand...

Why donâ€™t you report them to your local police station?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



*So with the reduction in crashes and deaths as a result in alcohol in both Scotland and Sweden after they decided to reduce the level not justification to look at the drink drive limits ?*

What harm would it cause to reduce to the same limit as Scotland where itâ€™s shown to help ? 

If just one single unit can impairs someone ability to drive just a touch isnâ€™t it worth then to reduce the limit ? 

Do people really need to have that second unit when they are going to drive ? 

Would the world stop turning if someone didnâ€™t have that second pint at the club 

Iâ€™m certainly all for police cars outside golf clubs - wish they did it to ours because there are certain people that do drive after having more than the little.
		
Click to expand...

The fatality numbers have generally been falling year on year since 2000, so how much of these reductions you claim are down to the reduced alcohol limits and how many would have happened anyway?  And given the amount of time that it takes for these statistics to come through, are we yet comparing like with like? I doubt it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

Blue in Munich said:



			The fatality numbers have generally been falling year on year since 2000, so how much of these reductions you claim are down to the reduced alcohol limits and how many would have happened anyway?  And given the amount of time that it takes for these statistics to come through, are we yet comparing like with like? I doubt it.
		
Click to expand...

Why are you so against a drop to the same level as Scotland - whatâ€™s the negative when itâ€™s going to reduce the risk on the road ?


----------



## Khamelion (Dec 3, 2017)

Yes and a low a realistically possible.

Over Christmas a home made Christmas cake with a shed load of whiskey or brandy in it could put someone over if there was zero tolerance.

The simple answer is if you are going to drink then do not drive, even one 330ml bottle or a half or a shandy (for the southern lot read lager top) don't do it.

And for that matter if you've been out the night before and had a skinful don't drive the following morning, you're very likely to still be over the limit


----------



## anotherdouble (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So with the reduction in crashes and deaths as a result in alcohol in both Scotland and Sweden after they decided to reduce the level not justification to look at the drink drive limits ?

What harm would it cause to reduce to the same limit as Scotland where itâ€™s shown to help ? 

If just one single unit can impairs someone ability to drive just a touch isnâ€™t it worth then to reduce the limit ? 

Do people really need to have that second unit when they are going to drive ? 

Would the world stop turning if someone didnâ€™t have that second pint at the club 

*Iâ€™m certainly all for police cars outside golf clubs - wish they did it to ours because there are certain people that do drive after having more than the little.*

Click to expand...

*

*


And how many times have you rang the police and reported these people


----------



## Imurg (Dec 3, 2017)

But is it?
The level is 80 mg per 100 millilitres of blood.
You need to know how many accidents/crashes are caused by drivers in the 40-80 level.
Without that data you can't make a judgement. For all we know there could be no crashes caused by drivers in that sector...
Therefore reducing the level will have zero effect on numbers of crashes and it will become a tax raising system penalising people instead of reducing crashes.


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why are you so against a drop to the same level as Scotland - whatâ€™s the negative when itâ€™s going to reduce the risk on the road ?
		
Click to expand...

Whereâ€™s the proof thatâ€™s itâ€™s going to reduce the risk?

When Iâ€™ve had 2 pints which I know I am under the limit with as Iâ€™ve been stopped after consuming 2 pints and blew under the limit, I drive far more consciously, I donâ€™t speed or take any risks that I most certainly would if I hadnâ€™t drank anything!  

Those that get done or have caused accidents whilst drunk are always well over the limit, so the limit is irrelevant, it wouldnâ€™t matter if the limit was 2, 1 or zero, those people think the law doesnâ€™t apply to them so they will still drink & drive. 

Itâ€™s a knee jerk reaction and it doesnâ€™t or wonâ€™t have any affect on those who drink in excess of the current limits.


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

Imurg said:



			But is it?
The level is 80 mg per 100 millilitres of blood.
You need to know how many accidents/crashes are caused by drivers in the 40-80 level.
Without that data you can't make a judgement. For all we know there could be no crashes caused by drivers in that sector...
Therefore reducing the level will have zero effect on numbers of crashes and it will become a tax raising system penalising people instead of reducing crashes.
		
Click to expand...

This &#128077;


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why are you so against a drop to the same level as Scotland - whatâ€™s the negative when itâ€™s going to reduce the risk on the road ?
		
Click to expand...




Imurg said:



			But is it?
The level is 80 mg per 100 millilitres of blood.
You need to know how many accidents/crashes are caused by drivers in the 40-80 level.
Without that data you can't make a judgement. For all we know there could be no crashes caused by drivers in that sector...
Therefore reducing the level will have zero effect on numbers of crashes and it will become a tax raising system penalising people instead of reducing crashes.
		
Click to expand...




Fish said:



			Whereâ€™s the proof thatâ€™s itâ€™s going to reduce the risk?

When Iâ€™ve had 2 pints which I know I am under the limit with as Iâ€™ve been stopped after consuming 2 pints and blew under the limit, I drive far more consciously, I donâ€™t speed or take any risks that I most certainly would if I hadnâ€™t drank anything!  

Those that get done or have caused accidents whilst drunk are always well over the limit, so the limit is irrelevant, it wouldnâ€™t matter if the limit was 2, 1 or zero, those people think the law doesnâ€™t apply to them so they will still drink & drive. 

Itâ€™s a knee jerk reaction and it doesnâ€™t or wonâ€™t have any affect on those who drink in excess of the current limits.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you Imurg & Fish for saving me the effort.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

Fish said:



			Whereâ€™s the proof thatâ€™s itâ€™s going to reduce the risk?

When Iâ€™ve had 2 pints which I know I am under the limit with as Iâ€™ve been stopped after consuming 2 pints and blew under the limit, I drive far more consciously, I donâ€™t speed or take any risks that I most certainly would if I hadnâ€™t drank anything!  

Those that get done or have caused accidents whilst drunk are always well over the limit, so the limit is irrelevant, it wouldnâ€™t matter if the limit was 2, 1 or zero, those people think the law doesnâ€™t apply to them so they will still drink & drive. 

Itâ€™s a knee jerk reaction and it doesnâ€™t or wonâ€™t have any affect on those who drink in excess of the current limits.
		
Click to expand...

*Scientific evidence from around the world has agreed that when a personâ€™s alcohol level is over 50mg, their driving is impaired. A comprehensive review in 2010 by NICE concluded there is sufficiently strong evidence of the effectiveness of lowering the legal limit to help reduce road traffic injuries and deaths in certain contexts. This was shown to result in around 25 lives being saved, preventing 95 people from suffering serious injury. A 2010 World Health Organization review of alcohol interventions and strategies, found drink driving laws to be one of the most effective interventions.*

https://www.bma.org.uk/collective-v...alth/alcohol/reducing-the-drink-driving-limit

Itâ€™s also reduced the amount of people that have been caught drink driving 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-34999421

Reducing the limit means imo less people will take the risk for that one extra drink - what it also does is cover all bases from the person who has an empty stomach to the guy who thinks he is fine but his reactions will be impaired 

Even having two pints some people will suddenly feel more confident more brave but reactions will be affected.

*If the Police Federation are correct, and the message about the dangers of drink driving isnâ€™t getting through to drivers, then the scientific evidence seems to support the idea that a reduction in the limit would lead to fewer accidents, as it seems that the more alcohol you drink, the more you are impaired. As NICEâ€™s guidelines state â€œstudies consistently demonstrate that the risk of having an accident increases exponentially as more alcohol is consumedâ€.*

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....upport-a-reduction-in-the-drink-driving-limit



So whatâ€™s the negative of reducing the level ?


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So with the reduction in crashes and deaths as a result in alcohol in both Scotland and Sweden after they decided to reduce the level not justification to look at the drink drive limits ?
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like reasonable justification to me. But that is to look at, not change. Change if the data clearly shows that a drop in the permitted level will reduce accidents.

A question in relation to the stats for Sweden and Scotland; is the reduction in accidents due to reducing the limit or is it due to the focus and education placed on the reduced limit?

Strangely enough RTA's due to DD have been reducing almost every year since the DD limits were brought in, and have continued to drop in England and Wales without reducing the limits further. Drink related RTA's have dropped by over 66% since the introduction of the limits, and RTA deaths have reduced by 88%. 

As to your list of questions; all very valid questions. But that's all they are, valid questions. And until those questions are answered I see no point in making the change...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Sounds like reasonable justification to me. But that is to look at, not change. Change if the data clearly shows that a drop in the permitted level will reduce accidents.

A question in relation to the stats for Sweden and Scotland; is the reduction in accidents due to reducing the limit or is it due to the focus and education placed on the reduced limit?

Strangely enough RTA's due to DD have been reducing almost every year since the DD limits were brought in, and have continued to drop in England and Wales without reducing the limits further. Drink related RTA's have dropped by over 66% since the introduction of the limits, and RTA deaths have reduced by 88%. 

As to your list of questions; all very valid questions. But that's all they are, valid questions. And until those questions are answered I see no point in making the change...
		
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that better education along with hard hitting campaigns in the media will also have an affect - for me to put on top of that a reduction in the limit if it would prob save one life then itâ€™s worth it but I suspect it would save more than one a year. 

I have no doubt there are plenty out there who are below the current legal limit but there ability to drive safely has been comprised due to that second or even in some cases that first drink.

I donâ€™t think there is ever any negative that outweighs safety in regards dropping the limit and hopefully itâ€™s only a matter of time until it happens.

As for the questions in regards phoning police in regards someone drink driving - yes I have.


----------



## anotherdouble (Dec 3, 2017)

I ask again phil how many of the people at your club have you reported to the police for possibly being over the limit when driving home
Sorry just seen your answer. You should be doing it every day you see somebody not just yes you have. You asked for a poll and because you don't like some people's responses you are turning what was initially a good thread into a question time type debate and won't accept anybody's answer that doesn't agree to your way of thinking. If I had lost 2 friends and seen another disabled I would be on the phone every single minute if somebody had had even 2 pints. But something nags at me that you don't do this. I could be wrong and couldn't disprove anyway


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I have no doubt that better education along with hard hitting campaigns in the media will also have an affect - for me to put on top of that a reduction in the limit if it would prob save one life then itâ€™s worth it but I suspect it would save more than one a year. 

I have no doubt there are plenty out there who are below the current legal limit but there ability to drive safely has been comprised due to that second or even in some cases that first drink.

I donâ€™t think there is ever any negative that outweighs safety in regards dropping the limit and hopefully itâ€™s only a matter of time until it happens.

As for the questions in regards phoning police in regards someone drink driving - yes I have.
		
Click to expand...

"Probably" and "suspect" don't make definitive answers. And where is the line for an acceptable reaction time? Does a 10mg limit mean 5 yards? Even 5 yards could mean life or death. 

The 80mg limit was brought in based on evidence. If further evidence determines the need for change, fine go for it. But I'm not for change based on the emotional argument you put forward. Prove the argument and I'm happy to support it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			"Probably" and "suspect" don't make definitive answers. And where is the line for an acceptable reaction time? Does a 10mg limit mean 5 yards? Even 5 yards could mean life or death. 

The 80mg limit was brought in based on evidence. If further evidence determines the need for change, fine go for it. But I'm not for change based on the emotional argument you put forward. Prove the argument and I'm happy to support it.
		
Click to expand...

The report done in 2010 by NICE did recommend reducing the level - it appears our government rejected the idea of reducing the levels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12806554

*Sir Peter, a leading academic and legal expert, had made a total of 51 recommendations in his report last year, including lowering the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg.

Based on new research by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), he said that as many as 168 lives - about 7% of UK road deaths - could be saved by a reduced drink-drive limit in the first year.

This could rise to as many as 303 lives by the sixth year, he said.*


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The report done in 2010 by NICE did recommend reducing the level - it appears our government rejected the idea of reducing the levels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12806554

*Sir Peter, a leading academic and legal expert, had made a total of 51 recommendations in his report last year, including lowering the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg.

Based on new research by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), he said that as many as 168 lives - about 7% of UK road deaths - could be saved by a reduced drink-drive limit in the first year.

This could rise to as many as 303 lives by the sixth year, he said.*

Click to expand...

Wow!!

It could save 303 lives a year!! Super wow!!

You do realise that the number of RTA drink related deaths is already down to 170 deaths... so please tell me how Sir Peter's figures compute when the total is already below 303. Well, that sure does make Sir Peter's report accurate. Thank goodness a government decided to ignore his flawed thinking.


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The report done in 2010 by NICE did recommend reducing the level - it appears our government rejected the idea of reducing the levels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12806554

*Sir Peter, a leading academic and legal expert, had made a total of 51 recommendations in his report last year, including lowering the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg.

Based on new research by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), he said that as many as 168 lives - about 7% of UK road deaths - could be saved by a reduced drink-drive limit in the first year.

This could rise to as many as 303 lives by the sixth year, he said.*

Click to expand...

So heâ€™s concluded that 168 lives would be saved in year one because that amount of deaths (and more) were caused by people driving with alcohol in them under 80mg but over 50mg, so as it stood, they were driving legally but heâ€™s stating that at least 168 lives would have been saved just in that bracket (30mg variable) alone which justifies it being lowered. 

I say, show me those figures!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Wow!!

It could save 303 lives a year!! Super wow!!

You do realise that the number of RTA drink related deaths is already down to 170 deaths... so please tell me how Sir Peter's figures compute when the total is already below 303. Well, that sure does make Sir Peter's report accurate. Thank goodness a government decided to ignore his flawed thinking.
		
Click to expand...


http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ndependent.gov.uk/docs/NorthReview-Report.pdf

Full report is there 

People wanted research well there is it. The report was requested by the Transport Secretary


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

anotherdouble said:



			I ask again phil how many of the people at your club have you reported to the police for possibly being over the limit when driving home
Sorry just seen your answer. You should be doing it every day you see somebody not just yes you have. You asked for a poll and because you don't like some people's responses you are turning what was initially a good thread into a question time type debate and won't accept anybody's answer that doesn't agree to your way of thinking. If I had lost 2 friends and seen another disabled I would be on the phone every single minute if somebody had had even 2 pints. But something nags at me that you don't do this. I could be wrong and couldn't disprove anyway
		
Click to expand...

Why ring for 2 pints, Iâ€™d say that would blow negative and below the majority of the time, if not immediately the definitely the second blow would be lower or if taken in to the machine at the station that was then lower, then you walk free as itâ€™s coming out of your system. 

I wonder at his clubs dinner functions when seeing presidents and long serving distinguished members (ex captains etc) awash with beer or wine heâ€™s reported, Iâ€™d bet none! 

I wonder if heâ€™s ever drove over 70mph on the motorway, or is that different ðŸ¤”


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ndependent.gov.uk/docs/NorthReview-Report.pdf

Full report is there 

People wanted research well there is it. The report was requested by the Transport Secretary
		
Click to expand...

Yes we did, to back up your arguments, not just cut & paste what youâ€™ve now found through Google which doesnâ€™t substantiate anything as itâ€™s flawed which is why it probably got thrown out! 

I want proof that the 30mg variable will save lives because in that bracket alone xyz amount of lives were lost, if there is no evidence of that because those accidents were all over 80mgâ€™s anyway, then why will those that flaunted the law at that level be any different with it being lowered, imo they wonâ€™t! 

Itâ€™s a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ndependent.gov.uk/docs/NorthReview-Report.pdf

Full report is there 

People wanted research well there is it. The report was requested by the Transport Secretary
		
Click to expand...

And the recommendations from that report have been shown to be flawed. Data in the report is unquestionable but interpretations, assumptions and subsequent recommendations need to be reviewed.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			And the recommendations from that report have been shown to be flawed. Data in the report is unquestionable but interpretations, assumptions and subsequent recommendations need to be reviewed.
		
Click to expand...

Scotland introduced the recommended level - has that shown to be flawed or has there been reduction in drink driving offences in Scotland ?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Scotland introduced the recommended level - has that shown to be flawed or has there been reduction in drink driving offences in Scotland ?
		
Click to expand...

Surley if no figures are available as to numbers actually breath tested to actual over the limit cases a comparison cannot be made.

reduction could be for a number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with drinking.


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 3, 2017)

People cause road deaths by driving like idiots. Even when sober. Its driving like an idiot that needs to be clamped down on. Anything else is papering over the issue.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2017)

Scotland are doing joined up thinking.

Ban on multiple unit price reduction on alcohol sold. eg [3 for Â£10]
Minimum price per unit.
Lower breath test limit.

Seems to be working.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 3, 2017)

murphthemog said:



			People cause road deaths by driving like idiots. Even when sober. Its driving like an idiot that needs to be clamped down on. Anything else is papering over the issue.
		
Click to expand...

Now there's a novel approach.


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

murphthemog said:



			People cause road deaths by driving like idiots. Even when sober. Its driving like an idiot that needs to be clamped down on. Anything else is papering over the issue.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, since I bought myself a dash cam I am notably much more conscious of my speed and driving habits.

So, new cars should have built in dash cams linked to a [black box], this would cut out so much idiotic driving imo.


----------



## User20205 (Dec 3, 2017)

murphthemog said:



			People cause road deaths by driving like idiots. Even when sober. Its driving like an idiot that needs to be clamped down on. Anything else is papering over the issue.
		
Click to expand...

Donâ€™t disagree, but is a drunken idiot is more dangerous than a sober idiot?
I donâ€™t really like the attitude of â€˜Iâ€™ve had x pints I know that Iâ€™m okâ€™ but does that make me a hypocrite as Iâ€™ll readily have 1 & drive ?


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Scotland are doing joined up thinking.

Ban on multiple unit price reduction on alcohol sold. eg [3 for Â£10]
Minimum price per unit.
Lower breath test limit.

Seems to be working.
		
Click to expand...

Thatâ€™s because Scotland has a drinking problem, not so much associated to driving, just in general.


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 3, 2017)

It's a politicians response [to lower the limit] got to be seen to be doing something...

How about making enough resources available for the current limit to be properly policed first...


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 3, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Scotland are doing joined up thinking.

Ban on multiple unit price reduction on alcohol sold. eg [3 for Â£10]
Minimum price per unit.
Lower breath test limit.

Seems to be working.
		
Click to expand...

Go on... How do you know it's working or not...


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Scotland introduced the recommended level - has that shown to be flawed or has there been reduction in drink driving offences in Scotland ?
		
Click to expand...

You're repeating yourself now, and we're going around in circles.

What were Scotland's DD stats before the new limit? Everyone talks about they have/had a drink problem. Have they only come down to levels similar to the rest of the UK? If you look at their current conviction rates you will see that give or take just a few points of 1% either way all that Scotland has achieved is to bring their DD level down to that of England and Wales. And then there's the earlier question I asked about whether or not the added education and focus has forced down the numbers?

You repeating the same points still hasn't moved the debate forward.

The main thing that sees reductions, and has done for the last 25 years, is education. A reduction of 66% in accidents and 88% reduction in deaths has been achieved by education, without reducing the limit.

And I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying show new evidence, or at least lets have new recommendations that hold more water than Sir Peter's.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Seen since the limit was reduced in Scotland there have been a reduction in deaths on the road - the level been reduced in Sweden also resulted in a reduction in the level of deaths on the road and drink driving incidents 

Yes there are other areas to look at including speed and the old age drivers and people on drugs ( same level required - lowest possible ) 

So far a number have voted no but not seen any reasons why we shouldnâ€™t reduce the level that outweigh the possibility of saving a life ?
		
Click to expand...

I've never agreed with the "if it saves one person" mantra on many issues.

We can over-regulate too many things IMO.

Also, in a recent trial it was found that people were less stressed driving at 60mph than 50mph in average speed areas.

Who'd a thought that driving faster would be safer?

Its like the extension of 20mph zones, can hardly go anywhere now without going through them. No problem on quiet residential streets, but starting to become main roads also. SO, ok if we lower all roads down to 10 mph, and it saves just one life..........


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2017)

The lower the limit, having the 'one more' that takes you over the limit is less likely to take you into dangerous territory in respect of reactions etc.  In extremis - with zero tolerance one pint would take you over the legal limit - but wouldn't take you into dangerous territory - all other things being equal.  But with drink; prescription drugs; distractions and tiredness, one pint could well be the thing, on top of everything else, that takes you into dangerous driving territory.

But this is easy for me to say as I don't drink alcohol.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			You're repeating yourself now, and we're going around in circles.

What were Scotland's DD stats before the new limit? Everyone talks about they have/had a drink problem. Have they only come down to levels similar to the rest of the UK? If you look at their current conviction rates you will see that give or take just a few points of 1% either way all that Scotland has achieved is to bring their DD level down to that of England and Wales. And then there's the earlier question I asked about whether or not the added education and focus has forced down the numbers?

You repeating the same points still hasn't moved the debate forward.

The main thing that sees reductions, and has done for the last 25 years, is education. A reduction of 66% in accidents and 88% reduction in deaths has been achieved by education, without reducing the limit.

And I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying show new evidence, or at least lets have new recommendations that hold more water than Sir Peter's.
		
Click to expand...

Total DD offences in Scotland after the introduction of the new limit fell 12% in the 9 months after - from 4200 offences to 3600 

Was it education or people being put off by the new limit and no longer having any drinks before driving - either way itâ€™s a reduction 

I have asked a number of times what the actual negative is in reducing the limit ? Will it increase the amount of drink drivers ? Will it harm anyone ? Or are people just reacting because itâ€™s a change they donâ€™t like because it would stop them having a second pint before driving ? Yep we have seen reductions already with education and media campaigns but wouldnâ€™t reducing them further be a good thing 

Why is it being treated as such a bad thing to reduce the limit ? The car is the most dangerous weapon we can get our hands on - surely by trying to ensure are abilities arenâ€™t affected by alcohol before we drive can only be a good thing yes ? Why such a bad reaction from some ? Why such opposition to something that could save lives and whilst a report has been dismissed it was conducted by experts.

What is the negative to reducing the drink drive limit to a level that is seen all over the world ? Whatâ€™s wrong with doing what Scotland and others have done and seeing what happens ?


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Total DD offences in Scotland after the introduction of the new limit fell 12% in the 9 months after - from 4200 offences to 3600
		
Click to expand...


Was this with the same level of testing?


----------



## Imurg (Dec 3, 2017)

Got any crash or KSI data for the same period?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2017)

MegaSteve said:



			Go on... How do you know it's working or not...
		
Click to expand...

I think the main bit is anecdotal about how much less alcohol folks are drinking at home and being more aware of the morning after breath test.
Whither it works or not is obviously long term.
Minimum pricing has yet to be introduced but the drop in DD arrests seem to be a fairly obvious indicator of the other two.


----------



## Imurg (Dec 3, 2017)

The negative is, if there is no change to the number of crashes or injuries after the reduction, all you are doing is creating more "criminals" by lowering the limit.
The number of offences is red herring. As I said earlier, is one person 1% over the limit -any limit - really any more dangerous than someone 1% below it..?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			You're repeating yourself now, and we're going around in circles.

What were Scotland's DD stats before the new limit? Everyone talks about they have/had a drink problem. Have they only come down to levels similar to the rest of the UK? If you look at their current conviction rates you will see that give or take just a few points of 1% either way all that Scotland has achieved is to bring their DD level down to that of England and Wales. And then there's the earlier question I asked about whether or not the added education and focus has forced down the numbers?

You repeating the same points still hasn't moved the debate forward.

The main thing that sees reductions, and has done for the last 25 years, is education. A reduction of 66% in accidents and 88% reduction in deaths has been achieved by education, without reducing the limit.

And I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying show new evidence, or at least lets have new recommendations that hold more water than Sir Peter's.
		
Click to expand...

Being totally pendantic now, but countering the guys who wish to keep the drink/drive level the same.

How on earth would anyone know that education resulted in such a fall. ?

Safer cars and roads must be a more significant factor.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2017)

N Ireland are also dropping their limit and then even further for new and professional drivers - so soon England And Wales will have the highest drink drive limit in Europe

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39155282


----------



## pokerjoke (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Total DD offences in Scotland after the introduction of the new limit fell 12% in the 9 months after - from 4200 offences to 3600 

Was it education or people being put off by the new limit and no longer having any drinks before driving - either way itâ€™s a reduction 

I have asked a number of times what the actual negative is in reducing the limit ? Will it increase the amount of drink drivers ? Will it harm anyone ? Or are people just reacting because itâ€™s a change they donâ€™t like because it would stop them having a second pint before driving ? Yep we have seen reductions already with education and media campaigns but wouldnâ€™t reducing them further be a good thing 

Why is it being treated as such a bad thing to reduce the limit ? The car is the most dangerous weapon we can get our hands on - surely by trying to ensure are abilities arenâ€™t affected by alcohol before we drive can only be a good thing yes ? Why such a bad reaction from some ? Why such opposition to something that could save lives and whilst a report has been dismissed it was conducted by experts.

What is the negative to reducing the drink drive limit to a level that is seen all over the world ? Whatâ€™s wrong with doing what Scotland and others have done and seeing what happens ?
		
Click to expand...

Is a car really the most dangerous weapon we can get our hands on? serious question because clearly its not.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Total DD offences in Scotland after the introduction of the new limit fell 12% in the 9 months after - from 4200 offences to 3600 

Was it education or people being put off by the new limit and no longer having any drinks before driving - either way itâ€™s a reduction 

I have asked a number of times what the actual negative is in reducing the limit ? Will it increase the amount of drink drivers ? Will it harm anyone ? Or are people just reacting because itâ€™s a change they donâ€™t like because it would stop them having a second pint before driving ? Yep we have seen reductions already with education and media campaigns but wouldnâ€™t reducing them further be a good thing 

Why is it being treated as such a bad thing to reduce the limit ? The car is the most dangerous weapon we can get our hands on - surely by trying to ensure are abilities arenâ€™t affected by alcohol before we drive can only be a good thing yes ? Why such a bad reaction from some ? Why such opposition to something that could save lives and whilst a report has been dismissed it was conducted by experts.

What is the negative to reducing the drink drive limit to a level that is seen all over the world ? Whatâ€™s wrong with doing what Scotland and others have done and seeing what happens ?
		
Click to expand...

Your first point, about the 12% reduction in Scotland. If that limit reduction hadn't been done, and the reduction in offences achieved through more education, you wouldn't have to fight your way through tumbleweed in most golf club bars. I am amazed at the difference between golf club bars in England and those up here. And don't forget, all that been achieved in Scotland is to get the offence rate a smidge either side of England and Wales numbers.

The 12% reduction is a positive and a negative. Its severely impacted on business. If that impact had been achieved by more education its a win-win.

I'd loved to see the number of accidents reduced further, as you suggest, but I don't agree with reducing the limit without better data, which you seem to happily, blindly want. Just because you want reduce the limit and someone else doesn't, doesn't make you right.

And to repeat myself, trying following what I write Phil, I don't doubt one iota the validity of the data in the report, I'm questioning the assumptions and recommendations from that report. Hell's teeth, I've already shown some of the conclusions to be flawed and, rightly, because of that I want those conclusions revisited. They may turn out right but because of the error in the projection I want them revisited.

As for what's wrong with following the rest of the world.... "and see what happens." See what happens is as scientific as sticking a finger in the air.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 3, 2017)

MegaSteve said:



			It's a politicians response [to lower the limit] got to be seen to be doing something...

How about making enough resources available for the current limit to be properly policed first...
		
Click to expand...

Perfect response. Properly police the current limits before deciding whether to change them. I'd love to see some research into how many lives could be saved if we had a fully funded Police force.


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 3, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Being totally pendantic now, but countering the guys who wish to keep the drink/drive level the same.

How on earth would anyone know that education resulted in such a fall. ?

Safer cars and roads must be a more significant factor.
		
Click to expand...

I am in favour of more widespread testing...

Testing after the event [as in you've been involved in an RTA] is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted... Totally pointless...


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Being totally pendantic now, but countering the guys who wish to keep the drink/drive level the same.

How on earth would anyone know that education resulted in such a fall. ?

Safer cars and roads must be a more significant factor.
		
Click to expand...

Safer cars is the biggest factor in the reduction in deaths. How does education cause a drop in numbers? All there's been for nearly 30 years is education, and the numbers of DD's has dropped dramatically.

But going off at a tangent, the biggest reason for deaths on the road is speeding. Those deaths have in the main been caused by sober drivers.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2017)

How about fitting an interlock to all cars? They're fitted to an increasing number of fleet vehicles in the UK, and I know to a lot of company cars in Germany. The car won't start till you blow into the interlock. If its a positive breath test the car won't start for 2 hours, and will then need another breath test. Problem sorted...


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 3, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			N Ireland are also dropping their limit and then even further for new and professional drivers - so soon England And Wales will have the highest drink drive limit in Europe

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39155282

Click to expand...

And yet we have one of the best road safety records in Europe.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 3, 2017)

bluewolf said:



			And yet we have one of the best road safety records in Europe.
		
Click to expand...

On the most crowded roads in Europe.

I wonder if its down to better education.


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

bluewolf said:



			And yet we have one of the best road safety records in Europe.
		
Click to expand...

Which is why we donâ€™t need to follow like sheep.


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 3, 2017)

Is it safer because congestion stops you from getting to a dangerous speed? My average trip back home from the golf course is nose to tail traffic.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 3, 2017)

Here's a Scottish take on the figures;

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13412785.Drink_driving__police_only_record_positive_breath_tests/

This one's interesting & tends to suggest that the new limit makes very little difference;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35371330

And if you look at road fatalities per vehicle km then we are pretty much identical with Sweden and their much safer drink drive limits, and better than Germany, Belgium, France, Austria & Spain (all European, so a much lower drink drive limit than the UK then Phil :thup  so the current drink drive limit might not be quite as bad as you might have us believe. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

At the risk of repeating the same argument (not that anyone's been doing it in this threadâ€¦. )  there would be nothing wrong with the current limit if it was properly enforced by a proper Traffic Division as compliance with any law of this nature is pretty much directly proportional to the risk of being caught.  The vast majority will do their best to comply, the minority who pay it no regard will continue to drink & drive all the time they think they won't be caught.


----------



## Fish (Dec 3, 2017)

murphthemog said:



			Is it safer because congestion stops you from getting to a dangerous speed? My average trip back home from the golf course is nose to tail traffic.
		
Click to expand...

Congestion creates the issues when gaps appear.  

I follow all the highways alerts for all the motorways as I did just under 2000 miles last week and over 2000 miles the week before on our roads, and the majority of serious accidents or those that close motorways and A roads are at peak times in the mornings and afternoons, and there daily!!


----------



## ScienceBoy (Dec 3, 2017)

Iâ€™m 0 tolerance. If I am driving that day or the next morning I donâ€™t drink. Itâ€™s a simple rule and very easy to stick to.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 3, 2017)

ScienceBoy said:



			Iâ€™m 0 tolerance. If I am driving that day or the next morning I donâ€™t drink. Itâ€™s a simple rule and very easy to stick to.
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean the level should be 0?


----------



## upsidedown (Dec 3, 2017)

Re the policing of DD I'd like to see the New Zealand approach here and that is they randomly test and one of the ways they do this is by selecting 5 to 6 roads adjacent to each other so me escape and stopping everyone. They are not adverse to doing this after large gatherings, you speak your name into a machine then if it detects alcohol  on your breath you are pulled aside to do a proper breath test . They also block off roads first thing in the morning and one day I was stopped twice, at 10 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon, both times in the same town on my milk round .

As for our levels would be happy to see them drop .


----------



## GB72 (Dec 3, 2017)

I would be happy to see some liability placed on the place serving. Not easy in some cases where several venues are concerned but would help clear up the problem in some obvious places like village pubs and sports clubs which, to my mind, have some of the worst offenders.


----------



## ScienceBoy (Dec 3, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Do you mean the level should be 0?
		
Click to expand...

No, I donâ€™t know enough to know what level is right.

I police myself as it itâ€™s very close though. Certainly donâ€™t drink if driving the same day. The night before itâ€™s only one and never after 9. If Iâ€™m up early to drive then itâ€™s 0.

I bend my own rules a touch but the simple the better really.


----------



## Dasit (Dec 3, 2017)

Zero tolerance.


If you have a drink, you should not be allowed to drive.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 3, 2017)

Whats wrong with the current limit?  Is there a problem with people driving within the current limit, if not then leave it alone.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 3, 2017)

ScienceBoy said:



			No, I donâ€™t know enough to know what level is right.

I police myself as it itâ€™s very close though. Certainly donâ€™t drink if driving the same day. The night before itâ€™s only one and never after 9. If Iâ€™m up early to drive then itâ€™s 0.

I bend my own rules a touch but the simple the better really.
		
Click to expand...

Cheers, totally agree the best policy is to abstain if youâ€™re in that position.


----------



## Val (Dec 4, 2017)

People who drink and drive will still drink and drive regardless of the limit, lowering the limit will have those who may have 1 pint at golf or 1 wine with dinner thinking twice.

The reality is that lowering the limit will not increase anyoneâ€™s chances of getting caught because there will be no more police on the roads to spot check people.


----------



## AMcC (Dec 4, 2017)

Val said:



			People who drink and drive will still drink and drive regardless of the limit, lowering the limit will have those who may have 1 pint at golf or 1 wine with dinner thinking twice.

The reality is that lowering the limit will not increase anyoneâ€™s chances of getting caught because there will be no more police on the roads to spot check people.
		
Click to expand...

Have to agree Martin, the guys who habitually do it will still do it regardless.  These are the people who need to be dealt with and hammered when, i am sure we all know some who do it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2017)

Blue in Munich said:



			Here's a Scottish take on the figures;

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13412785.Drink_driving__police_only_record_positive_breath_tests/

This one's interesting & tends to suggest that the new limit makes very little difference;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35371330

And if you look at road fatalities per vehicle km then we are pretty much identical with Sweden and their much safer drink drive limits, and better than Germany, Belgium, France, Austria & Spain (all European, so a much lower drink drive limit than the UK then Phil :thup  so the current drink drive limit might not be quite as bad as you might have us believe. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

At the risk of repeating the same argument (not that anyone's been doing it in this threadâ€¦. )  there would be nothing wrong with the current limit if it was properly enforced by a proper Traffic Division as compliance with any law of this nature is pretty much directly proportional to the risk of being caught.  The vast majority will do their best to comply, the minority who pay it no regard will continue to drink & drive all the time they think they won't be caught.
		
Click to expand...

One of the things that sticks out is the amount of people who frequent sports clubs - golf, rugby, football , snooker , cricket etc who are against reducing the limit - there was a discussion about it on five live and people concluded it was because they suspect people are more worried about missing out on that second unit that they like to have ? i wonder if this poll follows on the same theory. Someone even suggested that sports clubs would suffer because of reduced drink driving limits - for me that just points to a very weird set of priorities.

Here is a study from the IAS - showing the level of support to reduce the limit 

http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/IAS summary briefings/lowerlimitbriefing.pdf

Plus the RAC study 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/most-drivers-support-stricter-drink-driving-laws/

Also here is another report about increase in Drink Drive Incidents that result in injury - deaths gone down slightly but other injuries and severe injuries on the increase

http://www.alcoholpolicy.net/2017/10/drink-drive-figures-cause-for-concern-2017.html

So yes better policing will help - but if this is also true *Scientific evidence from around the world has agreed that when a personâ€™s alcohol level is over 50mg, their driving is impaired.*

Surely a reduction in the limit which is not really that much of a hardship plus better policing then the roads are going to be even safer - or are some people going to miss that second pint too much


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 4, 2017)

Interesting how many people on here are mentioning it's not worth reducing the level as the police don't check anyway. We are golfers, the kings of self policing. Should not golfers in particular be good at abstaining when driving as we understand rules and don't need a ref on our shoulder enforcing them?

The drink drive adverts will be starting on the tv soon. It's a great shame that they are failing to hit the mark with so many people.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 4, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Also here is another report about increase in Drink Drive Incidents that result in injury - deaths gone down slightly but other injuries and severe injuries on the increase



So yes better policing will help - but if this is also true *Scientific evidence from around the world has agreed that when a personâ€™s alcohol level is over 50mg, their driving is impaired.*

Click to expand...

There is a fantastic report put together by the ONS that breaks down the number of accidents caused by DD, the number of injuries caused by DD and the number of deaths caused by DD. It also breaks it down into age groups. The figures go as far back as 1979, right the way up to the most recent set of figures available. And there figures are different to yours.

I prefer the ONS figures because they, unlike some that have specific reports commissioned or who have a vested interest(RAC), produce purely statistical numbers. No fluff, no rubbish conclusions or dodgy recommendations - "could save 300+ lives" when the death rate is already down to 170.

You can shout(in bold) for a reduction as many times as you like but until there is a valid review of the data I'm happy to leave things alone. "50mg, their driving is impaired" is a rubbish statement. Impaired to what? What is an acceptable level. 25mg will have an impact, as will 20mg and 30mg and 40mg. Make it a valid assessment, not a 50mg impairs driving.

I'd love more police out there, and I'd welcome random testing, especially in areas mentioned earlier


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 4, 2017)

Lot of assumptions being made that those against the reduction are those that like the 2nd pint.
Iâ€™m against the reduction, never been done, never knowingly driven over the limit, not touched a drop in nearly 2 years.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Dec 4, 2017)

I voted â€œnoâ€ 
For me, I would rather there be more police out and about to deter those who flout the law, plus any other motoring offence.
 I would rather drug driving be more widely tested for and stigmatised just as drink driving. 
Lastly I would like society to stop making excuses for those we know, and who may be friends, who knowingly drink more than they should when driving. We all know someone, and how many have taken positive action against them especially when they are a friend?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 4, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Lot of assumptions being made that those against the reduction are those that like the 2nd pint.
Iâ€™m against the reduction, never been done, never knowingly driven over the limit, not touched a drop in nearly 2 years.
		
Click to expand...

First of all, struggling with that avatar mate. What's going on there? Sleeper Agent Lee has been installed successfully and he can cause unlimited damage.

I appreciate some comments, mine included, may come across that way but I think people have worded them carefully to avoid the assumption you are making. As with many discussion on here you can be against an proposal whilst not agreeing with the extreme of the argument. On a mild front, I am against the bar levy but easily spend over Â£50 a year behind the bar. The principle for me is that I don't like being forced to do something. I have had a number of disagreements with FD on issues where we actually are on the same page but disagree about key points that make it look as though I am totally opposed to her views. There are some clear posts on here that suggest 2 pints and then driving is very acceptable and they horrify me. 

Being against a reduction in the current limit does not automatically mean that people agree with the extension of the argument or do it themselves, as you have highlighted. Good to point that out but I'll continue to disagree with you on this, and that avatar


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 4, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			First of all, struggling with that avatar mate. What's going on there? Sleeper Agent Lee has been installed successfully and he can cause unlimited damage.

I appreciate some comments, mine included, may come across that way but I think people have worded them carefully to avoid the assumption you are making. As with many discussion on here you can be against an proposal whilst not agreeing with the extreme of the argument. On a mild front, I am against the bar levy but easily spend over Â£50 a year behind the bar. The principle for me is that I don't like being forced to do something. I have had a number of disagreements with FD on issues where we actually are on the same page but disagree about key points that make it look as though I am totally opposed to her views. There are some clear posts on here that suggest 2 pints and then driving is very acceptable and they horrify me. 

Being against a reduction in the current limit does not automatically mean that people agree with the extension of the argument or do it themselves, as you have highlighted. Good to point that out but I'll continue to disagree with you on this, and that avatar 

Click to expand...

Not everbody is as eloquent as you when putting their point across.

Plenty of examples of red noses seeing the light when coming across the park


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 4, 2017)

Ha ha. Cheers.

I know, but Sammy Lee? He was my sisters favourite player, she is a red, and he was central to their 80's success. It just hurts to see him there. Just don't bring Rush in. That would be unbearable.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 4, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			First of all, struggling with that avatar mate. What's going on there? Sleeper Agent Lee has been installed successfully and he can cause unlimited damage.

I appreciate some comments, mine included, may come across that way but I think people have worded them carefully to avoid the assumption you are making. As with many discussion on here you can be against an proposal whilst not agreeing with the extreme of the argument. On a mild front, I am against the bar levy but easily spend over Â£50 a year behind the bar. The principle for me is that I don't like being forced to do something. I have had a number of disagreements with FD on issues where we actually are on the same page but disagree about key points that make it look as though I am totally opposed to her views. There are some clear posts on here that suggest 2 pints and then driving is very acceptable and they horrify me. 

Being against a reduction in the current limit does not automatically mean that people agree with the extension of the argument or do it themselves, as you have highlighted. Good to point that out but I'll continue to disagree with you on this, and that avatar 

Click to expand...

You've touched on a reason that sits with me, i.e. the nanny state. In one session of Parliament under Labour they brought in 110 new laws, some of which negated common sense. One of my concerns is the taking away of responsibility, and intelligence, by bringing in laws.

It would need an actuary to review the numbers, but a few thoughts. The numbers have come down significantly at the same time the number of vehicles on the road has increased massively. How has that been achieved? The only thing that has happened in the UK is education. Does it need to come down further? I honestly don't know. The numbers available from the ONS are hugely significant, and positive.

The current limit is 80mg, just over 4units of regular beer/lager. By the time most people have drank their second pint their body will have metabolised 20mg-ish - bearing in mind they've just exercised, and may have had a buttie post-round they will have metabolised more than 20mg. So as they leave the club they'll have less than 60mg, and possibly less than 50mg.

My post-round is occasionally a Pepsi, but more often a pint. Occasionally its 1.5 pints, and very rarely 2 pints. The 2 pints will be based on how long I've been in the club and have I eaten. I'm comfortable with that. When someone proves the need for a reduction, I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## DRW (Dec 4, 2017)

I voted no leave it but would be happy with almost 'zero' tolerance(well say 1/2 a pint).

I never drink and drive, the thought that if I hit someone even if I had had only one pint, I would always be wondering what would have happened if I had not had that one drink and that person could still be alive.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 4, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			The current limit is 80mg, just over 4units of regular beer/lager. By the time most people have drank their second pint their body will have metabolised 20mg-ish - bearing in mind they've just exercised, and may have had a buttie post-round they will have metabolised more than 20mg. So as they leave the club they'll have less than 60mg, and possibly less than 50mg.
		
Click to expand...

Bear in mind beer / lager is now stronger than it used to be when many were gauging figures. I grew up in a Boddingtons area in the 80's. Great stuff but only about 3%. Most beers and lagers are up to 4.5-5% now. 

I'll counter your metabolism point with the fact that most golfers come in dehydrated, very few will drink as much as they really need out on the course, so it is not as clear cut as exercise and a buttie helping out. How often do you neck the first drink? Most people do.

The interesting exercise would be for the police to come to a club one Saturday afternoon. Let golfers have their 1 pint, 2 pints, sandwich or not, and then take the breathalyser test. The results would be interesting to see. I mean that genuinely.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 4, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Bear in mind beer / lager is now stronger than it used to be when many were gauging figures. I grew up in a Boddingtons area in the 80's. Great stuff but only about 3%. Most beers and lagers are up to 4.5-5% now. 

I'll counter your metabolism point with the fact that most golfers come in dehydrated, very few will drink as much as they really need out on the course, so it is not as clear cut as exercise and a buttie helping out. How often do you neck the first drink? Most people do.

The interesting exercise would be for the police to come to a club one Saturday afternoon. Let golfers have their 1 pint, 2 pints, sandwich or not, and then take the breathalyser test. The results would be interesting to see. I mean that genuinely.
		
Click to expand...

Necking the first one, due to dehydration, sees it go through the system quicker. Its not clear either way how quickly someone will metabolise their intake, e.g. someone with a common cold may be slower than they normally are. But pretty much everyone in England and Wales will have metabolised their first 20mg by the time they walk out of the club. 20mg out 2 pints of Stella(5.2%) would take them down to 80mg-ish. 

Getting the Police to do a 'workshop' in the golf club foyer, with a minibus to take them home would be a great way for them to connect and educate people. Imagine that as a GM article!!

The breathalysers; the company I work for manufactures both the road side 'blow' plus the evidentiary types, including drug testers. 5 of us were at head office a few years ago and decided to take one out for the evening. Had it calibrated in the workshop before we went. After 2 pints 3 were well under, 1 just over and 1 was reading virtually zero. After 3 pints 4 were well over and 1 was still not far off zero. By the end of the evening, 4 or 5 pints + a couple of shorts, 4 of us were just about melting the device, and the 5th person was reading less than half the limit. He'd had 3 pints, a couple of glasses of wine and a few G&T's. Checked the calibration the following morning, spot on.

For the golf club exercise I'd say it has to be the desktop, evidentiary version. I'm not convinced the 'give it a blow version' is that accurate.


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 4, 2017)

Pedant corner. Stella is now 4.8 %


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 4, 2017)

Good post Brian :thup: (I was going to us :cheers: but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate)


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 4, 2017)

murphthemog said:



			Pedant corner. Stella is now 4.8 %
		
Click to expand...

Apart from Stella 4..... pedant back at ya


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 4, 2017)

According to Wikipedia, so it must be true, it can be between 4-5.2%. Quite a difference.


----------



## DaveR (Dec 4, 2017)

Mmmmmm I really fancy a large dollop of that sherry trifle before I drive home........


----------



## Wildrover (Dec 4, 2017)

I voted no and I never drink & drive as it is my livelihood at stake, never touch it if getting behind the wheel.

I do worry about the morning after effect though and while you should take care that you are ok to drive, I feel a lot more people would fall foul of a much lower, or even zero, limit the following day.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 4, 2017)

So no counter to the fact that the Scottish limit makes barely any difference; the vast majority were over the old limit, so paying it scant regard, it just picked up a few more between the new & the old limits. 



Liverpoolphil said:



			One of the things that sticks out is the amount of people who frequent sports clubs - golf, rugby, football , snooker , cricket etc who are against reducing the limit - there was a discussion about it on five live and people concluded it was because they suspect people are more worried about missing out on that second unit that they like to have ? i wonder if this poll follows on the same theory. Someone even suggested that sports clubs would suffer because of reduced drink driving limits - for me that just points to a very weird set of priorities.
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't point to a priority at all; as usual you find something that you can adapt to your line of thinking.  Five Live, that paragon of intelligent debate comes to a conclusion based on not a lot & that's now evidence.



Liverpoolphil said:



			Here is a study from the IAS - showing the level of support to reduce the limit 

http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/IAS summary briefings/lowerlimitbriefing.pdf

Click to expand...

Do you know who the IAS are Phil; apparently they are effectively the UK Temperance Society according to a quick Google search.  Reliable & neutral source?  



Liverpoolphil said:



			Plus the RAC study 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/most-drivers-support-stricter-drink-driving-laws/

Click to expand...

But again, not evidence that it will make any difference.



Liverpoolphil said:



			Also here is another report about increase in Drink Drive Incidents that result in injury - deaths gone down slightly but other injuries and severe injuries on the increase

http://www.alcoholpolicy.net/2017/10/drink-drive-figures-cause-for-concern-2017.html

Click to expand...

The Government appears to differ;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...cidents-illegal-alcohol-levels-2015-final.pdf

Whilst over one year it may have risen slightly, the overall trend is down.  Who exactly are Alcohol Policy and what are their interests; did they produce a similar report the previous years when the rates went down?  The Government produce them every year regardless. 



Liverpoolphil said:



			So yes better policing will help - but if this is also true *Scientific evidence from around the world has agreed that when a personâ€™s alcohol level is over 50mg, their driving is impaired.*

Click to expand...

Radios in cars impair concentration and thus driving, children in cars impair concentration and thus driving, passengers in cars impair concentration and thus driving, the list is endless and there is scientific and anecdotal evidence of these too.  I'm personally aware of far more RTA's where these were factors than drink driving.   Those that did involve drink driving involved a level far in excess of the current drink drive limit.



Liverpoolphil said:



			Surely a reduction in the limit which is not really that much of a hardship plus better policing then the roads are going to be even safer - or are some people going to miss that second pint too much
		
Click to expand...

A perfectly adequate tool exists; we lack the resources to use it.  Why don't we fix the resources issue and see what happens before we get a new, supposedly improved tool.  I found the existing tool to work perfectly well when I used it Phil, what's your experience of using it?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2017)

Blue in Munich said:



			So no counter to the fact that the Scottish limit makes barely any difference; the vast majority were over the old limit, so paying it scant regard, it just picked up a few more between the new & the old limits. 



It doesn't point to a priority at all; as usual you find something that you can adapt to your line of thinking.  Five Live, that paragon of intelligent debate comes to a conclusion based on not a lot & that's now evidence.



Do you know who the IAS are Phil; apparently they are effectively the UK Temperance Society according to a quick Google search.  Reliable & neutral source?  



But again, not evidence that it will make any difference.



The Government appears to differ;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...cidents-illegal-alcohol-levels-2015-final.pdf

Whilst over one year it may have risen slightly, the overall trend is down.  Who exactly are Alcohol Policy and what are their interests; did they produce a similar report the previous years when the rates went down?  The Government produce them every year regardless. 



Radios in cars impair concentration and thus driving, children in cars impair concentration and thus driving, passengers in cars impair concentration and thus driving, the list is endless and there is scientific and anecdotal evidence of these too.  I'm personally aware of far more RTA's where these were factors than drink driving.   Those that did involve drink driving involved a level far in excess of the current drink drive limit.



A perfectly adequate tool exists; we lack the resources to use it.  Why don't we fix the resources issue and see what happens before we get a new, supposedly improved tool.  I found the existing tool to work perfectly well when I used it Phil, what's your experience of using it?
		
Click to expand...

New and improved tool ? Iâ€™m not sure I mentioned about any new tools ? 

Only reduction in the limit people are allowed to drink before driving plus an increase in policing to bring the levels of people losing their lives due to drink driving down as low as we can possibly go - happy to see them use any measures possible to reduce those levels down further


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 4, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



*New and improved tool ? Iâ€™m not sure I mentioned about any new tools ? *

Only reduction in the limit people are allowed to drink before driving plus an increase in policing to bring the levels of people losing their lives due to drink driving down as low as we can possibly go - happy to see them use any measures possible to reduce those levels down further
		
Click to expand...

You understand the analogy very well, but if you're going to be deliberately obtuse carry on.


----------



## jim8flog (Dec 4, 2017)

I think what would really help is if the drinking establishments stopped charging ridiculous prices for pop.

What am I going to drink ?- A pint of beer for Â£3 or a pint of Cola for Â£3.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2017)

Blue in Munich said:



			You understand the analogy very well, but if you're going to be deliberately obtuse carry on. 

Click to expand...

Not being deliberately anything - and for me if lives are being lost then any â€œtoolâ€ is not working well 

But then I really donâ€™t understand why such an opposition to reducing the limit unless someone believes they are missing out on something


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 4, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Not being deliberately anything - and for me if lives are being lost then any â€œtoolâ€ is not working well 

But then I really donâ€™t understand why such an opposition to reducing the limit unless someone believes they are missing out on something
		
Click to expand...

Its obvious you don't understand!!!!!

The why can't someone just have one pint less is as intelligent an argument as I like an extra roastie with my dinner.

You've made your mind up, and no matter how many times I've suggested a review on the data you've ignored it because the best you can come up is cut and paste. I dare you to have an original thought.


----------



## Papas1982 (Dec 4, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



*Not being deliberately anything - and for me if lives are being lost then any â€œtoolâ€ is not working well *

But then I really donâ€™t understand why such an opposition to reducing the limit unless someone believes they are missing out on something
		
Click to expand...

Unless we ban the sale of alcohol and itâ€™s consumption, people will lose their lives due to drink driving. Thatâ€™s a clear fact. 

But so far, Iâ€™ve seen nothing from anyone to show what percentage of accidents are caused by people that are just over the current limit. Unless that can be proven, the rest is just shoulda, woulda coulda. 

Iâ€™d imagine more people drive over the limit the following morning, than those that just go over the edge after 2pints. 

Youâ€™ve mentioned you have your personal reasons for you beliefs and that should be respected, but youâ€™ve put up a poll, itâ€™s not gone fully your way and now youâ€™re  pasteing the same rhetoric expecting people to change their mind. 

This thread may may as well be about article 50for all the change itâ€™s gonna make.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 5, 2017)

Played in the main Seniors Christmas Comp yesterday (aaarrrrggghhhh - the denial has been strong but acceptance had to come).  At three halts around the track were stashes of alcohol to be consumed by those playing - and with lunch on every table (of ten) were four bottles of wine.  Hmmm...

And the prizes?  Wine, wine and more wine.


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 5, 2017)

About 2700 die on the roads every year. Tragic, yes. About 170 die from drink related accidents. Do we need a crusade on the other causes? Or focus mainly on the 170, to reduce it to say 150? 

Not for me. There are other things that money could be spent on, that would have more effect.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 5, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Played in the main Seniors Christmas Comp yesterday (aaarrrrggghhhh - the denial has been strong but acceptance had to come).  At three halts around the track were stashes of alcohol to be consumed by those playing - and with lunch on every table (of ten) were four bottles of wine.  Hmmm...

And the prizes?  Wine, wine and more wine.
		
Click to expand...

And did everyone who partook in drinking the aforementioned drive home intoxicated or did they catch a Big Red Bus.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 6, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			And did everyone who partook in drinking the aforementioned drive home intoxicated or did they catch a Big Red Bus.
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea - but maybe something other than booze ...


----------

