Alcohol Driving Limits and Plastic Bag Charges.

[HomerJSimpson]

I take it you don't drive then Homer? A zero limit is completely impractical in the real world, the only winners being the insurance companies loading those who had a good night out, got a cab home and still have a trace when stopped the following morning.

I said would be ideal from a perspective of knowing where you stood. However I accept and agree in the real world its unmanageable and that you can still get penalised the morning after. Where would you draw the line?

 

[Foxholer]

I watched a report on this and the emissions and waste is far greater and harmful to produce biodegradable products that not to! So, you end up with a biodegradable product that's safe to dispose of but it costs more and is not friendly to produce!

Maybe that's the case right now, but there'll be significant progress in the future - in the same way that low consumption light bulbs have evolved! They too were not actually 'green' originally when the manufacturing processes were included (ad they should be)! Same with general 'recycling' initially too!

It's not really any different to any other 'new' product trying to break into the existing market!

 

[USER1999]

I said would be ideal from a perspective of knowing where you stood. However I accept and agree in the real world its unmanageable and that you can still get penalised the morning after. Where would you draw the line?

I'd draw the line exactly where it is now.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I said would be ideal from a perspective of knowing where you stood. However I accept and agree in the real world its unmanageable and that you can still get penalised the morning after. Where would you draw the line?

I'd draw the line exactly where it is now.

I'd agree with that.

I don't believe that there should be different drink drive limits in different parts of the UK. I'd like to see the exact circumstances and/or accident analysis that make the Scottish Parliament believe that this will make a difference to road safety; my personal suspicion is that this is more about the Scottish Parliament flexing its muscles than anything else.

And let's not forget that the drink drive limit is, or should be, a preventative measure; whatever you set it at will only be as effective as the level of enforcement or the fear of getting caught. All the time parliamentarians believe that speed cameras are adequate replacements for Traffic Police then any change to the drink drive limit is a complete waste of time in my opinion.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Alcohol limit good thing - had excellent pint of 0.0% draft Bitburger in the Burnbrae Bar Bearsden few weeks ago. 5p charge on plastic bags - where I was in Glasgow most folks had their own bags - so no big deal - another good thing and something that i was told by a few was coming our way down south fairly soon.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

And let's not forget that the drink drive limit is, or should be, a preventative measure; whatever you set it at will only be as effective as the level of enforcement or the fear of getting caught. All the time parliamentarians believe that speed cameras are adequate replacements for Traffic Police then any change to the drink drive limit is a complete waste of time in my opinion.

Absolutely spot on!

Without the resources to enforce it any change is merely political posturing.

 

[Spuddy]

It's not just plastic bags. If you go for a McDonalds/Burger King etc. you get charged if you want a paper bag

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Absolutely spot on!

Without the resources to enforce it any change is merely political posturing.

Don't quite understand - the point some are making in that the reduced limit in Scotland has changed attitudes to having a pint or two and driving - and publicans are complaining. So not sure how that fits with your view that a cut is simply political posturing - and hence by implication won't change things when evidence from Scotland suggests it has?

 

[patricks148]

bar takings are well down since the new limit, there were a few guys always had one pint after a game now either don't bother at all or have a water or coke instead,

i was told the other club in town which is a far more social drinking orientated, 80K down was mentioned.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I am for both. Countries where the plastic bag charge has come in have shown a huge reduction in usage. Good news.

With regards to the alcohol limit too many people have 1 maybe 2 pints, women have large wines, as they believe that is their limit. The new level means that alcohol in food is covered but otherwise don't have any alcoholic drink if you are driving. Clubs need to adapt with nice teas and coffees, make soft drinks more attractive. Encourage golfers to car share so some can drink, alternate the driver.

None of this is tricky but it does need a mindset change.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Don't quite understand - the point some are making in that the reduced limit in Scotland has changed attitudes to having a pint or two and driving - and publicans are complaining. So not sure how that fits with your view that a cut is simply political posturing - and hence by implication won't change things when evidence from Scotland suggests it has?

The intention of the law is to save lives.

Those that respond to the lower limits, to which I am not at all opposed, are not the main problem.

Just look at the reports of those charged with causing death whilst driving and being over the limit. They are almost always way over the existing limit, never mind a lower one.

The only deterrent to such people may be the fear of being caught and, at present, this is unlikely due to the shortage of Traffic Patrols.

Until the manning levels change that is not going to happen.

As for changed attitudes, that may be true but any evidence can only be anecdotal at this stage.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

bar takings are well down since the new limit, there were a few guys always had one pint after a game now either don't bother at all or have a water or coke instead,

i was told the other club in town which is a far more social drinking orientated, 80K down was mentioned.

From earlier BiM wonders...

I'd like to see the exact circumstances and/or accident analysis that make the Scottish Parliament believe that this will make a difference to road safety...

I think if @patricks148 is correct then that will inevitably create the circumstances that BiM is wondering about.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The intention of the law is to save lives.

Those that respond to the lower limits, to which I am not at all opposed, are not the main problem.

Just look at the reports of those charged with causing death whilst driving and being over the limit. They are almost always way over the existing limit, never mind a lower one.

The only deterrent to such people may be the fear of being caught and, at present, this is unlikely due to the shortage of Traffic Patrols.

Until the manning levels change that is not going to happen.

As for changed attitudes, that may be true but any evidence can only be anecdotal at this stage.

The man who is regularly just over the limit is at risk of occasionally being well over the limit - and that is when serious accidents happen.

I should add that I do not drink at all when driving and put as much as any man - if not more - over the bar at the club buying soft drinks, water and coffee. And it is rare that I do not drive myself to the golf club.

 

[delc]

Nothing wrong with the English/Welsh alcohol limit (80mg/100ml blood) as it stands. One pint of beer after a round of golf makes little or no difference to your driving abilities. 3 or 4 pints probably does, so it's these people we should be after. Except maybe just before Christmas/New Year there is almost no chance of being breathalysed unless involved in a accident, due to the lack of Traffic Police these days! So the moral is "Don't have an accident"! :mmm:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Nothing wrong with the English/Welsh alcohol limit (80mg/100ml blood) as it stands. One pint of beer after a round of golf makes little or no difference to your driving abilities. 3 or 4 pints probably does, so it's these people we should be after. Except maybe just before Christmas/New Year there is almost no chance of being breathalysed unless involved in a accident, due to the lack of Traffic Police these days! So the moral is "Don't have an accident"! :mmm:

The problem in drinking two pints is that you are one pint closer to being over the limit than if you are limited to one. And as much as I might fancy a pint or two after a round of golf I don't feel I miss anything by not having them.

 

[Blue in Munich]

From earlier BiM wonders...

I'd like to see the exact circumstances and/or accident analysis that make the Scottish Parliament believe that this will make a difference to road safety...

I think if @patricks148 is correct then that will inevitably create the circumstances that BiM is wondering about.

If I'm reading your post correctly SILH, I think you've got the wrong end of my post; I'm not thinking about the circumstances that this change will create, I'm thinking about the existing circumstances that demonstrate the need, or not, for this change.

Here's the BBC article that I read;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30329743

The particularly relevant bit (for me) being;

Police and safety campaigners have said that an average of 20 people die on Scotland's roads each year as a result of collisions involving people who were driving while over the legal alcohol limit.

A further 90 were seriously injured and 340 slightly injured as a result of drink-driving related collisions last year.

The first thing I'd pick out of this is "as a result of collisions involving people who were driving while over the drink drive limit". Not caused by people who were over the limit, but involving. Depending on the exact circumstances of each accident the alcohol level may have had a huge bearing or no bearing whatsoever, but couched in these terms it leads the unsuspecting to believe that the drink drivers were fully responsible for all the accidents.

The second point is, if the drink driver was to be deemed responsible for the accident, "how far over?" Because as MetalMickie has pointed out, the likelihood is that they were way over the old limit, never mind the new one, so I'd like to see proof of what the figures actually were before I consider this change to be a step likely to have a huge influence on the accident statistics.

On the point of the number of positive tests falling this year as opposed to last, I'd like to know how many tests were carried out this year, and how many were carried out last year, and therefore the percentage change in the positive tests, and whether that falls outside the standard statistical deviation when compared to other years. In itself the lower number of positive tests proves nothing as far as I am concerned.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If I'm reading your post correctly SILH, I think you've got the wrong end of my post; I'm not thinking about the circumstances that this change will create, I'm thinking about the existing circumstances that demonstrate the need, or not, for this change.

Here's the BBC article that I read;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30329743

The particularly relevant bit (for me) being;

Police and safety campaigners have said that an average of 20 people die on Scotland's roads each year as a result of collisions involving people who were driving while over the legal alcohol limit.

A further 90 were seriously injured and 340 slightly injured as a result of drink-driving related collisions last year.

The first thing I'd pick out of this is "as a result of collisions involving people who were driving while over the drink drive limit". Not caused by people who were over the limit, but involving. Depending on the exact circumstances of each accident the alcohol level may have had a huge bearing or no bearing whatsoever, but couched in these terms it leads the unsuspecting to believe that the drink drivers were fully responsible for all the accidents.

The second point is, if the drink driver was to be deemed responsible for the accident, "how far over?" Because as MetalMickie has pointed out, the likelihood is that they were way over the old limit, never mind the new one, so I'd like to see proof of what the figures actually were before I consider this change to be a step likely to have a huge influence on the accident statistics.

On the point of the number of positive tests falling this year as opposed to last, I'd like to know how many tests were carried out this year, and how many were carried out last year, and therefore the percentage change in the positive tests, and whether that falls outside the standard statistical deviation when compared to other years. In itself the lower number of positive tests proves nothing as far as I am concerned.

I do always find it a bit odd that forensic analysis and evidence is required to convince folks that it maybe isn't such a good idea to drink and drive. Brewers will just go back to brewing more of the lighter traditional session beers 3.4% ABV stuff that you can drink a pint of. Or maybe we go European and start serving beer in half litre (0.88 pints) glasses.

 

[Ethan]

I'd agree with that.

I don't believe that there should be different drink drive limits in different parts of the UK. I'd like to see the exact circumstances and/or accident analysis that make the Scottish Parliament believe that this will make a difference to road safety; my personal suspicion is that this is more about the Scottish Parliament flexing its muscles than anything else.

And let's not forget that the drink drive limit is, or should be, a preventative measure; whatever you set it at will only be as effective as the level of enforcement or the fear of getting caught. All the time parliamentarians believe that speed cameras are adequate replacements for Traffic Police then any change to the drink drive limit is a complete waste of time in my opinion.

There is pretty good evidence that accident and death rates fall with falling alcohol limits. There is now quite a bit of data in other European countries.

The argument that you should be able to have 2 pints and drive to work the next morning is a completely spurious one - the issue is what risk should you be allowed to impose on others, and the answer must be as little as reasonably possible, and England hasn't reached that level yet.

 

[Ethan]

If I'm reading your post correctly SILH, I think you've got the wrong end of my post; I'm not thinking about the circumstances that this change will create, I'm thinking about the existing circumstances that demonstrate the need, or not, for this change.

Here's the BBC article that I read;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30329743

The particularly relevant bit (for me) being;

Police and safety campaigners have said that an average of 20 people die on Scotland's roads each year as a result of collisions involving people who were driving while over the legal alcohol limit.

A further 90 were seriously injured and 340 slightly injured as a result of drink-driving related collisions last year.

The first thing I'd pick out of this is "as a result of collisions involving people who were driving while over the drink drive limit". Not caused by people who were over the limit, but involving. Depending on the exact circumstances of each accident the alcohol level may have had a huge bearing or no bearing whatsoever, but couched in these terms it leads the unsuspecting to believe that the drink drivers were fully responsible for all the accidents.

On the point of the number of positive tests falling this year as opposed to last, I'd like to know how many tests were carried out this year, and how many were carried out last year, and therefore the percentage change in the positive tests, and whether that falls outside the standard statistical deviation when compared to other years. In itself the lower number of positive tests proves nothing as far as I am concerned.

Cause and effect analysis can deal with factors that are partially responsible. This happens all the time when considering the effect of multiple risk factors on heart disease for example. If someone smokes, is diabetic and has high cholesterol, how do you know how much each contributed? There are statistical methods to do this. Likewise, the same can be done for accidents which involve speed, badly maintained cars and drink.

I agree that the number of positive tests is a red herring. That is almost certainly a function of police action rather than drinking behaviour. Like the rate of ADHD nowadays is due to different diagnostic methods rather than a true increase in incidence.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There is pretty good evidence that accident and death rates fall with falling alcohol limits. There is now quite a bit of data in other European countries.

The argument that you should be able to have 2 pints and drive to work the next morning is a completely spurious one - the issue is what risk should you be allowed to impose on others, and the answer must be as little as reasonably possible, and England hasn't reached that level yet.

Having tried draft 0.0% beer recently and found it very acceptable, I am quite sure that a pint of that as a refresher following a round followed by a pint of 'standard' strength beer would suit many if not most folks.