Alcohol Driving Limits and Plastic Bag Charges.

[Blue in Munich]

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.

I doubt anyone disputes that it is not a good idea to get blind drunk and then get behind the wheel of a car, but you know very well that wasn't what was said and the sarcasm does you no credit. What I asked was what was there in the accident statistics that persuaded the Scottish Parliament that there was a case for reducing the drink drive limit from its current level.

Much is made by campaigners of the fact that Ireland have very successfully reduced their alcohol related road deaths. These same campaigners will also point out that the drink drive limit was reduced in the same manner as Scotland's. So there you have it; proof positive that a lower drink driving limit solves all issues. What the campaigners won't tell you is that at the same time, the Garda increased its Traffic Corps to provide some teeth to the new legislation. The probability is that the drink driving level has not been reduced by reducing the drink drive limit; it has been reduced by increasing the fear of being caught.

If you reduce the drink driving level as Scotland has, the chances are that a number of those caught, in the majority of cases by Traffic Patrol officers, will be at a lower level, and therefore the limited resource that you have to deal with them is now tied up dealing with someone who, in real terms, represents a much lower safety risk. Unless you increase the number of Traffic Patrol officers to enforce the new limit, there is actually an argument that you are diluting the effectiveness of your resource by the introduction of this new safety legislation. I think that if sufficient resource was allocated to provide a deterrent, the current limit would prove equally effective, but I'm being told it needs to be reduced. I'd like to see the evidence that suggests this reduction is required; until then I will remain convinced that this change of legislation is more about the Scottish Parliament flexing its muscles than an evidenced need for a lower limit.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I doubt anyone disputes that it is not a good idea to get blind drunk and then get behind the wheel of a car, but you know very well that wasn't what was said and the sarcasm does you no credit. What I asked was what was there in the accident statistics that persuaded the Scottish Parliament that there was a case for reducing the drink drive limit from its current level.

Much is made by campaigners of the fact that Ireland have very successfully reduced their alcohol related road deaths. These same campaigners will also point out that the drink drive limit was reduced in the same manner as Scotland's. So there you have it; proof positive that a lower drink driving limit solves all issues. What the campaigners won't tell you is that at the same time, the Garda increased its Traffic Corps to provide some teeth to the new legislation. The probability is that the drink driving level has not been reduced by reducing the drink drive limit; it has been reduced by increasing the fear of being caught.

If you reduce the drink driving level as Scotland has, the chances are that a number of those caught, in the majority of cases by Traffic Patrol officers, will be at a lower level, and therefore the limited resource that you have to deal with them is now tied up dealing with someone who, in real terms, represents a much lower safety risk. Unless you increase the number of Traffic Patrol officers to enforce the new limit, there is actually an argument that you are diluting the effectiveness of your resource by the introduction of this new safety legislation. I think that if sufficient resource was allocated to provide a deterrent, the current limit would prove equally effective, but I'm being told it needs to be reduced. I'd like to see the evidence that suggests this reduction is required; until then I will remain convinced that this change of legislation is more about the Scottish Parliament flexing its muscles than an evidenced need for a lower limit.

Sorry - wasn't meaning to come across sarcastic- but surely the point is not really to do with numbers ofcdrivers who are just or way over limit being stopped by cops - issue is of impaired driving causing accidents, injuries and deaths - and should it really require all the evidence to convince folks that a couple of drinks can impair your judgement.

 

[delc]

"If 10% of accidents are caused by drunken drivers, then Lord protect me from the sober ones, because they cause 90% of the accidents".

 

[USER1999]

Having a couple of drinks does not necessarily mean you will cause an accident on the way home.

Driving like an idiot is what does it. Every time.

 

[Fish]

IMO most if not all drivers who have been prosecuted for drink driving have been stopped for speeding or been in an accident either caused by themselves or someone else.

These drivers are rarely just over the limit, some of them also turn out to have either no tax or insurance or both, some are also still banned, so, these people don't and won't care if the lmits, are reduced by any amount as they have and will always throw caution to the winbd, as such reducing the limit from where it is now will not reduce any important stats as those that are caught are always significantly over the current limits so what will reducing it any more achieve?

 

[ger147]

I can only speak from my own personal experience. When the limit was 80mg, I was a 1 pint man after the golf. Some of my PP's were 2 pints or 2 shandies. We still have a few 1 pint or 1 shandy men, but by and large most of us are now fresh orange & lemonade or coca cola men.

I can't say I'm wholly convinced that I'm a safer or better driver on fresh orange than I was on 1 pint with my lunch after a round of golf, but I understand that laws are not made to suit me personally. And certainly in my circle of friends/family, everyone is drinking less if there is any driving on the night or the next morning.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

It should not but sadly it does, after all we have now had the breathalyser for approx 50 years and yet still people ignore the current limits.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Having a couple of drinks does not necessarily mean you will cause an accident on the way home.

Driving like an idiot is what does it. Every time.

No of course it doesn't - but a couple of drinks will 100% certainly affect your driving - after all you drink alcohol to change the way you feel - that is the point of alcohol. And if you change the way you feel you change the way you think. I do at times struggle when folks don't just accept that fact, and accept that maybe drinking and driving isn't a good idea and rail against measures aimed at the problem (see also news of Danny Cipriani drink driving today)

 

[Fish]

I also struggle, to paraphrase, folk that don't accept that the largest percentage of people caught drink driving are reckless and have been involved in accidents due to them being "substantially" over the limit, as such, if they had no concerns about consuming many drinks over the current limit what will change their attitude if that limit is reduced, I'll tell you, absolutely nothing! I will assume that at 5am and being involved in an accident Danny won't be just over the limit, again substantiating that if he thought he was OK after consuming many drinks all night, reducing the limit would not change that attitude as everyone who drinks & drives will believe they are ok irrelevant of the limit.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I also struggle, to paraphrase, folk that don't accept that the largest percentage of people caught drink driving are reckless and have been involved in accidents due to them being "substantially" over the limit, as such, if they had no concerns about consuming many drinks over the current limit what will change their attitude if that limit is reduced, I'll tell you, absolutely nothing! I will assume that at 5am and being involved in an accident Danny won't be just over the limit, again substantiating that if he thought he was OK after consuming many drinks all night, reducing the limit would not change that attitude as everyone who drinks & drives will believe they are ok irrelevant of the limit.

Fortunately I am not one of those folk you refer to - those who regularly drink well over the limit are a completely separate group - and I'm not talking about them.

 

[Hobbit]

Sorry - wasn't meaning to come across sarcastic- but surely the point is not really to do with numbers ofcdrivers who are just or way over limit being stopped by cops - issue is of impaired driving causing accidents, injuries and deaths - and should it really require all the evidence to convince folks that a couple of drinks can impair your judgement.

Just picking up on the couple of drinks thing. Totally agree with the proposed reduction based on my experiences a few weeks back. Had just two pints and felt well squiffy. A couple of days later, two pints and well squiffy again - HID was driving the first time, and doesn't drink at all ever. Second time was using taxi's. Last couple of weeks, 3 or 4 no problem, and no I wasn't driving.

So where between one and two pints was safe? Some say that depending on the beer and what you've eaten etc, two pints is ok. No it isn't, so let's take the limit down to well inside a safe number.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

We all surely expect airline pilots, train drivers and ferry captains to comply with the much lower limits imposed by their employers for our safety,

So why should there be any issue over the introduction of new, lower limits for motorists.

I retain my concerns over enforcement but would be happy to see the proposed limits become law.

 

[delc]

We all surely expect airline pilots, train drivers and ferry captains to comply with the much lower limits imposed by their employers for our safety,

So why should there be any issue over the introduction of new, lower limits for motorists.

I retain my concerns over enforcement but would be happy to see the proposed limits become law.

Enough country pubs are closing down as it is! We have lost two in my area alone in the last couple of years. Going out to one for a meal and a pint or a couple of glasses of wine does not cause a problem!

BTW I am a qualified pilot and do not drink before flying, but then I have to think in three dimensions rather than two when driving.

 

[Foxholer]

Enough country pubs are closing down as it is! We have lost two in my area alone in the last couple of years. Going out to one for a meal and a pint or a couple of glasses of wine does not cause a problem!

BTW I am a qualified pilot and do not drink before flying, but then I have to think in three dimensions rather than two when driving.

How many when putting then?