Drink Drive Limit

[delc]

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

 

[c1973]

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

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

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

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

Very good, sensible post.

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

 

[Hacker Khan]

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

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

Anything that reduces the level of reaction is potentially harmful

If done deliberatly then thats just stupid

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

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

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

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

 

[Slime]

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


Slime.

 

[JCW]

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

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

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

 

[Hacker Khan]

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


Slime.

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

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

 

[Ethan]

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

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

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

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

 

[delc]

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

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

View attachment 12722

Agree with the Fosters bit! :thup:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

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

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

 

[Slab]

On the face of it it doesn’t seem unreasonable but I can’t find the only stat that really matters.

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

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

 

[Hacker Khan]

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

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

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

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

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

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

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

 

[Ethan]

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

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

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

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

 

[Fyldewhite]

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

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

 

[Slime]

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


Slime.

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

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


Slime.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

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

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