Drink Driving Limit - Should it Be reduced

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date

Should the Drink Driving Limit be reduced

  • Total voters
    52
Doon frae Troon said:
Scotland are doing joined up thinking.

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

Seems to be working.
Click to expand...

That’s because Scotland has a drinking problem, not so much associated to driving, just in general.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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 shouldn’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..........
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 it’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 it’s a change they don’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 wouldn’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 aren’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 ? What’s wrong with doing what Scotland and others have done and seeing what happens ?
 
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.
 
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..?
 
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 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 it’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 it’s a change they don’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 wouldn’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 aren’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 ? What’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.
 
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 it’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 it’s a change they don’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 wouldn’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 aren’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 ? What’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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top