Drink Driving Limit - Should it Be reduced

[Lord Tyrion]

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

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 £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]

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 £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

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]

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]

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 £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

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.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Pedant corner. Stella is now 4.8 %

 

[Lord Tyrion]

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

 

[Hobbit]

Pedant corner. Stella is now 4.8 %

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

 

[Lord Tyrion]

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

 

[Deleted member 23270]

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

 

[Wildrover]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Plus the RAC study

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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?

New and improved tool ? I’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]

New and improved tool ? I’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

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

 

[jim8flog]

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 £3 or a pint of Cola for £3.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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

Not being deliberately anything - and for me if lives are being lost then any “tool” is not working well

But then I really don’t understand why such an opposition to reducing the limit unless someone believes they are missing out on something

 

[Hobbit]

Not being deliberately anything - and for me if lives are being lost then any “tool” is not working well

But then I really don’t understand why such an opposition to reducing the limit unless someone believes they are missing out on something

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]

Not being deliberately anything - and for me if lives are being lost then any “tool” is not working well

But then I really don’t understand why such an opposition to reducing the limit unless someone believes they are missing out on something

Unless we ban the sale of alcohol and it’s consumption, people will lose their lives due to drink driving. That’s a clear fact.

But so far, I’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.

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

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

This thread may may as well be about article 50for all the change it’s gonna make.