D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Scientific evidence from around the world has agreed that when a person’s alcohol level is over 50mg, their driving is impaired. A comprehensive review in 2010 by NICE concluded there is sufficiently strong evidence of the effectiveness of lowering the legal limit to help reduce road traffic injuries and deaths in certain contexts. This was shown to result in around 25 lives being saved, preventing 95 people from suffering serious injury. A 2010 World Health Organization review of alcohol interventions and strategies, found drink driving laws to be one of the most effective interventions.
https://www.bma.org.uk/collective-v...alth/alcohol/reducing-the-drink-driving-limit
It’s also reduced the amount of people that have been caught drink driving
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-34999421
Reducing the limit means imo less people will take the risk for that one extra drink - what it also does is cover all bases from the person who has an empty stomach to the guy who thinks he is fine but his reactions will be impaired
Even having two pints some people will suddenly feel more confident more brave but reactions will be affected.
If the Police Federation are correct, and the message about the dangers of drink driving isn’t getting through to drivers, then the scientific evidence seems to support the idea that a reduction in the limit would lead to fewer accidents, as it seems that the more alcohol you drink, the more you are impaired. As NICE’s guidelines state “studies consistently demonstrate that the risk of having an accident increases exponentially as more alcohol is consumedâ€.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....upport-a-reduction-in-the-drink-driving-limit
So what’s the negative of reducing the level ?
Sounds like reasonable justification to me. But that is to look at, not change. Change if the data clearly shows that a drop in the permitted level will reduce accidents.
A question in relation to the stats for Sweden and Scotland; is the reduction in accidents due to reducing the limit or is it due to the focus and education placed on the reduced limit?
Strangely enough RTA's due to DD have been reducing almost every year since the DD limits were brought in, and have continued to drop in England and Wales without reducing the limits further. Drink related RTA's have dropped by over 66% since the introduction of the limits, and RTA deaths have reduced by 88%.
As to your list of questions; all very valid questions. But that's all they are, valid questions. And until those questions are answered I see no point in making the change...
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
I have no doubt that better education along with hard hitting campaigns in the media will also have an affect - for me to put on top of that a reduction in the limit if it would prob save one life then it’s worth it but I suspect it would save more than one a year.
I have no doubt there are plenty out there who are below the current legal limit but there ability to drive safely has been comprised due to that second or even in some cases that first drink.
I don’t think there is ever any negative that outweighs safety in regards dropping the limit and hopefully it’s only a matter of time until it happens.
As for the questions in regards phoning police in regards someone drink driving - yes I have.
anotherdouble
Journeyman Pro
I ask again phil how many of the people at your club have you reported to the police for possibly being over the limit when driving home
Sorry just seen your answer. You should be doing it every day you see somebody not just yes you have. You asked for a poll and because you don't like some people's responses you are turning what was initially a good thread into a question time type debate and won't accept anybody's answer that doesn't agree to your way of thinking. If I had lost 2 friends and seen another disabled I would be on the phone every single minute if somebody had had even 2 pints. But something nags at me that you don't do this. I could be wrong and couldn't disprove anyway
Sorry just seen your answer. You should be doing it every day you see somebody not just yes you have. You asked for a poll and because you don't like some people's responses you are turning what was initially a good thread into a question time type debate and won't accept anybody's answer that doesn't agree to your way of thinking. If I had lost 2 friends and seen another disabled I would be on the phone every single minute if somebody had had even 2 pints. But something nags at me that you don't do this. I could be wrong and couldn't disprove anyway
Last edited:
"Probably" and "suspect" don't make definitive answers. And where is the line for an acceptable reaction time? Does a 10mg limit mean 5 yards? Even 5 yards could mean life or death.
The 80mg limit was brought in based on evidence. If further evidence determines the need for change, fine go for it. But I'm not for change based on the emotional argument you put forward. Prove the argument and I'm happy to support it.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
The report done in 2010 by NICE did recommend reducing the level - it appears our government rejected the idea of reducing the levels
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12806554
Sir Peter, a leading academic and legal expert, had made a total of 51 recommendations in his report last year, including lowering the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg.
Based on new research by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), he said that as many as 168 lives - about 7% of UK road deaths - could be saved by a reduced drink-drive limit in the first year.
This could rise to as many as 303 lives by the sixth year, he said.
Wow!!
It could save 303 lives a year!! Super wow!!
You do realise that the number of RTA drink related deaths is already down to 170 deaths... so please tell me how Sir Peter's figures compute when the total is already below 303. Well, that sure does make Sir Peter's report accurate. Thank goodness a government decided to ignore his flawed thinking.
So he’s concluded that 168 lives would be saved in year one because that amount of deaths (and more) were caused by people driving with alcohol in them under 80mg but over 50mg, so as it stood, they were driving legally but he’s stating that at least 168 lives would have been saved just in that bracket (30mg variable) alone which justifies it being lowered.
I say, show me those figures!
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ndependent.gov.uk/docs/NorthReview-Report.pdf
Full report is there
People wanted research well there is it. The report was requested by the Transport Secretary
Why ring for 2 pints, I’d say that would blow negative and below the majority of the time, if not immediately the definitely the second blow would be lower or if taken in to the machine at the station that was then lower, then you walk free as it’s coming out of your system.
I wonder at his clubs dinner functions when seeing presidents and long serving distinguished members (ex captains etc) awash with beer or wine he’s reported, I’d bet none!
I wonder if he’s ever drove over 70mph on the motorway, or is that different 🤔
Yes we did, to back up your arguments, not just cut & paste what you’ve now found through Google which doesn’t substantiate anything as it’s flawed which is why it probably got thrown out!
I want proof that the 30mg variable will save lives because in that bracket alone xyz amount of lives were lost, if there is no evidence of that because those accidents were all over 80mg’s anyway, then why will those that flaunted the law at that level be any different with it being lowered, imo they won’t!
It’s a knee jerk reaction.
And the recommendations from that report have been shown to be flawed. Data in the report is unquestionable but interpretations, assumptions and subsequent recommendations need to be reviewed.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Scotland introduced the recommended level - has that shown to be flawed or has there been reduction in drink driving offences in Scotland ?
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Surley if no figures are available as to numbers actually breath tested to actual over the limit cases a comparison cannot be made.
reduction could be for a number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with drinking.
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
People cause road deaths by driving like idiots. Even when sober. Its driving like an idiot that needs to be clamped down on. Anything else is papering over the issue.
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
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.
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.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Now there's a novel approach.
Agreed, since I bought myself a dash cam I am notably much more conscious of my speed and driving habits.
So, new cars should have built in dash cams linked to a [black box], this would cut out so much idiotic driving imo.
User20205
Money List Winner
Don’t disagree, but is a drunken idiot is more dangerous than a sober idiot?
I don’t really like the attitude of ‘I’ve had x pints I know that I’m ok’ but does that make me a hypocrite as I’ll readily have 1 & drive ?