Attitude adjustment towards drink driving often comes when a drink driver mows down someone close.

Be grateful you live in the UK for once.
Belgian drink drive rules are shockingly relaxed & there seems to be little or no social stigma to drink driving!

we have 6 limits each with gradually increasing severity.
0.5 – 0.8 promille = minimum 3 hour immediate driving ban & a fine
0.8 – 1.2 = minimum 6 hour immediate ban & if driving dangerously your licence is taken until your case is in court (& a fine) where you risk a 7 / 14 day ban.
1.2 – 1.5 = same as above but bigger fine
1.5 – 1.6 = 6 hour immediate ban / court case & fine
1.6 & above = 15 day ban / court case / fine & further ban of 1 month (or longer if you have a bad record)
drunk behind the wheel / refusing a breath test = same as above.

For example; double the British limit = expect to pay a thousand euros & lose your licence for a fortnight!

That's why we need cycle paths everywhere!

3 hour immediate ban. Now where would you go if you suddenly had 3 hours to kill…..

Could I just throw into the fray the fact that overtaking a cyclist on a bend is also a voluntary act and also kills many people.

Also bald statistics do not tell the full story. Of the 2724 (has risen by 6 since yesterday), approx 130 are cyclists. As there are substantially less cyclists on the road than motor vehicles and those cyclists travel substantially less miles than motor vehicles do on average, it is reasonable to argue that cycling deaths are in fact a bigger issue than drink driving, but they do not get anything like the level of attention.

In that I am fully in agreement with Zokes, that in fact drink driving occupies a disproportionately large amount of the effort to minimise road deaths. There are pleanty of other significant areas that require simialr attention.

But the person being killed isn't the person at fault. That article of Edukators is very useful,it looks at the deathtolls per vehicle mile for instance. HGV drivers half as likely as car drivers to be involved in accidents (per mile) motorcycle riders over 20 times more likely to cop it. An interesting bit of info in the article is that in an RTA the driver at fault is (averaged out) the least likely to die, their own passengers, the vehicle they collide with and of course cyclists and pedestrians are where all the death happens.

Lots of other variables to throw in though, Young people cause accidents, old people are victims of them. Age, rather and experience has an effect too. So an older person with little experience is safer than a younger person with a lot>

But if cyclists are victims of accidents it isn't 'being cyclists' that is the cause of each of those accidents, they are just who ever happens to be infront of someone driving poorly. I would suspect that most cyclists are injured and killed in an urban context, as are pedestrians, and speed, or at least haste, would often be the contributing factor.

The fact remains, and remains, and remains that although there are a multitude of bad things happening out there and that they all need to be addressed. Few people drink and drive, but drink drive accidents are a large proportion of the annual death toll. So being drunk per vehicle mile is more dangerous than speeding per vehicle mile, for instance. Roughly 1 in 5 of your 2700 odd deaths will be due to drink. Lets guess 1 in 5 are also due to speed. Now when you drive along a motorway at bang on 70 what proportion of the traffic around you is travelling faster? For every car that passes you do you think theres another driver around you thats drunk?

So the effort, address and the severity of action are justified, but is it disproportionately high? It doesn't strike me as onerous at all, a few TV ads, stopping people who are driving badly (which you would do anyway) carry a little party blower. Compared to average speed camera systems and all that infrastructure is strikes me as pretty low key.

Not sure what a large proportion means, but the proportion is in fact just shy of 16% which is not a large proportion in my book, significant maybe, but not large.

The real issue is that all of these deaths are tragedies, but the vast majority, i.e. 84% are not caused by D & D, but that is the one which is a social pariah, whilst people flippantly skip over the others that zokes has highlighted above.

That is the point skidster. Causing death whilst driving should be the pariah, not merely D & D

16% is a huge proportion, when you consider all of the other factors that could contribute to an accident, and how few of the drivers on the road are drunk

I don't think anybody is suggesting that any other form of negligent driving is ok though

My brother killed three people (himself, his best mate, and his girlfriend) due to drink driving. There's no getting round it, you're a c**t if you do it, and a silly c**t for trying to condone it.

Berm Bandit I don't think you fully understand the statistics on this one. If 16% of deaths are caused by drunk drivers then that is a huge problem as I'm pretty sure that the number of drunk drivers on the road is much lower than 16%. So a small group of drivers are causing proportionally more deaths.

To put it in another context, far more people die from smoking related diseases than from say taking heroin however it would not be correct to draw the conclusion that smoking is more dangerous than heroin as there are far more people who smoke than take heroin. Sober driver kill more people because there are more of them.

I do however agree that we in this country do not take deaths on the road seriously enough.

i'd love to see the figures for deaths caused by people who'd only had 1 pint (hovering around the current limit).

a limit of zero is totally impractical, when does someone have no alcohol in their blood? 5 hours after a drink? 3 days?

Yes, the real reveal would be the number of accidents resultant of people having had a drink but not being over the current limit. How many of those remaining 86% have some amount of alcohol in their system, but not what is currently considered to be too much? If there are a significant number then perhaps there's cause for action.

But of course half the problem is as a driver you have no idea where you are in relation to the limit. "1 pint" is a massively variable amount of alcohol. Even with the same brand of beer you can get around a 20% variance in strength. But then theres the perception that food 'soaks it up'. What if you're a big biffa, or some skinny streak of piss. What if you've got oriental genes, What if you've got an underlying liver problem you're unaware of? A seasoned alcoholic with a stuffed liver can get battered on hardly any booze at all.

but I'd imagine most records are on/off though- over the limit /not over the limit.

You'll be telling me cannabis … [is] more dangerous than tobacco

ahahahaha classic stoner ignoring the facts cos it interferes with their own actions. cannabis is loaded with tar, far more than tobacco. burnt tar in your lungs ain't a good thing…

gonefishin – Member
Berm Bandit I don't think you fully understand the statistics on this one

A tad patronising if you don't mind me pointing that out. I think you'll find everyone else is making sweeping assumptions if you care to read the thread. For instance this one :-

Yes, the real reveal would be the number of accidents resultant of people having had a drink but not being over the current limit.

So thats everyone else then, as I suspect you'll find pretty much everyone else who has had an accident has partaken of alcohol at some point and are not currently over the limit. THINK ABOUT IT!!

as I'm pretty sure that the number of drunk drivers on the road is much lower than 16%.

(Thats the sweeping assumption with nothing at all to back it up) and heres the conclusion being drawn from said sweeping assumption, all nicely done so as to suggest it as a fact

So a small group of drivers are causing proportionally more deaths.

So here we have a classic case of a sweeping assumption being made. I would respectfully suggest that it is you who don't fully understand anything, including what you yourself have written.

you're a c**t if you do it, and a silly c**t for trying to condone it

Very sorry to hear about your brother barnsleymitch. Fully understand why you would feel that way, however, I don't think you'll find that either I or anyone else has at any point condoned it. For my part I lost my 28 year old nephew in a motorcyle accident relatively recently, and as a result I seriously object to the concept that people seem to think that D & D and speeding are the only serious causes of death on the roads worth spending £100's of millions of pounds on. So the sentiment does in fact cut both ways.

from edukators link

thats for france rather than here but the point is the same point

No it isn't France has a much different problem with drink driving than the UK.

It is different but its the proportion of offenders (low) to consequences (high) thats the point. And all other careless approaches to driving remain reprehensible.

It is different but its the proportion of offenders (low) to consequences (high) thats the point

No its different in that with a similar population France managed to rack up 4602 road deaths in 2007 of which some 1334 were attributed to alcohol, almost 30% as opposed to the UK with just 430 and 16% respectively. So clearly the circumstances are very different and you just cannot attribute the same charactersitics to what is a clearly different situation.

Thats the point, D & D is clearly not right, of that there is no question. However, in this country it is nowhere near as serious a problem as it is in France and there are many other issues also deserving of the attention that D & D currently gets.

The amount of people who don't understand how the limits work is shocking. I can't count how many times I've been asked "the limit is 2 pints, isn't it?"

The most likely difference for the discrepacies between British and French stats for the proportion of accidents in which alcohol is a factor is the way statistics are compiled. All pedestrians killed in an RTC in France are tested for alcohol, only 30% for the UK. A much higher percentage of vehicle users involved in RTCs are alcohol tested in France than in the UK. Only people over the limit are included in stats in the UK but any alcohol gets you into the French statistics.Read for yourselves

The type of vehicles used also affect the total numbers. The number of pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, motorcycles and small, light cars in France is higher. British people move around in tanks and are better protected.

Only 48% of drivers involved in fatal RTCs are tested by police?

I just don't believe that. Breathalysing drivers at 'normal' RTCs is routine, let alone fatals. (Even drivers that are injured or dead are still tested via police hospital procedures).

And what is this 20% tested by the coroners court? How does that work?

So here we have a classic case of a sweeping assumption being made. I would respectfully suggest that it is you who don't fully understand anything, including what you yourself have written.

Okay I'll express it another way. If there were a higher proportion of drunk drivers on the road would there be more or less deaths as a result?

With respect, that is not the point. The point you were making is an assumption that far less than 16% of drivers on the road have taken a drink. You had nothing to support that point at all, and there is no qualititive evidence to support it either way. You were using that assumption to contest my contention that whilst 16% is a significant proportion of deaths, 84% of deaths are caused by other factors. Which is a FACT!

You can faff about with the numbers and come up with any conclusion you like, but I think you will find that the specifics of what I have said will remain an irrefutable fact.

Relatives often refuse autopsies. This influences lots of statistics including the number of athletes killed by performance enhancing drugs.

Would you allow an autopsie on your partner or child if you knew it would show an alcohol level over the limit? It may compromise an insurance payout and would certainly attach stigma to the death.

I'm not sure of autopsie rights in the UK, maybe someone is?

16% is a significant proportion of deaths, 84% of deaths are caused by other factors. Which is a FACT!

Sorry, that is not a fact and the deeper you dig the more you'll realise the level to which drink driving as a factor is under reported in the UK.

Sighs……

Supporting evidence for that assertion please.

I think your point is hard to argue. I have no doubt that pretty much everyone else on here will tell you that anytime they have been driving and involved in an accident where the Police are called they have been breath tested. So I'm hard pressed to understand where you are getting your perspective from.

Read my links Bandit.

I have, now can you please show me supporting evidence of that assertion?

As for the one pint having a serious effect on your driving.

( this is all from memory) I saw some research done a few years ago with bus drivers. They were asked to put two cones the minimum distance apart that they could drive their bus thru then drive it thru. sober – no problem. Two units of alcohiol. 1/3 of them set the cones too narrow to fit the bus thru and another 1/3 hit a cone. Only 1/3 completed the task after 2 units / 1 pint.

Small scale test and I can't remember any details beyond what I quote above. However it tested both driving ability and spatial awareness and showed serious deficit even when below the drink drive limit.

Brrrrrrr. Back from a really nice walk. I'm recovering from surgery faster than I thought I was. Ace!

BB, really liked your youtube link on the other thread, remember the sketch but had forgotten who was in it. Bookmarked.

err. carry on.

No argument with that TJ, but thats not whats being said here.

The stats I'm quoting are the DOT's figures for deaths caused by D & D, as stated in law in this country. There are no proper stats kept outside of that, so any statement to the contrary is pure guesswork. In the meantime, 84% of road deaths are attributed to other factors. On top of that the majority of the inof and links posted by Edukator are Frecnh and their situation is entirely different from the UK, where we have taken the issue of D & D far more seriously than they have for a very long time.

From the link:

The UK has a higher BAC level that other countries at 0.8mg. France is 0.5mg

The UK only includes road users that fail the BAC level in its statistics but other countries include all road users with measurable alcohol.

In the UK the alcohol level is known for only 68% (48% by police, 20% by coroner?s courts)of driver in fatal accidents. In France it is 90%

The lower you set the limit for including alcohol as a factor in your statistics and the more dead or seriously injured people you test the higher the proportion of "alcohol related" will be in the stats. The UK uses a high limit and doesn't test a lot casualties; alcohol as a factor is therefore underreported. If you can't see that I really can't help you further Bandit and you will have to accept that forum memebers are going to draw conclusions about your ability to reason.

Accepting TJ's example and accepting 84% are mutually incompatible Bandit.

Either you think that no accident at less that 80mg is caused by alcohol and that the people that did not undergo an autopsie had not been drinking.

Or you accept that alcohol at less than 80mg is a factor and the number of drunk people is under reported, and the 84% becomes nonsense.

Edukator, what you say is self evident, except insomuch that you are assuming that "no record" supports your argument, which is fundamentally flawed. Not only that it is also making the assumption that all recorded levels of alcohol are a contributary factor. That is the whole argument about having a limit. For example a considerable number of medicines contain measurable amounts of alcohol, as do mouth washes etc etc, but how does the fact that you might have washed your mouth out and it can be measured in your blood impact on the outcome of an accident? In France the adjudication is that 29% of accidents have alcohol as a contributary factor, and thats with their lower limit. So that still leaves 71% that don't.

You don't have the information to judge anymore than I do, and that is all I am saying about the stats, alongside that the fact that there are many other factors in Road fatalities as outlined in the OP which deserve equal amounts of effort to reduce them. So I really don't see where you are going with this.

Accepting TJ's example and accepting 84% are mutually incompatible Bandit.

No it isn't.

I wholly accept that relatively small amounts of alcohol can effect your judgement. However, I am willing to wait for evidence to support the case for reducing the level before I presume to know more than the DoT on the subject. Simple, compatible and not mutually exclusive.

There were others that were attempting to say that small amounts of alcohol made no difference.

Bermbandit – I believe you are wrong and I have followed the others argument – but for sure they have not made the argument well.

Lets take another tack and say that the proportion of drink driving casualties is low because the offence rate is low, and that that is the case because our legislation is appropriate, policing is targeted and effective and that there is widespread public awareness of the causes and risk, and a suitable stigma.

Where this all started was the assertion by Zokes that the high profile policing and draconian punishment of drink drivers (regardless of whether they are in an accident or not) is only because detection and prosecution is easy. You can catch someone drink driving purely by accident, without any suspicion or observation.

So the suggestion is that the police and prosecuting authorities would rather direct their efforts at easy busts cherry picking drunk drivers, rather than doing the real work of prosecuting other drivers that are careless in other ways. And that therefore drink drivers are targetted only as quota achieving exercise.

But I've no experience of the police allowing careless drivers to just swan about being careless, simply because there are higher-scoring prizes to be had. There might be an issue though of making the penalties for other driving offenses more effective.

I personally think the punishment of speeding drivers just doesn't work, culturally speeding drivers feel persecuted rather than punished. I think a whole different model of penalty is required. I would either make the points 'stickier' (take longer to the 'spent'), or as I've suggested before I would make each offence carry a proportionate ban (ie if 12 points= 2 year ban then 3 points should carry a 6 month ban)

So I really don't see where you are going with this

Using your attempts to wind me up to expose the inconsistencies in your agrguments and reasoning. The limits are for practical and judicial reasons. Many countries have decided the 80mg limit still used in the UK was too high, resulted in too many avoidable collisions and have adopted a lower limit. Nobody has ever set a "safe limit", only a maximum limit to be enforced.

Cars should simply be fitted with a GPS based regulator that stops the vehicle breaking the speed limit anywhere. 🙂 The Dutch are about to do a system that doesn't regulate the car but automatically sends you the bill and points. 🙂 🙂

I find it strange the social stigma associated with drink driving has now resulted in laws being so draconian and people speaking in terms of 'murder'. Drink driving only became illegal in the first place back in the 60s/70s (I seem to remember from school), many of the older generation still happily have half a bottle of wine, get back in their daewoo and potter back home without 'murdering' people. Like they've done for the last 50+ years of driving

Imagine losing your license one morning over the fact you still had some alcohol in your blood stream from having a couple of glasses of wine with the missus the night before.

I'd suggest american style testing people for reactions/coordination etc… would be far more appropriate than a breathilizer for catching people who are real dangers

Drink driving only became illegal in the first place back in the 60s/70s

Nope, it goes back to 1872.