Read my links Bandit.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Drink Driving
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
I have, now can you please show me supporting evidence of that assertion?
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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)
Posted 2 years ago # -
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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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. :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
Drink driving only became illegal in the first place back in the 60s/70s
Nope, it goes back to 1872.
Posted 2 years ago # -
DT78 - Reaction/ coordination tests are very subjective though, are they not?
Posted 2 years ago # -
This is sometimes the case DT78. Some people pass a breath test yet are obviously impaired. The police can do a roadside impairment test and subsequently, if they fail that, have the person examined by a doctor (as well as require breath/blood/urine samples). Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act deals with driving whilst unfit through drink (or drugs), and doesn't rely on the person being above a specific alcohol limit as Section 5 (the normal drink drive offence) does. Interesting point though as to whether this should be the routine procedure as opposed to breathylising.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The american system is widely held to be flawed because the co-ordination tests are so subjective, they rely on the arresting officer's opinion of how well the tests are performed. But given probably cause you'll still be breath/blood/urine sampled.
Our system doesn't require probable cause
Posted 2 years ago # -
skidartist - the UK one is a standard procedure with a variety of tests included. Only trained police officers can conduct it, and there would subsequently be a doctor's opinion on top of the police's.
EDIT - you posted as I was typing, how do you mean doesn't require probable cause?
Posted 2 years ago # -
DT78 - Member
..............................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.
Which is why I don't advocate a zero limit but a limit around 25% of our current one. You will be over the limit for one drink that evening - but a couple the bight before will be ok. However a bucketful the night before and you will still be over the limit in the morning.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Aye but what I mean is - you can get random testing here, drivers don't need to have demonstrated themselves to be impared.
I've been stopped for other reasons (a dodgy light for instance) and because of the time of year, and time of day, been breathysed too, even though my actions gave no cause to suspect that I had been drinking (and of course I hadn't)
And at this time of year you'll also get random stops for breath tests in the same way you get random pulls for MOT / emissions tests
Posted 2 years ago # -
do you not think that would require a generational shift though TJ? Alot of those in their 60's who were able to do what they wanted before 1965 (the year an alcohol limit was set) still do unfortunately. Those who grew up with DD being made an issue I believe take it more seriously. However I should imagine a large majority on here have driven the morning after when really they shouldn't have been.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Drink driving only became illegal in the first place back in the 60s/70s"
"Nope, it goes back to 1872."
Drink driving became illegal in 1965.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Aah I see.
There are three circumstances when the police can require you to take a breath test.
1) Suspicion of alcohol (eg. crap driving, staggered out of pub, tip off from public, or smell of alcohol/other sign of impairment on speaking to the driver for some other reason, such as a document check or similar).
2) RTC
3) Moving traffic offence (eg. speeding, careless driving, running red light etc.)
Not quite random, but yes, you can be breathalysed for reasons other than they simply think you're drunk.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's not even random testing here when they get serious. They just stop every car and everybody blows in the bag. There are motorcycle cops to chase down those that twig and try to nip off. They don't do it often but it certainly makes people think twice.
Posted 2 years ago # -
whippersnapper - the main offender in the UK though are those in their early 20s
Back to the USA comparison... The drink/drive/death rate in the USA is higher even though their alcohol consumption rate is lower than in the UK (and even though our young drink drivers get a 4 year head start)
Annnnnd their sentencing is higher
Posted 2 years ago # -
skidartist that suprises me...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Before 1965 it was the drunk in charge law that applied. My father remembers being asked to walk in a straight line before being allowed to continue.
Posted 2 years ago # -
From Wikipedia:
International Comparisons
In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia drunk driving, and deaths caused by drunk driving are considerably lower than the USA, yet alcohol consumption per capita is higher and the legal age for drinking lower. Research in the United Kingdom has show that the danger group for drunk driving is young men in their early 20's rather than teenagers.[26]
Unlike the USA these countries do not see restricting access to alcohol as having any useful role to play in reducing drunk driving, and their lower drink drive deaths would seem to bear this out. Their experience is that random breath tests, severe penalties, including imprisonment for a first offense, combined with blanket public service broadcasting are the most effective strategy.[27]
It's notable that anti-drink driving adverts in Australia and the UK do not attempt to stigmatize drinking, in fact they make the point that it is a normal social activity - its when you mix it with driving that it becomes a problem.,[28][29]
Australian and British Law also does not recognize the crime of DUI Manslaughter and sentences for causing death by drunk driving much lower than the USA, conversely imprisonment for a first offense is not uncommon.[30]Posted 2 years ago # -
Using your attempts to wind me up to expose the inconsistencies in your arguments 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
What ?? I have no idea what that means.
I know what the limits are there for, and I have said so all along. I am also saying that I don't have sufficient evidence to decide on what the limits should be. I do however know that D & D gets much more attention than other road killers like for example driving whilst using your phone.
It is a given that driving whilst on the phone impairs to a similar degree to driving marginally over the DD limit. So for example show me a case where a driver not involved in any accident has been stopped and as a result given a one year ban and substantial fine.
I'm not arguing that D & D is not serious, I'm not even arguing that the law should be more lenient, merely that there are other equally dangerous things that are not given the same attention.
Not sure why thats so difficult to grasp.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So for example show me a case where a driver not involved in any accident has been stopped and as a result given a one year ban and substantial fine.
In the summer I charged a guy with dangerous driving. He was overtaking on the approach to a bend, and nearly took my police car and two other off the road when I came round the bend the other way. No accident (although I don't know how!), no injuries, no damage. 12 month ban, about a £500 fine.
Posted 2 years ago # -
With phones the law just hasn't been quick enough to catch up yet, and the legislation as it stands left barmy loopholes. The presumed issue with phones was holding the phone, but the risk with hands free is hardly lower, but consumer handsfree systems only really evolved in response the loophole.
You would think that talking hands free would be no less risky than talking to a passenger, but a passenger can actually add to your awareness - if you are mid conversation and a hazardous event begins to unfold your passenger stops talking.
There is a suggestion that the period of risk extends to some 10 minutes after a call, although how thats measured I'm unsure. If someone has called to impart information I presume in the absence of being able to be either note or act on the information must be preoccupying.
But how do you police those 10 minutes?
With phones their widespread adoption and use is just too recent to be able to effectively legislate for yet. I'm sure it'll happen though
Posted 2 years ago # -
Whatever Bandit.
Berm Bandit (Berm Bandit)
Member Since
October 12, 2009 (1 month)
Location
UK
Occupation
Bigot
Interests
Wind upsPosted 2 years ago # -
and the legislation as it stands left barmy loopholes.
Too right! Recent case law, someone got off driving on their phone because the police officers hadn't seen whether or not he was speaking, even though he was holding it by his ear whilst driving along with one hand on the wheel! Defence argued that if he wasn't speaking he wasn't using the phone, so wasn't guilty. Court agreed.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Surely his phone records would have been sufficient? Spose it depends how accurately you can place the time of the offense though (and unless the phone was seized you wouldn't know what phone he wasn't talking into)
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
