According to government statistics, in 2011, 2012 and 2013, accidents involving death or serious injury where alcohol was involved amounted to only 5%, meaning that sober drivers cause 95% of accidents.

have you got a ketchup for that?

Speeding? 😈

Took a decision a few years ago now to not have any alcohol when driving. Its effects cannot be predicted, sometimes you have a pint and feel as though you’ve had nothing. Other times you feel as though you’re a bit tipsy. Part of it is that I don’t want the guilt if I have an accident of thinking if I hadn’t had a drink, maybe it would have been avoidable. I was following a rather suspicious car, driving very slowly and weaving a bit. I thought about ringing the Police, but it turned off. Dunno, if I did the right thing, but part of me wishes I’d made the call.

I got stopped by one of those drink-drive test stops by the Police a couple of years ago. The young PO asked me “when was the last time you had a drink”. Queue me, in typical belligerent manner “I had a cup of tea about 10mins ago at me ma’s”. I got a vacant stare and told to get out the vehicle. Had to blow in to the machine, and then they went round the car looking for defects. Nothing wrong. I had a craic with the elder Officer who apologised for wasting my time. As I drove off I could see him having a word with the younger PO.

According to government statistics, in 2011, 2012 and 2013, accidents involving death or serious injury where alcohol was involved amounted to only 5%, meaning that sober drivers cause 95% of accidents.

Maybe the priorities are wrong?

I doubt 1 in 20 drivers is pissed, so 5% is probably a much higher likelyhood of having an accident? You’d need to know what proportion of people at any given time are speeding to figure out if speeding was a factor in accidents.

@Graham – you do seem a bit hung up about money but if you sailed you would know that most people who Sunday race don’t own a boat (myself included), they are just along for the glory and the beer…..so just the glory now then!

I dunno, I’m quite capable of being sociable after the race without beer.

large418 – Member

According to government statistics, in 2011, 2012 and 2013, accidents involving death or serious injury where alcohol was involved amounted to only 5%, meaning that sober drivers cause 95% of accidents.

TBH that blows away the suggestion from some folks that the job is already done and drink driving shouldn’t be a priority, 5% of accidents being totally predictable and preventable is something we should be doing more about.

I’m going against the stw circle jerk reaction to the reduced Alcohol limits and say it’s a crap decision, If i’m out for a meal i enjoy a pint or a glass of wine, , and as for accident reduction? – stopping folk driving like complete tossers on the roads would be a start.

northwind – I don’t think many on here are arguing against further tough action on drink driving.

But a fair proportion of the other 95% of accidents were just as predictable and some of us think those should be addressed in the same way as drink driving.

This whole argument so far seems so one sided,so black and white. He had a drink so he must be to blame scream the abolitionists.

Lets get this straight, no one is condoning being drunk at the wheel and no one is asking for the limit to be raised. Alchohol in low doses may slightly impair your reaction times, yes thats true. Clearly many things can do this as has been mentioned above. But why should a possible marginal reduction in the time it takes me to process infirmation be the difference between life and death, however it is caused. Im not a fighter pilot or a surgeon, just driving my old estate car in the same manner that has kept me accident and point free for 27 years. Ah ! but you howl, the roads are much more dangerous now – well perhaps they are, but why is this? Perhaps it has more to do with those on the Golf RS thread. People who feel they need the enhanced grip provided by a powerful 4wd car to drive about on their daily business worry me far more than any 1 pint driver. Those (and there are many) who feel the speed limit is just not relevant to them or who feel they can justify a dangerous manoever by thier horsepower and peerless driving skill have led to situations getting out of hand in a split second and god forbid if anyone else has let their attention slip at that moment
Just like the the current cycling debate where the first thing asked after an accident is “were they wearing hi vis and a helmet”

> According to government statistics, in 2011, 2012 and 2013, accidents involving death or serious injury where alcohol was involved amounted to only 5%, meaning that sober drivers cause 95% of accidents.

have you got a ketchup for that?

I think the 5% figure is from the Contributory Factors tables in RRCGB, but that records drivers who were over the current limit, not those who’d had a drink but were under the limit.

There is some data in the RAS51007 table though (Proportion of killed drivers/riders resulting from reported accidents, by BAC category and age: GB, 2012), which briefly summarised says:

No alcohol present (0 – 9 mg): 74%
Alcohol present but not over the limit (10 – 80 mg): 8%
Over the limit (81 mg +): 18%

So you might well conclude that alcohol consumption is a factor in 26% of driver fatalities (note: this doesn’t include any people they hit) and a nearly a third of that is alcohol consumption below the current legal limit.

Having said that, I suppose you could also argue that being sober was a factor in 74% of fatal accidents so it’s much safer to be pissed. 😀

So if you’re self confessed impaired reactions resulted in you hitting someone, would you get out and say “well, you could have been hit by a Golf RS”?

Just like the the current cycling debate where the first thing asked after an accident is “were they wearing hi vis and a helmet”

The difference is wearing a helmet is a personal choice, if you don’t wear one and suffer a head injury then no one else is to blame or gets hurt, that’s fair.

If you drive after a couple of pints and hit someone, you’re still fine, they’re potentialy very badly injured, that’s not fair.

Tinas – so you missed both my points!

No. I think he summed it up pretty well.

People who feel they need the enhanced grip provided by a powerful 4wd car to drive about on their daily business worry me far more than any 1 pint driver.

If you can produce tediously consistent evidence that people with that attitude are more likely to have accidents, and if you can test for that attitude at the roadside, then I think you’ve got a point.

aracer – Member

Speeding? 😈

😆
Primary causal factor in about 4% of KSIs.

Inattention is the number one cause of accidents, but it’s hard to police, so we don’t bother.

I’m not sure how the figures are compiled but assume they include accidents where the person over the limit was not at fault?

I’ve been to loads of RTC’s where the innocent party has been tested and found to be over the limit.

I find this discussion quite difficult as I agree with a complete ban with regards to having any alcohol then driving. Problem is the next day as who knows if after a reasonable amount the day/night before when you are ok the day after? I’m sure you could not go mad and feel fine the next day but still be over.

I think this is more a clever marketing campaign than anything else, a more effective message then “please no drink and drive, thanks”. It seems to be working !

The Police set up checkpoints in Kiwilandm on friday and saturday nights in the run up to xmas, and on xmas day. In Wellington where I grew up there are only a limited number of roads out of town. They breath test everybody in a private car. Makes for huge traffic jams, but better than the strawberry jam that was a feature of Christmas when I was growing up.

Inattention is the number one cause of accidents, but it’s hard to police, so we don’t bother.

Easy to police for mobile phone use but that still just gets 3pts rather than a ban for driving at 50mg.

MoreCashThanDash – Member

But a fair proportion of the other 95% of accidents were just as predictable and some of us think those should be addressed in the same way as drink driving.

OK, that’s fair, though I think it often reads more like “You shouldn’t do this because there’s other things that are also bad”

winston – Member

Alchohol in low doses may slightly impair your reaction times, yes thats true. Clearly many things can do this as has been mentioned above. But why should a possible marginal reduction in the time it takes me to process infirmation be the difference between life and death, however it is caused.

Well, lowering reaction times is dangerous obviously- it can make the difference between hitting the thing you hit, and not. But that’s not the only issue obviously, alcohol even in small quantities can also cause reduced coordination, drowsiness, loss of concentration, impairment of judgement and awareness, boosts confidence… Reaction times are probably the least of it, it’s a really bad cocktail.

When I was young and stupider I remember one time after a couple of drinks, assessing my fitness to drive (well, ride- motorbike) and deciding I was just fine. Then got on the bike and pressed the horn instead of the starter button (they’re about 2 feet apart). Got back off, obviously! But I was in no fit state to ride and til I got on the bike I was sure I was safe.

But that’s the problem with things that impair your judgement, they apply when you’re not driving too. I’d decided to have one drink only then ride later, then I thought “I’ll leave the bike and get the bus, and have another drink”. The sober decisions were absolutely fine by themselves- but they led up to a drunk decision to ride. I never thought “I’m not fit to ride but I’ll do it anyway because I’m a ****” like I think the public perception of drink driving generally is.

Hands up anyone who’s never either done this or seen this- the obviously pissed guy who’s outright offended that you don’t think he’s fit to drive. “I never drive drunk, but I’m not drunk! I’m asserluterly fine”

So back to the topic, what this is mostly about isn’t really the 50-80 bracket, or saying that now 60mg is dangerous, imo. It’s not a numbers game, it’s an attitude game- to make people think, “I’m driving therefore I won’t drink at all”, instead of “I’ll just have the one” or “I’ll just have 2 then wait til I drive” or all the other little justifications and errors of judgement and stepping stones that lead to someone innocently/unintentionally/stupidly driving while over the limit.

So maybe it’s headline grabbing but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

thisisnotaspoon – Member
So if you’re self confessed impaired reactions resulted in you hitting someone, would you get out and say “well, you could have been hit by a Golf RS”?

I find this style of argument on any topic polarising and unhelpful as it looks like you want to stop debate.

All the causes of RTCs should be tackled, and discussion about it should be open.

For gods sake when will this obsession with the nanny state and safety end? 80mg is fine but they just need more police on the road to enforce it. Before long we’ll not be able to breathe without filling in a risk assessment. Accidents happen and are a part of human existance. Let us enjoy life, live free and push back at he state who are ever increasingly trying to control and regulate our lives.

Hands up anyone who’s never either done this or seen this- the obviously pissed guy who’s outright offended that you don’t think he’s fit to drive. “I never drive drunk, but I’m not drunk! I’m asserluterly fine”

Nope but I did pretty much exactly what you did on the motorbike, only I made it a few miles and decided to park it and go for a walk before I killed myself. Felt completley sober off the bike but just didn’t have the motor skills/ballance/judgement to actualy ride.

I find this style of argument on any topic polarising and unhelpful as it looks like you want to stop debate.

He started it.

I think he’d demonstrated he didn’t want reasoning with by justifying drink driving on the bais that other people drove faster cars. Rather than displaying the attidude that the majority of people would agree with of trying to be as safe as possible both for himself and other road users who have no input into his poor judgement calls.

Under those circumstances I don’t feel that making out that his viewpoint is that of an idiot by paraphrasing it back to him is an unreasnoble response.

Inattention is the number one cause of accidents, but it’s hard to police, so we don’t bother.

Yep unfortunately we tend not to convict people for it either. One of the biggest changes could well be from the other end of the legal system, in court. Start by throwing out any flaky defence along the lines of weather, sun position, hi viz or helmet use. and then hand out proper sentencing for the guilty.

rebel12 – Member

For gods sake when will this obsession with the nanny state and safety end? 80mg is fine but they just need more police on the road to enforce it. Before long we’ll not be able to breathe without filling in a risk assessment. Accidents happen and are a part of human existance. Let us enjoy life, live free and push back at he state who are ever increasingly trying to control and regulate our lives.

You are Bill O’Reilly and ICM£3.19

“Under those circumstances I don’t feel that making out that his viewpoint is that of an idiot by paraphrasing it back to him is an unreasnable response.”

Glad to see you are capable of balanced reasonable debate – I don’t normally debate/argue on this type of forum because inevitably it ends up with insults. I called you a child, you called me an idiot. Lets just leave it there and agree to disagree.

Well it wont catch me out as (A) I don’t drink and (B) I don’t own a car.

Drink driving is bad but I don’t like the law in Germany which means that if you ride your bicycle drunk you can lose your drivers licence.

For gods sake when will this obsession with the nanny state and safety end?

the nanny state is about states telling you you can’t do something for your own good (eg eat too much sugar). drink drive limits are about states telling you you can’t do something else for everything else’s benefit.

the nanny state thing would probably have made sense to you if you had grown up with a nanny, like the Tory MPs and columnists that coined it

rebel12 – Member
For gods sake when will this obsession with the nanny state and safety end?

Do you live in Scotland? If so you could always move to England who have no plans for such a policy. If you don’t then what are you moaning about, the people of Scotland elected a government who, after consultation with substantial public support, overwhelmingly voted for this change.

Our of interest if in 3-5 yrs time the “Scottish experiment” shows a reduction in KSI stats v’s rUK would you be open to changing your view?

Our of interest if in 3-5 yrs time the “Scottish experiment” shows a reduction in KSI stats v’s rUK would you be open to changing your view?

Not likely, 80mg seems a sensible limit and people drinking one pint before driving really are not the problem, it’s people drinking 3,4,5 etc who need catching. If we lower it to 50mg then I suspect half the nation who’ve been out to an Xmas party or social function the night before will now be over the lower limit and risk criminalization for participating in what would seem to be a normal part of social and festive cuture.

In addition, after the damage already done by the smoking ban, how many more remote country pubs would close down if people couldn’t have a pint or two any more and then drive home. These are pubs that are often at the heart of a small community and rely on this sort of trade to make ends meet. Do we really want that or should we actually be targeting the people who are habitual drink drivers? It smacks of punishing everyone rather than the few who actually are the problem.

What next, will we have to prove we’ve had a set number of hours sleep the night before we drive, because we all know that tired driving can be as dangerous as drink driving. No more staying up late if we have to drive in the morning!

Yes people will still die on the roads, however safe we try to make them but to engineer all the fun out of life through increasingly restrictive laws and social legislation, all in the name of safety – well that’s stopping people living in the first place.

By the way, I bet that a compulsorary eyesight test for drivers would bring about a far bigger benefit to road safety than lowering speed limits or drink drive limits. Guess the government wouldn’t make so much money from eye tests as speed cameras though!

It smacks of punishing everyone rather than the few who actually are the problem.

or, in other words, “I’m an awesome driver after a couple of pints, it’s other people that are the problem”.

rebel12 – if you actually think any of that argument makes sense then I assume you’ve already had well over the 80 mg/100mL level tonight!

However I didn’t ask if you thought it was likely to have a positive impact, I asked IF IT DID whether you would review your opinion.

Your arguments about stopping you enjoying yourself seem rather bizarre to me; if the only way you can enjoy yourself it to drive home after 1-2 pints or when in the 50-80mg/100mL range the following morning I think you need to take a look at your life.

Tiredness and eyesight are legitimate questions to be asking but its not either or.

or, in other words, “I’m an awesome driver after a couple of pints, it’s other people that are the problem”.

I know there’s some evidence that driving at the legal limit impairs your driving, so it makes sense to lower the limit. But, it would be very interesting to see the number of accidents involving people in the 50-80mg range. I’m guessing we don’t have these numbers because at the moment it’s not illegal so the data isnt collected. I guess we’ll know how well it’s worked in 3-5 years time.

it would be very interesting to see the number of accidents involving people in the 50-80mg range. I’m guessing we don’t have these numbers because at the moment it’s not illegal so the data isnt collected.

Its probably not accurately recorded but I’m sure some forces will record the number of people who blow “amber” at the roadside and many will know how many blow in that range at the police station. Indeed you might consider this is targeted at penalising those who are just over when actually driving but by the time the police arrive, deal with the roadside matters, then get them back to a station, booked in and the evidential samples collected scrape through under the limit.

“Police figures indicate that 2% of drivers breath tested following a collision produce a result
in the 50mg to 80mg range.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras51-reported-drinking-and-driving

what percentage of people tested in the same circumstances blew 80mg+? I can’t see which is the right table, sorry.

or, in other words, “I’m an awesome driver after a couple of pints, it’s other people that are the problem”.

Nope, never ever had more than one pint before driving, but I’ve probably unwittingly and unintentionally been in the 50-80mg range the next morning after a night out or work social event.

According to medical experts the effects of alcohol and the time it takes to disperse from the body are not linear and that the last smaller residual amount of alcohol takes far longer to dissipate from the bloodstream than when your blood alcohol level are much higher.

As a result are you aware that you could be over the 50mg limit on next mornings commute after just 3-4 pints of beer the night before. Yet you’ll feel absolutely fine, completely alert and fit to drive.

3-4 social beers is hardly a big session is it, yet with a lower 50mg limit all those who pop to the pub for a few with their mates after work risk loosing their licenses and jobs if a lower limit was introduced.

Is this what we really need to be concentrating on to make our roads safer? Perhaps the government should simply put a ban on fun, and to avoid offending those of a sensitive nature, instead of supporting our local rural pubs and communities, we should all head down instead to the local retail park to a branch of whichever tax avoiding, Luxembourg based coffee shop chain is in fashion at the moment.

Maybe the local pubs need to diversify into more non-alcoholic alternatives?

Maybe the local pubs need to diversify into more non-alcoholic alternatives?

Maybe, or maybe they’ve already been trying alternatives for many years since the smoking ban, recession etc. Real shame but suspect this will just be the final nail in the coffin for yet another ‘local’ we used to know and love. Another small community left without a place where young and old can meet, a hollow shell of it’s former self. I know, I’ve seen it happen in my parents village when the local closed. Yes everyone’s probably more sober but there’s not the same sense of community in the village any more and people seem to no longer care for each other as was once the case. It’s now just a small village of houses, each keeping themselves to themselves, a real shame.

just 3-4 pints of beer the night before. Yet you’ll feel absolutely fine, completely alert and fit to drive.

blooming sure I wouldn’t be on top form the next morning after just 3-4 pints!! especially if it was a n early commute e.g. 7am – with a toast & coffee – as opposed to say 9am with a full breakfast..

If measures like that help the RTA statistics then I’m all for it.

Nope, never ever had more than one pint before driving, but I’ve probably unwittingly and unintentionally been in the 50-80mg range the next morning after a night out or work social event.

you do realise that this sounds like it is more important that you should have your big drinking session than be safe to drive the next day. If so YOU are one of the targets behind the tighter rules.

According to medical experts the effects of alcohol and the time it takes to disperse from the body are not linear and that the last smaller residual amount of alcohol takes far longer to dissipate from the bloodstream than when your blood alcohol level are much higher.

really do you have a source for that? I thought the removal of alcohol from blood stream was pretty much zero order and relatively constant between people at ~ 15 mg/100mL/hr so we are talking 2 hrs diff between 80 and 50. My understanding was the disparity was how quickly, and how much, got into your blood stream.

As a result are you aware that you could be over the 50mg limit on next mornings commute after just 3-4 pints of beer the night before. Yet you’ll feel absolutely fine, completely alert and fit to drive.

feeling fine is not the same as being fine.

3-4 social beers is hardly a big session is it, yet with a lower 50mg limit all those who pop to the pub for a few with their mates after work risk loosing their licenses and jobs if a lower limit was introduced.

its not IF this is introduced, this IS being introduced on the 5th December (2 weeks!) in Scotland. If only there was someway that the people of Scotland could have picked people to represent them in making laws, and their law making activities were subject to some form of specialist committee based scrutiny and public consultation…

Perhaps the government should simply put a ban on fun, and to avoid offending those of a sensitive nature, instead of supporting our local rural pubs and communities,

you do know that drink related accidents are more common in rural areas of scotland than urban ones so not a strong argument to “protect rural communities”.

For all those people behind their keyboards on their moral high horses saying ‘anything that makes the roads safer is good’ – have you actually taken an advanced driving test or any further driver training yourself to make you a safer driver since passing your test? I suspect most of you are complete hypocrite’s I’m afraid.

Reminds me of sir Bob, procrastinating about how terrible Ebola is and demanding all our money, yet he himself is not prepared to forgo his private jet flights for it or actually go to Sierra Leone himself to help with the task at hand.