Forum menu
Oh - and plenty of traffic officers / roads patrols round here.
Yes, but you live in an oil-rich socialist utopia 😉
Not looking at the short jail sentance for rehabilitation – just for punishment.
Best punishment would be to remove license for ever. Do the same for lots of different driving offences and you would have less cars on the road, the drivers left would be the safer drivers and better public transport because of more use etc,.
Not looking at the short jail sentance for rehabilitation – just for punishment.
And studies have shown this to be ineffective for other offences, what makes you think it would be effective for this particular offence?
Edit - assuming you want to see a reduction in offending and are not simply vying for revenge against someone who hasn't actually done any harm (yet).
Have you somehow missed all the stuff in the news recently about our prison system that is presently bordering on total collapse? Awash with Spice and the resulting assaults to such a degree that prisoners are requesting to be put in solitary with the nonces just to feel a degree of safety, and prison staff are openly protesting out of desperation?
I think there are probably slightly more effective solutions than that to be had
I've had a driving ban when I was young and stupid. 6 months for a tot up of speeding points (naughty me) and I can tell you that it's a right royal PITA! When you're used to being mobile then all of a sudden you're not, everything you took for granted becomes a mammoth effort. Going shopping? Getting to work and back? All of a sudden they all become a logistical nightmare. I won't be getting bloody banned again!
The problem isn't coming up with ever more Daily Mail style punishments. The problem is enforcing the laws in the first place to issue the punishments already there. If you live in more rural areas, drink driving is endemic. When we moved out here I was genuinely shocked to a lot of peoples blase acceptance of it. Loads of people do it because they know their chances of being caught are absolutely infinitesimal
Having watched the programme last night they interviewed the guy who came up with the 0.08 level back in 1967. That level was based on a study, in Michigan IIRC, that they did analysis on and determined that the doubling of risk of accident was at the 0.08 level. He was asked if he'd apply the same limit today given the knowledge we now have and he said no.
His one counter argument was the cost of doing so in that if a traffic cop pulled someone over for a breath test and they failed then it generally meant that the cop was tied up for the rest of his shift taking the offender back to the station for the "evidential test". He did say that there were now Evidential Test Meters that could be deployed in vehicles so if you failed the first one then the cops could do the ET there and then. Of course that also involves a cost in equipping at least one such meter with each force or station.
Binners, again, spot on.
I have driven with 2 pints of normal brew normally after a ride and i can cofindently say it has no effect on my driving if anything it makes me a better driver as I am more conscious of my surroundings and other drivers.
And the more you drink the more confidently you can say it.
His one counter argument was the cost of doing so in that if a traffic cop pulled someone over for a breath test and they failed then it generally meant that the cop was tied up for the rest of his shift taking the offender back to the station for the “evidential test”.
A bit of crap argument against it.
Anyway, back for the afternoon track session on my 180mph superbike my instructor said “That’s the best session you’ve done all week!”
You did a good track session because your addled brain was suppressing your self-preservation instincts.
I think it's well established that a low level of alcohol can improve performance. However you won't find many officials shouting it from the rooftops.
I think the statistic we really need is how many deaths are caused by people under the limit that have had a drink?
I have been calibrated when I was followed from the Watermill in Ings at kickingbout time and beathalysed. Two pints of 3% ale and well under the limit.
Ebforcement is the only way to make laws effective. I think breathalysing is so rare now compared to the early 90s.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">franksinatra
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
The lower limit in Scotland is better as it removes the question fir me about whether you can drive on one or two pints. Now I just don’t drink at all if driving. No grey area.
Yup. And the other benefit is that it kicked away the slippery slope. Used to be people would go Pub? I've got the car... Ah well I'll just have one. And then well, you're pretty sure you're under the limit at 2. And then it's ages since the first one and you ate and go on go on go on. Lots of people don't set out to drink and drive but end up doing it, by having to make the decision of when to stop once they're already a bit drunk and their judgement is ****ed.
I can't even be trusted with ebay while drunk never mind a car. And for everyone who thinks "I'm fine on X pints" or "I drive better"- even if that's true for you, do you think it's true of most people? I am pretty sure your own perception is wrong but it's not actually that important if it is or not- because it's not just about you, laws never are.
Except for that one law about having sex with tapirs, that one's all on me
tomaso - the chap in the article quoted by the OP said around 60 a year.
"...it generally meant that the cop was tied up for the rest of his shift taking the offender back to the station for the “evidential test”."
A somewhat sweeping statement. There's every reason to fast track the custody process to secure the evidence, i.e get the driver on the evidential device
The whole argument smacks of - lets punish everyone to send a message to the few who drink and drive (and will almost certainly continue to drink and drive whatever the law says because they know they can get away with it) that it's not acceptable.
I deplore anyone drinking and driving and have never personally done it, however here is no conclusive evidence that small amounts of alcohol, say a single pint effects anyone's driving for the worse since everyone's reaction to alcohol is different. For some, particularly if they rarely drink, a pint will make a bit of a difference to their perceived coordination and will of course be measurable if they were hooked up to some sort of simulator test. For others, a pint barely registers on the system. For me, sometimes I feel it, sometimes I don't. I do know that after a couple of pints though I'm a much better snooker player, and snooker, much like driving is affected by coordination, observation, decision making and mental sharpness.
This isn't an argument that we should all be having a couple of pints before driving, merely that we shouldn't be demonizing people who enjoy a single quick pint after biking, or tarring them with the same brush as those who persistently drive well over the existing drink drive limit.
however here is no conclusive evidence that small amounts of alcohol, say a single pint effects anyone’s driving for the worse since everyone’s reaction to alcohol is different.
Yes everyones response is different but even at levels just below the limit EVERYONE is impaired.
Well proven. I see if I can find the data
Ah, snooker, cool analogy bro.
Well proven. I see if I can find the data
To prove your point? Don't bother! People are obsessed with demonizing the slightest transgression of a speed limit, the slightest amount of alcohol when driving, when the real elephant in the room is basic poor driving standards.
If all those people who rant on about speed and alcohol limits had put half as much energy into improving their own driving standards, and perhaps campaigning instead for increased testing, or mandatory and periodic further training after passing the driving test then so many lives could have been saved. Are you aware that someone who has done their advanced driver training is between 30-50% less likely to be involved in an accident?
Yes everyones response is different but even at levels just below the limit EVERYONE is impaired.
What about driving when you have a cold?
What about driving when you are feeling depressed?
What about listening to Rob on The Archers?
Surely all of these will situations will result in your driving being impaired?
Should all of this be subject to a prison sentence?
or tarring them with the same brush as those who persistently drive well over the existing drink drive limit.
I find it so disappointing that attitudes like this still exist. A lot of laws exist to protect us from the lowest common denominator. Lewis Hamilton is an awesome driver but he still needs to obey speed limits. You can't legislate for different levels of ability, you therefore have to baseline.
Finally, despite various claims of driving awesomeness, I simply don't believe anyone drives better when they have been drinking.
I am in favour of a zero tolerance approach to roads policing, massively increased fines and bans, mandatory retesting every 5 years and a much tougher driving teest
However deaths from drink drivi9ng are easily dealt with and just because some other aspects of road safety are hard to pursue does not mean we can continue to allow dozens of people being killed every year because englands drink drive limit is too high.
Driving with medication or a really heavy cold would hamper my driving abilities more than 2 pints of 4% ale, I can tolerate more alcohol maybe than a normal joe! I drive for living so I know the consequences could be a pain in the ass for me. Like I say the limit is about right IMHO.
About making my better driving better its more of being the same level just more aware of my surroundings then again I ride better after a couple of pints FACT!!!!!
Like I say the limit is about right IMHO.
All that means is that the limit is about right for yourself. Sadly drink driving laws probably need to be set for puny individuals like me who would be utterly shite behind the wheel after a couple of pints!
I agree about the medication/illness point, but the only real difference between that and alcohol is the lack of any way to measure it, or set a threshold which is comprehensible to your average punter.
We've all probably driven when impaired in some form or another - it just shows that people are not so hot at self-regulation, just as they were in the pre-drink drive law era, when they happily got into cars knowing they were ****ed and more likely to kill someone.
Driving with medication or a really heavy cold would hamper my driving abilities more than 2 pints of 4% ale, I can tolerate more alcohol maybe than a normal joe!
You do realise it is illegal to drive if impared by medication?
Is there any chat of EnW lowering limits like has happened up here?.
Postie - utter bullshine. At two pints your chances of having an accident are greatly increased. Its just you do not have the self awareness to realise this.
I also very much doubt you are under the limit after two pints. Seriously dude - reassess this. All the evidence says you are wrong.
i dont understand what possible reasoning one could reasonably justify not having a just above zero limitation. other than being selfish based on the existing actual data rather than anecdotes of i felt fine and got lucky after 27 pints stories.
If you require a drink to exist dont drive. simples.
There is no one forcing you to drink alcohol in a pub and taxis exist if you must.
or tarring them with the same brush as those who persistently drive well over the existing drink drive limit.
I find it so disappointing that attitudes like this still exist. A lot of laws exist to protect us from the lowest common denominator.
Yes so all of us see our freedoms and enjoyment of the basic elements of life reduced because of a few idiots. Should we shoot all of the sharks in the ocean because a small minority of sharks choose to bite a person? Should we all be banned or restrict from cycling in cities because a couple of pedestrians have been killed by cyclists recently?
The current balance is about right I would say - we just need more enforcement of those that take the mickey, perhaps more random testing in the hills around Bolton, that's the real issue.
at times like these one must remember driving is a privilege not a basic element of life.
Folk have learnt that the hard way (binners) its a right chav when its is actually taken away.
kananga - the evidence is that Englands high limit leads to increased accidents and deaths compared to other countries with lowerlimits. 2 things. 1 even at an alcohol level below the legal limit you are significantly impaired and far more likely to have an accident and 2 people get the message like poisitie above that its OK to have a small drink and drive which may or may not take them over the limit.
I think 60 deaths a year that could be saved by lowering the limit is well worth doing. A limit that is 50 or even 20 sends the message that NO drink driving is acceptable. It kills the myth that a couple of pints is fine. It removes any ambiguity.
Do the sharks play snooker?
Only after a couple of pints. Prefer a bit of pool though.
Yes so all of us see our freedoms and enjoyment of the basic elements of life reduced because of a few idiots. Should we shoot all of the sharks in the ocean because a small minority of sharks choose to bite a person? Should we all be banned or restrict from cycling in cities because a couple of pedestrians have been killed by cyclists recently?
What a load of crap. Seriously, read that back to yourself. Drinking and driving is not a freedom or basic element of life. It is just a selfish, entirely avoidable choice which results in people dying.
The law allows me a pint, I'm happy with that. As it happens, the time I most frequently drink and drive (within that limit!) is after a club cycling event. It's an important part of our recovery.
"The law allows me a pint,"
its that kind of catch all statement that annoys me about it. its ambiguous to say the least.
it may allow you a pint of medium strength lager.
but with many folk drinking from the tap Ales and IPAs which can be twice as strong as your basic lager but its ok cause i just had the 1......
up here in scotland its now im in the pub ill have a coke theres no one - theres no guessing.
how ever there has been dramatic improvements in alcohol free beers in recent years at least if you insist.
The law does NOT allow you a pint. this is why we need a lower limit to remove this myth. You rarely get prosecuted for BAC below the limit but you can be. Even below the limit you are impaired significantly. the only safe thing is not to drink and drive
1 pint = ok to drive
2 pints = borderline
3 pints = can't drive
4 pints = "I drive better after a drink" + "it's only just up the road" so it'll be ok
0 pints removes any confusion IMO
I also very much doubt you are under the limit after two pints.
I don't.
See if you can find a breathalyser to have a play on, you'll be unpleasantly surprised.
The limit definitely needs reducing.
I have and I have seen the results. Most men 2 pints is very marginal / over the limit.
You are all barking up the wrong tree – if you put as much energy into protesting for improved driver training, more traffic police on the road or similar then I'd be with you.
There is a gaping hole in what could be done to improve road safety but your blinkered focus on the smaller issues like speeding and alcohol is detracting from REAL road safety improvements that could make a BIG difference.
So come on then how many of you who claim to care about road safety have been bothered to take any further driving training since passing your test? If you haven't then you're a total hypocrite and don't have any right to comment on what others can and can't do.
You do realise it is illegal to drive if impared by medication?
Yet still, you'd be surprised how many people are driving around off their tits on morphine, and thinking nothing of it. The law means very little to people until it is presented to them in a meaningful way.
Drink driving is already heavily stigmatised. The people who do it, do so because they believe the low-likelihood of getting caught is worth the risk. Better policing is required to control it further, and perhaps new means of enforcement and/or prevention. Ultimately prevention is key, and hopefully one day it will become impossible to drive a car while under the influence.
So come on then how many of you who claim to care about road safety have been bothered to take any further driving training since passing your test? If you haven’t then you’re a total hypocrite and don’t have any right to comment on what others can and can’t do.
🙄
An allowance of one pint, or one pint of shandy, I think is reasonable as it is enough to drink with a meal and spread out over the length of the meal I don't think has much of an effect, whereas being forced to drink a pint of water or coke wouldn't be that great.
What would be worse, a driver whose had a pint of shandy or a speeding/tailgating driver or a driver with defective vision, as I suspect a lot have?
Or worse, those drivers that drive round everywhere at a constant speed, so too slow a lot of the time but speeding where it most matters - I often wonder about the level of concentration such driver are applying.
Sbob Member
See if you can find a breathalyser to have a play on, you’ll be unpleasantly surprised.
I pretty much only ever drink at home; however, my concern is unintentionally being over the limit the next day - I’m often driving early (4am ish) to attend events.
After an associate was breathalysed early one morning, I bought one of these from Halfords for £60.
AlcoSense Elite 2 Breathalyser
(IIRC There is a cheaper one, but it has an inferior sensor and only reads to 1dp).
I’d recommend the product – but I’m only using it ‘the morning after…’ a couple of times a week.