[Closed] Lower drink driving limit

Why dont we fit all cars with Interlock (or similar), it would stop drink driving instantly.
As such save money within the NHS, Police time and effort catching people, cost in the courts when a DD has been caught
and most importantly it would stop people getting killed by a drink driver

obviously no one would ever disengage this device.

having been hit by a hit and run, drink driver anything to stop the pain and heart ache the victim and their families go through is for the good of humanity.

Personally I think it's draconian - I don't think drink driving is right, the UK's roads are just too busy these days to allow someone to drive after 2-3 beers like they used to.

But, what difference does a few mil make? Aside from a few weeks before Xmas when the Police like to show a bit of an effort with random stops they're not going to be able to spot someone who's had 80mil per whatever over someone who's had 100mil - no this will only ever be applied in the event of an accident and how on earth are we to know - you hear it all the time - "oh pint of weakish beer and I'm okay" or "had a few glass of wine 9pm last night, I'll be okay by 10am" but really you've got no idea until the Police make you blow and hey presto - even though the alcohol is no longer effecting you and you weren't to blame causing the 5mph 'fender bender' you've been caught up in you're licence is gone and whatever else with it.

I'm not arguing against changing the limit just pointing out that the low level of traffic enforcement on UK roads is a joke. It allows a lot of really dangerous things to go unchecked. The entire attitude to driving needs changing. The Right/privilege issue needs addressing and the the punishments to drivers flouting the rules need tightening up.

mikewsmith - Member
I just dont think more police will make people safer.

More police and removing more bad drivers might help. Assessing somebody in their late teens for the next 60 years operating a large metal killing machine is a little optimistic.

police quotas are a terrible way to run a police service. (it's one thing(among many things) I massively disagree with the SNP on, and any police I've spoken to entirely agree with me.)

[quote=P-Jay ]
But, what difference does a few mil make?
Well, reading the posts prior to this one, it would appear that a few of the contributors are already going to change their habits.

And my actual point is of those people how many have ever been stopped on the way home? How were they caught, changing the number may stop some from chancing it but it won't stop those who don't think it's a problem.

I think if the limit was reduced here (England) then I think [i]some[/i] of those people might reconsider their position.

Plus the company itself might realise that plying clients with an illegal level of drink when you know that they drive home isn't the most sensible course of action.

mikewsmith - Member
It allows a lot of really dangerous things to go unchecked.

Personally I think it's draconian...But, what difference does a few mil make?

konabunny - Member

If it was right after, your body might not have absorbed all the alcohol at the moment you were tested.

If it was right after, he may have blown over due to the remnants of alcohol in the mouth, which is why when breathalysed the police should ensure you haven't had a drink in the last fifteen minutes as it can give a falsely high reading.
In reality, anyone who says they lost their licence after drinking two pints is a ****ing liar.

Maybe, but doubt, personally I don't think more police making up seatbelt charges will help all that much, bar create more distrust of the police.
police quotas are a terrible way to run a police service. (it's one thing I massively disagree with the SNP on, and any police I've spoken to entirely agree with me.)

Babies carried on laps - attempted murder
Applying makeup while driving - dangerous driving
reading the paper/meeting notes - dangerous driving
eating bowl of cereal - dangerous driving
tailgating - dangerous driving
overtaking on blind bends - dangerous driving

Whatever it is I could have filled any quota in a couple of hours, there is no need to make it up.

mikewsmith - Member
They could hit any quota on the M6 of a morning or the M60/62
Babies carried on laps - attempted murder
Applying makeup while driving - dangerous driving
reading the paper/meeting notes - dangerous driving
eating bowl of cereal - dangerous driving
tailgating - dangerous driving
overtaking on blind bends - dangerous driving

Whatever it is I could have filled any quota in a couple of hours, there is no need to make it up.

Regardless beyond that, police quotas are a terrible idea as they are 1 step away from the monetisation and privatisation of the police force, and turning it into a revenue collection service..

seosamh77 - Member

Driving is dangerous

All things considered, it's surprisingly safe. More people die from falling over than driving.

polis

It is spelled "police", young seosamh77.
HTH.

konabunny - Member

I was breatalysed straight after 2 pints of Pedigree and passed so always used 2 pints as my limit when I drove.

If it was right after, your body might not have absorbed all the alcohol at the moment you were tested.

sbob - Member
seosamh77 - Member
Driving is dangerous

All things considered, it's surprisingly safe. More people die from falling over than driving.

polis
It is spelled "police", young seosamh77.
HTH.

Point 1 is very true, hence my reluctance to flood the streets with more law enforcers/revenue collectors.

Point 2, unfortunately, due to the lack of Scottish independence, the Glasgow Schemey dictionary hasn't yet become law! Sometimes I forget! 😆

I think the limit is fine as-is darn sarf. I can have one beer at a pub and drive home safely 🙂

seosamh77
Driving is dangerous, you aren't going to legislate that to no danger.

You can have a good crack. In the last 40 odd years, we've started legislating for drink driving, seatbelts, crash testing, traffic calming, etc etc etc.

In that time, road fatalities per mile driven have fallen by about 87%

Maybe not all of these things have had major effects on their own, but overall, it's been a positive effort with positive results.

[i]All smacks to me of the snp falling in line with Europe rather than the rUK. [/i]

Only if the fine/bans were equalized, as when I lived in Germany for a first offence of DD it was a months ban and had to be taken within a year and only applied in Germany - so was usually taken when on holiday in Spain 🙂

We already have many unenforced laws so why not add some more. It makes the politicians feel relevant.

[quote=mt ]We already have many unenforced laws so why not add some more. It makes the politicians feel relevant.
But it already [i]is[/i] enforced (>50,000 convictions pa) - it's just that the limit is reduced.

doris5000 - Member
seosamh77
Driving is dangerous, you aren't going to legislate that to no danger.
You can have a good crack. In the last 40 odd years, we've started legislating for drink driving, seatbelts, crash testing, traffic calming, etc etc etc.

In that time, road fatalities per mile driven have fallen by about 87%

Maybe not all of these things have had major effects on their own, but overall, it's been a positive effort with positive results.

Just having a quick look online, it seems that you can get a decent breathalyser for about £40.

http://www.alcosense.co.uk/alcosense-lite.html

I might get hold of one of these.
Quite often in the week, I'll have half a bottle of wine in the evening with my wife (between perhaps 8:15-10:30). I wonder where this leaves me in the morning, blood alcohol-wise? Always assumed it was OK based on the 1hr to digest 1 unit yardstick, but that's only an approximation. A bottle of wine is ~9 units. So 4.5 units each over an evening, means I should be good to go by the next morning, but.....it would be good to know.

Well if we adopted this ridiculous lower limit in England then my sailing club bar would close as would many of the fantastic local rural pubs. If you cant spend the day/evening engaging in an outdoor activity with your mates sailing,riding,walking etc and then have a pint at the end of it in or outside some beautiful oak beamed pub without worrying about being stopped on the way home and losing everything you have worked for then I would be incredibly depressed . The limit is just fine the way it is thanks.

The latter factors you mention will have a large effect though, I'd guess a pint will be fine.

sounds like you are being a wee bit draconian in your measuring?

True, but it puts in in perspective how little it could take. Pint on an empty stonach?

Well if we adopted this ridiculous lower limit in England then my sailing club bar would close as would many of the fantastic local rural pubs. If you cant spend the day/evening engaging in an outdoor activity with your mates sailing,riding,walking etc and then have a pint at the end of it in or outside some beautiful oak beamed pub without worrying about being stopped on the way home and losing everything you have worked for then I would be incredibly depressed . The limit is just fine the way it is thanks.

<straw man alert>
What about the poor hitmen who are unfairly out of work due to the murder limit, surely they could increace the limit to "a bit more dead" to accomodate their jobs?
</straw man alert>

My sailing club serves coke, diet coke, ginger beer, lemonade, etc, etc, probably makes more of a margin on those than the beer too.

Is there an App for working out chance of being over the limit? Enter each drink and time drunk - could work...?!

With 25% of drink drivers being repeat offenders I think tackling this group would be more worthwhile.

tinas are you a child? do you actually know what a straw man is?

I won't dignify your idiotic statement about hitmen with an answer and yes our bar serves soft drinks but equally I can't see any of the hairy arsed crews (most of the clientele) bothering to come in for a coke after a race for a few quid each when they can just grab one from the fridge in the boat. Draught beer on the other hand is a delight when hand pulled.

mudshark - Member
Is there an App for working out chance of being over the limit? Enter each drink and time drunk - could work...?!

Google alcohol technical defence (ATD). I guess you could get most of the way with a good app, however there a currently plenty of people on both sides of convictions who make a living out of arguing about this.

Matt

With 25% of drink drivers being repeat offenders I think tackling this group would be more worthwhile.

Sounds like they are (they've been caught and dealt with).

And it's 25% of those caught, I'm sure 99.999% of offenders are people who just have a couple on riday night after work (or at the Sailing club or Golf club bar) and all of them are probably re-offenders having done it last Friday?

yes our bar serves soft drinks but equally I can't see any of the hairy arsed crews (most of the clientele) bothering to come in for a coke after a race for a few quid each when they can just grab one from the fridge in the boat. Draught beer on the other hand is a delight when hand pulled.

I'm glad you've been staring at my backside, I must get my long johns stiched up.

We race, so no fridges :-p , and mines a coke.

Draught beer on the other hand is a delight when hand pulled.

This SNP?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27383267

Exactly my point!

That's a proposal from an SDLP MP-

"Mr Durkan said Northern Ireland's drink-drive laws would be brought into line with Europe, including the Republic of Ireland."

(Btw i'm not strictly anti snp & don't want to get into that whole debate!)

I think legislation to protect young drivers & to target repeat offenders would be more useful..

I think Friday 12pm to Saturday 5am should be a free for all.

Well if we adopted this ridiculous lower limit in England then my sailing club bar would close as would many of the fantastic local rural pubs. If you cant spend the day/evening engaging in an outdoor activity with your mates sailing,riding,walking etc and then have a pint at the end of it in or outside some beautiful oak beamed pub without worrying about being stopped on the way home and losing everything you have worked for then I would be incredibly depressed . The limit is just fine the way it is thanks.

This sounds an awful lot like the [i]"I'm posh so I should be allowed to do what I like"[/i] defence. 😀

If this measure turns out to reduce road casualties in Scotland then will you be in favour of it then?

I think the point of a lower limit isn't that the lower limit itself will make much of a difference compared to the previous limit, but more that it might make some people think twice about drinking at all when they're goind to drive.

I don't drink at all if I'm driving (or drink more than a couple of pints or glasses of wine if I need to drive the next morning) so I can't say it's of concern for me - although I'd rather see heavier enforcement of whatever limit is set.

If you cant spend the day/evening engaging in an outdoor activity with your mates sailing,riding,walking etc and then have a pint at the end of it in or outside some beautiful oak beamed pub without worrying about being stopped on the way home and losing everything you have worked for then I would be incredibly depressed .

All smacks to me of the snp falling in line with Europe rather than the rUK.

Why dont we fit all cars with Interlock

Well if we adopted this ridiculous lower limit in England then my sailing club bar would close as would many of the fantastic local rural pubs. If you cant spend the day/evening engaging in an outdoor activity with your mates sailing,riding,walking etc and then have a pint at the end of it in or outside some beautiful oak beamed pub without worrying about being stopped on the way home and losing everything you have worked for then I would be incredibly depressed . The limit is just fine the way it is thanks.

As ever, Lots of people think the worst that can happen to them is to lose their licence, not kill someone due to impared reactions in a one ton lump of metal. Sad.

epicsteve - Member

I think the point of a lower limit isn't that the lower limit itself will make much of a difference compared to the previous limit, but more that it might make some people think twice about drinking at all when they're goind to drive.

Absolutely- the message is "don't drink at all and drive", it's not "You can now only drink 5/8ths as much as you used to be able to". It's a much simpler message and I think probably going to be an effective one, people see wriggle room in the current rules. Oh I can have one, oh it's ages since i had the last so I'll be fine, oh I had something to eat, it's not that strong a beer, I'm quite a big lad... Not "I'm fine drinking drunk" but believing (or hoping) they're within the law.

In the sticks everyone drives to and from the pub as it`s miles .The whole of Mendip could probably get banned over a weekend

As ever, Lots of people think the worst that can happen to them is to lose their licence, not kill someone due to impared reactions in a one ton lump of metal. Sad.

Why would I be significantly more likely to kill someone after a pint?

Now that is a straw man argument.

Why would I be significantly more likely to kill someone after a pint?

the whole point of the new limit, as said by me on first page and many others after is to make having alcohol and then driving unacceptable, both legally and socially.

Why ? because it is proven beyond all doubt that alcohol impairs reactions.

I, in common with many, would often in the past have a single glass of wine or bottle of beer if out, after work, or at a dinner, and then drive, but I wont now, so surely that has to be a good thing ?

[quote=iainc ]
I, in common with many, would often in the past have a single glass of wine or bottle of beer if out, after work, or at a dinner, and then drive, but I wont now, so surely that has to be a good thing ?
Unless you own a brewery or a vineyard - you heartless bastard!!

😉

😀

Why would I be significantly more likely to kill someone after a pint?

Thing is I do adapt my driving based on how I'm feeling, so whether its manflu or a couple of pints I adjust my driving accordingly e.g. no music to distract me, drive slightly slower etc.

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/i-caught-a-drink-driver-this-evening ]I posted this six months ago[/url] my vigilante activities on page one are of less relevance than the bit of light research on page two, where we established two cans of Stella could get the [i]"average"[/i] male pretty close to the 80mg limit, drop it to 50mg and I don't think it would be worth the risk of even having a half of lager if you were driving that evening.

It's all down to the individual concerned and how they metabolise booze... I assume going to 50mg rather than say 20 or 30 still gives a reasonable tolerance for potential errors in measurement (with modern equipment) and will also bring some of those who would previously been "Borderline" into range for a banning...

Absolutely- the message is "don't drink at all and drive", it's not "You can now only drink 5/8ths as much as you used to be able to". It's a much simpler message and I think probably going to be an effective one, people see wriggle room in the current rules.

But it can never be so clear cut - how long a gap is suitable? A lunchtime beer then drive home in the evening? Over night? 24 hrs?

[quote=Pembo ]so whether its manflu or a couple of pints I adjust my driving accordingly e.g. no music to distract me, drive slightly slower etc.
Which part of "alcohol impairs judgement" are you failing to understand?

the whole point of the new limit, as said by me on first page and many others after is to make having alcohol and then driving unacceptable, both legally and socially.

A 50mg limit won't do that, though - only a 0mg limit would. As is, people will be still be making the "1 pint then an hour and I should be OK" type calculation.

Even then I doubt it would be socially unacceptable, most people (myself included) would probably find it hard to condemn someone who genuinely only had one small glass of wine and then failed a test.

Surely the 'impaired after a pint' argument only holds true down south? 😀

As is, people will be still be making the "1 pint then an hour and I should be OK" type calculation.

The trouble is a fair proportion of them may still be [i]right[/i] depending on:

1- A pint of what exactly? ~3.5% or 5%+ alcohol content will make all the difference.

2- The individual: a 6'-6" man mountain may well be able to chug a pint and be under that 50mg/100ml limit, where someone smaller might well go over that limit drinking the exact same thing...

As someone who barely ever drinks these days (normally because I'll probably have to drive somewhere in the not too distant future) I actually welcome the lowering of the limit, I'd like it to go lower to help remove that "Wiggle room" but it's a step in the right direction IMO, it won't affect my behaviour, but I would like to see it affect other peoples TBH...

Surely the 'impaired after a pint' argument only holds true down south?

One day decent beer may be available in the north, until then...

Scotroutes - Which part of "alcohol impairs judgement" are you failing to understand?

Now ... where's my car keys.....

[img] [/img]

"beacuase alcohol impairs your functions. FACT."

Righto - so on Saturday I'll get in my car, throw two dogs and three children in the back, switch on the sat-nav, crank up some AC/DC, take a call on my hands free and have a quick argument with the wife in the passenger seat who wants to listen to Jeremy Vine......and that's just fine

But god forbid on Sunday if I want to have a bike ride with a mate followed by a post ride wind down beer after which I'll carefully drive home relaxed and undistracted....because obviously I'm IMPAIRED...FACT!!!!!!!!

I think most reasonable comments here agree that necking a few pints then rallying home from pub is bad mmmmkay. What I think is the more pertinent question, bearing in mind the demographic of this forum is this question;

Your an average sized (say 85kg) male, it's a Friday night and between 8 and 11 you drink a bottle of wine (or equivalent) so around 10 units approx?

At what time are you safe to drive? Clearly it will be the following day, but are we talking 9am, Mid day, 6pm?

Why would I be significantly more likely to kill someone after a pint?

Because your judgement is impaired, and so you don't actually know what effect it has on you!. 😀

I was merely trying to point out that I hear that point quite often. From people who drink and drive, their main worry is the cops, and losing their licence, and not the poor bastard who ends up on a slab. And with so many really good bottle conditioned ales around now, a beer at home is every bit as good, if not more consistent, than a pub pint. And if the pub really matters that much to you, move house.

mudshark - Member

But it can never be so clear cut - how long a gap is suitable? A lunchtime beer then drive home in the evening? Over night? 24 hrs?

Sure- so we can't make it perfectly clearcut, so let's not make it better than it is?

Does anyone on here have a really informed opinion on the arguments against 0mg? I've seen it stated that mouthwash and medicine could cause a very low BAC reading and that's obviously troublesome if true...

I've seen it stated that mouthwash and medicine could cause a very low BAC reading and that's obviously troublesome if true...

Well.. a quick google and..

Does LISTERINE® NATURALS Antiseptic contain alcohol?

Yes. The alcohol in LISTERINE® NATURALS Antiseptic Mouthwash comes from corn, a natural ingredient. Alcohol plays an important role in delivering the deepest clean for a healthy mouth and helps the essential oils penetrate plaque biofilm faster and deeper to kill the bacteria that cause gingivitis.

-- http://www.listerine.com/naturals/faqs

Listerine Original - Inactive ingredients

Water, alcohol (26.9%), benzoic acid, poloxamer 407, sodium benzoate, caramel
-- http://www.listerine.com/products/original-antiseptic-mouthwash

Do Corsodyl Treatment Products Contain Any Alcohol?

Our Mint and Original Mouthwashes contain 7% alcohol, as does our Corsodyl Spray. Corsodyl Dental Gel contains 4% alcohol. If you prefer not to use an alcohol based treatment mouthwash, choose Corsodyl 0.2% Mouthwash (alcohol free).

-- http://www.corsodyl.co.uk/treat-gum-disease/

So yep, some mouthwashes contain alcohol. Even the "natural" or "alcohol free" ones. 😕 Someone else can tackle cough medicines.

Another issue with zero tolerance is that you can apparently ([url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content ]according to wiki[/url]) get tiny amounts of naturally occurring alcohol in your body.

And no one has even mentioned the thorny issue of wine gums 😀

Plus alcohol being widely used in cooking. It would suck losing your licence on account of brandy in your peppercorn sauce on your steak.

It's not the alcohol content that I'm querying though, but whether it causes a problem for testing- maybe a mouthwash could cause a breathalyser test but it'd not come up in the blood test.

Maybe the ideal solution is to go with a 0mg limit but a small (5mg?) tolerance/error limit? How much peppercorn sauce can you drink before you can't drive?

Maybe the ideal solution is to go with a 0mg limit but a small (5mg?) tolerance/error limit?

Yep that is what "zero tolerance" countries do (according to that same wiki page):

Zero effective tolerance

It is illegal to have any measurable alcohol in the blood while driving in these countries. Most jurisdictions have a tolerance slightly higher than zero to account for false positives and naturally occurring alcohol in the body. Some of the following jurisdictions have a general prohibition of alcohol.

Not sure that would work in Scotland, where passive-drinking could be an issue 😉

It will make virtually no difference whatsoever. Police will still only breathalise people who have been involved in a RTC, they suspect of drink driving, or those who have commuted a moving traffic offence. The grounds for requesting a. Sample won't change, as there are fewer Police now than since about 1993.

Whoever said it above - just headline grabbing. Absolutely spot on.

Cheers GrahamS, that's me convinced. I think this is basically a good and positive move but it feels too numbers focussed still, so many people don't understand what 80mg really means so reducing something you don't quite get to a smaller amount of not getting it might be a bit unproductive for some

(I'm not stupid, but I'm not at all confident to judge this stuff- I deal with it with zero tolerance myself but I can understand why not everyone would want to do that)

mildred - Member

It will make virtually no difference whatsoever. Police will still only breathalise people who have been involved in a RTC, they suspect of drink driving, or those who have commuted a moving traffic offence.

That's not the case now though. It seems like a lot of the counter-arguments are based on wrong impressions of how the law is policed?

[quote=mildred ]It will make virtually no difference whatsoever. Police will still only breathalise people who have been involved in a RTC, they suspect of drink driving, or those who have commuted a moving traffic offence. The grounds for requesting a. Sample won't change, as there are fewer Police now than since about 1993.
Whoever said it above - just headline grabbing. Absolutely spot on.
And yet, folk posting here have said that this WILL affect the amount of alcohol they drink.

It won't make much difference. There are few drivers between the 50 and 80 levels. I'd think more lives would be saved by making the penalties for mobile phone use the same as drink driving - 1 yr ban + fine etc. After all using a phone is more dangerous than driving at the old limit never mind the new lower limit.

http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-centre/news-archive/996-using-smartphones-behind-the-wheel-is-more-dangerous-than-drink-driving

irc - Member

It won't make much difference. There are few drivers between the 50 and 80 levels.

It's not really targeting the 50-80mg- it's trying to discourage those folks who would have drunk, in the hope/expectation of being under the 80mg limit, but been over it. Reducing the level should discourage that.

Again, I won't be drinking any more. Could chance my arm with a pint of IPA and then wait a bit but won't bother now, that very fact is enough to convince me that it'll work.

How many people have a "cheeky one" and then end up over the limit because, shock horror, their bodies don't metabolise at an arbitrary rate? I remember in college myself and my pal were pulled in for a D&A test, we matched each other drink for drink the night before but whilst he was clear I was later informed that at 1200 I was still more than twice over the limit. I know for a fact that depending on how I feel I'll either be completely fine or a pint can hit me like a train. Quite frankly the argument that it'll somehow curtail your enjoyment of [insert activity here] because you can't have a drink says more about your own issues than that of the lawmakers.

Good old Singletrack Forum: Whenever there is a thread on "is it safe to?" or "health + safety overkill?" or the current one; if you have a pragmatists view you will always get shot down in flames by the absolutists. Yes, when then Righteous Brigade are out in force then the best thing to do is keep stum....(drat, just blown that!). You can bet anything you like that there's a fair bit of hypocrisy coming from half of the "zero limit" voices.

Sorry chickenman but that is bollocks.

I'm very much in favour of adults being free to assess and manage their own risk. See any helmet debate thread for evidence. 😀

Drink-driving differs because you are likely gambling with someone else's health, not your own, and doing so whilst impaired.

I'd much rather see more coppers on the roads enforcing speed limits, mobile phone use, seat belts, red light jumping, careless and dangerous driving etc. They could breathalyse more people after they'd pulled tnem as well. I suspect that would have a greater effect on road safety than lowering the drink drive limit.

As with most social issues, we don't actually need new laws, we just need the existing ones enforcing hard enough that people learn to respect them.

Its hilarious how 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' has been so neatly displaced by 'aghast of Hoxton'

I'd much rather see more coppers on the roads enforcing speed limits, mobile phone use, seat belts, red light jumping, careless and dangerous driving etc

I'm sure most of us would.

But this law doesn't prevent any of that happening. It's not one or the other.

We have the highest acceptable blood-alcohol in Europe. Does it do any harm to bring it down a bit?

Its hilarious how 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' has been so neatly displaced by 'aghast of Hoxton'

Says the man aghast at how this law could affect his yacht club?? 😆

Sorry, wasn't clear in my post, I have no problem with the limit being lowered. But I suspect that alcohol is not the major issue that needs to be addressed to improve road safety.

I worry if i'm pissed i can't supervise my wifes driving properly.

@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!

Police will still only breathalise people who have been involved in a RTC, they suspect of drink driving, or those who have commuted a moving traffic offence. The grounds for requesting a. Sample won't change, as there are fewer Police now than since about 1993.

this isn't the requirement in England. police can breathalyze if they suspect a driver has been drinking. they don't need to think the driver has committed an offence. that's a big difference.

I have no idea what your last sentence means.

have a pint at the end of it in or outside some beautiful oak beamed pub without worrying about being stopped on the way home and losing everything you have worked for then

there's decades of painstaking research on the impairment caused by even low levels of alcohol consumption but of course everyone reckons that they're an awesome driver who can just "take it easy" in "making progress" when they've had a couple of beers and it's everyone else that's the problem.

I'm not remotely hung up about money winston (I'm frightfully middle-class myself as it happens)

I just found it amusing that you derided people as "aghast of Hoxton" whilst managing to come across as more aghast and plummy than anyone else has managed. 😀

mildred - Member
It will make virtually no difference whatsoever. Police will still only breathalise people who have been involved in a RTC, they suspect of drink driving, or those who have commuted a moving traffic offence. The grounds for requesting a. Sample won't change, as there are fewer Police now than since about 1993.

Except this is in Scotland where police numbers have been pretty consistently rising since the mid 80's at least.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn00634.pdf

There is also a shift in emphasis with all Police Scotland officers expected to enforce even minor Road Traffic matters (like seatbelts, zig zag lines and mobile phones). There has been a massive increase in enforcement across Scotland. There is still no guarantee you will get stopped if you do something wrong, but its less likely you'll just get a polite ticking off if you do (and no Speed Awareness Course either). And you'll get breathalysed at the same time.

Get out of here with your quantitative evidence

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?

Drink driving is quite rightly now socially unpopular, but why are the causes of the 95% of accidents (whatever they are) equally unpopular?

Stats are interesting as they can be used in many ways.....