[Closed] Lower drink driving limit

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.

[quote=large418 ]the causes of the 95% of accidents (whatever they are)

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 [i]should[/i] 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 [i](Proportion of killed drivers/riders resulting from reported accidents, by BAC category and age: GB, 2012)[/i], 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.

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 [i]really[/i] 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 [i]not[/i] 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.

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 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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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,

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.

When you're out on the road bike on a Sunday morning do you feel comfortable with the idea that the guy driving behind you could be a bit groggy from the "3-4 social beers" he had last night?

could be a bit groggy from the "3-4 social beers" he had last night?

Are you serious?

Somebody has 4 pints starts drinking at 8 and stops at 11.

Even if he is up at 7 the next day he will have no alcohol in his system

If you get hungover after 3 or 4 pints I would suggest that some parts of your body are working properly or someone has tried to date rape you.....

I suspect most of you are complete hypocrite's I'm afraid.

A splendid point - you're right I haven't taken my advanced driver so I should be comfortable with people driving tipsy.

Maybe the solution is to only allow the responsible Advanced Drivers to drive pissed?

Even if he is up at 7 the next day he will have no alcohol in his system

In that case he'd pass the breathalyser test even at a 50mg limit wouldn't he?

Any change will have an economic cost and therefore a human cost, so there will be a downside as well as an upside to any reduction. It should also be noted that although we no longer has the safest roads in Europe, we are still one of the safest places to drive.

A splendid point - you're right I haven't taken my advanced driver so I should be comfortable with people driving tipsy. Maybe the solution is to only allow the responsible Advanced Drivers to drive pissed?

Don't be a di*k, that's not what I said was it. If you were actually concerned at all about road safety then what I'm saying is that you should at the very least do some advanced driver training. If you're not concerned enough to at least make an effort yourself to be safer then you should not really come on here procrastinating about the behavior of others.

[quote=gobuchul ]Somebody has 4 pints starts drinking at 8 and stops at 11.
Even if he is up at 7 the next day he will have no alcohol in his system

Maybe it's the people who think this who the change is aimed at. The information I've found suggests that one standard unit results in 20mg/100ml. As mentioned above the standard elimination rate is 15mg/100ml/hr. 4 pints of strongish beer at 3 units each results in 240mg/ml which would take 16 hours to eliminate. At 7am the next morning you'd still have 75mg/100ml in your blood - somebody small, slightly stronger beer, a slightly slower than average elimination rate, a slight delay in starting to eliminate (I thought it took a while before the alcohol got into your system enough for that to happen) could all put you still over the current limit. 5 pints would put most people over the limit at 7am.

Crack on with that big sesh before driving in the morning though if it's the only thing keeping rural pubs going and you need a drink to socialise.

have you actually taken an advanced driving test or any further driver training yourself to make you a safer driver since passing your test?

5 pints would put most people over the limit at 7am.

Have you got a link to where you got your numbers from? I don't think they add up and you seem to be using different units to what I find with wiki.

I used to work at a place where we had a calibrated breathalyser and we played with it on a number of occasions. There is no way it would of indicated any alcohol at all, 16 hours after drinking 4 pints.

konabunny - Member

I have. I've got the string-backed fingerless gloves to prove it.

This is the most helpful post towards improving road safety I have ever read.
🙄
Don't be a bellend all your life mate, there's simply no need.

Don't be a di*k, that's not what I said was it. If you were actually concerned at all about road safety then what I'm saying is that you should at the very least do some advanced driver training.

I could have summarised what you said with #whataboutery

Or perhaps https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

You are arguing that I shouldn't be allowed to criticise people for driving tipsy because I haven't sat my Advanced Driver exam?

Ok. So how do you respond to the advanced drivers calling for the same thing then:

[i][b]"The IAM acknowledges that a lower limit could risk diverting police resources from catching the most dangerous offenders who pay little regard to any limit, but it would also send a very powerful signal on drinking and driving...
The IAM believes that a new consultation is needed now to reflect the growing support among the general public and a range of influential organisations, including the police, for a lower limit"[/b][/i]

-- http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/policy/our-policies/drink-drive-limit

you should not really come on here procrastinating about the behavior of others.

I come here specifically to [url= http://www.chambers.co.uk/search.php?query=procrastinating&title=21st ]procrastinate[/url]. Isn't that the basis of the entire forum? 😀

What I find intriguing is that rebel12 thinks the smoking ban caused harm! 😆

What I find intriguing is that rebel12 thinks the smoking ban caused harm!

Why? He is right, as I noted earlier, all these changes have a downside as well as the publicised upside. You may consider the downside insignificant, but others, especially those most effected, wont.

What I find intriguing is that rebel12 thinks the smoking ban caused harm!

He's right in what he said. When it came in I lived in a reasonably sized village. Most nights the pubs would do decent trade and we would usually call in once or twice during the week to catch up with friends.

Once the ban came in the smokers stopped 'popping out' for an hour or so. This meant the non smokers also stopped going as their mates were not there. The weekday pub trade almost dried up over night with smaller groups of people choosing to go round to each others houses instead. I noticed I stopped bumping in to lots of people I used to so wouldn't see casual friends or meet new people anywhere near as much.

In the village two of the pubs shut years ago while those that continue struggle and regularly change hands after the previous landlord realised there was no money in the pub.

Or the price of a pint just got more and more expensive causing a societal change where people couldn't afford to prop up a bar 5/6/7 night a week.

There was loads more people in the pubs in the late 90s/early 2000s because it was much cheaper to go out.

Ok. So how do you respond to the advanced drivers calling for the same thing then

I'm happy for them to say what they like, but it stinks of hypocrisy for you to come on here, try to tell us what we all should and shouldn't do whilst pretending you're concerned in any way about road safety when you can't yourself even be bothered to get of your own lazy arse and get some extra driver training.

FWIW both my locals got busier after the smoking ban came in, and apparently make more money because they sell a shitload more food now that you're not sitting in a cloud. I've not seen any good economic analysis though- lots of shortterm stuff, and lots of obvious crazy bullshit from the likes of Forest (who blame absolutely every pub closure on the smoking ban)

rebel12: my own driving qualifications are not really relevant to the debate are they?

I can voice an opinion on road safety without being an advanced driver, just like I can voice an opinion on law and order without actually being a superhero.

If that stinks of hypocrisy to you then so be it. I'm a hypocrite.

FWIW I am unconvinced that Advanced Driver training is the road safety panacea you seem to think it is. My FiL is an "Advanced Driver" and he is blimmin awful.

But if you feel strongly that everyone should sit Advanced Driver courses to improve road safety then why not campaign about that, instead of criticising measures that will also improve road safety?

Hypocrite 😀

I did some googling which I'm now going to present as if it were actual knowledge... The irish smoking ban was linked to a 3% decline in pub trade by the industry, but actually that was exactly in line with the long term decline in the industry- it fell by 4, 3 and 5 % in the years previous. <racial stereotype> <unfunny joke>

rebel12 - Member

"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,

they really haven't tried at all.

number of pubs with a coffee machine = lots.

number of pubs who have the coffee machine turned on = bugger all.

This is the most helpful post towards improving road safety I have ever read.

Don't be a bellend all your life mate, there's simply no need.

rebel12: my own driving qualifications are not really relevant to the debate are they?

It just proves my point that you seem to like the sound of your own voice more than you actually give a rats arse about road safety. If you did care then you'd have got the extra training. At the end of the day actions speak louder than words don't they.

FWIW I am unconvinced that Advanced Driver training is the road safety panacea you seem to think it is

How come insurance companies offer you a discount on your policy then if you've passed the IAM/Rospa course. Are you really THAT ignorant?

But if you feel strongly that everyone should sit Advanced Driver courses to improve road safety then why not campaign about that, instead of criticising measures that will also improve road safety?

Because there is absolutely zero evidence that lowering the limit to 50mg will make any difference to road safety, or that the problem drinkers will obay the 50mg limit any more than they do the current 80mg limit. If police now have their time stretched prosecuting the many more people who would likely exceed the new 50mg limit, then their resources are even further diverted away from tackling those with the biggest problem and those who pose the greatest danger. I'm sure that more police on the road conducting random testing of the current 80mg limit would yield a far better return than hitting everyone with this kneejerk reduction in drink drive limits dreamt up by the 'scared to do anything' brigade.

Do you wear at least one item of camo clothing at all times, rebel?

At the end of the day actions speak louder than words don't they.

You presumably have your Advanced Driver badge, but yet you seem happy to dismiss what they say about the drink-drive limit?

there is absolutely zero evidence that lowering the limit to 50mg will make any difference to road safety

That's not what RoSPA, the BMA or the North Review say.

Drivers with a blood alcohol level of between 50mg and 80 mg are 2 – 2.5 times more likely to be involved in an accident than drivers with no alcohol, and up to 6 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.

In 2000, the Government's Road Safety Strategy estimated that reducing the limit to 50mg could save 50 lives and prevent 250 serious injuries each year. A later examination of the figures suggested it could save 65 lives each year and prevent 230 serious injuries.

An International review of the impact of introducing or lowering limits found that they resulted in fewer drink drive accidents, deaths and injuries.

-- http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/policy/statements/drinking-driving.aspx

The BMA welcomes this reduction in the drink drive limit and believes that it will prevent deaths and reduce the number of lives ruined by drinking drivers. The science is clear: a 50mg limit will lower the number of road crashes, deaths and serious injuries on our roads.
..
Scientific evidence from around the world has agreed that when a person’s alcohol level is over 50mg their driving is impaired. It has been estimated by University College London that a reduction to the drink driving limit from 80mg to 50mg will prevent around 65 deaths in the UK each year .

-- http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/improving-and-protecting-health/alcohol/drink-driving-scotland

Research evidence consistently demonstrates that the risk of having an accident increases exponentially as more alcohol is consumed. Drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of between 20 mg/100 ml and 50 mg/100 ml have at least a three times greater risk of dying in a vehicle crash than those drivers who have no alcohol in their blood. This
risk increases to at least six times with a BAC between 50 mg/100 ml and 80 mg/100 ml, and to 11 times with a BAC between 80 mg/100 ml and 100 mg/100 ml.

-- [url= http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100921035225/http://northreview.independent.gov.uk/docs/NorthReview-Report.pdf ]North Review Report (PDF)[/url]

there is absolutely zero evidence that lowering the limit to 50mg will make any difference to road safety, or that the problem drinkers will obay the 50mg limit any more than they do the current 80mg limit

it stinks of hypocrisy for you to come on here, try to tell us what we all should and shouldn't do whilst pretending you're concerned in any way about road safety when you can't yourself even be bothered to get of your own lazy arse and get some extra driver training.

Silly argument, in a black and white world the guy fresh off the ROSPA course would be better than Mr Average who's better than the drunk. Why is it hypocrytical for Mr Average to tell Mr Drunk to sober up?

No more hypocritical than the ROSPA drivers oppinion, after all he's not a fighter pilot or F1 driver, so what business does he have to criticicise others?

There will always be someone better than you by some measure. ROSPA/IAM is the driving equivelent of "I'm an engineer" or "You're not a parent, you wouldn't understand".

mefty - Member
Any change will have an economic cost and therefore a human cost, so there will be a downside as well as an upside to any reduction. It should also be noted that although we no longer has the safest roads in Europe, we are still one of the safest places to drive.

rebel12 - Member
It just proves my point that you seem to like the sound of your own voice more than you actually give a rats arse about road safety. If you did care then you'd have got the extra training. At the end of the day actions speak louder than words don't they.

Because there is absolutely zero evidence that lowering the limit to 50mg will make any difference to road safety, or that the problem drinkers will obay the 50mg limit any more than they do the current 80mg limit.

Well other than the evidence given in parliament of course...
[i] the North Report which indicated that drivers are six times more likely to die with a blood alcohol
concentration between 50 and 80 mgs than with zero blood alcohol. [/i]
[i]the British Medical Association4 that the relative risk of being involved in a road traffic accident for drivers with a reading of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood was 10 times higher than for drivers with
a zero blood alcohol reading. The relative accident risk for drivers with a
reading of 50mg of alcohol per 100ml blood was twice the level than for drivers
with a zero blood alcohol reading. [/i]

But you are again ignoring my question - if the evidence from Scotland shows it does reduce casualties will you change your stance for the rUK?

If police now have their time stretched prosecuting the many more people who would likely exceed the new 50mg limit, then their resources are even further diverted away from tackling those with the biggest problem and those who pose the greatest danger.

But you are again ignoring my question - if the evidence from Scotland shows it does reduce casualties will you change your stance for the rUK?

Nope, cause the evidence won't show that. All it will show is that more previously law abiding people are now loose their licence's and their liveley hoods.

😆 😆 😆

well, that's pretty watertight. ever considered a career as a Fox TV pundit?

Isn’t the argument for either 50 or 80mgs in essence the same- allowing people to drive whilst being under the influence of alcohol?

If it’s so clear cut why not lower it to 10-20mgs & be done.

seosamh77 - Member
Or the price of a pint just got more and more expensive causing a societal change where people couldn't afford to prop up a bar 5/6/7 night a week.

Nope, was the smoking ban in my old village. I know this as I was able to speak to the people who stopped going.

Nope, was the smoking ban in my old village. I know this as I was able to speak to the people who stopped going.

Not that old chestnut. Lots of folk used that as an excuse, just another thing to aim at the powers that be.

Not that old chestnut. Lots of folk used that as an excuse, just another thing to aim at the powers that be.

In good old STW fashion, don't let the fact that I was in the village at the time and was part of the social circle involved get in the way of you being correct because you have decided you must be because it's what you think and no one else can possibly be more aware of the facts in any given location then you.

Punctuation! 😀

Jush back from a seshun in the pub in my rural village. One of four pubs operating in a village of 2000-odd population.
Seemed pretty busy for a Thursday night. The smokers in our merry group disappeared outside and did their thing as they felt the urge.

Seems to me that any loss through the smoking ban is a purely temporary effect as society adjusts.
I imagine the changes to the alcohol limit will be much the same.

GrahamS - Member

FWIW I am unconvinced that Advanced Driver training is the road safety panacea you seem to think it is. My FiL is an "Advanced Driver" and he is blimmin awful.

So the insurance companies that offer reduced premiums for advanced drivers are actually wrong, according to your sample of one?

Well you just carry on wanting safer roads, as long as what ever has to be done to achieve this is done by other people, and not you.

Good effort trooper! 😀

Punctuation!

That was the whole point!

Probably OT at this point in the thread, but if if from December on I have a post ride pint in Scotlandshire, am I likely to be over the limit?

No one can say, too many variables, best to not bother IMO.

Andy_K - Member
Probably OT at this point in the thread, but if if from December on I have a post ride pint in Scotlandshire, am I likely to be over the limit?

...its certainly not impossible that you would be under the (new) limit BUT it is also possible you could be over it... all official advice is not to risk it - if you are over the limit, your are over the limit, not expecting to be is not a defence. I've spoken to a few people planning to get there own breathalyser - but none that I am aware of at affordable prices will come with independent calibration/certification - its entirely possible that such a device might be say 20% out - and again its no defence.