mudshark - MemberBut 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.
Listerine Original - Inactive ingredientsWater, 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).
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 toleranceIt 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 - MemberIt 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.
irc - MemberIt 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
if we're going to play straw men, how about being able to be go home after a day's fun without being knocked over by some pissed up yachtie?
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.....
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?
[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 - MemberAccording 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.
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 - MemberSpeeding? 😈
😆
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 - MemberBut 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 - MemberAlchohol 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.
