[Closed] Lower drink driving limit

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