Asked or not that there still utter bollocks.

Smooth!!!!

Like the hallmark of an expert.

Bejesus you lot are enough to make people drink!!!!!!!!

Bejesus you lot are enough to make people drink!!!!!!!!

I hope you’re a member of CAMRA.

<div class=”bbp-reply-author”>kananga
<div class=”bbp-author-role”>
<div class=””>Member</div>
</div>
</div>

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

So come on then how many of you who claim to care about road safety have been bothered to take any further driving training since passing your test?  If you haven’t then you’re a total hypocrite and don’t have any right to comment on what others can and can’t do.

I have- police roadsafe and and CTC. And then another learning-and-test cycle for different vehicles. But it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference to this thread.

</div>
Still, if not doing further training means people aren’t allowed to comment on others, does that mean doing further training means you are? Bonzer. Using my newfound authority I hereby order you to slow down.

Using my newfound authority I hereby order you to slow down.

The power of advanced motorists compels you.

Passed my Advances Driving Test at 18, since you asked Having a father die in a road accident at 29 due to excess speed tends to focus the mind. I’m probably only a little better than an average driver though, Nil points in 30 years, but have had a slow speed skid into a bollard on thick ice.

Curiously, just back from a holiday in France. I’m sure their driving standards were better than ours. I wasn’t in Paris.

Its perfectly possible to be found to be “under the influence” without a breath or blood test.

Can you find ANY successful prosecutions where this has actually happened ?

Where not being able to walk along a line and someone saying that a driver “looked drunk” was enough to secure a conviction despite the driver being under the legal limit ?

Because if not, then it’s just a pointless hypothetical “technicality” for the sake of an argument isn’t it ?

“Its perfectly possible to be found to be “under the influence” without a breath or blood test”

No, it isn’t. There are three elements:

Unfit to drive…e.g. witness evidence of the manner of driving

The presence of alcohol or drug…breath or blood test (can be under the prescribed limit, which is usually the point)

A causal link that the alcohol or drug caused the driver to be unfit to drive, i.e. not a health condition…exam by a doctor

I don’t get it. Are some folk so dependant on alcohol that they simply MUST have a drink, even if they are subsequently driving?

What he said.  I think the drinking culture in the UK is a massive problem.  Boasting about being hammered etc, badgering people who are happy not having a drink, like there’s something wrong with you.  I was stopped by the police a few years ago, one of the ones that are more frequent around Christmas and New Year.  I was asked if I’d had a drink and I said I couldn’t remember when I’d last had a drink.  The Polis man said “that’s a shame”, or words to that effect.  Why’s that a shame?

Scotroutes – I believe it is arrogance, selfishness and a sense of entitlement.  These guys are the problem and they are in denial

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100921035247/http://northreview.independent.gov.uk/docs/NorthReview-Report.pdf

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

<div>So Postierich – your level of drink driving is increasing your chance of crashing by 6 times.  Still think its OK?</div>
<div></div>
<div>I am sorry but those who have exposed themselves as drink drivers on here while brave have gone right down in my estimation.</div>

Read the north report.  Learn something and change your dangerous and criminal behaviour.

Can you find ANY successful prosecutions where this has actually happened ?

Where not being able to walk along a line and someone saying that a driver “looked drunk” was enough to secure a conviction despite the driver being under the legal limit ?

Did you find any convictions based on a breath test that was under the legal limit as you suggested ?

As you are calling people who drive whilst under the legal limit “dangerous criminals” I guess you must have ?

Also depends on your size and metabolism.  A teetotal law for drivers? Probably a good idea or a decent test device you can use yourself?

 I thought drink driving attitudes moved on in the 80s

There seems to have been a flip back recently. Still hold outs from the older generation but seems to have creeped back in again after those who started driving in the 90s.

If people cant be arsed with all the evidence and want to go for anecdotal evidence being mountain bikers there is a fun way to test how alcohol impairs ability, Find a nice offroad section, preferably where a mistake wont be too painful eg no 100ft drops on one side, and repeat whilst continuing to drink. In terms of pure speed I think there is a goldilocks zone where inhibitions are relaxed but ability is only partially reduced so if the risks taken work out can do well. However if they dont then its crash time. More beers that are taken the more the odds are tipped.  Its one of the things that made me go for a zero tolerance approach. Its fun when young and quick healing and its just me who would get hurt but when driving and risking others I would give it a miss. This might be influenced by the fact I have the scars from when a drunk driver hit the car I was in when I was 8.

As for the whataboutery about being ill/tired etc. Thats why when driving there are often signs saying “tired take a break?” and so on. Problem is its harder to test against without serious police time spent on it. The bloke who caused the Great Heck train accident was done for dangerous driving using the evidence he was sleep deprived but that will have taken a decent amount of police time to provide evidence.

Drink driving is one of those things, like speeding, which is fairly easy to test for and so target.

I call anyone who puts other people in danger dangerous criminal.  anyone who drives under the influence is exactly that.

Look at the data – even under the limit you have increased your chances of dying in a crash by 6 times.

On the driving under the influence.  The links I posted make it very clear.  You don’t want to believe it fine.  Nothing I say will change your mind.  Its a provision in the law that is there.

unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition.

Now that is the governments website.

In a sobering pre-Christmas message, police are warning drivers they can still be prosecuted even if they are under the drink-drive limit.

Devon and Cornwall Police is also stepping up road-side tests at the launch of its annual Christmas road safety campaign against driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

Roads Policing Inspector Richard McLellan said that being ‘under the limit’ for a breath test does not necessarily mean that a driver’s judgement and abilities are not impaired.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/police-warn-drivers-can-prosecuted-886185

that good enough?  direct quote from a senior cop?

Did you find any convictions based on a breath test that was under the legal limit as you suggested ?

Not taking sides in your argument but……….

One of the regulars in my local fell foul of just that. He was ( he’s dead now) a lorry driver, and partial to a drink. One day he was involved in an accident, it wasn’t his fault and nobody was hurt but he was breathalised. His reading was under the limit but showed alchol. His tachograph showed when he started driving and it was calculated that he would have been over the limit when he started driving. Big court case but he was convicted and banned. Appealed ect, ect but the conviction was upheld.

“Did you find any convictions based on a breath test that was under the legal limit as you suggested ?”

There will be plenty out there, but without trawling through local newspapers they won’t be easy to quote. Scottish FOI request, many will be drugs only, but many will involve alcohol under the prescribed limit. An element that’s worth noting is that alcohol and drugs are frequently used together and a combination involving a low alcohol reading can have some terrible effects. A test for alcohol is simpler and cheaper (alcohol is alcohol) than for “drugs”, which involves several tests, and the s4 procedure would be used

Over the prescribed limit is more commonly used because it’s simpler to prove, doesn’t necessarily involve calling out a doctor and doesn’t use resources and time until the doctor attends; s4 unfit through drink or drugs could still be used if the evidential breath test was below the prescribed limit, but have a look at the three elements that I posted above ^^

Back-calcs are frequently used in accident investigations where a driver is found later and under the limit, but again are more complex than a simple machine says, “Yes”

@tj

“unfitness to drive: can be established by witness observations of the defendants driving and condition”

Yes, but see above; to prove the s4 offence three separate elements must be satisfied, that is only one

More also needs to be done to catch/stop those who think it’s ok to smoke weed and drive, annecdotal but everyday I smell weed coming from a car at some point

Is this the same force that has only 4 offices looking after Hayle down to Lands End around to Penzance?

Devon and Cornwall Police is also stepping up road-side tests at the launch of its annual Christmas road safety campaign against driving under the influence of drink or drugs

Timba – you do seem to know this stuff but my reading of the way those three things are written is its any one of not all three.  YOur expertise?  I am just a geeky layman that likes to read up on this stuff

I think that quote from a policeman has more weight than folk on here – and that is unequivocal in that you can be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol below the limit.

Anyway – one of my life lessons from here is to try to make my point and move on not get bogged down in the minutiae of debate so that is what I will do

I think investing in a breatherlyser would be a good idea, removes any doubt about where you are.

“YOur expertise?”

Quite a bit 😉 Did a course when evidential breath machines were introduced to the UK and another day with Lion Intoxilysers in SWales for hand-held devices

ta

“I think investing in a breatherlyser would be a good idea, removes any doubt about where you are”

No, it won’t. Alcohol has to get from your stomach into your blood to be measured either in breath (blood circulates through your lungs) or blood (and of course urine, but that’s a rarely used option)

This takes an unknown amount of time dependent on food (slower), fizzy drinks (they get out of the stomach faster), and you. Men and women are also different. So you/Mrs W could be below in the pub but above when you drive home, and you could in any case be impaired below the limit.

And that’s assuming that the machine is accurate, the police calibrate theirs regularly. So, save your money, drink non-alcoholic, job’s a good’un

I have- police roadsafe and and CTC.

What are these?

Passed my Advances Driving Test at 18, since you asked

The RoSPA one that lasts for three years? So 27+yrs ago?

I’m genuinely surprised at some of the attitudes on this thread, I thought drink driving attitudes moved on in the 80s

I’m not sure they have. The main difference these days is that drivers who drink tend not to talk or be honest about it for fear of being labelled irresponsible potential child killers. As someone like postierich who is perfectly comfortable having a couple of post-ride beers then driving home, being lectured by the 1 pint is too many brigade gets a bit boring so you don’t advertise the fact. I’ve said a few times on these sort of threads that I know for a fact I can go quite a bit over 2 pints before I test positive at the 80mg level. Does that mean I do? No. Would I drive after 2 pints if I though my driving was impaired to the point of being a danger to others? No. Do I think the limit should be lowered? Probably. For some it should, for others not, but you’d have to consider the lowest common denominator so difficult to oppose it. Would it stop me having 2 pints? I don’t know, it would depend on the circumstances, such as location, the length of the drive home and time of day. In any case the chances of being caught are negligible so in many cases probably not.

And how does lowering the limit address the significant numbers of people who still drink 5 or 6 then get in the car and don’t give a **** about it? I think that’s a much bigger problem but then again being an irresponsible 2-pint driver I would say that wouldn’t I?

Flame away….

dazh – at 2 pints ( probably between 50 and 80 levels you are 6 times more likely to crash.  thats the science.  anyone who thinks drinking any amount then driving is OK is wrong.  Even at 1 pint ie levels probably between 20 and 50 your chances of crashing are 3 times higher

The only reason people thik a ouple of pints is OK is beause they lack the self awareness to understand how much their driving is impaired.  Thats a function of how alcohol affects you.  anyone who claims they are not imparied at a level of 50 is deluded

Having never crashed in 30 years of driving it seems like an increased risk of 3 times (perhaps a broadly reasonable estimate at the 1 pint level based on ti’s links) still leaves me safe enough to not worry too much about it.

exactly the sort of deluded thinking that leads to drink driving.  If anyone could have shown exactly how people think about drink driving you and postie have shown it.  completely deluded as to the risk, in complete denial that their behaviour is wrong.

I’d only require one for morning after duties as I don’t see the point in having one beer if I can’t have more…

Keeping it in perspective,  why demonise driving with one pint while driving while carrying on a hands free telephone call is acceptable to most people but more dangerous than driving at the drink drive limit by some measures.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2077-cellphones-worse-than-drink-driving/

Nothing is absolutely safe. Judging by danger per mile the first thing needing banned is motorbikes.

Yeah we did that several pages back.

Oh I demonise folk who use their phones while driving.  I have got out of a taxi and refused to pay halfway home because the driver took a call on his mobile.  I also regularly shout at idiots I see on their phones in cars.  Its highly amusing to watch them drop the phone with a guilty start .

I also regularly shout at idiots I see on their phones in cars. Its highly amusing to watch them drop the phone with a guilty start .

Serious question TJ. Do you spend your life going from confrontation to another?

How many times have you been knocked on your arse?

What’s the baseline risk of crashing with no alcohol? I’m perfectly happy to accept that it’s 6 times higher after a couple of pints if that’s what the science says but if it’s 6 times a tiny number then I’m not overly concerned. I could buy six lottery tickets to increase my chances of winning by 6 times, doesn’t mean I think I’m going to win.