Driving whilst under the influence of trying to eat a freshly microwaved burning hot pasty,(available at many petrol stations) as it scalds your mouth and then falls into your lap ! is surely the most dangerous act of all.

I think the issue with the limit as it stands is it sets an arbitrary 'sensible' amount. The problem is this amount is something that can only be measured after the event with a breath of blood sample. You can drink what seems like the right amount, but is food and time really having the effect you think it is? You're relying on the booze being in the strength and quantity you imagine it to be, and on subjectively as to how you feel yourself to be effected

So… with good intensions and a drink you might, despite your better judgement, find yourself to be over the limit if you're either stopped….. or worse.

But what if you have a accident and you're just under. Innocent in the eyes of the law, but how do you live with being 95% culpable?

Whisper it, but common sense suggests the accident rate for people driving over the limit is really pretty low. It's just higher than it is for people under the limit. Most people who get into a car after they've had slightly more than is wise get home entirely safely.

The number of accidents caused by sober drivers under our existing traffic regulations is pretty hideous in some ways. Car accidents are one of the leading causes of death in some age groups. That is regarded as a price well worth paying for widespread, convenient personal motor transport. There's nothing wrong about driving a car, but occasionally doing it kills people.

Having a few ales and then driving a car takes an existing risk of killing someone (which is regarded as entirely acceptable) and converts it into a slightly higher risk of killing someone, which somehow makes having a few ales a heinous crime even if no-one dies. That is irrational.

The rule against driving when a bit pissed is essentially a Health & Safety regulation. It is designed to reduce risks for the general population by controlling everyone's behaviour based on a utilitarian judgment about efficiency.

(I don't drive, and I certainly don't drive when pished, I just find the hysteria about a marginal increase in risk odd 🙂 )

I'm afraid I don't know what a BB gun is headfirst. The extra naan bread might disperse the crowd a bit but not much as eating only slows alcohol up take tather than preventing it.

Do whatever you can live with Zokes. I just hope you hit a telegraph pole rather than a pedestrian if you crash whilst drink driving within the limit. And that you can live with being accused of a most dispicable crime if you are found to be over the limit. Because that's how many people see it – just like the police quoted in article.

Zokes a few things to get to grips with – if the number of road deaths through alcohol is relatively low compared to other causes of accidents (and its not with the figure being chucked about, its quite a large proportion) then that reflects the fact that drink driving laws exist, are promoted, policed and enforced. Without that the number of people drinking and having accidents would be higher. If the current law and policing can be proved to be effective, and yet some people still drink and have fatal accidents then there might be case for making the law stricter. Which is what is being considered (but its only being considered) As it stands, and as you've read above, for many people the existing limit being already pretty low is sufficient for many people to feel that their best action is not to drink at all, rather than have a drink and be close (but not know how close) to the limit.

The other thing…. complaining that certain crimes are easier to detect and prosecute then others is just boggling. Do you hear rapist complaining that being caught on DNA evidence just isn't sporting enough?

Whats saddening is that speeding and drinking are such common crimes that they justify the massive capital investment is camera systems and dedicated electronic boxes of tricks.

Hi all, just going to throw my two pennies worth in, there is no good reason to drink and drive and if you ask me the limit should be 0mg, but then again I may be biased, after all who else here (apart from me) has had a phone call on a Sunday, from their brother telling him to go to hospital as their mother is in intensive care, and their father is dead after being knocked off their motorbike by a car that had according to witnesses and then verified by accident investigation, had clipped the kerb and span across the road into the path of oncoming traffic (my parents motorbike) the lady driving the car was over the drink drive limit, on a Sunday afternoon, pub lunch anyone? Oh I also had to go and indentify my fathers body for the coroner, then when my mother woke from her morphine induce state, three days later explain to her what had happened and tell her about her husband. So maybe that has clouded my view on the subject somewhat, we also got to go to court and watch as the woman got 18 months. Have a good festive season all. As for my mother by the way she had to give up her job and still suffers from her injuries to this day.

Because that's how many people see it – just like the police quoted in article.

Most people also think that drugs are the second most heinous crime – usually discussing such matters whilst quaffing coffee, tea, alcohol, or smoking.

Most people also don't know how to use apostrophes.

In actual fact, wasn't there an article the other day that said between 50-60% of UK drivers are scared of driving on a motorway, in rain, or at night. That implies most people are scared of driving unless it's sunny, and a quiet road. In that case, surely most people shouldn't drive…

Whats saddening is that speeding and drinking are such common crimes that they justify the massive capital investment is camera systems and dedicated electronic boxes of tricks.

Wrong. Not paying attention is the most common crime on British roads. However, most cases of this go undetected, never mind unpunished…

Do whatever you can live with Zokes. I just hope you hit a telegraph pole rather than a pedestrian if you crash whilst drink driving within the limit.

I shall, thank you. lets just hope you never crash as a result of b-g on my list then, seeing as whilst also potential causes of serious accidents, you are too narrow minded to care about them, believing only the repetitive spiel doled out by the politicians.

Anyway, if speed kills, surely you should be banned for that too?

BiDummy – that is utter piffle. Driving over the limit your odds of having a crash are much higher. Even under the limit they are raised significantly

I think the limit should be much lower. Not zero otherwise after one pt you wouldn't be able to drive the following morning but low enough so either a pint would put you over within a few hours or a bucketful would put you over in the morning.

I would have automatic jail ( just a week or two) for anyone even slightly over the limit. Drunk drivers kill hundreds every year.

I didn't say 'most common'

B to G are all detectable and punishable, it just happens that A is the more verifiable.

And Ron, whilst I have sympathy for your terrible situation, equally plausible is that the same horrific accident could have occurred as a result of b-g too, with or without alcohol involved. I'm not wishing to cause offence, but as you posted on a thread about whether a pint after work is the most heinous of crimes, I'm just drawing your attention to the other errors all drivers make on a daily basis…

Drunk drivers kill hundreds every year.

Indeed they do. Although the non-drunk ones kill thousands. What should we do with them?

zokes – Member
"Drink- and drug-driving is the most despicable crime…"
So not murder, rape etc then?
Surely having one pint and being alert is a lot better than…

Not the most despicable crime.

But I cannot understand why anyone thinks that their pleasure is a greater right than the safety of other persons on the road. Same principle as all those Clarksons wannabes who think they have a god given right to drive at high speed and treat the rest of us as mobile chicanes.

"It was an accident.." they cry.

Simple rule, your personal pleasures don't justify doing anything that increases the probability of harm to someone else.

Simple rule, your personal pleasures don't justify doing anything that increases the probability of harm to someone else.

Better not go mountain biking then, lest you crash and cause mountain rescue to have to come and get you

(Also possibly not a good idea to be on such a high horse – fixing you after you fall off it may reduce the ability of doctors to care for those whose injuries are not self inflicted)

Are you assuming that the non-drunk drivers are all one catagory, that the state of being non-drunk is itself one circumstance?

You really seem to struggle with reasoning. Are you drunk? Or having a row over the phone with the CD player? 🙂

Some of those couple of thousand others will be the purest of innocent accidents, driving isn't risk free. I heard somewhere that the people who cause death and serious injury on the road fall (in roughly equally quantities) into 5 catagories:

People who are drunk/drugged
People on the phone
People who are late / in a hurry (speed in itself, or impatience and risk taking)
People who aren't wearing seatbelts (because they turn minor accidents into major ones- that means unbelted passengers are a risk to themselves, but they can also kill/injure others in the vehicle)

and another one I've forgotten

It can't be zero. There are a few medicines that would put you above zero (only to 0.something though), but it can't be set at zero for that reason.

Just seen another article about this, suggesting that sentences are 'softened' at the same time as the limit is reduced.

Are you assuming that the non-drunk drivers are all one category, that the state of being non-drunk is itself one circumstance?

In a way, yes. Are you assuming that having one pint makes you as much a hooligan as having 5, then driving? One pint may impair some peoples' driving ability to a minor level. 5 will impair everyone's. Not paying attention through rowing, map reading etc will impair everyone's. This is also assuming that everyone has an equal skill at driving to start with…

So you consider yourself a better driver and less affected by alcohol than most zokes? That is what your posts imply. Please confirm or deny before we proceed.

I'm not making any such assumption. The catagory above are accidents and fatalities where someone is demonstrably drunk within the definition of being a drunk driver as the law stands now. The figures will include people who are little bit over and ones who are miles over.

Rowing, map reading or any of these activities if witnessed by the fuzz will get you pulled and probably charged. As will eating, adjusting your makeup etc etc.

Being evidently drunk will get you pulled and charged. But as a bonus a random breath test will get you charged too. One day they'll come up with a breath test that will demonstrate someone intention to have a row with their wife or their desire to skip a track on their iPod. When the day comes order will be restored.

In the meantime we'll have to tolerate everything being wildly distorted

Ban drinking and driving totally!

Get a taxi home you lazy feckers!

zokes – Member

…………….. One pint may impair some peoples' driving ability to a minor level.

No – one pint will have a significant effect on everyone driving. Experimentally proven.

For sure a good driver will still be better than a bad – but by an insignificant amount. alcohol has a real and measuable effect on our judgement, spatial awareness and reflexes and this is as true for Michael Schumacher as it for Maureen from the telly programme.

The very fact you believe this shows how unfit you are to drive. Arrogant types make the worst drunk drivers.

As intimated in someones earlier post, half of those busted believe themselves to have been under

of those demonstrably drunk drivers involved in serious accidents I wonder how many believed themselves to be under the limit.

Oh hang on though, there be a new book from the writers of Freakonomics – one of their subjects (obviously thrown in for controversy, but you gotta love 'em) is whether you have an increased chance of getting killed/seriously injured by driving home over the limit or by leaving your keys in the pub and walking home pished.

Being Freakonomics, you know what the answer will be don't you.

And if you're rowing whilst driving the real risk is you'll knock a policemans helmet off with one of your oars. He really will be mad and no amount of being middle class will get you let off. Not even offering to polish it!

So you consider yourself a better driver and less affected by alcohol than most zokes? That is what your posts imply. Please confirm or deny before we proceed.

I consider myself a better driver than the 50-60% who confess to being scared of driving on the motorway….

If I play Forza after a few scoops, I do quite well – especially online. I think my reduced inhibitions mean I'm more likely to take a risk. However, beyond a few scoops, my risk taking is not matched by my reaction times. So I'm guessing, as long as I'm driving on a level somewhere between 2 and 3 scoops, I'll be safe enough and get home faster? 😆

As a shortarse lightweight, will that put me over the limit?

ooooph (that was an ooooph for zokes)

And if you're rowing whilst driving the real risk is you'll knock a policemans helmet off with one of your oars

I have yet to come across a policeman's helmet anywhere near my blade when rowing – is it something you've come across lots?

is it something you've come across lots?

only in the bath

zokes – why do you have such an issue with other people having an issue with drinking and driving? You are virtually frothing at the mouth.

Drinking and driving used to be a much bigger issue than it is now. Enforcement and education have reduced the numbers. The numbers increase at this time of year, hence the higher profile. Why your issue with it?

i think the op was questioning it being the most hideous crime, not a problem with drink driving itself

All together now, one, two, three
Keep you mind on your drivin'
Keep you hands on the wheel
Keep your fancy phone in your pocket
Keep your snoopy eyes on the road ahead
Keep your CDs in the glovebox
Keep your oars to yourself
We're havin' fun unbelted in the back seat
Kissin' and a'rowing with Zokes
(Dee doody doom doom, dee doody doom doom)
(Dee doody doom doom, DOOM)

Edit. Wait a minute, whats Zokes doing in the back seat? I didn't think that through

i think the op was questioning it being the most hideous crime, not a problem with drink driving itself

and then he went on…

just defining the boundaries. Play on 🙂

zokes – why do you have such an issue with other people having an issue with drinking and driving? You are virtually frothing at the mouth.

Drinking and driving used to be a much bigger issue than it is now. Enforcement and education have reduced the numbers. The numbers increase at this time of year, hence the higher profile. Why your issue with it?

Nope, happily sat in front of my fire eating pasta. My beef is with those who follow the political line like sheep. I'm just bemused as to why everyone thinks DD is so so dangerous, but laugh off the other common distractions…

Some people do, some don't. Drink driving will be the worst thing in the world to someone who has lost a family member to such a driver. It is also premeditated as you did it before you got into the car. The other common distractions also cause problems.

whippersnapper – read my question again – I'm asking why zokes has a problem with people who think DD is such a bad crime – I'm questioning his view of their view.

Also – why is zokes getting so wound up about something reported in the media? He is taking the bait tied to the end of 'the political line' set by the journalist and reacting to a reported reaction. Amused at the irony of being outraged by the outrage of others, as reported by a journalist.

Who's laughing off other distractions, nobodies making a case for not concentrating on what you're doing. But individually or combined your list of distraction crimes don't contribute as highly to accidents on the road as the circumstances I listed. You could conclude from that they either aren't as common, aren't as prolonged or aren't as dangerous. Or maybe they just can't be measured

The circumstances I listed are common, are dangerous, are well legislated for, and can effectively be policed and prosecuted. Thats why the roads are getting safer.

Beer anyone?

But individually or combined your list of distraction crimes don't contribute as highly to accidents on the road as the circumstances I listed.

OK then, but if mobile phones are such an issue, why only 3 points? If speeding is such an issue, why only 3 points? I could go on…

Wishing to get back (somewhat belatedly) to my original point – why is DD seen as such a heinous crime, yet other far more prevalent causes of accidents not?

Also – why is zokes getting so wound up about something reported in the media? He is taking the bait tied to the end of 'the political line' set by the journalist and reacting to a reported reaction. Amused at the irony of being outraged by the outrage of others, as reported by a journalist.

Fair cop… 😳

There aren't other more prevalent causes. Those 5 main causes I listed, one of which i forget and one of which is drinking, are roughly equal in terms of the numbers of accidents and deaths attributed.

However the number of speeders, phone users etc may be much greater than the number of drinkers. About 85% of drivers have never had a speeding ticket, so 15% have. I don't know how many drivers have a drink conviction but I bet its not 15%

But if the number of accidents is the same then risk associated with drink would be higher wouldn't it? So a greater punishment (and stigma) would be justified.

La Prévention Routière gives the break down of accident causes for France in English

The major factors are alcohol, speeding and safety distances.

There's a detailed break down somewhere which even includes the number of cyclists killed jumping red lights.

If the weather is bad tomporrow I'll have a dig but my cold is much better so I'll probably be busy again.

That link is excellent Edukator. The stats for pedestrian deaths are interesting. Makes you wonder why its always children that feature in road safety films.