Lower drink driving limit

question: of the thousands of people killed or maimed on our roads every year, how many were caused by people ‘just’ over the new limit?

I don’t think it’s just those folk that would have been in the 50-80mg bracket that are being targeted. There will be lots of people having “a couple of drinks” assuming they would be below 80mg when they would actually be over that.

We could all buy scrappers, fit big spikes to the wheels, dress like australians, get bladdered then let rip at each other.

Sounds like some of those funny places up north you hear about.

might be able to “catch out” more of the morning after the night before crowd too.

50mg in line with most of EU makes sense. And makes 1 pint clearly in the “could put you over the limit” category, rather than “one ought to be safe if you’re careful and don’t get caught”

had a feeling scandinavia was 20mg? half a shandy (which is about all anyone could afford at their prices anyway) could trigger the limit.

50mg in line with most of EU makes sense.

Why exactly? How many of us drink a couple of pints before getting on a ferry or the shuttle then have to hang about at the port to de-gas? When you get to any destination across the channel both portion size and strength of brew are different too.

Yay, we’re the drink drive capital of Europe.

Yay, we’re the drink drive capital of Europe.

Best at handling cars after a few beers?

Yay, we’re the drink drive capital of Europe.

Not strictly correct. If you get caught here then you’ll probably get banned with major consequences.

In France, even with a lower limit, if you get caught you’ll get ‘let off’ with a fine and not allowed to drive until you’re ‘sober’ again.

the legal drink drive capital of Europe?

and again, how is it going to be enforced, like speeding out of sight of cameras, red light jumping, making phone calls, texting, passing on blind bends and tailgating.

#whataboutery

It’s practice to be tested after being involved in any accident.

learned a new word scotroutes?

Making new laws is great but not providing the tools to enforce them is a waste of time. It’s a nice headline but what effect will it have. It’s an honest question.

Edit as the second bit didn’t come up
Testing after the event doesn’t stop the event.

mikewsmith – Member
and again, how is it going to be enforced, like speeding out of sight of cameras, red light jumping, making phone calls, texting, passing on blind bends and tailgating.

You seem to be under some illusion that laws can be enforced universally?

What are you after, checkpoints on every street? 😆

Testing after the event doesn’t stop the event.

By the same argument our laws against murder, rape, assault, robbery etc don’t work because they only punish people after a crime has already been committed.

Bring on the pre-cogs.

You seem to be under some illusion that laws can be enforced universally?

What are you after, checkpoints on every street?
Nope how about an increase in police levels, more traffic officers, a removal of the no stop without reason to allow random testing, at least a basic effort to enforce the current traffic laws. They brought in laws against using phones when there was a law that would have prosecuted for that. Enforcement is more important than making laws.

Sounds expensive.

mikewsmith – Member
You seem to be under some illusion that laws can be enforced universally?
What are you after, checkpoints on every street?

Nope how about an increase in police levels, more traffic officers, a removal of the no stop without reason to allow random testing, at least a basic effort to enforce the current traffic laws. They brought in laws against using phones when there was a law that would have prosecuted for that. Enforcement is more important than making laws.

Can we change your name to gestapomike? 😆

I think it’s pretty clear from the thread how laws are enforced, they are generally enforced by consensus that they are correct.

You can’t legislate against the liberty of the many just to catch a few, that’s bloody ridiculous.

Will also potentially have a higher effect on women

You can’t legislate against the liberty of the many just to catch a few, that’s bloody ridiculous.

of the things I suggested the only one that may infringe the “many” is random breath testing. It would probably turn up a lot of the “only had one” crowd that the change in the law wants to stop – is that not what we are after.

“The Many” are often proven to be unable to make rational decisions and behave as society expects, so why should they not have their liberties checked.

The point as you missed it is that making laws and grabbing headlines (lower drink drive limits, deport terrorists, ban Zero Hours Contracts, stop tax evasion etc) is nothing more than headline grabbing if you don’t enforce it.

It already is enforced. More than 50,000 convictions every year.

It’s a very emotive subject, in an ideal world we’d have a 0 limit, also applying to drugs that can effect the ability to drive, including over the counter cold remedies etc.
In addition to France, some Mediterranean countries only issue fines for DD and have much worse road safety records than the UK do.
The fall in the KSi figures aren’t due to the DD laws but many other factors, road design, vehicle safety features such as ABS, seat belts and airbags.

mikewsmith – Member
of the things I suggested the only one that may infringe the “many” is random breath testing. It would probably turn up a lot of the “only had one” crowd that the change in the law wants to stop – is that not what we are after.
“The Many” are often proven to be unable to make rational decisions and behave as society expects, so why should they not have their liberties checked.

The point as you missed it is that making laws and grabbing headlines (lower drink drive limits, deport terrorists, ban Zero Hours Contracts, stop tax evasion etc) is nothing more than headline grabbing if you don’t enforce it.

It’s not at all, I think you can clearly see from this thread that it will have a tangible effect on how people behave. The vast majority will change they way the think about a few pints then driving.

That’s much more than headline grabbing.

I completely disagree with people having their liberty checked, particularly drivers, and especially without reasonable cause. I don’t even drive and I’d consider drivers to be one of the most policed sections of society, the levels of police they deal with is already way beyond societal norms.

they levels of police they deal with is already way beyond societal norms.

Honestly when I started my first motorway commute I would see 2 police cars within 40 miles of each other in both directions, traffic police, policing the traffic. By the time I left the UK a 3 years ago I could go 200 miles without seeing one. Cameras are not enforcement, they are painted yellow and have advertising.
Drivers fall into a category where it is OK to kill and injure with the excuse that it’s driving so it’s OK. An increase in the reliance on cameras to enforce speed and less police actually stopping people for bad driving is a bad thing. I’m glad to see 50,000 convictions for drink driving but not sure where the next lot will come from. As a priority for road safety challenging bad attitude and poor driving standards would be my priority, though that would require money and effort and raise very little revenue.

a removal of the no stop without reason to allow random testing

Police in England can stop a vehicle for any reason; they can ask to see licence/registration/insurance documents; and they can administer a breath test if they have a reasonable suspicion the driver has been drinking: https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving-your-rights/overview
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q723.htm

If what you’re asking for is something different, I’m not sure if it makes enough of a difference to be worth doing…

I’d consider drivers to be one of the most policed sections of society, the levels of police they deal with is already way beyond societal norms.

I don’t remember who said it now but I read an article that suggested the reason why drink drive laws were so controversial upon introduction in the UK was because it criminalized an activity that middle class people often did and brought them into contact with the police for the first time (other than as a complainant), which made them realize quite how beastly they could be…

It’ll make no difference whatso ever

It will to me. At the moment, I’ll have a beer with a lunch and then drive, or one post night ride and drive home. Not any more I won’t.

I completely disagree with people having their liberty checked, particularly drivers, and especially without reasonable cause.

…… eh ? 🙁

Roads are a regulated controlled environment, not a free for all, and driving is not a ‘right’, it is not a ‘given’. People need to pass a test, maintain their vehicles and be compliant, That’s what the traffic police are there to do, and to make the whole driving experience safer

I sincerely hope it doesn’t get copied down here. Best pint ever that one after the ride – often before driving home.

Looks like that will put paid to our usual after work swifty on a Friday 😥

I was breatalysed straight after 2 pints of Pedigree and passed so always used 2 pints as my limit when I drove.

Edit: Phew, just realised this is just the Peoples Republic of Jockistan

I was breatalysed straight after 2 pints of Pedigree and passed so always used 2 pints as my limit when I drove.

If it was right after, your body might not have absorbed all the alcohol at the moment you were tested.

Edit: Phew, just realised this is just the Peoples Republic of Jockistan

I’d be amazed if UKIPland didn’t follow suit.

Looks like that will put paid to our usual after work swifty on a Friday

The shared office where I work has a “Fridge Club” where everyone gets together at the end of a Friday and has a few beers before they all drive home.

😯

The shared office where I work has a “Fridge Club” where everyone gets together at the end of a Friday and has a few beers before they all drive home.

And my actual point is of those people how many have ever been stopped on the way home? How were they caught, changing the number may stop some from chancing it but it won’t stop those who don’t think it’s a problem.

Something that is in use in parts of Australia to get back in a car after a drink conviction.

iainc – Member
I completely disagree with people having their liberty checked, particularly drivers, and especially without reasonable cause.
…… eh ?
Roads are a regulated controlled environment, not a free for all, and driving is not a ‘right’, it is not a ‘given’. People need to pass a test, maintain their vehicles and be compliant, That’s what the traffic police are there to do, and to make the whole driving experience safer

should make it clear there, that I mean beyond what exists. I’m not advocating a free for all on the roads. 😆 I just dont think more police will make people safer.

I just dont think more police will make people safer.

More police and removing more bad drivers might help. Assessing somebody in their late teens for the next 60 years operating a large metal killing machine is a little optimistic.

All smacks to me of the snp falling in line with Europe rather than the rUK.

So – it’ll improve the current situation but not make it perfect? I’m failing to see the down-side.

This SNP?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27383267