Lower drink driving limit

Unless you own a brewery or a vineyard – you heartless bastard!!

😉

😀

Why would I be significantly more likely to kill someone after a pint?

I reckon I would be more likey to kill someone driving around under the influence of my current manflu than after a couple of pints.

Thing is I do adapt my driving based on how I’m feeling, so whether its manflu or a couple of pints I adjust my driving accordingly e.g. no music to distract me, drive slightly slower etc.

I posted this six months ago my vigilante activities on page one are of less relevance than the bit of light research on page two, where we established two cans of Stella could get the “average” male pretty close to the 80mg limit, drop it to 50mg and I don’t think it would be worth the risk of even having a half of lager if you were driving that evening.

It’s all down to the individual concerned and how they metabolise booze… I assume going to 50mg rather than say 20 or 30 still gives a reasonable tolerance for potential errors in measurement (with modern equipment) and will also bring some of those who would previously been “Borderline” into range for a banning…

Absolutely- the message is “don’t drink at all and drive”, it’s not “You can now only drink 5/8ths as much as you used to be able to”. It’s a much simpler message and I think probably going to be an effective one, people see wriggle room in the current rules.

But 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?

Which part of “alcohol impairs judgement” are you failing to understand?

the whole point of the new limit, as said by me on first page and many others after is to make having alcohol and then driving unacceptable, both legally and socially.

A 50mg limit won’t do that, though – only a 0mg limit would. As is, people will be still be making the “1 pint then an hour and I should be OK” type calculation.

Even then I doubt it would be socially unacceptable, most people (myself included) would probably find it hard to condemn someone who genuinely only had one small glass of wine and then failed a test.

Surely the ‘impaired after a pint’ argument only holds true down south? 😀

As is, people will be still be making the “1 pint then an hour and I should be OK” type calculation.

The trouble is a fair proportion of them may still be right depending on:

1- A pint of what exactly? ~3.5% or 5%+ alcohol content will make all the difference.

2- The individual: a 6′-6″ man mountain may well be able to chug a pint and be under that 50mg/100ml limit, where someone smaller might well go over that limit drinking the exact same thing…

As someone who barely ever drinks these days (normally because I’ll probably have to drive somewhere in the not too distant future) I actually welcome the lowering of the limit, I’d like it to go lower to help remove that “Wiggle room” but it’s a step in the right direction IMO, it won’t affect my behaviour, but I would like to see it affect other peoples TBH…

Surely the ‘impaired after a pint’ argument only holds true down south?

One day decent beer may be available in the north, until then…

Scotroutes – Which part of “alcohol impairs judgement” are you failing to understand?

But I do understand, hence the above approach which I use to deal with the situation when it arises.

Now … where’s my car keys…..

“beacuase alcohol impairs your functions. FACT.”

Righto – so on Saturday I’ll get in my car, throw two dogs and three children in the back, switch on the sat-nav, crank up some AC/DC, take a call on my hands free and have a quick argument with the wife in the passenger seat who wants to listen to Jeremy Vine……and that’s just fine

But god forbid on Sunday if I want to have a bike ride with a mate followed by a post ride wind down beer after which I’ll carefully drive home relaxed and undistracted….because obviously I’m IMPAIRED…FACT!!!!!!!!

I think most reasonable comments here agree that necking a few pints then rallying home from pub is bad mmmmkay. What I think is the more pertinent question, bearing in mind the demographic of this forum is this question;

Your an average sized (say 85kg) male, it’s a Friday night and between 8 and 11 you drink a bottle of wine (or equivalent) so around 10 units approx?

At what time are you safe to drive? Clearly it will be the following day, but are we talking 9am, Mid day, 6pm?

Why would I be significantly more likely to kill someone after a pint?

Because your judgement is impaired, and so you don’t actually know what effect it has on you!. 😀

I was merely trying to point out that I hear that point quite often. From people who drink and drive, their main worry is the cops, and losing their licence, and not the poor bastard who ends up on a slab. And with so many really good bottle conditioned ales around now, a beer at home is every bit as good, if not more consistent, than a pub pint. And if the pub really matters that much to you, move house.

mudshark – Member

But 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.

— http://www.listerine.com/naturals/faqs

Listerine Original – Inactive ingredients

Water, 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).

— http://www.corsodyl.co.uk/treat-gum-disease/

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 (according to wiki) 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 tolerance

It 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 – 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.

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?

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.

http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-centre/news-archive/996-using-smartphones-behind-the-wheel-is-more-dangerous-than-drink-driving

irc – Member

It 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.

http://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…..