Lower drink driving limit

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.

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?

I have. I’ve got the string-backed fingerless gloves to prove it.

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:

“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”

— 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 procrastinate. 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.

this is the most helpful post towards improving the helpfulness of internet discussions I have ever read…

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.

— North Review Report (PDF)

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

have you looked or is that just assertion?

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.

Silly argument, in a black and white world the guy fresh off the ROSPA course would be better than Mr Average who’s better than the drunk. Why is it hypocrytical for Mr Average to tell Mr Drunk to sober up?

No more hypocritical than the ROSPA drivers oppinion, after all he’s not a fighter pilot or F1 driver, so what business does he have to criticicise others?

There will always be someone better than you by some measure. ROSPA/IAM is the driving equivelent of “I’m an engineer” or “You’re not a parent, you wouldn’t understand”.

mefty – Member
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.

Which would of course be offset against (1) the economic benefit in reduced accidents [estimated cost to Scotland > £1.5 BN per annum form RTA’s (2) the local economic benefit to taxi drivers from increased use of taxis (3) the improvement to public health from people who decide – actually 3 pints is enough if I am driving at 7am.

rebel12 – Member
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.

does that not prove why legislation not voluntary guilt is required to 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.

Well other than the evidence given in parliament of course…
the North Report which indicated that drivers are six times more likely to die with a blood alcohol
concentration between 50 and 80 mgs than with zero blood alcohol.
the British Medical Association4 that the relative risk of being involved in a road traffic accident for drivers with a reading of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood was 10 times higher than for drivers with
a zero blood alcohol reading. The relative accident risk for drivers with a
reading of 50mg of alcohol per 100ml blood was twice the level than for drivers
with a zero blood alcohol reading.

But you are again ignoring my question – if the evidence from Scotland shows it does reduce casualties will you change your stance for the rUK?

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.

and yet police scotland (and the COPFS who conduct prosecutions in Scotland – not the police) both seem to have been active supporters of the changes… despite these being times of austerity… Police Scotland expect a 30% increase in cases on simple extrapolation – but others suggest their will be a fall as people stop “chancing a couple of pints”. You are assuming that there will be no change in public behaviour – but all the anecdotal evidence I have heard suggest there are lots of people who will modify their habits.

But you are again ignoring my question – if the evidence from Scotland shows it does reduce casualties will you change your stance for the rUK?

Nope, cause the evidence won’t show that. All it will show is that more previously law abiding people are now loose their licence’s and their liveley hoods.

😆 😆 😆

well, that’s pretty watertight. ever considered a career as a Fox TV pundit?

Isn’t the argument for either 50 or 80mgs in essence the same- allowing people to drive whilst being under the influence of alcohol?

If it’s so clear cut why not lower it to 10-20mgs & be done.

seosamh77 – Member
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.

Nope, was the smoking ban in my old village. I know this as I was able to speak to the people who stopped going.

Nope, was the smoking ban in my old village. I know this as I was able to speak to the people who stopped going.

Not that old chestnut. Lots of folk used that as an excuse, just another thing to aim at the powers that be.

Not that old chestnut. Lots of folk used that as an excuse, just another thing to aim at the powers that be.

In good old STW fashion, don’t let the fact that I was in the village at the time and was part of the social circle involved get in the way of you being correct because you have decided you must be because it’s what you think and no one else can possibly be more aware of the facts in any given location then you.

Punctuation! 😀

Jush back from a seshun in the pub in my rural village. One of four pubs operating in a village of 2000-odd population.
Seemed pretty busy for a Thursday night. The smokers in our merry group disappeared outside and did their thing as they felt the urge.

Seems to me that any loss through the smoking ban is a purely temporary effect as society adjusts.
I imagine the changes to the alcohol limit will be much the same.

GrahamS – Member

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.

So the insurance companies that offer reduced premiums for advanced drivers are actually wrong, according to your sample of one?

Well you just carry on wanting safer roads, as long as what ever has to be done to achieve this is done by other people, and not you.

Good effort trooper! 😀

Punctuation!

That was the whole point!

Probably OT at this point in the thread, but if if from December on I have a post ride pint in Scotlandshire, am I likely to be over the limit?

No one can say, too many variables, best to not bother IMO.

Andy_K – Member
Probably OT at this point in the thread, but if if from December on I have a post ride pint in Scotlandshire, am I likely to be over the limit?

the expert advice is it is too difficult to be sure. It depends on you (how much you drink normally), your size, your gender, what you’ve eaten, possibly how dehydrated you are after exercising, and also on the beer – 3.8-5.3% wouldn’t be uncommon depending on brand (but that is a 30%+ error), and how long you spread the drink over / wait before driving…

…its certainly not impossible that you would be under the (new) limit BUT it is also possible you could be over it… all official advice is not to risk it – if you are over the limit, your are over the limit, not expecting to be is not a defence. I’ve spoken to a few people planning to get there own breathalyser – but none that I am aware of at affordable prices will come with independent calibration/certification – its entirely possible that such a device might be say 20% out – and again its no defence.