Drink Driving Dilema

[Greenback]

If this thread was about driving safety, I;d agree with broadening it out to other issues. It's not, though, this is a discussion about a specific decision to reduce the drink driving limits in Scotland.

We need to remain on topic, not to branch off into discussions about tiredness etc.

 

[Lad Brookes]

I agree. The myth simply encourages people to think they are safe to drive when even a small amount of alcohol can impair judgement and reaction times. As it is, at the moment, people think in terms of whether they are legal rather than whether they are safe.

Things have to change.

That's the same as speed limits though. People concentrate on keeping below the speed limit (or at least below the point at which it is enforced), rather than driving at a speed appropriate to the road and weather conditions (which can at times be higher than the largely arbitrarily decided limits at times, as well as significantly lower at times).

 

[Bletchleyite]

We need to remain on topic, not to branch off into discussions about tiredness etc.

As you are a moderator you are perfectly entitled to hold that view, and I as a non-moderator must (and will) comply in this thread going forward.

However, before going quiet on those other issues I will make the general point that I strongly believe you cannot consider any single road safety issue on a completely insular basis - you need to consider road safety as a whole. Therefore if considering changes to the drink-drive limit, it is also important to consider how other, perhaps more cost-effective measures may improve the overall accident statistics, which in the end have to be the motivation for road safety improvements of any kind.

Neil

 

[jonty14]

Other European countries have the 50 limit, but the penalties do not seem to be as severe as an automatic one-year ban.

In Germany you have to do an Mpu (medical and psychological test) if you get caught. You have to go to a psychologist a lot of times to prepare for the test. Also blood tests to see if you have drunk alcohol in the meantime. You have to prove abstinence for at least half a year. If you are lucky you get your license back after a year. Very expensive mistake to make.

 

[Greenback]

As you are a moderator you are perfectly entitled to hold that view, and I as a non-moderator must (and will) comply in this thread going forward.

However, before going quiet on those other issues I will make the general point that I strongly believe you cannot consider any single road safety issue on a completely insular basis - you need to consider road safety as a whole. Therefore if considering changes to the drink-drive limit, it is also important to consider how other, perhaps more cost-effective measures may improve the overall accident statistics, which in the end have to be the motivation for road safety improvements of any kind.

Neil

I don't want to pull rank*, I'm simply putting my view forward in the hope that we can have a consensus. I don't want to stifle debate on the other issues that impact on safe driving, I just think that another thread is the best place for such a discussion.

(*Just as a point of interest, I'd normally to ask other moderators to intervene if I'd been involved in discussions in anything more than a cursory fashion and any decisions needed to be made regarding the content of that thread as I don't want to be accused of abusing my position as a mod!)

 

[Aldaniti]

290 people died in 2012 as a result of drink-driving. That clearly doesn't include non-fatal accidents. Reducing the limit to 20mg is the correct answer. Driving standards are bad enough in this country without mixing alcohol into the problem. Good on the Scottish government for taking a lead in the UK.

 

[455driver]

Of course if a drink driver is involved in an accident then it is automatically their fault whether they actually caused the accident or not!

There are lies, damn lies and statistics!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't want to pull rank*, I'm simply putting my view forward in the hope that we can have a consensus. I don't want to stifle debate on the other issues that impact on safe driving, I just think that another thread is the best place for such a discussion.

Fair enough.

(*Just as a point of interest, I'd normally to ask other moderators to intervene if I'd been involved in discussions in anything more than a cursory fashion and any decisions needed to be made regarding the content of that thread as I don't want to be accused of abusing my position as a mod!)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting in any way that you are

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

290 people died in 2012 as a result of drink-driving.

So 290 people died as a result of people being over the present 80mg limit. (Under that would not be recorded as "as a result of drink-driving").

What would be more interesting (as Police usually breathalyse at the site of fatal accidents anyway) is how many were not legally drink-driving, but had BAC at <20mg, 20-50mg, and 50-80mg, noting that there will be some "noise" on the stats because the consumption of alcohol may actually have contributed nothing to some of the accidents.

Neil

 

[RPM]

I'm not particularly bothered at what level the drink drive limit is set but I do think a lower limit will pick up more 'accidental' drink drivers whilst having no effect on catching the serious, deliberate drink drivers. When I say accidental drink drivers I'm thinking mainly of 'morning after' incidents. It is easy enough to be abstain from drinking if you know you're about to drive the car but if you have a heavy night on the drink how do you judge at what point the following day you will be safe to drive? It is very hard to do. Perhaps it will become commonplace to own personal breathalyzers?

 

[DarloRich]

There doesn't seem to be a dilemma to me: Drink or drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There doesn't seem to be a dilemma to me: Drink or drive.

Where the dilemma is found is the morning after. And that's likely to catch *far* more people out.

Neil

 

[Greenback]

The answer is for more people to be aware of the morning after effect. I hope the publicity for the changes will try to address that as well.

 

[Whistler40145]

I agree DarloRich, but some people just don't see why it's a problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree DarloRich, but some people just don't see why it's a problem.

Because I tend believe legislation should be based on provable benefit, not based on pure principle. Though granted I tend to be more libertarian than many.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The answer is for more people to be aware of the morning after effect. I hope the publicity for the changes will try to address that as well.

I hope so - a lot of people are well over the English limit the morning after and don't realise it either, let alone the Scottish lower limit.

Neil

 

[Oswyntail]

...
However, before going quiet on those other issues I will make the general point that I strongly believe you cannot consider any single road safety issue on a completely insular basis - you need to consider road safety as a whole. Therefore if considering changes to the drink-drive limit, it is also important to consider how other, perhaps more cost-effective measures may improve the overall accident statistics, which in the end have to be the motivation for road safety improvements of any kind....

The most cost-effective measure in improving overall accident statistics would be to stop driving. If you try to take a more "overall" view, I suspect you would find so much conflicting data nothing would get settled. Drink-driving, however is a well-defined area where action can be taken without a host of other considerations. The "morning after" argument is not really cogent, as anyone should already be aware of the possibilities - they have been publicised well enough.

 

[DarloRich]

Where the dilemma is found is the morning after. And that's likely to catch *far* more people out.

Neil

the point still stands - as a driver you should be aware of your responsibilities. If you have a skinful the night before get the bus.

 

[carriageline]

the point still stands - as a driver you should be aware of your responsibilities. If you have a skinful the night before get the bus.

Completely agreed, but the problem is many people don't associate having a hangover with alcohol still being in your system. Or if they do they ignore it as the chance of being pulled over is much lower. Education is the problem here I think.

Whenever I have a heavy night out, I am hardly in a fit state to go anywhere by car either passenger or otherwise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[richw]

When I was 18 I was breathalysed at 4 the afternoon after, and I was only 3 or 4 points under the limit.
The police man asked when I'd last drunk and it was in the nightclub the night before which had closed at 3am, so 25 hours at least! The policeman was amazed my reading was still so high, and asked for me to be a case example about next day driving, but I never heard no more about it.
Since then I've never driven next day.

 

[PermitToTravel]

When I was 18 I was breathalysed at 4 the afternoon after, and I was only 3 or 4 points under the limit.
The police man asked when I'd last drunk and it was in the nightclub the night before which had closed at 3am, so 25 hours at least! The policeman was amazed my reading was still so high, and asked for me to be a case example about next day driving, but I never heard no more about it.
Since then I've never driven next day.

Do you mean 13 hours (not astoundingly difficult to drink this much) or 37 (not easy without spending some of the intermediate time in a skipcoma)?

 

[DarloRich]

Completely agreed, but the problem is many people don't associate having a hangover with alcohol still being in your system. Or if they do they ignore it as the chance of being pulled over is much lower. Education is the problem here I think.

Whenever I have a heavy night out, I am hardly in a fit state to go anywhere by car either passenger or otherwise

I agree - they should.

I also agree it isn't a problem for me as i cant get out of bed anymore if i have a hangover let alone drive! When did i turn all soft?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Completely agreed, but the problem is many people don't associate having a hangover with alcohol still being in your system. Or if they do they ignore it as the chance of being pulled over is much lower. Education is the problem here I think.

A hangover *does not* necessarily mean there is alcohol still in your system. It's a combination of dehydration, loss of salts, acetaldehyde poisoning and lack of sleep, generally, together with stomach upset from having consumed a poison.

Certainly with me, the hangover kicks in when most of the drink is gone. If I wake up after a heavy night (not that often these days!) absolutely fine, I know I'm not safe to drive as I'm still drunk.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the point still stands - as a driver you should be aware of your responsibilities. If you have a skinful the night before get the bus.

Or use a breathalyser to find out what your alcohol level actually is. It might actually be zero with you still feeling rough. Though if you feel *that* rough you still shouldn't really drive, as you'll be well below par in reaction terms with a stinking hangover even without any alcohol left.

FWIW I think we could do with a national advertising campaign concentrating on the morning after, as I think the battle on the night before is far closer to being won.

Neil

 

[muz379]

FWIW I think we could do with a national advertising campaign concentrating on the morning after, as I think the battle on the night before is far closer to being won.

Neil

I agree , nobody caught the night before can really argue they didn't think what they where doing was wrong .

There will always be people who think they are ok to have 2 pints but then get caught drink driving . But to them people I would say you should have been fully aware of the risks .

The morning after though I dont think everyone always realize that if you have a heavy drinking session and then sleep a few hours even if you dont feel at all intoxicated(probably somewhat masked/dismissed as tiredness ) you could still be over the limit .

 

[Butts]

We seem to be avoiding "The Elephant in the Room" namely the lack of correlation between this new limit and the number of accidents caused by motorists just over the old 80ml limit. - ie very few

 

[Clip]

We seem to be avoiding "The Elephant in the Room" namely the lack of correlation between this new limit and the number of accidents caused by motorists just over the old 80ml limit. - ie very few

you'll need to back that up with some solids stats i'm afraid Butts.

Also, it will be a tough one to prove as by the time of the incident and the person getting breath tested could be some time which could make them just under the limit.

Id be all for lowering the limit in England and Wales to match what Scotland are doing. No need for it to be so high.

 

[Chapeltom]

I think 80mg is fine in theory, but I know that alcohol can affect people in different ways and even the same people on different days, I speak from experience. Now here is where I have to tread carefully with what I'm saying...

I know a few people who are affected the same or worse by 1 or 2 pints, as what I am by 5 or 6 pints on a good day. My tolerance is generally fairly good, but there are some days where I consume 3 pints and feel as if I've had double that. Of course there are lots of factors behind that: how I've eaten, how much sleep I've had, stress - all can affect (from personal experience) how much I can/can't drink. I have no doubt that on some occasions after 4-6 pints of beer (albeit over 4-5 hours) I could drive (at least ride a motorcycle), whereas other people couldn't drink more than 2-3 in that same time period and do so.

Drink driving should be punished by severity but as I've said above, people have different tolerances towards alcohol. There are some people for who 2 beers, is say just as dangerous as someone else after 5. I've ridden a motorcycle after 2 beers and actually felt less affected than what I have when I've ridden totally sober but very tired, at 2 beers I've felt fine. Tiredness is very dangerous and its a hidden danger, only the person affected by it, can safely judge it. You cannot measure tiredness with a technological aid, and you have to rely on people to make their own judgements. Tiredness affects judgement, reaction times almost as much as what alcohol can and I've realised that, in the morning on my ride to work I'm far more likely to be awake and alert than by late afternoon when I'm going home.

Alcohol affects everyone differently, just as tiredness does and unfortunately whilst a one size fits all solution is not ideal, its the only practical option. Cutting it down to 50mg may not make much difference to accident rates, but it would certainly deter those 'with lower tolerance' to even the smallest amount of alcohol from driving.

 

[Greenback]

When did i turn all soft?

When you moved down south?

FWIW I think we could do with a national advertising campaign concentrating on the morning after, as I think the battle on the night before is far closer to being won.

Neil

I agree. Very few of my acquaintances and relations will drive at all if they are having a drink in the evening. (I'd like to bring that to zero!) but fewer of them think about the effects the following day.

We seem to be avoiding "The Elephant in the Room" namely the lack of correlation between this new limit and the number of accidents caused by motorists just over the old 80ml limit. - ie very few

You're going to have give us a source for that assertion!

 

[richw]

Do you mean 13 hours (not astoundingly difficult to drink this much) or 37 (not easy without spending some of the intermediate time in a skipcoma)?

37 hours, I'd miscalculated, It was the Monday afternoon -I'd been out on the Saturday night into early hours Sunday! I'd drunk at an estimate in excess of 40 units on that particular binge - 10-12 pints of cider, at least 10 shots, and some alcopops.

I'm a big chap and spent a lot of time in the gym back then. My best mate was leaving to work abroad and it was a massive night out. I p**sed about £200 away that night!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That does, to be fair, tally with a unit an hour - but those quantities would have landed me in hospital!

 

[richw]

That does, to be fair, tally with a unit an hour - but those quantities would have landed me in hospital!

I couldn't do it these days, but back then I would of done that kind of night out once every 6 weeks or so.