Drink driving - why have a limit

[AndyP & Lenore]

The Scottish Parliament today voted in favor of cutting the drink driving limit to 50mg per 100ml of blood. It needs to be put in place by Westminster government before it becomes law.

more details here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7788451.stm)

But do we need a limit?:confused: Should it not be the case that there should be NO alcohol whatsoever in your blood if you are driving? Zero tolerance. Zilch. nada. One drop of alcohol and you're automatically whisked off to jail and given a hundred thousand lashes with a birch branch.:knife:

As someone who just doesn't drink much at all - I have 4 330ml bottles of cider in my fridge, they'll probably last until well into February - I realise it's easy for me to have this opinion.:blush: But what do others think...

Let the debate begin.

A.

[C.Noble]

That would automatically lose the license of anyone who uses mouthwash in the morning!

Its totally unworkable... traces of alcohol can remain in your system for days after a night out too.

And it has been proven that some people produce tiny quantities of alcohol in there system naturally.

And then you would get the ridiculous situation where a law abiding driver loses his license, job, career (in my case, who would ever touch a mech with that on his record???), independance, marriage, etc, etc... cos he had a rum truffle two hours before driving.

[MrMischief]

Andy,

I'm of the same opinion as yourself, maybe it's because I work round the clock and need to drive to get there. I won't drink if I have the car anywhere, (unless the wife's driving :cool:) as I feel it does affect your judgement adversely - I'm no lightweight either though :p There are others that are quite happy to flaunt the law and take the chance of having had a few drinks and climbing behind the wheel - nothing will happen unless they're stopped, and even if they are, they believe they're under the limit. I think this is the attitude that ruins lives, not only from people losing their licenses but more importantly causing the fatal RTA's due to their ignorance, or perhaps arrogance. It's possibly an issue of lack of education in some areas which should really be addressed. In my opinion, this ties in with certain members of certain communities willingness to drive while under the influence of drugs. Just as bad, if not worse :frown: There should be no limit. :thumbs up:

Let the debate continue...

[C.Noble]

This would be a legal nightmare to police, but I think there should be harsher penalties for KNOWINGLY getting behind the wheel under the influence... I can just about manage some sympathy for someone who gets busted first thing in the morning on there way to work after sharing a bottle of wine in the house the night before and simply miscalculated... although, as far as I am concerned, anyone SHOULD know when they are not safe the next morning.

I dont, however, have any sympathy for some bampot who goes to the pub, downs 6 pints, a couple of whiskies and thinks its acceptable to drive a two ton weapon home... these idiots should lose their licenses forever, and get at least a 3 year stretch inside!

I think the problem here is, no one really knows what the limit is, realistically, and how it feels when you have reached it, when I was younger, my mate and I were playing the old GT on the playstation, having a few bevvies, as one does! I had this simple keyring thing that you breathed accross and little LEDs would light up to tell you when you went over the limit... I have to say, by the time I was near the limit, I never noticed any "drop off" in my reaction time in the game, but there was no way I felt safe to drive, my mate said he felt the opposite, said he felt fine to drive, but he was clearly getting worse on the game.

Basically, I would never knowingly drink and drive, but the limit has to be there to protect you the morning after... or after that rum truffle!

[Craig]

as someone who has seen the effects of drink driving and the accidents that they can produce, I do think the penalties should be higher for drink driving. :frown::frown:

As for their being no limit, not sure if that is workable :confused:


I did watch a program last night on STV and they did an experiment with various people of ages and sizes. They put them in a controlled bar, and gave them the normaly amount of the drink they would take before driving. (as they all admitted to drinking and driving). This ranged from 4 glasses of wine to a girl who normally drank 8 malibu's and coke :thud:)

the results were just as astounded, the said girl who drank the 8 mailibu's only blew 4mg. :confused: a girl who had 4 wines and 2 shots blew 64mg...

a guy who had had 6 pints blew 44mg, so it just shows that you do not know what is the right amount and what isn't...

I will not take a drink and drive straight away... I do however have a few drinks in the evening sometimes and drive in the morning. What I have never been able to work out is what is the limit in these circumstances? With all the road checks going on at the moment, it could be easy to get caught without actually meaning it ? :confused: And with my job, I just can't take the risk of getting caught.. I always try to take it easy the night before if I know that I am working fairly early in the morning.. ;)

[Scottie]

well I don't drink so it's not a problem for me.

The trouble is catching the people who drink and drive no matter what the legal limit is.

Also Drugs and driving is just as big a problem and I think more likely to happen in the younger age band.

http://www.thesite.org/drinkanddrugs/drugsafety/usingdrugs/howdrugsaffectdriving

[Sheilz]

I'm a zero tolerance person. Do the police not take blood samples from someone who reads as over the limit? That would knock the mouthwash and rum truffle argument on the head instantly. In fact I think there are quite a lot of myths about that which are just that - myth. Solution there would be to use a mouthwash that doesn't have alcohol in it if you think its a problem. I think Craig's comments about the various readings of drinkers on the TV programme strengthens the case of zero level that way there's no confusion. From a very young age I had it instilled in me that if you drive you dont touch alcohol. Its a good message that I've tried to instill in my own kids. If I ever came to know of them doing that I would tear strips off them no matter how old they are. I think drinking and driving is selfish and irresponsible and have no sympathy for anyone caught. I think there would be some instances when I would feel a bit sorry for anyone getting busted in the next morning scenario when there clearly (one would hope so anyway) no intent to drink and drive. Again though its all about behaving like a mature adult. Its one of those situations when you just cant have your cake and eat it too. I'd have no problems busting anyone for drink driving. Its not smart, its not clever and it costs people their lives, usually innocent ones. (Oooo me! I sound like a fully paid up member of the tweed and twinset Tory brigade!)

[audrey]

I also watched the programme on STV about drinking and driving was shocked at some of their attitudes they should be ashamed:frown:I enjoy a drink but would never think of taking the car when I go out :beer:Thing is not sure about the zero tolerance thing coz none of us know if we might have been over the limit after a heavy night

[AndyP & Lenore]

I don't really get the sympathy issue with folks who get caught in the morning after a binge the night before. If you've still got enough alcohol in your system from the night before, the simple fact is.... you've still got alcohol in your system. You shouldn't be behind the wheel. End of.

I didn't see the TV programme Craig talks of, but I think that just lends more weight to a zero tolerance rule. Or maybe a 5mg rule for those who produce it naturally. I doubt that would show on a breath test anyway.

A.

[doogz__]

I think C.Noble hit the nail on the head, how can you possibly enforce a zero tolerance limit.

if i have a bottle of beer tonight, when can i drive? When will there be absolutely no alcohol in my blood at all.

Tomorrow morning? 7? 12? It's a ridiculous idea.

And how would a blood test solve the rum truffle incident?

The truffle has rum in it, you eat it, there is alcohol in your system.

Oh, adn i've never driven after anything more than one beer. Although to some of you it seems even that makes me worse than paedophiles and rapists?

[Big Gordy]

Do you guys know its my works night out tonight:eek::eek: Are you trying to warn me:nag:
Knowing I'll be scooping a few tonight:beer:, I've arranged to have a driver in place for tomorrow:thumbs up: May not need her tho as I just might not get out of bed:Whistle:

[Ferengo]

A lot of my friends drink on nights out as you do, but I'm not a big drinker. I take the car so I have an excuse not to drink. I worked so hard to pass my test that I don't want to do anything that I may lose my licence for.

I think it would be hard for a no alcohol tolerancy but I do think they should lower it so it's closer to being none, that way you can cover such things like medication and foods etc... that have alcohol in them.

I do think though that driving offences are slack. My old drummer lost his licence for speeding several times. There was no ban and his licence was put back to a provisional. He knew he'd lose it so he booked his test for the day after his court date and passed. So the day after he lost his licence he had it back again :argh:.

As for the mouthwash thing... I thought the police could detain you for being over the limit by breath but it had to be blood or urine taken at the police station that you are convicted on. Breath alone as far as I know cannot constitute being over the limit as you can have more alcohol on your breath than in your blood, so they use this as a reason to detain you and then test you.

[euan]

If you are over the limit at the roadside you will also do a blood test, though obviously the sooner the better as the body will be getting rid of the alcohol the longer the delay is.

My mates and I will never drink if we have the car, with the exception being perhaps a small (and I mean small - half a small glass) amount of wine if we are having a meal. It's the same with my family, we all decide who's driving and then they just don't drink.

I think going to a pub and having more than one beer is not a good place to be, especially now so much lager and wine are stronger than they were a few years ago. Which brings me to an interesting point - it's not necessarily how much you drink, it's what your drinking. Someone drinking a 4% lager will be less affected than if they'd been drinking Stella, especially the next morning. A pint of 4% lager is about 2 and a bit units, Stella is 3. So if you go out and have 4 pints at night, you'd have 4 extra units (give or take) to process out of your system. So, as I said, it's not quantity but what you drink.

Compound that with a test that was on the BBC a few years ago which Hamster did. This was about how alcohol affects people, and different countries attitudes to alcohol. So he sat with a French bloke who eat a three course dinner and had wine, while hamster had the the equivalent number of units but no food. Hamster was almost legless, the french bloke was barely registering anything on the breathalyser. The outcome was that he was drinking slower and with food, so it slowed the affects down.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that different people are affected in different ways. Zero tolerance is almost impossible to enforce, though they do it in some countries (Romania I think from when I was there). People just need to be more sensible about their attitudes to alcohol in general, and especially when driving is concerned.

[The Dogfather]

There's nothing wrong with a 50mg limit, so why change it, the problem is catching people with more than that in their system, and their are plenty on the roads. Step up the number of spot checks to catch the ones running the gauntlet.

Zero tolerance would criminalise too many people, put people out of work, cost too much in taxpayers money and for what? So a few non drinkers can climb even higher on their moral high ground.

Just in case people think I'm saying this because I like a drink, until about a week ago I hadn't had a drink in 6 months. After Christmas I expect to go another 6 months without one again.

[Gismo]

For me a zero rule wouldn't be workable, currently there is no real problem with a low level one.
Much more serious things happen with folks adjusting their hair, applying make up, doing a cross word, mobile phone etc.
But, what i am happy to read is the amount of sensible folks we have on here :thumbs up:
And sorry for typecasting, but, the younger members are showing their responsibility.

[Smitty]

I'm strictly a no alcohol what so ever person. If there is one thing I value more than my MINI, its my life and my license!

If any of my friends have more than one pint - I'll point blank refuse to get in the car with them too. To me its just irresponsible, dangerous and not necessary.

Although I have to agree - a no tolerance limit would be very had to police.

[euan]

If any of my friends have more than one pint - I'll point blank refuse to get in the car with them too. To me its just irresponsible, dangerous and not necessary.


It's the right way to do it, people will begin to realise it's socially unacceptable.

I'll tell you what though, the worst group I've ever seen for drink driving was when I used to do outside catering when I was at Uni. We did a party at a well known business persons house, and all the big wigs were there. So many people there were drinking and then getting in their (very expensive!) cars and driving home. I was stunned. Money? Yes. Brains? No.

[Sheilz]

Wine and beer in casseroles etc - the alcohol evaporates in the cooking process. Alcohol in a rum truffle - as someone pointed out - it wouldn't register. One unit of alcohol takes at least one hour to be metabolised, there is also the cumulative effect of many units from a night on the bevy - more your liver is poisoned the longer it takes for it to deal with what's there. The medical condition in which the body produces its own alcohol is very very rare. However individuals affected by it could be given some form of documentation, perhaps a medidisk, to prevent them being done for drink driving.
I would disagree with the fact that a zero tolerance level is unmanageable. Why on earth would 0mg be any less difficult to police than 50mg. Still too many people jumping into cars after a couple of pints thinking they're ok when they're not. Zero tolerance leaves no room for error of judgement.
Think police need to do something too about people driving under the influence of drugs. I work with the impact of drugs, hell would freeze over before I'd take any, but I sure as hell wouldn't be able to walk one foot in front of the other without wobbling. And what happens if some poor sod is numerically challenged?

[The Dogfather]

The pub industry is already struggling, by going zero tolerance people would just not drink at all if they had to drive in the next 24 hrs.

What's wrong with the 50mg limit?

[Smitty]

What's wrong with the 50mg limit?

Because any amount of alcohol impairs your vision, concentration levels and reaction times. Anyone who says otherwise is in complete denial.

Then again so does talking in the phone, eating, reading, playing with your sat nav etc.....

[Ferengo]

The pub industry is already struggling, by going zero tolerance people would just not drink at all if they had to drive in the next 24 hrs.

If the pubs charged less for soft drinks than alcohol it might help to. I was playing a pub in Dundee. I had my car as I had to get my gear there. I ordered a coke for myself £2.50 and that was a normal glass not a pint!!! A pint of carling was £1.75!!!

It should be an insentive to take the car and not drink, not the other way around. Although Dundee Uni is the exception to the rule, hand in your car keys and you get 6 free soft drinks. When you pick your keys up you must be sobber or they will refuse you your keys back, Damn good idea :thumbs up:,

[MrMischief]

It should be an insentive to take the car and not drink, not the other way around. Although Dundee Uni is the exception to the rule, hand in your car keys and you get 6 free soft drinks. When you pick your keys up you must be sobber or they will refuse you your keys back, Damn good idea :thumbs up:,


Definitely a great idea and has been in place for a long time, although how will they prove someone isn't over the limit - if they deem them as sober & they get breathalysed or cause an accident due to them being over the limit, will the Uni be forced to accept liability? :popcorn: Glad I've got lifetime membership there - know where to go for free drinks :D

[Sheilz]

Totally agree about the price of soft drinks in pubs. A pint of draft coke costs pennies. I also dont think the fact that pubs are already struggling justifies the practice of drink driving. Nothing does.

[C.Noble]

Because any amount of alcohol impairs your vision, concentration levels and reaction times. Anyone who says otherwise is in complete denial.

Then again so does talking in the phone, eating, reading, playing with your sat nav etc.....

Who is more irresponsible... The guy who has a glass of wine with a full 3 course meal at the pub then drives home... or the martyr who pushes through a sniffling head cold and drives to work???

Prepared to lay money on the guy with the colds reflexes and vision are the worst of the two scenarios.

I say leave the limit at 50... possibly knock 10 off, and leave it to common sense... but make the penalties for breaking the law harsher... that way it should make law abiding people more carefull... as for the morons... no limit will ever stop them anyway!!!

[The Dogfather]

Because any amount of alcohol impairs your vision, concentration levels and reaction times. Anyone who says otherwise is in complete denial.

So does being old. Does 50mg impair to such a degree that it makes you dangerous to drive and put you at a higher risk of having an accident than a tired driver?

I rarely drink, but I am a taxpayer. I don't see potentially making a large percentage of the public criminals as a good way of spending my taxes. I'd rather have a measured view on what we can achieve by legislation the rest comes from education and social responsibility.

[doogz__]

Definitely a great idea and has been in place for a long time, although how will they prove someone isn't over the limit - if they deem them as sober & they get breathalysed or cause an accident due to them being over the limit, will the Uni be forced to accept liability? :popcorn: Glad I've got lifetime membership there - know where to go for free drinks :D


I'd like to hope not. It's the responsibility of the driver of the car to make sure they are sober.

[Ferengo]

That's the reason I like spot checks. If you get stopped it's not for any reason other than to check you are ok to drive (Drugs, Alcohol, Insurance, road tax, the car etc..) It all counts towards your safety to yuorself and others on the road.

If we're going into the area of people who are maybe too ill to drive then people who are to ignorant to make sure they're car is either road legal or wel maintained should be pulled up. I agree it's not just people who drink and drive that are a risk but others who shouldn't be driving, but how could you enforce an "too ill to drive" law? Some people deal with colds better than others ans everyone is different in how it can affect them?