botach wrote:
In the 70s, i used to have a few(and more) and feel ok driving.
Coming up the A74 from the south ,one evening , i witnessed the result of a bloke thinking he was ok.
The central reservation was mangled - a HGV was straddling both lanes of the south bound carriageway and wedged in the barriers.
Under him was a morris minor pickup ---facing the wrong way -drunk- don't know how many - had gone the wrong way and met a HGV - the driver of the hgv probably had many months of rehab - the driver of the pickup was scraped out.
After that - i resolved - the limit is ZERO -
That is why i preach the message - one sip is too many - the link helps to prove that.
This is about on a par with an example where a loved one has been killed by a never-licensed twoccer doing 70 through a village, so you campaign for a strictly-enforced 20 limit.
It is one thing to advise people to drink nothing before driving - on grounds such as they may not know when to stop, they may be unsure of the strength of the drink or the size of the measure, and they may be unusually sensitive to alcohol.
But it is something else entirely to try to turn that message into law when the science (most notably the well-known Borkenstein study) shows that relatively low blood-alcohol concentrations do not increase accident risk.
One of the key messages put across by the Safe Speed campaign is that road safety policy needs to be based on science, not emotion. To my mind the message that "one drink is always dangerous" falls into the same category of simplistic, emotive crap as "one mph over the speed limit is always dangerous."
It is interesting that not so long ago, official bodies were prepared to accept (grudgingly) that it was acceptable for drivers to consume small quantities of alcohol. See this from a 1986 TRL booklet:
Quote:
Sensible guidelines to follow are:
* Do not drink on an empty stomach
* Drink slowly and limit the amount you drink to no more than three units
* Eat with your drinking
* Stop drinking alcohol some time before driving
To my mind if this remained the official line, we would have both safer roads and less of a binge-drinking problem in this country.
Very often, the effect of the message that zero is the only acceptable amount when driving is over-indulgence at other times. This view is echoed by A. Tom Topper in his book "Very Advanced Driving":
A. Tom Topper wrote:
There is another insidious side to the breathalyser. Drivers (particularly the young) are now inclined to gulp down large quantities of liquor fast when, if not because, they know they are having a lift. This has turned the previously reasonable and even distribution of drinking for many youngsters - and some of their elders - upside down. The temptation for bursts of heavy drinking when it is not their turn to drive has proven irresistible. The connection I make here with increased alcoholism is hard to dispute. Since the seventies the rate of drink-related deaths, in particular those resulting from liver disease, has doubled among the general population still under 50 years old. And this doesn't include greater numbers of drunk pedestrians being killed.