Safe Speed Forums

I thought it was 75%, largely due to intoxicated pedestrians.

AIUI about 40% of all adult pedestrian facilities are over the drink-drive limit, rising to 80% between 10 pm and 4 am.

However, as the proportion of drivers above the limit will be much less, and many injury accidents don't involve pedestrians, I would expect the overall proportion of injury accidents in which alcohol is a factor to be maybe 25%.

Even this stat is misleading if people take it to apply solely to drivers rather than all road users.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Never been stopped/tested, now any alcohol in system( at any time) means legal requirement to report to firm - so being very careful.

Interesting bit in times recently -

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/articl ... 14,00.html

Bears out my attitude to drink driving( BW had his on speed, mine is drink driving) and the facts bear me out.

As far as i'm concerned , having seen the problems at work; only safe limit is 0%

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

What 'facts', exactly?

Of course, and 1 mph over the speed limit is really, really dangerous.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

0%?

So no cough sweets/mouthwash etc that can give a trace reading?

Hard to enforce...

What's just as bad are the self righteous plonkers that won't even have a red/white wine sauce with a meal - "Oh, no. It's alcoholic, must not 'drink' & drive"

What a load of !!! All the 'active content' evaporated in the first couple of seconds of adding it to a hot pan. Numpties.

ps. quickest known way to get wasted (beside injecting it) - inhaling the vapourised alcohol - whew, instant head rush! Note to self: Don't do it again......

Oh, yeh. Been asked to give a breath sample once, following a tug by BiB for "erratic driving" on the back roads - unmarked (trying to keep up), pursuit & 'meat wagon'. Given producer etc. Why? I hadn't broken one law.... and they admitted as much when I responded it was not erratic but enthusiastic. I was against trafpol after that - tw ts, but they have since redeemed themselves

Rolling tobacco and Stolichnaya vodka in a bong. Holy spinning living rooms Batman! : Better to just drink and smoke the stuff normally.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Pete - please stop being silly - if youre speeding ( going too fast for the conditions) solution is simple - you're in full control and can slow down.
After a drink - Are you capable of making that rational decision

Observer - been several experiments on national TV with reporters trying simulators after one pintpwhich shows up deficiencies in their driving.

Be safe , be sensible - drink at home, drive in the car - don't mix the two -
Of course - JJ and friends would love to see you say that, to ridicule the site as a road safety site.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Yes. It depends on how much you have been drinking, and other factors.

I don’t agree with you at all, and everybody here can stick the knife in if they want to, but there is a difference between driving after having a drink, and driving while drunk.



I remember reading an article once where a person had been accused of being drunk driving, so this person challenged the police to a race on a racetrack to prove he could drive in full control after a certain amount of alcohol in his blood. He won the race and was let off with drink driving.

I was stopped not to long ago at 10.50pm and given the breath test, I asked why I was stopped and was told it was because they knew there were 3 pubs in the area (guilty before innocence), I had done nothing wrong. As I work away from home I quite frequently visit the local pub as it’s the only place around where I can go for something to eat. The night I was stopped I had been in the pub from 8 – 10.50pm, I’m not usually this late but I got talking to someone. I drank 3 pints and had a meal during that time. When I left the pub I felt, and was quite capable of driving the 2 miles home. When I was breathalysed the light stayed green indicating that I was perfectly OK to drive and was allowed to continue home.

So you tell me where the line should be drawn? and are you saying I'm a drunk driver and irresponsible?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

There was an experiment that the RAF tried amongst aircrew when it was suggested scrapping the 12 hour rule for flying/aircrew duties, alcohol was given in small measured quantities up to a point alcohol actually increased reaction times, then rapidly tailed off and reduced them, of limted value for the use of the RAF who still actively enforce it - have never been breath tested by the police but have been in the RAF and have also had blood and alcohol checks by both the RAF and LUL.

As for the zero blood alcohol argument, can't remember the chemistry but the body produces alcohol/voc's as by-products certain medical conditions enhance that - remember the problems with diabetics being tested positive, body produced ketones, not enough to impair driving but enough to trigger breath tester.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

OK- my attitude to driving after a drink has been questioned--


try this--http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22749-1916414,00.html




[/b]Particularly P2

And ask a traffic cop to verify it.


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.

Think most BIB on here will testify to that. Not bothered about numbers , just safety.

Ask Safety Eng what LUL/Rail limits are --and why

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Dixie: " ...I had been in the pub from 8 – 10.50pm, I’m not usually this late but I got talking to someone. I drank 3 pints and had a meal during that time."

Ok assuming a regular strength beer thats about 6.6 units, the meal will slow down the absorbtion of the alcohol, so yes you could pass the breath test maybe even blood alcohol test in a pinch but without the meal slowing down absorption you would fail both the above tests.

Both the RAF and LUL guidelines work on the premise that there is no safe level of blood alcohol (other than that which the body produces - roughly 0.01 of a unit) and that due to differing metabolisms, whether someone has eaten or not the body needs at least 8 hours to fully metabolise alcohol and flush it out of the system (Yes, I know about the rule of thumb 1 unit per hour, but that rule is based on not overloading the liver).

It may seem harsh but to date since the no drink rule came into force no-one in these organisations has ever had an accident due to alcohol impairment.

If I drive I don't drink and vice versa and quite frankly don't miss it, though am pissed off that many pubs sell soft drinks at a higher price or same price as alcohol, especially given the huge markup, as a student working at BK many, many moons ago was told that soft drinks were about a 600% mark up.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

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:




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":

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I must say I'm largely in agreement with you Dixie.

A few days ago I involved myself in this sort of topic on uk.rec.driving, and found myself up against a lot of condemnation. That was understandable up to a point but some people seem to want to reach firm conclusions about particular situations without having firm evidence to support them. That is what I object to.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

You can't say that with certainty, particularly as you don't know what he was drinking, nor how heavy he is. If he had not had anything to eat he might have metabolised at least 2 units during his 3-hour stay in the pub and therefore still be below the limit. All that can be said is that he was perhaps sailing rather close to the wind.


Pubs and bars are not charitable institutions and they should not be expected to impose very low mark-ups on all soft drinks just because they are sometimes consumed by drivers. Most people consuming soft drinks in pubs are not driving on that occasion.

On average, taking into account the quantities normally consumed, soft drinks are considerably cheaper than alcoholic ones, and someone drinking Coke is not going to match someone drinking lager pint-for-pint throughout an evening anyway.

And I fail to see that 20p extra on a Coke in practice encourages people to offend who otherwise wouldn't, especially given that drinks are usually bought in rounds. It's just not a credible scenario. Even if some soft drinks were routinely provided free of charge in licensed premises it would make very little difference to the overall level of drink-drive offending.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

PeterE: "You can't say that with certainty, particularly as you don't know what he was drinking, nor how heavy he is. If he had not had anything to eat he might have metabolised at least 2 units during his 3-hour stay in the pub and therefore still be below the limit. All that can be said is that he was perhaps sailing rather close to the wind. "

Fair point, I was working on the someone of average height weight and metabolism.

PeterE: "Pubs and bars are not charitable institutions and they should not be expected to impose very low mark-ups on all soft drinks just because they are sometimes consumed by drivers. Most people consuming soft drinks in pubs are not driving on that occasion.

On average, taking into account the quantities normally consumed, soft drinks are considerably cheaper than alcoholic ones, and someone drinking Coke is not going to match someone drinking lager pint-for-pint throughout an evening anyway.

And I fail to see that 20p extra on a Coke in practice encourages people to offend who otherwise wouldn't, especially given that drinks are usually bought in rounds. It's just not a credible scenario. Even if some soft drinks were routinely provided free of charge in licensed premises it would make very little difference to the overall level of drink-drive offending."

Maybe it's my age group, but I do come across a lot of people who's argument is that given soft drinks are often dearer than alcoholic drinks why not have a drink. It's flawed thinking but it's an argument people cling to.

As for making a profit 600% mark up on post mix soft drinks is taking the piss - dropping it to ONLY a 300% mark up makes a real difference in price. As for soft drinks being cheaper, most of the pubs I frequent in the Essex area soft drinks are on par with alcoholic drinks for price.

As for the price not making a difference, I would disagree, I lived in NZ and they had a bg problem with drink driving (part of the Kiwi culture - beach barbie and booze), part of the method of dealing with this problem including education, and enforcement was the Designated Driver scheme that many bars signed up to it ran thus, if a group of customers came in and one was a driver then the driver had free or half price soft drinks all night.

Not only did it work but some bars reported that business went up.

Ok it might not work in the UK nut it can't hurt ??

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Do you think this leads them to exceed the current legal limit? I'd be surprised if it did. Even if this is the case, I would say it is only a rationalisation of people's behaviour and not the real underlying reason. They would probably do the same even if the soft drinks were half the price.


I did a quick survey in my local pub this lunchtime.

Post-mix Coke etc (14 oz glass): £1.25
Pint of Hydes Bitter: £1.80
Pint of Harp lager: £2.18
Pint of Guinness: £2.54
Pint of Stella: £2.56
175ml glass of house wine: £2.10
330ml bottle of Bud: £2.55

So in this instance it certainly can't be said that soft drinks are as dear as, or dearer than, alcoholic ones.

This is the North, of course - some of you Southerners might be a bit envious


I've come across a fair number of UK pubs that offer free soft drinks for the designated driver in a party of four or more.

I agree it's a good idea, not least from the point of view of pubs being seen to be socially responsible.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Sorry to introduce a further note of levity, but I though Hydes Bitter WAS a soft drink

After 3 or more pints I suspect your friendly local traffic copper might not agree

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed