Safe Speed Forums

I agree with you here.

I think the proportion of people who really are genuinely more dangerous on 80mg compared to 50mg is tiny - we're looking at small, slim, non-frequent drinking girls here (I realise I'm generalising slightly!).

From what I can see the limit has been set at a level in which most people are safe within the limit, and most would quickly become unfit when going over it. I think reducing the drink-drive limit will just end up criminalising more safe motorists and reduce the stigma of drink driving being actually dangerous.

Now where have I heard this before? <cough> speed limit cuts/cameras <cough>

THis is data is completely irrelevent to what i have been saying, which goes something like this:

40ml of ethanol, consumed by an 11 stone man is unlikely to put him over the legal limit due a relatively high volume of distribution.

Metabolism and impairment do not feature in this discussion - they are completely separate issues.

"Never, ever"?

So imagine you dropped in, driving home after a weekend away, to visit a <relation/old friend> and found they were celebrating <winning the lottery/birth of a grandchild/whatever>. You are invited to have glass of champagne. So you would refuse? Or you might say "Well, just half a glass, because I have to drive home". If the latter, you would do what? Wait one hour before continuing your drive? Two hours? Six? Twelve? Twenty-four? Perhaps you are the paragon of virtue you claim but, if you are, you're in one hell of a tiny minority. Even my almost tee-total mother might have a small glass of wine with lunch and then drive. And why not?

Your unnatural (and almost incredible) certainty of your own infallibility is unreal. I would admire it, if it was believable - but it's not. Even if it was real, what I would say to you is "get a grip", look at the real world and real people, who are not infallible. As it is, I don't believe you're that perfect. And you're a magistrate, in a position of power over others. Frightening. If you really think you're that far above fallibility, you're self-delusioned. I say you're a hypocrite.

Should we be considering the possibility that the distribution may be uneven?

Is it possible to have significantly different BAC in different parts of the body at one time? In fact now I think about it, it's absolutely inevitable. The concentration must be greater in the areas where alcohol is added to the bloodstream and less in places after metabolic removal. So we need to know the 'gradients'.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I've been thinking about this hard over the last couple of days, and I have become convinced that the major social effect of a lower drink drive limit would be to de-stigmatise the offence.

For 40 years the authorities have been working on building a social stigma around drink drive. I now believe that lowering the limit would tend to undo that good work.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Indeed, as stated on my website:


The value of a single, universally-accepted, black and white standard must not be underestimated, even if some people driving at levels below it may be slightly impaired.

_________________
"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 agree with you and Paul. However, even more compelling (unless I've missed it) is - what proportion of crashes/casualties (and justified by what scientifically valid research) will be avoided by the proposed change? If none, or immaterial or unmeasurable, there is no rational justification for the change. There are potential, material adverse side effects (as you've mentioned) which, if they do exist, must be offset, and more, by the gains.

The same argument of course applies to the substantailly more stringent speed enforcement policy. Hypothetical (unmeasured and at best dubious) gains against unrecognised (or unacknowledged) adverse side effects.

The biggest side-effect, of course, would be the potential closure of a huge number of pubs, depending on various estimates between 5,000 and 15,000 out of a total of 60,000. This would take away many people's livelihood and remove social centres from many communities, especially in rural areas.

Obviously this, in isolation, is nothing to do with road safety. But how many lives saved justify such a wholesale destruction of viable, legitimate businesses?

It is not hard to imagine the number of lives saved on the roads being less than the number of suicides of ruined licensees.

_________________
"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

That sounds like a wild estimate to me. Where does it come from?

(However, I think the smoking ban could do damage on that scale.)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

It's speculation. But IMV informed speculation. See here:

http://www.80mg.org.uk/effect.html


That's speculation too. I agree the smoking ban will be damaging, but a 50 mg drink-driving limit would be far more damaging IMV.

_________________
"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 can believe fisherman - it's not that incredible. I won't drink and have a drive in the same evening.

Everyone who knows me knows that I don't drink very much at all, and would not be offended if I refused the sip of champers in the scenarios you suggested. I've drunk toasts at weddings with orange juice, for example.

On the rare occasion that I do have a drink, I wouldn't consider getting in the car without a sleep inbetween. In my case, it's only ever "a" drink; I'm no paragon of virtue, it's just that I know I am not a good drinker, I cannot handle much alcohol (despite being _quite_ a lot larger than the 11 stone reference model quoted earlier ) and even 1 pint of bitter tends to leave me feeling a bit giddy.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Quite. It is indeed a sad sign of the times when someone who actually can exercise sufficient self-discpline and control is viewed with such incredulity

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

You may be happy to risk your licence on that assumption. I won't risk mine.



Peak blood level is highly dependent on speed of metabolism, which is highly variable.

never, ever.
During the years i worked in A&E I saw at first hand the damage done by drink drivers - to themselves and their future careers as well as to the victims of their drunken driving.

For some years now I have been working in psychiatry dealing with brain damged patients. Alcohol, whether ingested by the patient or someone else is the root cause of a significant percentage of my workload.

For over 20 years now I have had a job with a big on call commitment. At present 1 night in 3 and alternate weekends when I am not allowed to drink at all.

In short, alcohol or the lack of it does not rule my life and I have many, many reasons to abstain for the majority of the time.




Without doubt or hesitation.




Perhaps she lacks my incentives to avoid drink driving.




The fact that I have strong reasons for not drink driving does not mean I believe myself to be infallible.




I am sorry your knowledge of the world doesn't include people who refuse to drink and drive.



Do you seriously believe that its possible to work for over 20 years in front line health care, and spend 10 years or so as a JP and still be unaware of the real world?



As far as I am aware you are the only person who has ever considered the possibility that I may be perfect. Well, my granddaughter probably thinks I am - but she is 3 years old and I spoil her.
Personally speaking I am only too well aware that I am not perfect.



I have never claimed to be infallible, or any where near it. That is a conclusion that you have drawn from from my views on drink driving.



If thats meant to be an insult, you are wasting your time. I have been insulted by experts - and you don't come close.

If its meant to be a statement of fact, I say you are wrong, but we still have freedom of thought, so if it makes you feel better continue believing it.

Just an observation but thats exactly what was said when the breath test was brought in.



We keep on building cars and selling paracetamol so I suspect that continued income via taxation will always win out over the death rate.

I currently have a patient who, until admission at his own request, was functioning well in a professional job and driving himself around on a bottle and a half of vodka a day.

Thats what he admits to at present, if he is a typical alcoholic its probably rather short of the truth.

To be fair, I have never been a heavy drinker.

As a student my social life revolved around climbing and we had good reason to limit the booze intake which is easy to when you are in a tent miles from the the nearest pub. Or in a bivvi bag half way up a mountain.

My monthly boooze intake was probably less than one after match session for the rugby players.

We may do more research into the effects of alchohol to justify lowering the limit. And lowered it will probably be, though to what end I'm not so convinced. I agree with others here that in doing so we may lessen the impact of the offence in the publics eye. I'm also with a few other posters in thinking that we can only harmonise with Europe if we also adopt their fines and penalties. But I think that notion hasn't a snowball in hell of happening.

My main concern, if we do, is what about the morning after? Are those of us who had 4 or 5 beers and several hours kip still impaired? We may be over the limit but are the ingredients that impairs ability and that which registers in a test one and the same? Is it possible to be over the limit and yet pass any competence test? There are already a lot of companies who are transport or machinery based whose contracts make it clear that no alchohol is to be taken for 12 hours before a shift starts. Will a reduction in the limit mean we are all effectively in the same boat? I don't in anyway condone taking the wheel if you're drunk, I just don't like this bl**dy culture that is growing where every decision is now out of our hands.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

I wait about 12 hours after a glass of my claret, which I've usually consumed with a meal.



Nor would anyone who knows me or the "riff raff relatives" I toasted my wife with an elderflower/lime cordial drink at our own wedding - because I was driving her off with me on our honeymoon. (I prefer either water or something like elderflower /weak Roses Lime cordial as it does not spoil the taste of my food )

Mad Doc reported up the story once of a nun. She'd attended a christening. The proud parents offered her a glass of champagne. She had not eaten anything before she drank it.

On her drive home, she stopped at traffic lights. Only she had slowed and braked hard at the last minute. Her front wheels went over the solid white line. A police car following her decided to pull her. It was Christmas time. We are always "harder line" than normal as we know that sadly people will take more risk at that time of the year. We make the blitzes high profile here so that we do deter more than we cop - at least we hope so each year


Anyway, the nun failed the breath test and was found to be over the limit at the station. One glass of champagne and she was banned for 12 months and fined £1000 per Mad Doc's cutting from - - think he got that one from Merseyside press.


quote="handy"]
On the rare occasion that I do have a drink, I wouldn't consider getting in the car without a sleep inbetween. In my case, it's only ever "a" drink; I'm no paragon of virtue, it's just that I know I am not a good drinker, I cannot handle much alcohol (despite being _quite_ a lot larger than the 11 stone reference model quoted earlier ) and even 1 pint of bitter tends to leave me feeling a bit giddy.[/quote]

But then you know how much it effects you. Thus a lowered limit would not affect you. Those who drink what keeps them to current limit could still make errors - but then so do the completely sober at times

What has not been established is whether or not the lower limit would apply to cyclists/sailors (in line with EU countries ) and the harmonistion does not seem to apply to penalties, which does seem to be another sticking point in "selling this to the UK public"

Nor has anyone suggested increasing RPU to enforce this lower limit and the mobile phone law: we do not seem to be enforcing either particularly well across the entire country per the stats. Part resouces/targets/priority/paperwork.... red tape .. Er - thought cams were supposed to free to enforce other laws :scractchchin: We don't have the Partnership. We do deploy cops to enforce the law here. Seems to work OK. (per our stats )

Barkstar - never drink on "empty stomach" and avoid drink after 10 pm to be on the safe side with regard to the morning after - and reduce the intake considerably unless you plan to have a lie in the next day

We cop a surprising number on their way to work in a morning. Many of these seem to say they had 4/5 beers the night before and quite often after 10 pm.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

You may have the option not to drink a single glass and then drive.
Your wife probably does her share
You might live within walking distance of bars and restaurants
Your friends and relatives might live round the corner
You are not expected to drive at short notice

I don't drink at home
I enjoy an occasional two light drinks with a meal over 3-4 hours
it is rarely within a £10 taxi fare
My wife has MS and cant drive after dusk
My family are all over the country

Why should the drink drive limit be slashed because the government got policies on binge drinking, roads policing and speed cameras wrong.

How many accidents/serious accidents are really due to low level drink?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code