Safe Speed Forums

Figures showing UK motorists continue to drink and drive have prompted calls for lower legal limits.

There were 60 fewer crashes causing injuries this Christmas than in 2003, but police say there has been no real drop in drink-driving for seven years.

Of the 11,685 breath tests taken in two weeks, 8.75% were positive - only just below the 9.11% from 1997.

The blood-alcohol limit should be 50mg not 80mg, says the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

Richard Brunstrom, ACPO's spokesman on road policing, said: "A worrying proportion of those involved in collisions are still driving having consumed alcohol."

"I again reiterate my strong belief that it is time the Government followed the European Commission Recommendation that the blood alcohol limit be lowered from 80mg to 50mg."

More breath tests were taken in 2004 and the percentage of positive tests was marginally down on last year .

But Mr Brunstrom added: "The sad fact is, that in 2004 a similar percentage of drivers in collisions ... over the Christmas and New Year period had been drinking to excess as in 1997."

For some, the 50mg limit does not go far enough.

Carole Whittingham, the founder of Support and Care After Road Death and Injury (Scard), whose son was killed in a drink-drive accident, said drivers should not be allowed to drink at all. The solution is easy - have a zero limit

Carole Whittingham, campaigner
"I think to a certain extent the problem is that people are confused by how much they think they can drink, because they don't know how much they are allowed," she said.

"People used to have one pint and they would be pretty much within the limit, but now there is such a range of beers, bottles and spirits of different strengths it is very difficult to tell how much you have drunk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4153213.stm

Comment

I personally wouldn't drink if I was going to drive, but I might want to drive the following day afer maybe 4-6 pints. There are many reasons for having alcahol in the blood a zero limit would cause all sorts of problems.

As with brunstroms other campaigns - were is the proof that 50mg instead of 80mg will reduce accidents?

Maybe it would reduce accidents, maybe not. What it will do is increase offending, so maybe they think they'd be able to ban more than they can at the moment.

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

Am I the only one who doesn't quite see the link here?

It's akin to saying "people are driving too much, let's make petrol more expensive."

Oh, I see.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Just like speeding, the problem is not the law but the way it is applied.

If too many people are drink driving the solution is to get out there and catch them. Reducing the limit to 50mg will only serve to increase the apparent number of offenders that they are failing to catch, it won't make the roads any safer.

And the calls for a "zero limit" are absolutely barmy. Anyone who ever drinks at all, or takes cough medicine etc etc (ie the majority of the population) will have some trace of alcohol in their system. This would merely turn the current sensible law into an unenforcable nonsense.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Another issue is the question of penalties. Most of the European countries with 50 mg limits, such as France and Germany, don't impose driving bans at that level - and it would seem unreasonable when the level of impairment is markedly less than when over 80 mg.

However, if the penalty was comparable to a standard speeding fine, it is likely that most of the people who believe they may be driving with an alcohol level in the 50-80 mg range would continue to do so on the grounds that the likelihood of being caught was small and the penalty manageable.

_________________
"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

If too many people are drink driving then the real problem is a breakdown in the basic mechanisms that normally prevent people from participating in an activity with (potentially) such demonstrably horrific outcomes.
The solution is to get in place those mechanisms the people call upon to determine what is, and what is not, appropriate behaviour.
It was once called our inherent sense of knowing right from wrong.

Heroin is OK though. Remember his stance on hard drugs....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I think you've highlighted one of the issues here. (Maybe accidentally)

It seems to me that there are many different reasons why people DON'T drink drive. We need to work on all of them, I guess, and maybe try and find more reasons for anyone who still does.

* Most decent folk don't drink drive because they see the behaviour as irresponsible. (non-selfish motivation)

* Some don't drink drive because of the crash risk (selfish motivation)

* Some people don't drink drive because of the risk of prosecution.

* Some people don't drink drive because of the consequences of prosecution.

* Some people don't drink drive because of peer pressure / social norms.

* (more?)

If the government was doing a good job on this they would be running "motivation surveys" to find out where we're weak. Perhaps they are, but I've not see anything like that.

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

The obvious ones:

Some because they don't want to - ie it doesn't "feel comfortable" so they are averse to it.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Most of the DUI cases I see before the Courts involve people with twice the current limit, or more.

What we need are statistics showing the actual accident rate for people over 100mg, over 80mg, over 50 mg, under 50mg, and with no alcohol in their system.

Then, and only then, can a decision be made on the appropriate level to set.

It's just like the speed issue and the absence of stats on accidents involving vehicles exceeding the posted limit. If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.

Quite.

I remember that when the 80mg/ml limit was first defined it was thought to represent a doubling of the crash risk of 0mg/ml. I also remember that low alcohol concentrations above zero were associated with a reduced crash rate.

You said "I see before the courts"... are you a solicitor or magistrate or something (if you don't mind my asking)?

And finally, welcome!

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

Yes, apparently in the UK the average BAC level of those convicted of drink-driving is twice the legal limit.

This suggests there isn't a population of people who tend to break the law just a bit - either they do their best to stay within it, or they couldn't care less.


The original Borkenstein study showed this.

The relative accident risk figures were for each BAC range:

0-9: 1.00
10-19: 0.92
20-29: 0.96
30-39: 0.80
40-49: 1.08
50-59: 1.21
60-69: 1.41
70-79: 1.52
80-89: 1.88
90-99: 1.95
100-119: 4.94
120-139: 5.93
140-159: 10.44
160 and over: 21.38

Logically, from this, you would probably set the legal limit at 50 mg, but have a lower level of punishment between 50 and 80 or 100 mg, perhaps similar to current speeding fines, as the accident risk rockets up above 100 mg.

This is the case in most EU countries with a 50 mg limit. For example, in France, for a first offender, a BAC of 50-79 will attract 3 penalty points, 80-139 will attract 6 penalty points, and only 140 or above will result in disqualification.

Overall, despite the lower nominal limit, this is actually a less strict regime than applies in the UK.

However, when the original legislation was passed in the UK (which I believe was one of the first countries to introduce such a law) the view was taken that it would be more effective to have a single black-and-white standard, but if severe punishments were being imposed based on "population" evidence rather than an assessment of each individual's level of impairment, the cut-off should be set at a level above which a large majority of drivers would be demonstrably 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

An alternative suggestion might be that procedures "Schmidt trigger" the offence. Let me explain - and I am using only a little inside take here.

1) Mr X has excess drink that takes him to, or approaching, double the legal limit. He is pulled following some very bad driving. He fails a roadside breath test. He is also agressive and sure of himself, being pi$$ed. He is take tn the station, and the intoxicometer (or whatever) confirms the original figure of something around double the limit is confirmed. He is convicted against his original reading as written in the officer's notebook.

2) Mr Y has excess drink that takes him to, say, 25% above the legal limit. He is proceding steadily and exhibiting signs of being careful, having realised he's misjudged "one for the road" (not condoning etc etc). He is also pulled and given a roadside breath test, which he fails. He is not agressive; he is helpful and obliging with the police. The police take a bit longer over this one, talking to him, pperhaps reassuring him. They take him back to the station via the scenic route and give him perhaps 30 - 60 minutes for his sytem to settle down in case his last drink was minutes before the pull. They breathalise him again on the calibrated equipment (or urine test or whatever) and find him now less than 10% over - and exercise discretion with a caution as a year's ban for what would appear to be one transgression in the eyse of this particular policeman is too harsh.

Possible? Some part at least?