Safe Speed Forums

When it comes to drink-driving I have a view which I may regret saying but I stand by it anyway…

I do think it's bizarre that if you are caught driving at fractionally under the limit you get away with it whereas if you are fractionally over, but still perfectly compos mentis, you are branded DRUNK and pay a very heavy and lasting penalty - complete with stigma!

Drunk suggests but one thing to me, and I suspect to most others - Intoxicated! Inebriated! Three sheets to the wind! Pi$$ed!

It always conjures up the image that you were driving in a state where you haven't the mental capacity to so much as tie your shoe laces. To put a different slant on it; someone who is just over the limit is treated in much the same way as someone who is very much over the limit. (Okay, a bigger fine maybe but still a year's ban and insurance difficulties etc.)

This has never made sense to me and I would have thought a graduated scale would have been better. I won't put exact figures on it but something along the lines of, for example: -

Just over the limit and you incur a heavy fine and points on your licence (for alcohol level lower than is currently legal perhaps)

Yet more over and you incur a heavier fine with points and a short term ban.

Severely over the limit, (i.e. you drive knowing full well you cannot possibly be under the limit), and you receive a jail sentence with fine and points etc.


I'm sure that someone who knows more about toxicity levels and the effect of alcohol on our body could put meat on the bones of this idea. It's just a crude example of what, in principal, I think would be a better system rather than the current very black/white law on drink-driving.

Perhaps I should mention that on the occasions I do have a drink, I don't drive at all. So I'm not suggesting this for personal reasons. If there were a zero tolerance it wouldn't matter to me, although I think that would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut IMHO.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I don't think you can simplify it that much Tone. For instance - us lightweights might be incapable of driving safely even when below the legal limit, whereas a hardened drinker might be quite safe 2 or 3 times over the limit. Setting definined bands of blood alcohol level won't work IMO.

Personally I'm with you, I don't touch a drop if I'm driving. I'd sooner see zero tolerance if not simply due to the fact that there can be no question as to how badly affected the individual is - you've either got alcohol in your blood or you haven't.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Always felt that DUI is disproportionally stigmatised as a driving offence.

Don't courts already base points allocation & fine level on the severity of the offence, ie how much over the limit and how bad the offenders driving was at the time?

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I didn't think they did, but maybe I'm wrong. It's a fixed one year ban and I believe the fine, and maybe the points, can vary. It's the ban which is the big thing here I think, and the stigma and insurance problems which goes with it.

I know people who regularly have a couple of pints and drive with the thought that they will be under the limit and I'm sure they're okay to drive safely, and legally. I'd be happy to get in the car with them. Their view is that two pints at 4.5% is okay but three is pushing it.

I had a friend who was routinely pulled over and tested after having had three pints of Guinness throughout the evening. He told me he was sh**ing himself but, to his immense relief, was tested under the limit. Maybe one more gulp or if it were Grolsh instead and he wouldn't have been. Maybe if he'd had it over a shorter period or hadn't eaten so much he would have been over the limit. I agree that body weight and how familiar you are with drink plays a part too.

I believe there are many out there who drink sensibly but may, because of the very many factors involved, stand to drift slightly over and I don't think they are the same threat, or in the same league, as the ones who regularly and knowingly have four or more pints before taking take to the road. I know the onus is on us all to 'just say no' and then you know you're safe - fair comment. But it does seem unfair that the law doesn't discriminate between the two types of offender.

I admit many years ago I drove after drinking three pints of beer. I was at a wedding reception which lasted for hours with food and dancing etc. I believe the body disperses drink at the rate of about half a pint per hour so, with the food and dancing etc., I don't imagine for a second that I was over the limit. But if I were, even by just a miniscule amount, I would have been branded this odious disgusting drunk-driver. If I'm just under then 'okay sir, on your way'.

It seems analogous to being done for several mph over the speed limit when circumstances dictate it is safe to do so. Why does everything need to be so black and white?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

But they have defined limits already so how difficult is it to insert just one band or saftey margin?

I think it could be simple. For example; if you're 10% over the limit you have three points and a fine. And like I say, the legal limit could be lowered in line with the rest of Europe, or even lower. Any more than 10% and you get the whole ban etc.

In this way, people who genuinely aim not to be over the limit but happen to drift very slightly over don't then have their world suddenly come to an end.

There must be someone out there who has had the full brunt of the law for the sake of being fractionally over and although I'm sure they blame only themselves is it really in everyones best interest to brand them drunk in the way we currently do?

I see a distinct difference between the driver who drifts slightly over and the true drunk.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

which group is the more dangerous?

I suspect the former is responsible for more injuries than the latter, mainly based on my experience working with people who I later found out to be alcoholic - they seemed fine, yet apparently were pished from waking to sleeping.

Not a scientific study by any means.

_________________
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.

See, as far as I'm concerned, drink driving isn't something you can do by accident (yes, there are morning after issues, but I think that needs more scientific research as to the effects of blood alcohol after a period of time / sleep etc).

If you know you're driving then you shouldn't drink - simple as. Might be somewhat simplistic, but since the penalties are so high, why risk it?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Yes, I agree, I never drink at all if I am driving. I know I would never forgive myself if I caused an accident and somebody got hurt or killed and I had been drinking. Even though I would probably never know whether I would have avoided the accident had I not had the drinks, I would feel bad about it.
That being said, you are probably safer travelling with a good driver who is slightly over the limit than you are with some I've seen cold sober!
One could argue that what really matters is not how much alcohol the driver has consumed, but whether he or she is capable of driving to an acceptable standard.
But since drinking can never improve your driving, it is always irresponsible to drink-drive IMO, even if within the legal limit.

I agree that you can decide just not drink. On the other hand you could decide to get blotto and get a taxi back, but you try getting one on a Friday night/Saturday morning around Birmingham. Make sure you have a warm jacket and a fisherman's stool. (Nuff said)

Please don't think that I'm trying to make a case for DUI; I completely agree with Sixy that no drink is the best option. But I don't think the label 'Drunk' is accurate when talking about 81mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. i.e.: "slurred speech, impaired balance, poor coordination, flushed face, reddened eyes, reduced inhibition and uncharacteristic behaviour" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk

If you have 79.9mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood you're doing nothing wrong in the eyes of the law but any more than that and you suddenly become the spawn of the devil. (I'm starting to feel like the only one who sees the absurdity of this)

I like a glass of wine with a meal. Like my Italian friend says, it lets the stomach know there's food on the way So I wouldn't like to see a total ban although I would rigidly obey it, especially if could be shown that the likes of me and my glass of wine are killing people. It is known that a small consumption of alcohol is actually beneficial to health. Life insurance companies prefer moderate drinkers to tea-total. It's often said that the French have healthier hearts than we do because of their love for a little wine at mealtimes.

I still see the law on this as all or nothing I'm afraid.

I'd be interested in a survey Handy but I fear it may reveal drugs and over-work are catching up with the drink these days as a danger on our roads.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Tone, you're not the only one and I do agree with the absurdity of the limit as it stands, but the point I was trying to make is that its absurd to try to set ANY kind of definate limit because people are affected differently by different levels and types of drink.

I'd love to see more relience on sobriety tests rather than breath tests - at least that way you get an idea of the level of incapacitation the individual is suffering.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Big Tone, I'd speak up but I've already been through this and got shot down.

Edited to add...



I'll agree with that one

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Yes, of course it is absurd that a tiny difference is blood alcohol concentration is deemed to be the difference between a safe driver and an irresponsible drunk.
The problem is that if we are going to legislate on blood alocohol level, we have to have a limit somewhere, and wherever you put it that criticism will apply. The same goes for speed limits. I think that both speed and alcohol limits have a useful purpose, and that the problem is in the enforcement. At least with alcohol, the law is enforced by real police officers!

But if it's absurd to try and set "ANY kind of definite limit" then that means the law as it stands is absurd doesn't it?

I couldn't agree more with the sobriety test but you need officers on the road for this of course, until they invent a sobriety camera to do the job instead. (cough)

I'm going to sound ageist but here goes anyway… To expand a little on something said earlier - I too would feel safer with a driver who is older wiser and more experienced, but just over the limit, than a young inexperienced driver who thinks he's Schumacher after just one pint. Been there, seen it, nearly wore the hospital gown.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I agree, but what's wrong with having a window whereby if you're just over you don't automatically become a leper?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Yep. Its the same as speeding - you get people who are a menace at any speed, and then you get people who are quite safe at speeds significantly over the limit in the right conditions.

So it is with blood alcohol. If you gave me 1/2 a pint I wouldn't consider myself safe to drive, but then I'm 5'3 and a size 12. If you gave my fat friend Nat (I'm making this up now! ), who goes out on the town every weekend and can drink most lads under the table 1/2 a pint she'd barely notice it.

You see where I'm coming from?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I do, but I still think it could be done better. Where else do you get dealt a knock out punch before a slap on the wrist for a first minor offence? (again, assuming you're only fractionally over)

If I were burglar or car thief I'd get a hundred strikes before I'm out.

You're right Dixie, it's a no-go area. Now I look like homicidal alcoholic driver.

I can see a massive increase in 'drunk drivers' if the lower limit comes into force for precisely the reasons I've said. They will be branded DRUNK on the pint or two they used to be safe and legal to drive on.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The reasoning for the draconian approach is basically because the government are trying to make it an antisocial behaviour I guess.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

They have. They're doing the same with speeding. "We want to make speeding as anti-social as drink driving."

Limits will come down unless we get our vote on the EU the constitution and get out.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Again, I think you're right but they should put more effort into advertising to counter the media image of drink in general, not just drivers. You've got alco-pops, and ads for spirits and happy hour etc.

I saw an ad the other day on the telly for a certain Vodka that looked greater than the best epic sci-fi I've ever seen. You may have seen it?...

All the junk we've ever thrown into the ocean comes flying out back on dry land. Before I knew what it was for I was thinking 'wow, I gotta see that movie'.

I ask you, what's that going to do to young and impressionable minds?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Yeah, I saw that advert - funny, as I was watching it I thought it was either for a car or some eco-bullsh*t...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.