Safe Speed Forums

Taken from http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 9976#29976

I voted for leave it at 80mg/100ml and random testing.

For the reason I support retaining the 80mg level, see my post in the Times Drink Driving thread concerning the University of Wuerzburg study.

As to random or otherwise...

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Presumably by "random testing" we mean "unfettered discretion", which isn't really random testing at all.

However, even with the current powers, I don't see that there are any circumstances in which the police would want to carry out a breath test, but are prevented from doing so. "Your driving seemed a little erratic, Sir."

The limiting factor on breath tests is police resources.

Also the poll doesn't mention the question of penalties. Most Continental countries with a lower limit also have lower penalties, with many not imposing mandatory disqualification until a blood-alcohol level well above 80 mg is reached.

_________________
"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

Unlike the progressive speeding fine/points 80110ck5 which they are trying to push through at the moment, drawing still more dangerous attention to the numerical speed, this makes MUCH more sense.

I voted 50mg/100ml with random testing as I believe that drink/drug driving amounts to the most dangerous thing a driver can do.

AFAIAC anything over the limit should mean instant loss of licence, unless the person wishes to defend the matter, for a minimum of 6 months.

This is the one heavy handed law I agree with here in Victoria.

The loss of licence then goes up by 1 month for every 10mg/100ml over 50mg, so 100mg/100ml would mean a loss of licence for 11 months plus a big fine. The police can pull you over for no reason at all and ask you to "blow into the straw", a refusal is automatic guilt.

Sounds tough but I am not in favour of drink driving at all, even as low as 50mg.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

I have to disagree with you, Ross.

Let me first state that I have no sympathy for drink drivers, having been nearly killed by one once.

But I don't believe that lowering the limit would do anything for safety, and would create even more injustice than we currently have.

At 0.05% BAC the extra risk of being involved in an accident is not statistically significant.
The reasonong behind such a low limit is that it discourages people from drinking at all before driving, not that it represents a significant risk. At such a limit most people would not feel even slightly inebriated, so as there's no way of telling whether or not you're over the limit, it's best not to drink at all.
But if you go to a party and have several drinks, you could still be above the limit the following evening and not know it. And that's when they'd nail you.
And it would not stop the 'hardcore' drink drivers, who would still drink a skinful before driving. Whenever we see a newspaper report of a DD accident, the driver is usually 2.5 to 4 times over the limit.
And if lowering the limit becomes publically acceptable then it won't be long before the limit is lowered even more, until it reaches zero.
A zero limit would create even more injustice. People would lose their licences for taking a spoonful of cough medicine, or driving home from church after taking communion.

Cheers
Peter

I don't agree with randome testing for one reason and one reason alone.

I just don't trust the "authorities" to use this power in the public interest.

I don't mind being stopped if I have done something wrong but not just for random checks.

When I was a "kid" I used to get stopped 2 or 3 times a week for documents checks when driving back from a night club at 2:30 in the morning. I also have had the car searched, road side mechanical checks and been breath tested...In 4 years all they ever got was a bust for a broken tail light.

Once I had three HO/RT1s in one week. The only joy I got was watching the cop behind the counter filling out all the forms 3 times.

It realy used to p*ss me off.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

This illustrates the downside of the old-fashioned traffic police. Even now we see this with the frequent reports of harassment of bikers. I would be more than happy to have the likes of In Gear and IanH patrolling my patch, but not everyone is as thoughtful and fair-minded.

The problem with "unfettered discretion" of any kind is that it allows certain police officers to abuse their authority with no possibility of comeback.

At present, the police are allowed to breath-test drivers if:

• they have committed a moving traffic offence
• the officer has reasonable grounds for suspicion that they have been drinking, or
• they have been involved in an accident

These powers are often interpreted quite liberally, and I fail to see any circumstances under which they prevent an officer from administering a breath tests if (s)he feels it to be justified.

_________________
"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

Driving with a BAC of 55 mg is more dangerous than a 100% sober person driving blindfold? Really?

_________________
"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 my opinion, they should keep the existing limit, with discretionary testing, but being just over the limit should not result in an automatic ban.
The Mellanby effect should be taken into account, so if a second reading taken an hour later shows a lower reading, the driver should be let off.
If it shows a higher reading then the driver should be banned until such time as professional opinion says that the're no longer likely to reoffend.
And they should also scrap the offence of being drunk in charge.

Cheers
Peter

If you look at the risk statistics, you might conclude that it makes sense to set the legal limit at 50 mg, with penalties at that level equivalent to a standard speeding fine, and with a steadily increasing scale above that.

However, I think there is considerable merit in having a single black-and-white standard.

Even in 1967, it was recognised that some drivers might be impaired below 80 mg, but the view was taken that if severe penalties (i.e. a mandatory one-year ban) were going to be imposed on individuals on a strict liability basis, the threshold needed to be set at a level where it was clear that the vast majority of people would be impaired to some extent.

Nobody nowadays gets much, if any, sympathy if convicted of drink-driving. That consensus of opinion would be eroded if we moved to a lower limit and/or a more graduated structure of penalties.

The reason for the Swedish 20 mg limit is that Sweden has a severely anti-alcohol culture, and it is widely perceived that one drink might lead to 20. As very few drivers are impaired at BAC levels below 50 mg, there is no safety justification for setting lower limits - it is essentially a cultural thing.

_________________
"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 - magistrates should be given discretion to suspend a ban if the individual's BAC is below 120 mg and they can demonstrate that they have consumed no alcohol in the preceding eight hours.

And "drunk in charge" is a nonsense. If the authorities cannot prove "driving or attempting to drive", then I fail to see what the problem is. I believe about 2500 people a year are convicted of this offence - I suspect a large majority of these cases represent some kind of injustice.

_________________
"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

Last night I had a few drinks - probably enough to put me well over the limit.
In the course of the evening I walked down to the shop to buy some milk for my morning tea. When I arrived back home I discovered I had my car keys in my jacket pocket. My car is standing on the drive, a few yards from the door, and it hasn't been moved since Friday afternoon.
But if someone had it in for me, I could now be facing a driving ban.

Cheers
Peter

If it's on your drive, then the authorities shouldn't be able to prove that you were in a "road or other public place". Otherwise, if you owned a car, it would never be legal for you to be above the drink-drive limit in your own house.

But if you parked your car on the road, then the mere act of walking past it with your car keys in your pocket might create an offence.

I have one house key with my car keys, and another on a separate keyring, which I use when going out for a few drinks.

_________________
"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 have seen no abuse of the random breath testing in Victoria. The cops usually setup a testing station around a blind bend where there are no exit points between seeing the "booze bus" and the bus itself.

They have several officers doing the preliminary breath testing and these officers do show discretion. I have been pulled over when I was sure I was close to the limit but the officer just waved me through. As I was uncertain how close I was I went back and asked. He told me that the preliminary was just that. It shows whether you have no alcohol, a little or a lot. He then asked if I would like to have a formal test to get an accurate reading. I thanked him for the kind offer and continued on my way.

This was an example of where a driver had been drinking, possibly close of slightly over the limit, and the officer decided that the driver was not affected. No slurring, no strong smell of booze, respectful etc.

The cops on patrol can perform random testing but usually only do so if they are suspicious.

I still drink when I'm out but I am careful not to go too far. Over an evening (5-6 hours) I will happily consume a bottle of red and drive without fear of exceeding the limit so I see no problem with the lower limit.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Sorry - guys - some won't like my opinion - simple solution

You drink or you drive - you don't do both

Industry is getting closer to the zero limit - they do it to reduce accidents - I wouldn't work with a bloke that had just come out of the pub.
Why should i be expected to risk my life on the road with him??

How much of this stampede towards "zero" is Political Correctness and how much as a result of good science? From published papers I've seen, there is no measurable difference in performance between a person with zero alcohol in his/her system and 50-60mg%... And very little between that and the current 80mg% limit.

Set the limit at zero and you're going to criminalise someone for a spoonful of cough mixture!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I've always felt that the current legal limit is about right, but my personal limit is still zero. I can enjoy driving much more if I don't have to worry about how much I drank, and I can enjoy a drink much more if I know I don't have to worry about driving. Plus I can have another one afterwards

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

But it isn't as simple as that, as alcohol remains in the bloodstream for much longer than people think and you can still have a small residual amount many hours after your last drink.

Even today I would imagine that a majority of the technical drink-drive offences that occur (as opposed to those detected by the police) result from the "morning after" factor.

_________________
"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

To all - said it would not be popular - Just my personal opinion.
Not being PC, JUST A SIMPLE SOLUTION -

IT'S BASED ON THE OLD ADS - "IF YOU DRINK, DON'T DRIVE, IF YOU DRIVE, DON'T DRINK".

The consrtuction industry is heading toward a zero limit - sorry if you don't agree - alcohol in blood 12 hours later - stop drinking 12 hours earlier .

BW has his fixation with speed - this is my solution.

Didn't say it would be popular - but thousands of construction blokes live with it -

WHY CAN'T RESPONSIBLE DRIVERS