Safe Speed Forums

OK, so the message is 'not getting through', so how is tweaking the threshold going to help?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Especially if the enforcement is no more than at present. All it would do is further restrict and curtail the lives of those who aim to be law-abiding, while those who know they are breaking the current law (or couldn't give a toss) will continue in the knowledge that they are very unlikely to be caught.

_________________
"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

Judging from the cases I see in court there are two types of drink drivers.

The ones who know they are well over the limit and who will not change their habits if the limit is lowered.

The ones who take the law at face value. They know they are allowed to drink and drive provided they keep their alcohol intake fairly low. We see lots of these people who have had a couple of drinks with a meal and thought they were OK to drive - both from the car control point of view and the law.
It comes as real shock to them when they blow a positive test which, in these cases is usually is administered after police see substandard driving.


The first group will not respond to any law. The second group do try to stay within the law. Lowering the limit will (hopefully) mean they stick to one small drink. Which in turn should lessen the impact on their driving standards.

I don't often express a personal view on court matters but in this case I think the only answer is to drop the limit to 20. That allows for the small amount of alcohol in liquer chocolates or trifle but leaves all drivers in no doubt that they should not drink and drive.

It would be nice to see some evidence based policy. The only science I have seen on drink driving was an Horizon programme in the 1970's/1980's. At 40mg/L driving standard WENT UP. At 80mg/L driver twice as likely to have an accident. To be honest the standard of science was dodgy. But we need to enforce the policy we have BEFORE we mess about with it. Anecdotal evidence is not good enough to base a national safety policy on.

Richard

yeah, you are quite right, it's about time this government allowed drivers to use their own skill and judgement to determine how much alcohol they can consume before getting in a car and using their own skill and judgement to determine how fast the speed limit should be and use their own skill and judgement to decide that the pavement is clearly capable of supporting motor vehicle traffic, and that cyclists and pedestrians should look after their own safety and leap out of the way when they hear an engine.

Oh, and for the hard of thinking ... that was irony. For the even harder of thinking, irony means saying one thing but using it to highlight the absurdity of the argument, hence actually supporting the opposite argument.

_________________
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.

Glad you think I'm right - and whats irony ?

Richard

What if limit applied if you are stopped for substandard driving is say 50 but if you are checked for some other reason 80 for instance.

The idea is that a drivers ability to drive under the influence of alcohol will vary from person to person and be modified by tiredness and state of health and they have a responsibility to be aware of their own fitness to drive. If they are stopped for poor driving then even a low amount of alcohol could be said to be contributing to this and so the lower limit is used. The upper limit still exists as a 'don't take the piss'. In the event of an accident then it would depend on if the alcohol was thought to have had an effect though probably the lower limit if the driver was found to be at fault.

Does this make any sense?

This could be said to cause uncertainty in drivers minds however as some road schemes for reducing speeds use uncertainty (removing lines and footpath boundaries) I do not see this as an issue.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

OK fisherman, If you drop the limit to 20, how many hours and days will it take for your body to drop to 20 after having four two pints and two glasses of champers, Can I go to a restaurant and drink lemonade all night, then get prosecuted for the red wine used in the cooking process, how long will it take to dissipate the alcohol in a zabaglione. Can I have a pint of shandy and drive the next morning 8 hours later.

You want to persecute the responsible law abiding drivers because the system fails to police the irresponsible motorists.

_________________
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

Unfair comparison. It is easy to completely avoid alcohol and the pavement, but the driver is required to use his/her judgement and set a correct speed above zero.

I think you are ascribing the wrong motive to the second group on the basis of what they claim to you in court. Most people know when their ability is impaired. What they don't know is their blood alcohol level. They take a chance and get caught. The positive test isn't the shock - getting caught is.

Changing the limit to 50mg (or 20mg) won't make a lot of difference to the chancers or the accident rate but may catch unimpaired drivers on an arbitrarily set technical limit - rather like speed cameras.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

If, as Fisherman says, 'chancers' are getting caught because their erratic driving is spotted by a trafpol, then that suggests that people don't know what their impairment level is surely?
Lowering the limit would mean a 'chancer' will realise he can have less to drink, one drink rather than two, and will be less impaired as a result.
Yes, you'd still have people driving around marginally over the limit, but in a less impaired state.
Or are you saying that 'chancers' will still have two drinks and the end result qwill be the same, albeit they will now be much more over the limit if they do get caught?

Note: 1 and 2 drinks are offered as illustrative of consumption levels, I do realise that people differ in their ability to absorb and handle alcohol.

_________________
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.

I would have thought that something like this would need to be ratified by the EU nowadays. Are we not trying to harmonise motoring laws?

Hold on....looks like they have a way to go to get every one on the same page!

Albania: 0.1 mg/ml[3]
Austria: 0.05% and 0.01% for drivers who have held a licence for less than 2 years and drivers of vehicles over 7.5 tonnes
Belarus: 0.5 mg/ml[3]
Belgium: 0.5 mg/ml[3]
Bosnia-Herzegovina: 0.05%
Bulgaria: 0.05%
Croatia: Zero
Czech Republic: Zero[3]
Denmark: 0.5 mg/l, imprisonment if over 0.8
Estonia: 0.2 mg/ml[3]
France: 0.5 mg/ml[3]
Finland: 0.5 mg/ml[3], 0.12% (aggravated)
Germany: 0.5 mg/ml[3] and zero for drivers conducting commercial transportation of passengers; 0.11% (aggravated)
Gibraltar: 0.5 ml [4]
Greece: 0.5 mg/ml[3] and 0.02% for drivers who have held a license for less than 2 years and bus drivers
Hungary: Zero[3]
Iceland: 0.5 mg/ml[3]
Ireland: 0.8 mg/ml[3]
Italy: 0.5 mg/ml[3]
Latvia: 0.02% for drivers with less than 2 years' experience and 0.05% for those with more than 2 years' experience
Liechtenstein: 0.08%
Lithuania: 0.4 mg/ml[3]
Luxembourg: 0.8 mg/ml[3]
Malta: 0.8 mg/ml[3]
Netherlands: 0.5 mg/ml[3], 0.02% for drivers with less than 5 years' experience
Norway: 0.2 mg/ml[3]
Poland: 0.2 mg/ml[3]
Portugal: 0.5 mg/ml[3]
Republic of Moldova: 0.3 mg/ml[3]
Romania: Zero
Russia: 0.2-0.5 mg/ml[3]
Serbia: 0.05%
Slovakia: Zero[3]
Slovenia: 0.00% for drivers with 2 years or less experience and professional drivers, 0.05% for all others.
Spain: 0.05% [5] and 0.03% for drivers with less than 2 years experience and drivers of freight vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, and of passenger vehicles with more than 9 seats.
Sweden: 0.02% (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (up to 2 years imprisonment)
Switzerland: 0.5 mg/ml[3]
Turkey: 0.5 mg/ml[3]
Ukraine: Zero
United Kingdom: 0.8 mg/ml[3]

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I think people DO know when their abilities are impaired. Most people use this as the "do not drive" yardstick. A few know they are of reduced capability but still risk it as the chances of being caught are low. The numerical limit itself makes no difference to these judgements as the drinker does not usually know the correlation between how he feels and the blood alcohol limit.

Thus "chancers" will not react to a number, only their own perception and will have the same amount to drink before driving irrespective. The careful person will know that the limit is lower, drink less just to be sure but be no safer than they were before with the higher limit.

In fact, setting an unrealistically low alcohol limit will have the same effect as an unrealistically low speed limit - widespread disregard of an impractical law.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I suggest we harmonise with the Swedish rules.

_________________
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.

Yeah. Right.

That's why drunk people never try to do anything stupid, like climb walls or start fights with people, because they know their abilities are not impaired.

_________________
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.

Where are we going to get the jail space from?

At the moment, people are being banged up just for airing their personal opinions in public while the people who present a real danger to others are walking the streets scot free.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

There is, and always has been, a generalised law against driving when impaired by alcohol. Introducing a fixed blood alcohol limit was analogous to speed limits in that it provided an objective means for the police to prosecute impaired drivers (which previously had often proved difficult).

It was never meant as a hard-and-fast definition of "safe" and "unsafe" and, as with speed limits, the current obsession with lowering numerical values is wrong-headed and counter-productive.

_________________
"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 would very much doubt if marginal offenders showed up so obviously through their driving - the impairment of judgment would only show up in a potential accident scenario. In any case, where are all these police patrols to pick them up anyway?

Also I suspect that offenders routinely under-report the amount of drink they have had, or prove to have confused themselves over measures and strengths.

_________________
"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

Do we have the data for blood alchohol level versus accident risk ? surely this should form the basis for policy. Policing the current limit would help a great deal. Messing around with the level just detracts from finding and preventing the real cause of accidents. How many accidents are caused by people just below the limit ? and is the accident caused by this or not. If this is a large number then ban any drink before driving . I rather think the number is very small if not negative and NO scientific research has been undertaken to prove it one way or another........ bit like speed cameras then .

Richard

The results of the Borkenstein study can be found on this page on the ABD website:

http://www.abd.org.uk/abd-bac.htm

_________________
"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