not as simple as that Xileno, because you can have some still in the system the following day...
i'm not talking about the world's worst hangover type scenario.......... but an evening out, 8 hours kip and a drive in to work.... you could still have say 10-15 in the system, yet not be noticeably affected, particularly if you hadn't eaten much, were of slight build, weren't used to drinking etc.
not saying that is ideal, but should it criminalise someone, cost them their licence/livelihood etc
|
not as simple as that Xileno, because you can have some still in the system the following day...
Well you should not drive then,it works in Germany .People just want an excuse for themselves incase they get caught anybody caught with any alchohol or drugs that can impair driving in their system should be banned for life along with a massive fine .Where I stay when in the UK around the Leeds area nobody seems to bother about drinking and driving not even the police what do they think all those cars are doing on pub car parks they are not all drinking fruit juice.
|
The zero limit is not practical. Everyone has some alchohol in the bloodstream, its a natural by product of disgestion.
Lower limits in the rest of europe are backed up by nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and hence the limit falls into disrepute. The UK is one of the few countries where a sensible limit is backed up with real punitive punishment.
Ladyman (on R5 live this morning) said exactly the same thing. (I have to say he is a pretty good transport minister, at least the bloke has been caught speeding) The UK limit and consequences are perfectly suited to our situation backed up and proven by our record of the lowest RTA death rate in Europe. It aint broke and dont need fixing.
All we need is some Traffic cops to enforce the limit.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
People just want an excuse for themselves incase they get caught anybody caught with any alchohol or drugs that can impair driving in their system should be banned for life along with a massive fine
Andy, I think that's grossly OTT.
There are plenty of things which can impair driving: poor visibility, minor eyesight deiciencies, medication, hunger, thirst, tiredness, stress, preoccupation, or emotional distress.
I'd be very surprised indeed if any road user has ever managed to get through a week without at least one of those factors applying to some extent. All of them impair to some degree, and what matters is the degree: it's one thing driving when disappointed to hear that your mum's new haircut is a frightener, but a whole different ballgame to get behind the wheel when you've just heard on the radio that your entire family has been tortured to death by a drug-crazed mutant killer-bunny.
It seems to me that the most sensible approach to use of drink or drugs would be to move away from the current all-or-nothing approach, and have a level of blood alcohol where a fine could be levied if driving was poor, a higher level where a fine/points would automatically apply, and then a level at which a ban would apply.
The current situation of nothing between acquittal and a 1-year ban seems far too crude.
|
"The current situation of nothing between acquittal and a 1-year ban seems far too crude."
It works .
It is simple to administer.
It does not require an IQ of 120 to understand the law.
Three very good reasons for no change.
My view of drink driving is black and white.
The law is the same.
Shades of gray are not needed.
madf
|
"The current situation of nothing between acquittal and a 1-year ban seems far too crude." It works . It is simple to administer. It does not require an IQ of 120 to understand the law. Three very good reasons for no change. My view of drink driving is black and white. The law is the same. Shades of gray are not needed. madf
Totally agree. I do not drink and drive but like many of my work colleagues I have to drive to and from work in no fit state to drive.Its called a serious lack of sleep.I regularly work over 100 hours a week including working all day and all night.Its not my choice ,but the nature of working in high level motorsport.I know many of my work colleagues have had road accidents due to lack of sleep.There are now regulations covering the hours of work our truckies drive the f1 circus too and from the races but not the guys building the stuff.If they introduced a law stating that you couldn't drive after say 18 or 20 plus hours of work then i would never get home!.
|
Its called a serious lackof sleep.I regularly work over 100 hours a week including working all day and all night.Its not my choice ,but the nature of working in high level motorsport.I know many of my work colleagues have had road accidents due to lack of sleep.There are now regulations covering the hours of work our truckies drive the f1 circus too and from the races but not the guys building the stuff.If they introduced a law stating that you couldn't drive after say 18 or 20 plus hours of work then i would never get home!.
There are regulations governing how long you can work - called the working time directive! I assume that you have completed an "opt out" so it is your chice!
It sounds as if you drive when you KNOW you are not fit to do so - a ban is the appropriate punishment for that - at least a drunk THINKS he is fit to drive!
|
|
Working time directive-your having a laugh.We were told to sign the opt out or look for another job.And yes i do drive when i know iam not fit to do so.Have to or sleep on the floor at work.Unfortunately its that and do the job I love (you'd have to)or do some other boring 9 to 5 job-no thanks.
|
|
|
|
Totally agree. I do not drink and drive but like many of my work colleagues I have to drive to and from work in no fit state to drive.Its called a serious lack of sleep.I regularly work over 100 hours a week including working all day and all night.Its not my choice ,but the nature of working in high level motorsport.I know many of my work colleagues have had road accidents due to lack of sleep.There are now regulations covering the hours of work our truckies drive the f1 circus too and from the races but not the guys building the stuff.If they introduced a law stating that you couldn't drive after say 18 or 20 plus hours of work then i would never get home!.
All I can say is yet again another part of the motor industry that sets a bad example....
If you are involved in some hot shot motorsport operation surely your employers can look after their staff's welfare and safety by spending some of the sponsorship budget on you and not on 'no expenses spared' hospitality parties. The kudos of working in motorsport just isn't worth it if you, or one of your friends, ends up dead.
--
Was Charles {P} but someone c o p i e d my name with spaces.
|
|
|
|
My view of drink driving is black and white. The law is the same. Shades of gray are not needed.
Are you really saying that 79mg in the bloodstream is safe that no penalty or warning is needed, but that 80mg is so dangerous that the driver must not just be fined or get a few points, but be banned from the road?
|
Are you really saying that 79mg in the bloodstream is safe that no penalty or warning is needed, but that 80mg is so dangerous that the driver must not just be fined or get a few points, but be banned from the road?
It could be
75 safe, 80 safe, 85 risky, 90 riskier, 95 unsafe.
it could even be
60 safe, 65 risky, 70 riskier, 75 unsafe, 81 ban,
You know as well as I do that there is no hard and fast safe or unsafe limit, it varies from person to person. Hence you cant have a "variable" series of penalties. If you go down that route it becomes a discredited law and loss of popular support.
The current law is one of the few well implemented ones. Its black and white, tight and with no ambiguity. Hence very few people when caught wriggle out of it or get the penalty reduced.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
You know as well as I do that there is no hard and fast safe or unsafe limit, it varies from person to person.
Yes, I agree there.
Hence you cant have a "variable" series of penalties. If you go down that route it becomes a discredited law and loss of popular support.
Apart from I'm not suggesting variable or discretionary penalties, just using a set of thresholds rather than one.
The current law is one of the few well implemented ones. Its black and white, tight and with no ambiguity. Hence very few people when caught wriggle out of it or get the penalty reduced.
That could still apply in a graded-penalty system, e.g. 80mg=automatic ban, 150=ban+porridge, but 50mg=fixed fine, 65mg=fine+points. Still black-and-white, still unambiguous, just with more steps on the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not OTT anybody who has alchohol in their blood stream should be banned for life if they drive.Other things do effect ones life and can have tragic consequencies but you take drink of your own free will .If you want to put poisen down your neck do so but do not get behind the wheel of a car, a night in a busy casualty ward would give some mealie liberal softies an eye opener and be the one who has to tell some parent their child is dead because of a drunk driver .
|
Are you a teetotaller AB? I have to say yr comment looks a tad extreme to me too.
If a child of mine had been killed in a road accident caused by a sober driver, what should I feel?
|
|
|
|
From a forensic perspective, it would be very poor law-making to enshrine a limit of 0.0 mg alcohol in blood, urine etc. in legislation.
As TVM points out, some alcohol is present as a byproduct of digestion. Some medicines and herbal remedies contain alcohol as an excipient. And, depending on metabolism, some people who have taken a drink up to 24 hours earlier may still have some alcohol in their system.
The most important reason to specify a limit - no matter how low it is - is that methods of detection inevitably become more sensitive over time. So, a laboratory may not be able to detect, low parts-per-million of alcohol in blood today, but by 2016 detecting parts-per-billion could be commonplace. Therefore, a driver who would be judged alcohol free in 2006 would be convicted of drink driving in 2016.
What is needed is not a "zero" limit, but a low limit that's consistent with the possible sources of alcohol in the body other than drink (Which I'm strongly in favour of). Then, with a clear limit set, the police, cours, testing laboratories, and the motoring public, know exactly where they stand.
|
I think Gromit is on the right track - I'd suggest that 25 would be a figure that made sense. Alows for the after effects of a heavyish night.
That said, I can also see there will be a time and the technology when the law might be "unfit to drive through drink, drugs or excessive tiredness" and roadside devices might be able to show that a driver's response times were too slow for safe driving. green - safe to continue - amber, stop now, but no further action, red - penalty notice of £xx, and not to drive for 24 hours.
|
Personally don't think changing the limits will make a blind bit of difference - just sounds like "rhetoric" to me.
If we seriously want to reduce the number of people drink driving we need get the police officers back onto the road & out of the office filling in paperwork. The chances currently of people getting stopped by police whilst driving a very slim, those odds need reducing - it's the only effective deterrent.
|
|
The UK does not appear to have any police unless you are being politically incorrect or complaining about crime to think they were the envy of the world, its unfortunate but I would not trust one as far as I could see them.
|
|
|
|
The limit would need to be high enough to allow for latent alcohol levels not caused by drinking, but low enough to fail the test were "the after effects of a heavyish night" severe enough to impair one's ability to drive.
In recent years, there's been a move towards policing for drink-driving in the mornings around Christmas, St. Patrick's day etc. here in Ireland. A significant number of drivers are caught, even with the current 80mg/litre limit.
Besides driving under the influence of alcohol, there are separate offences for driving under the influence of drugs (the question of limits doesn't arise here because the legislation is dealing with controlled substances) and for being in "an unfit state" to drive. This covers issuses such as fatigue.
The difficulty is that its harder to define "too tired" in order to prosecute than it is to convict where clear-cut test results can be presented to demonstate breach of the law. I suspect that's why we see more emphasis put on drink (and increasingly, drug) driving than the other offences.
|
>>Besides driving under the influence of alcohol, there are separate offences for driving under the influence of drugs (the question of limits doesn't arise here because the legislation is dealing with controlled substances) and for being in "an unfit state" to drive. This covers issuses such as fatigue.
At present there is no simple measure available to the Police for either testing the influence of drugs or tiredness. Both are currently subjective.
I could foresee a test case in the future of someone who was within the individual limits for alcohol, drugs and tiredness, but combined should not have been driving.
Reverting back to the original post, I personally have no problem with the current alcohol limit for over 25 year olds. I think there should be lower limits for 17-20 year olds of 40mg/litre, and 60mg/litre for 21- 24 year olds. At present there are stiff penalties for young driver who are over the 80mg/litre that include an extended retest to regain their licence.
In today's society it is no longer coming of age at 21, nor when you can vote at 18, but when you can drive at 17. It seems daft that you are not allowed at 17 to buy alcoholic drinks for another year, but you can be stopped for drunk driving. Surely we should have some uniformity and joined up regulations.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
|
|
The hard and fast fixed limit of allowing some alcohol has a hidden benefit. Allow me to explain.
No-one is really sure where the actual limit "in drinks terms" is. Is it 1 pint? 2 pints?, large glass of wine? small glass?. In truth there is no "x number of drinks" reference for people to drink to. We know however there is a hard and fast limit, above you get banned and fined big time as minimum, below you are safe.
What this does is promote responsible or unsafe drinking.
People who have responsibility will steer *well* clear of the limit. People who have responsibility are nice to have driving on our roads.
The chancers will drink up to what they think they can get away with. Its probably that being chancers they will screw it up and drink over the limit. Hence the chancers get caught. We didnt want chancers on the road anyway. Its a form of natural selection - a good tool for weeding out those with no responsibility and getting them off the road for a year.
We still dont have the traffic police to enforce it either way. The situation is that we have all the required legislation and penalties in place, but the chances of getting caught are miniscule. Everyone knows it.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
"The situation is that we have all the required legislation and penalties in place, but the chances of getting caught are miniscule. Everyone knows it."
Totally agree.
Ban all new legislation until detection rates of all legilsated crime rises above 75%.
That does away with ALL new legislation for the next 20 years .
It'slike fining cyclists for not using bells. Fine in theory. Uneforceable in practice.
Muppets make laws.. No-one enforces them
madf
|
why should the younger generation be unfairly penelised? sorry but your going to say there the ones commiting most of the offnces, which i think is probably greatly untrue, it's just the young generation that the police go after as easy targets. i can think of at least 5 or 6 people who are over the age of 40 that drink drive there way home from our local labour club whereas out of maybe the 5 of us youngsters that are there, one will be a nominated driver. and as far as ive ever known it there is a vast majority of the older generation that break the drink drive limit regularly the police just aren't interested with them till they cause an incident.
it's just another example of penelising young people in society who are any easy target
chris
|
I can't see the point of changing the law as it stands, the people who drink and drive will anyway, whatever the limit.
How many repeat offenders are still driving over the limit while banned now? They're in our local rag almost every night and when they're caught how can we stop them continuing driving?
When was the last time you were stopped for a spot check whilst driving late at night? Once in 22 years of driving for me.
|
When was the last time you were stopped for a spot check whilst driving late at night? Once in 22 years of driving for me.
Seems to happen less as you get older. Perhaps because yr driving is more prudent as well as the grey hair, spectacles etc.
|
I've only ever been stopped when I got lost, and look lost. I'm less lost now that I have a TomTom, and now that I'm a fossil I don't oten venture out after nurse gives me cocoa at 7pm.
These two factors may have a connection with not being stopped.
|
|
>>why should the younger generation be unfairly penelised?
I do not think the younger generation are being unfairly penalised as more of them go out drinking in the evenings and driving home from pubs and clubs. Statistically young people drink more, experiment with drugs, and have more accidents with cars than older people. A lot of this is bourne out by the sky high insurance premiums young male drivers have to pay.
There will always be fine examples like yourself who do not want a conviction. I was the same when I was young, the same applies now I am in my early 50's. In my early 20's I went out with friends and young ladies probably 4 or 5 nights a week, and usually I was the driver because I had a car and would only have one alcoholic drink before I went on to soft drinks. This always made me popular, especially with the parent's of all of the people I drove as they knew I was a safe driver and a sober one.
>>I can think of at least 5 or 6 people who are over the age of 40 that drink drive there way home from our local labour club.
These are the exception to the rule on older people not drinking and driving. Eventually this hardcore of drink drivers will change their habits when one of them gets caught and looses his licence. All I can hope is that they do not have an accident that injures or, worse still, kills someone. Have you considered having either a chat with them before they have a drink, or having a word with a club representative. Imagine how you would feel if you found out that they had injured someone whilst driving under the influence and you could have done something to stop them.
In extreme cases you may have to shop them to the Police, for other road users safety. They know they should not drink and drive, so if they get caught that is their problem. It might not just mean them loosing their licence along with a large fine, the later substantial increase in insurance premium when they get their licence back (not to mention the inconvience of not being able to drive for at least a year), but could also cost them their job as well. It puzzles me why some people ignore all of these know facts and continue to drink and drive.
Some years ago I knew someone when in his 40's who lost his sales job, which involved considerable annual driving, because he was caught drinking and driving. The circumstances were slightly funny, he had been drinking at a golf club and whilst driving home he passed some road works that were coned off. Coming the other way was a police car. Well he managed to clip a cone and flipped it over his car and it landed on the roof of the police car. The police were not amused. Ultimately he came out of it all right as he decided to open his own retail business and was hugely successful.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
There's no answer to this.
I know people are reluctant to admit it, but some can drive all right when fairly ripped while others are lethal at all times. And as is often pointed out, other factors than drink can come into play, and drink can affect the same individual differently at different times.
Naturally we don't want any of them to cause fatal accidents. But setting aside this dramatic, and fortunately quite rare, worst-case scenario, the whole thing is a lottery.
As is going out of your door and crossing the road.
It is a driver's personal responsibility not to kill or injure anyone. All the laws in the world don't alter that fundamental fact.
|
"It is a driver's personal responsibility not to kill or injure anyone. All the laws in the world don't alter that fundamental fact."
But it is also a FACT that the penalties for killing anyone through eg overtaking at stoopid speeds - see recent boxer case - are in reality minimal compared to the offence...
Which backs up my arguments that the legal system /enforcement are in a mess....
madf
|
Some excellent comments and opinions here - obviously DD is now well on the way to becoming totally unacceptable for the majority of the population.
If I was playing Devil's Advocate I would merely point out the damage the Government of the day did once with their seasonal DD campaign when they urged us to 'stay low', rather than urged us not to even consider a sniff of the stuff before driving?
The limit is obviously the same as it was then, despite the sea change in perceptions as to what is acceptable now.
I can honestly say this factor was responsible for me in the past having a single alcoholic drink without guilt, before sticking to the soft stuff for the rest of an evening.
I wonder too what people think of the observed effect of a very modest amount of alcohol on drivers - studies have apparently shown it makes them 'better' drivers.
I would welcome police patrols outside pubs as it sends a strong message to people who think they'll never be caught (and with the increased emphasis on speed cameras for motoring offences they may be right). Despite all the talk of reducing deaths and injuries we all know that even one tragedy is one too many.
|
|
Did you guys know that people who are dislexic have slower reaction times than the average drunk driver.(according to tests done by the BMA-read it in one of the wifes journals)Now iam not saying ban dislexics from driving, put people who say lower DD limit should think about what is a safe limit for reaction/judgement desisions based not just on alcohol but also tiredness,and medical fitness.
|
Did you guys know that people who are dislexic
:^D
"LOL"
|
Ban them I say, who lex dsic have driving licenses anyway?
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Oh, ban everybody!
(Except me!)
|
......obviously DD is now well on the way to becoming totally unacceptable for the majority of the population.....
Thought you were talking about our moderator Dynamic Dave for a moment there, ´til I read the rest of the post...
|
Thought you were talking about our moderator Dynamic Dave for a moment there, ´til I read the rest of the post...
I must admit I had to look twice myself..
|
the penalties for killinganyone through eg overtaking at stoopid speeds - see recent boxer case - are in reality minimal compared to the offence... Which backs up my arguments that the legal system /enforcement are in a mess.... madf
Well, yes and yes. My point though was that whether the law is correct and properly enforced or not, drivers have a moral responsibility for any death or injury that occurs as a result of their errors at the wheel. You may get away with a few months in jail, but you carry a burden on your conscience for the rest of your life (and, some believe, after it too).
There are people with severe personality disorders who effectively have no conscience. But they are quite rare.
|
|
I meant to add: that, really, is why people on the whole don't drive drunk. They don't want something awful on their consciences. The effect of the law is secondary.
|
When the current limit was introduced, a lot of studies were done at the Transport Research Lab which showed that people drove consistantly better after a drink up to around the limit. Obviously after that, there are diminishing returns and people's driving gets worse and worse. It would save more lives and reduce injuries and property damage to crackdown on cads in city centres at night.
What's more, how can you have one limit one day and another the next just because you've had a birthday. That would send out the signal that these limits are just arbitary (as they would be).
|
I cannot see (but am no lawyer) how differential penalties based on age would hold in law under the Human Rights Act.
In fact I will go further and say they would be illegal under the HRA...
No doubt some expert on the HRA will advise if I'm wrong:-)
madf
|
"people drove consistantly better after a drink up to around the limit"
Are you sure about that Adam? - or was it that people "thought" they drove better.? I had a mate who thought that but having been his passenger a couple times I had to tell him that he was sadly disillusioned.
The thing that worries me about the limit as it stands (or as it might be changed to) is that alcohol has such a varied effect on different people. Although I drink quite a bit of wine, I find that even one pint of bitter has quite an effect on my co-ordination. Hence, if I am driving, I do not drink at all. Others seem to be able to drink quite a few pints, or wines and remain perfectly unaffected. I could drink a pint and be breath tested, pass the test but be dangerous. Another could drink 3 pints, be totally unaffected in terms of driving but fail the test and be banned. Whatever limit is chosen will be arbitrary and may not reflect the effect on their driving - the important thing is that it says - "Don't drink and drive". Whether that means you should have a zero or near zero limit is something I would not like to have to decide.
--
Phil
|
>>Are you sure about that Adam?<<
Nope - in fact, so unsure about it am I, that I don't remember ever typing it.
|
Oops!!
Couple of glasses of wine and I can't even read let alone drive!!
Sorry Adam and please someone edit my post above!
Cheers!
--
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
