Is it time to reduce drink drive limits?

[Cyclone]

I doubt alcohol will have any detrimental effect the morning after, not if its only a couple of glasses of wine. The way to check is to get hold of some breath test kits. Not the crap £1 jobbies but a good one (i paid £8 for 5 ages ago) that gives accurate results then test yourself in the morning.

Of course the best way is to not drink at all for a couple of days before thinking of taking the car out.

 

Is that a reasonable thing to expect of anyone?

 

Go out on Friday, don't drive until at least Sunday.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2014 at 22:31 ----------

 

Lower the limit would cause confusion. Keep it as it is, or go for zero tolerance.

 

What's confusing about a new lower limit?

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2014 at 22:31 ----------

 

Anyone who cant go 24 hours without a drink has a problem.

 

The point is that you never know if you might need to drive in the next 24hrs, so you'd have to permanently go without a drink, ever.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2014 at 22:42 ----------

 

I think that the actual limit is not as relevant as the need to make drink driving socially unacceptable. In an ideal world people would understand that drinking alcohol and driving a vehicle are incompatible and at the first sip of a drink that means you're not driving for the rest of the day.

 

That shouldn't be an isn't the case.

 

An average person eliminates alcohol at 1/2 pint (1 unit) per hour.

Have a pint with lunch and your back to zero in approx 2 hours.

 

Absolutely no need to rule out driving for an entire day due to one sip.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2014 at 22:44 ----------

 

That is a VERY important point that many forget, or are just simply ignorant of. The fact that if you were over the limit last night means that there is still a very good chance you will be still over or very close to the limit the following morning or still have your judgement impaired.

 

I'd say your claim is complete nonsense.

 

Given the way the liver removes alcohol.

 

If you get absolutely blotted, then yes, you could well be over the limit. But that isn't what you said.

 

You could be over the limit, and 1 hr later be under the limit.

[DT Ralge]

Drug driving - the type-approval of a roadside drug testing kit may signal a clamp-down?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11306187/Christmas-roadside-drug-tests-for-drivers.html

[alchemist]

If you look at the double fatal crash at Ecclesfield couple days ago that should provide your answer. We all know the rules, simples.

 

R

 

Has this accident been proved to be alcohol related?

[Zamo]

Alcohol isn't the only thing that impairs judgement and reaction times. The disposition of a person, their health and/or age are massive factors too.

 

How many times have people had to slam on the breaks because some dithering fool took so long to realise that it was safe to go that it had become unsafe to go, decides to go, realises it was the wrong decision to go and then makes things even worse by making another wrong decision and stopping right in front of you? Or had nervous drivers failing to get up to motorway speed and joining at 30mph causing people to break hard or swerve between lanes? Or old people driving at half the speed limit and not checking before changing lanes because rigamortis has already kicking in?

 

If people want to make it illegal for me to have a pint and drive then I'll comply but only if we are going to do something about the far worse impaired drivers on the road. If my decision making and reactions are no worse after a couple of pints than those of my sober but aging neighbour, then society needs to decide whether to let us both drive or neither of us. It is either safe or it isn't and the 'cause' doesn't change that.

 

I must confess that I have always though the sobriety test used by the Americans is a better approach because it focuses on what actually matter i.e. judgement, reactions and coordination. We should focus on a persons ability to drive.

[Member]

Drug driving - the type-approval of a roadside drug testing kit may signal a clamp-down?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11306187/Christmas-roadside-drug-tests-for-drivers.html

 

Interesting bit about the drug kits, they are apparently going to be used to detect pain killers and prescription drugs too. I wonder how many people will be at the receiving end of a conviction they really should be getting.

Also, where are these 200 road deaths that are drug related? Sorry, the estimated 200?

[Bonzo77]

Interesting bit about the drug kits, they are apparently going to be used to detect pain killers and prescription drugs too. I wonder how many people will be at the receiving end of a conviction they really should be getting.

Also, where are these 200 road deaths that are drug related? Sorry, the estimated 200?

 

Thing is, some drugs stay in your system for weeks (cannabis, for example). Will these tests be able to differentiate between someone who is stoned and someone that had a smoke a few days ago?

[truman]

Thing is, some drugs stay in your system for weeks (cannabis, for example). Will these tests be able to differentiate between someone who is stoned and someone that had a smoke a few days ago?

 

The DD test doesn't differentiate between someone who is over the limit but still very sober and capable and someone who is absolutely plastered..it's an absolute limit...over it and you're banned..won't the same be done for cannabis for example?

[lil-minx92]

On one hand you're saying that most drivers already go without drinking, on the other hand, you're saying that zero tolerance would destroy the leisure industry?!

 

Sorry I wasn't clear! I meant that most drivers will use their car every day. A zero tolerance rule would mean they could never risk a drink

[Mecky]

I don't have a problem with areduction of the drink-drive limit. If I'm driving I don't drink, simples

[barleycorn]

Before lowering the limit there are two things to consider:

 

One: Will the lower limit stop people exceeding it? Broadly I think there will be three categories of people in this, those you will drink to, or avoid drinking entirely, the limit so as not to exceed it and those who don't. From those who don't there will be those who drink to what they think is their safe limit and those who don't give a toss.

A lower limit will therefore only affect those people who stuck to the old one with the rest carrying on as they were, which leads us to point two.

 

Two: On the proviso that the lower limit is adhered to how many accidents will be prevented? The data should exist for accidents where the Police attended on the alcohol levels present, whether below or above the limit. For those accidents where alcohol was deemed to be a contributing factor it should then be pretty simple to work out how many accidents occurred due to alcohol levels present between the new proposed limit and the current one. If that number is significant* then change the limit, if not then there really is no point.

 

jb

 

* Where the level of significance is set out (justifiably, to prevent bias) before carrying out the exercise.

Edited December 22, 2014 by barleycorn