PDA

View Full Version : Drink Driving - Zero Limit


TomJoad
6th Dec 2014, 19:54
What with the Christmas season upon us the police here in Scotland have started their annual drink driving deterrence campaign. With the recent change in the law we now effectively have a zero limit. It's not without its critics, some argue that it will do nothing to deter the persistent offenders who really don't care whether there is a limit or not. Personally I think a Zero limit is a good idea - it sends a clear message that can't really be mistaken.

But I was wondering what approaches we have elsewhere - am I correct in thinking that there is a zero limit in Australia, no doubt some states in the USA, not sure about the rest of Europe? So what are your drink driving rules, do they work and what do you think of a zero limit? What's the general public few of the offender who drinks and drives in your country? In Scotland approx 20 deaths each year are attributed to drink driving - if the recent change in our law reduces this then it has my vote. Here's to a safe Christmas to all on the roads.:ok:

Tom

Checkboard
6th Dec 2014, 19:57
In many Australian states it is a zero limit for Learner and Probationary drivers, and all commercial (bus, taxi & HGV) drivers.

Fareastdriver
6th Dec 2014, 20:12
In Scotland approx 20 deaths each year are attributed to drink driving

Let's keep the record straight. In Scotland approx twenty deaths a year are drink RELATED accidents. There you can have a drunk killed by a sober driver. I have seen one.

I'll agree with you, however, that there is a good case for a zero limit, as in Norway. It won't stop those who think, especially in the wilderness, that they can get away with it.

It won't stop the drunks staggering out of a pub and flagging down what they think is a taxi.

419
6th Dec 2014, 20:20
Whilst I agree with lowering the limit, having it at zero is IMO a step too far and could lead to a lot of problems.

If the limit is zero with no leeway, one slice of a Christmas cake that had a bit of brandy in it would effectively be enough of a reason to ban someone should they be breathalysed and what about mouthwashes that have alcohol in them?

con-pilot
6th Dec 2014, 20:27
Whilst I agree with lowering the limit, having it at zero is IMO a step too far and could lead to a lot of problems.

If the limit is zero with no leeway, one slice of a Christmas cake that had a bit of brandy in it would effectively be enough of a reason to ban someone should they be breathalysed and what about mouthwashes that have alcohol in them?

I agree, zero limit is insane, they might as well ban drinking all together.

If one cannot drive properly after having one normal beer or a glass of wine, they should not be driving period.

OFSO
6th Dec 2014, 20:35
If one cannot drive properly after having one normal beer or a glass of wine, they should not be driving period.

True. Or say, a bottle of white with a large lunch.

Note the emphasis on lunch. Lunch time in Spain, the guardians of law and order are likely to be sitting on the next table with their jeep (etc) parked outside.

Drinking in the evening, bad news and foolish.

OFSO
6th Dec 2014, 20:37
In Scotland approx 20 deaths each year are attributed to drink driving

Question: how many premature deaths a year in Scotland are alcohol-related anyway ?

TomJoad
6th Dec 2014, 20:39
Hear what your saying farest, I was citing the comments of the chief sheriff (Glasgow I think) from the news report on the BBC. Here's a excerpt below:

Police and road safety campaigners have said an average of 20 people die on Scotland's roads each year as a result of collisions involving people who were driving while over the legal alcohol limit.

A further 90 were seriously injured and 340 slightly injured as a result of drink-driving related collisions last year.

BBC News - Scotland cuts drink-drive alcohol limit (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30329743)

Putting the stats to one side however, I do think it is a good move. This time of year in the pre Christmas run up I always look back at the road safety displays we used to put at the camp gate/guardroom. A good visual reminder, albeit a bit mixed message what with all the pre Christmas round robins:p

Tom

TomJoad
6th Dec 2014, 20:40
In Scotland approx 20 deaths each year are attributed to drink driving

Question: how many premature deaths a year in Scotland are alcohol-related anyway ?


Sadly too many OFSO.

Tom

OFSO
6th Dec 2014, 20:46
Well, I thought, I could always look it up:

In 2013, there were 1,100 alcohol-related deaths on the basis of the current definition (details available via Alcohol Related Deaths - the Coverage of the Statistics section); an increase of 20 (2%) compared with 1,080 in 2012, and the second lowest annual total since 1997.

The number of alcohol-related deaths was relatively stable, at roughly 600 per year, during the 1980s. It then rose rapidly during the 1990s and early 2000s, to around 1,500 per year in the mid-2000s. The figure of 1,546 in 2006 was the largest so far recorded: since then, the trend appears to be downwards.

The 1,100 alcohol-related deaths in 2013 consisted of 741 male deaths and 359 female deaths. Over the years since 1979, there have been roughly twice as many male deaths as female deaths, with the two figures tending to rise and fall together (although there have been some exceptions, as the ratio has been as low as 1.4:1 and as high as 2.4:1).

In 2013, there were 164 alcohol-related deaths of people who were 30-44 and 472 deaths of people aged 45-59. These were both slight increases compared to 2012 while the 359 deaths of 60-74 year olds was a further decrease in the total for that age group. The number of deaths in those age groups were each at their lowest or second lowest level for more than a decade. There were 95 deaths of people aged 75 and over, 12 fewer than in 2012, which had been the highest number since 2003. The number of deaths in the under 30 age group was 10 in 2013, the lowest number since 1996. Deaths in this age group have fluctuated between 10 and 19 over the last decade. The 45-59 age-group has had the largest number of alcohol-related deaths in almost every year since 1979.

As against this the figure of 20 driving/alcohol-related deaths p.a. looks so small as to indicate that per mile driven you are safer drinking and driving than just drinking.

TomJoad
6th Dec 2014, 20:56
But if you can do something about lives lost through drink driving then do it.

Measures to reduce alcohol abuse are also in play, there is no magic bullet to all of societies' social ills. Anyway let's try to keep it on drink driving.

Tom

Edited - found some stats on limits on BBC site

What is the legal limit elsewhere in Europe?

(All figures per 100ml of blood)

Zero - Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia (drivers with less than three years experience), Germany (less than two years experience or aged under 21)
20mg - Estonia, Poland, Sweden, Cyprus (south), Ireland (learner drivers only), Latvia (less than two years experience), Lithuania (less than two years experience), Greece (less than two years experience), Luxembourg (less than two years experience and professional drivers), France (bus drivers only)
24mg - Slovenia
30mg - Germany (for those involved in an accident)
40mg - Lithuania
50mg - Scotland, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany (if not involved in an accident), Gibraltar, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus (north)
80mg - England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Malta

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30329743

Big Tudor
6th Dec 2014, 20:56
In Scotland approx 20 deaths each year are attributed to drink driving

I can't help but wonder how many of these accidents would have occurred anyone with the same tragic consequences. It seems that whenever alcohol is identified as a factor in an accident it often becomes the over-riding cause, masking some of the real underlying issues. IMHO there is a general lack of basic driving skills and ability which rarely features as a factor and never seems to merit the attention I should deserve. Reducing the drink driving limit will not address it and risks creating further problems with banned drivers continuing to get behind the wheel.

TWT
6th Dec 2014, 21:14
Blood alcohol concentration limit for driving a car in Oz is 0.05% (50mg/100ml)

TomJoad
6th Dec 2014, 21:19
TWT that's the limit being introduced here in Scotland, being dropped from 80mg/100ml.

What's the social attitude to drink driving in Aus?

Tom

TWT
6th Dec 2014, 21:28
No-one I know even thinks of having a couple at the pub and driving.But there's still plenty of people that do it.Random breath testing has been in force for 25-30 years here depending on where you live,so plenty of time to adjust attitudes.

I have frequently walked 5 or 6ks home from a night out when cabs were scarce,just something you need to factor in.

G-CPTN
6th Dec 2014, 21:58
Is the aversion to drink-driving because of the risk of being caught - and the severity of the resultant penalty (loss of licence, increased insurance cost possible loss of employment)?

I read this week of a female caught driving when several times over the limit - and stopped and caught again (well over the limit) one week later.

Having searched for this case (and failed to find it), it seems that such incidents are not that unusual as there are quite a few such reports.

TomJoad
6th Dec 2014, 22:05
I think the hope is that it will get to the stage where it becomes socially unacceptable, if indeed it is not already there. The old phrase "one for the road" being consigned to history.

Tom

Shack37
6th Dec 2014, 22:21
Where a strict zero limit might be a problem.


Ketones from following a low-carb diet could trigger the breathalyzer (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/important-information/low-carbers-beware-the-breathalyzer/)

TWT
6th Dec 2014, 22:22
Is the aversion to drink-driving because of the risk of being caught - and the severity of the resultant penalty (loss of licence, increased insurance cost possible loss of employment)?All of the above.

In my case,I also think about the nightmare scenario whereby I wake up in hospital with (maybe) all my limbs,and am told a whole family was killed in a collision they had with my car.Not worth it.

Democritus
6th Dec 2014, 22:37
So I am returning home to Scotland from England and get breathalysed on the M6 near Carlisle. I pass the test and carry on driving home. Just north of Gretna I get breathalysed again and fail because of the lower limit in Scotland.

Of course I have a full UK driving licence and it gets endorsed by the Scottish Courts so I can't drive here.......but can I still drive in England as I haven't committed any offence there?

I can't find the answer anywhere but logic tells me my UK licence has been withdrawn. I hasten to add that I don't drink and drive so the above scenario is hypothetical but of course it is possible.

probes
6th Dec 2014, 23:12
If one cannot drive properly after having one normal beer or a glass of wine, they should not be driving period.
Precisely. That's why it has to be zero - one should be able to survive without any for a while. And when I do drink a little [how little is little for specific individuals? plus, one always tends to want a bit more...], I have to know that actually I shouldn't.

Flying Lawyer
6th Dec 2014, 23:25
Democritus

If you are disqualified from driving on your UK driving licence you are disqualified from driving throughout the UK.

Loose rivets
7th Dec 2014, 00:01
As I understand it, time is the factor. (BBC radio doctor some years ago.) No food or coffee will help, other than to increase one's metabolic rate but the effect is minimal. The coffee does add time.

I've been cycling until the cold spell, and now I'm in the poo, because I haven't been in a British winter for over a decade and my designated driver of the last half century has departed, so my lunchtime trips to the yacht club, my only entertainment, rely on being sensible. The thing is, I know one ceases to be sensible after a couple of drinks. So, a formula:

Allow half an hour for the burn to start. Then, at least half an hour for each unit to be burnt. Then half an hour to give some leeway.

Personally, I have a J2O followed by a couple of halves of cider. One pint in 2.5 hours. The thing is to always do the same, the body seems to just accept that level if it never varies. Evenings, I buy good-ish wine and stay in.


What surprises me is the kind of people that down four to five pints and head off home. So often they're professionals - in the true sense of the word. Retired gentlemen that wouldn't do harm to a fly, and yet they are blind to this issue. Odd that.

Anyway, I'd hate to have a zero level imposed as I'm quite unable to take public transport of any sort. I suppose I could get used to being dry, but I can't imagine being very jovial while surrounded by merry people.

TBirdFrank
7th Dec 2014, 00:04
Of course - the statistics show what they show, but is there any further breakdown - i.e. Blood/Alcohol levels at any particular incident indicating that it is not just drivers, or pedestrians, at or over any particular limit, but individuals 100%, 200% or whatever over the limit that present the real statistical danger.

I can't prove it, but I fear that in today's new puritanical society where zero everything is the new creed, that moderation in all things is being eschewed in favour of an unenforceable ideal that some stratas of society will never comply with, and also know that they are almost untouchable and untraceable until they actually have that accident, and when they will unashamedly play the victim card.

As a matter of interest - could I even have a Cobra with a curry in Gourock and drive back to my hotel now?

Fliegenmong
7th Dec 2014, 04:26
Blood alcohol concentration limit for driving a car in Oz is 0.05% (50mg/100ml)

Yep, and it should be increased to 0.1%, seriously, not a wind up.....where did they get 0.05 from? What point of view from 30 odd years ago came up with that number??

Yes, it is utterly socially unacceptable down here in Oz.

There used to be a police ad on TV (Oz being a Country besieged by advertising and regulations)...the campaign slogan was "Drink and Drive you're a bloody idiot".......in pub one night, having downed 1/2 doz beers before going into work (I had a job then as a night porter, requiring me to fit into the party atmosphere of a Saturday night, so substance use was high and frequent)....Anyway....the ad comes on in the Pub. probably an ad break in between the footy....and the end of the Ad finishes with the "Drink Drive you're a bloody idiot"....Voice from the back of the bar room shouts out..."Drink and drive and make it home you're a bloody legend!!!" :}

Twas 20 years ago, no one would say that nowadays....and it is a good thing that drink driving is relegated to history! :ok:

I do once remember waking up and looking out the window to see my car in the street, I'd been out in a town approx 80 kms away, no recollection of driving home whatsoever :uhoh:

Different time eh??.....funny though I do remember reading a friends CRM manual for Cathay Pacific in the early 1990's., and a question that stuck with me was along the lines of....."Your Son comes home in your car and parks it at a funny angle....before you admonish him, you remember the times you drive home from the pub and park at odd angles"

It stuck with me as it seemed to indicate that there was a certain level of acceptance that driving home after drinking was acceptable.

Just not done nowadays...generally, that said I saw a woman caught more the 4 times over the limit picking up children from school! :=:=

tdracer
7th Dec 2014, 05:52
For a long time, most states in the USA had a drunk driving/DUI limit of 0.10%. But then "Mothers Against Drunk Drivers", or MADD, made it's presence known. Although things such as drunk driving are left up to the individual states, MADD managed to push federal legislation that basically banned federal highway money unless the states lowered the limit to 0.08%. Although some considered this to be unconstitutional, it became the law and soon 0.08% became the law of the land.
The USA magazine Car and Driver did a study at the time. What they found was, not surprisingly, the contribution of alcohol to accidents increases almost exponentially with increasing blood alcohol content, with the vast majority of drunk driving fatalities involved blood alcohol 2 or 3 times the 0.10% legal limit. Further, while there is considerable individual variation, most drivers are competent at levels below 0.10%, and dropping the limit to 0.08% would have minimal impact on drunk driving accidents. It would however make a number of otherwise responsible adults into criminals.
I'm becoming convinced that that last part is the real ultimate goal - to make everyday behavior criminal, then those in power can use selective enforcement to control all our actions:=

Fliegenmong
7th Dec 2014, 05:57
.......I'm hearing you TD!

probes
7th Dec 2014, 06:16
dropping the limit to 0.08% would have minimal impact on drunk driving accidents. It would however make a number of otherwise responsible adults into criminals.
I'm becoming convinced that that last part is the real ultimate goal - to make everyday behavior criminal, then those in power can use selective enforcement to control all our actions
do you mean drinking (and driving) is everyday behaviour? :E
no, seriously, as much as I'd like a beer (or two) with my dinner - I totally believe it has to be a zero. If you're in somewhere remote with no traffic, then there probably won't be any police either. But if there is - well, who said he's never worried about his driving, as he knows he's reasonable, it's the others to watch out for?

P.S some 30 years ago, walking on a dark forest road (well, not a totally dirt road, but nice forests), a car stopped, the driver opened the door and would have had a face plant, if God hadn't organised a driving-wheel for him to grab from, and kind-of articulated: "Where's the bunny going?"
Was I scared? - No. He wouldn't have been able to use his legs anyway. For getting out of his car, that is.

Krystal n chips
7th Dec 2014, 06:17
If one cannot drive properly after having one normal beer or a glass of wine, they should not be driving period.

And if one cannot go to lunch without the need to consume alcohol or one doesn't have the brain capability to make alternative arrangements for driving to and from the venue, then one should not be, as you say, driving period. Or do those little badges that you stated adorn your car ensure you won't be stopped anyway and even if you are, having worked for Uncle Sam means you are a "good guy"....so that's alright then.




True. Or say, a bottle of white with a large lunch.

Note the emphasis on lunch. Lunch time in Spain, the guardians of law and order are likely to be sitting on the next table with their jeep (etc) parked outside.

Drinking in the evening, bad news and foolish

As a contender for a Darwin award, your logic ( as stated above) will make a fitting epitaph.....sadly, you may kill some innocent parties in the process.

Possibly you could explain why your metabolism can function without any form of impairment with a bottle of white consumed during the day, but, seemingly, not in the evening.

On the other hand, as you are a UKIP supporter, it's no surprise really that you still happily subscribe to the long gone 50's social perceptions...."one for the road old boy ?" .

Whilst I would defy anybody on here who was driving in the 70's to deny they never drove under the "two pints and no more" rule of thumb in that era, times and social perceptions change. To save you asking, yes I did.

However, the winds of change started at the end of this era and have gathered pace ever since. Personally, I favour a zero limit.

rh200
7th Dec 2014, 06:17
am I correct in thinking that there is a zero limit in Australia

Used to be 0.08, now down to 0.05. A lot of mine employers have random breath tests, and your required to be 0.

Why the zero, from an employers view point and the duty of care legislation and all the others that go with it, their stuffed if you have an accident and there is a trace in your system.

Basically they say they can't argue from a legalize viewpoint that you weren't affected by that trace amount. Well thats their excuse anyway.

So what is a safe amount? Without getting into an emotive argument, it depends upon various factors. once you start getting down to the very low levels, then there may be other dominating factors affecting your judgment and reaction time.

Think of it as an equation with dominating factors. Lack of sleep for example is one than can affect you far more than low alcohol levels. As for statistics, as usual you need to be aware that its hard to work out in a lot of situations if it was the alcohol that caused it, and hence if was going to happen anyway.

Amelia_Flashtart
7th Dec 2014, 06:44
rh200 - on the mine sites I have worked on in Australia in the past 5 years you are tested at the start of your shift (mandatory) and must register 0.00%. If you are a permanent employee and you blow numbers, you are sent back to camp. You have three chances. After three offences your employment is terminated. If you are a contractor - you are terminated immediately.

If you are involved in any incident / accident at all, you are drug and alcohol tested and if you register over 0.00% - again it is termination regardless.

Any external contractors coming on to site to carry out work must undergo a full drug and alcohol test.

Most camp messes are now dry or serve only mid-range beer or premix.

Workers are encouraged to self monitor as breathalyser units are placed at the camp and you can test yourself before you go to shift. If you blow over 0.00% then you call in sick. If you do this no action is taken against you.

On my last site workers were also tested before flying or driving out. If you were over 0.00% you were sent back to camp.

Most of the mines I have worked in have been too remote for anyone to slip to the pub for supplies. Your rooms were also checked for drugs and alcohol.

Not all mines have these policies, but those that do have the least accidents, and the staff have no issue with the rules.

Heavy equipment and alcohol or drugs are a lethal mix on a minesite. Pretty simple really. It's also in your employment contract - so if you don't like it then you don't have to take the job.

TWT
7th Dec 2014, 07:25
Booze buses,as they are called in Oz,do alcohol and drug testing.They frequently block off a main road and test every single driver.Sometimes,during a blitz,they can have 10-20 cops on duty.



http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2009/12/28/1225814/047308-victorian-booze-bus.jpg

Fliegenmong
7th Dec 2014, 07:43
Yes TWT, one notorious site here on the Goldie, main highway out of town, northbound, across a bridge, no chance of evasion..the road is simply blocked entirely....gotchya!!

I do object to the disruption caused by road blocks at 7, 8 or 9 in the morning, trying to capture those that had a big night before.....that's akin to hiding speed cameras in rubbish bins....in short, opportunistic revenue raising

OFSO
7th Dec 2014, 07:45
Interesting to know from reading your post, K & C, that there are people who drink alcohol to get drunk. Must be a UK thing.

probes
7th Dec 2014, 07:46
Think of it as an equation with dominating factors. Lack of sleep for example is one than can affect you far more than low alcohol levels. As for statistics, as usual you need to be aware that its hard to work out in a lot of situations if it was the alcohol that caused it, and hence if was going to happen anyway.
ok, but as alchohol (and drugs) are the easiest to control (theoretically at least), why not eliminate that factor?

Fliegenmong
7th Dec 2014, 07:48
Interesting to know from reading your post, K & C, that there are people who drink alcohol to get drunk. Must be a UK thing.

Never visited the fair shores of Oz then OFSO?? :hmm:

OFSO
7th Dec 2014, 08:01
Sadly no. I am told I am missing something.


Here in Spain being drunk/visibly intoxicated is regarded as a disgrace.

Krystal n chips
7th Dec 2014, 09:19
Interesting to know from reading your post, K & C, that there are people who drink alcohol to get drunk. Must be a UK thing.

Now where did I say that ?

Interesting to know from your own post that, consuming a bottle of white wine does not impair you in any way and thus allows you to drive..... safely.

Have you ever thought about writing a thesis at all ?....for the benefit of the Police / Coroner / Emergency services / Legal world, all of whom, I am sure, will be intrigued to learn of their complete misunderstanding as to the effects of alcohol...... and the subsequent life threatening impairment that results when you drive.

Exascot
7th Dec 2014, 10:26
We have a 'booze bus' here as well but people phone around with its location. It was out of action for months because someone sabotaged it. All of the garages here said that they didn't know how to fix it so they towed it to Francistown. The garages there were phoned up from friends here and they all decided they couldn't fix it either. It ended up being fixed in Gaberone.

The wine boxes from SA here say 'Don't drink and walk on the road you might be killed' Does this mean take your car instead? :E

mikedreamer787
7th Dec 2014, 10:33
In the future I hope the mods never insist
on a zero blood alcohol limit for JB posters.

Some of my best shit is written when I've
been on the turps... :\

OFSO
7th Dec 2014, 10:33
and the subsequent life threatening impairment that results when you drive.

No life threatening impairment is "subsequent"when I drive.......most dangerous thing I ever have in my hands, a steering wheel, and I'm always aware of that fact every time I start the motor, no matter whether it's five a.m. and I'm threading my way across the snow-bound mountain passes or coming home with shopping at five p.m. in the sun.

Capetonian
7th Dec 2014, 10:53
I'm for the zero limit and zero tolerance of breaches, which, despite some valid arguments against it, is the simplest for drivers to adhere to and for authorities to enforce. The current mishmash of different limits across borders, different testing methods and tolerances, and so on, doesn't work.

No legislation will ever make us completely safe against drunk drivers, but it makes sense to tackle this problem where possible.

I was quite shocked last night after dinner to see a large and loudmouthed woman who'd been on a nearby table, and who'd had several glasses of wine, pick up car keys, gather her family, and walk unsteadily towards a powerful German car, get into the driver's seat, and drive off. There were two other adults in her party and two children, nobody tried to intervene.

cattletruck
7th Dec 2014, 11:04
Let me start by saying firstly, and I think everyone agrees, that it is really tragic to lose someone from being a victim of drink driving, what a waste. But we also lose people from not being a victim of drink driving.

As someone who visits Greece annually I remain appalled at the loss of life on their roads - drunk or not, I've seen it all and more there. However drinking remains a huge part of their culture.

I have a mate over there who drives quite well when drunk, better than most when sober. He is a seriously hard drinker, actually a hard man, when he was a uni student he was walking home with his mates one night when a drunk driver ploughed through them killing his mate and seriously injuring him.

His driving skills whether drunk or not are well above average, he's very experienced at doing both. I'm not defending all drunk drivers, I've seen some horrible things on the road, but this guy is very good with his vehicle control considering the amount of alcohol I've seen him consume - I guess he's just become really good at it over time.

He does know his limitations though, a few times I've seen him delay the drive home after a drinking binge or even stop at the side of the road for a snooze, I think he knows himself well and that is why he keeps surviving.

On the other side of the coin, I have seen others who get sh#t-faced for the first time in a long while and you definitely wouldn't want to get into a vehicle with them.

Myself, only once was I forced to drive under the influence, but it really was a matter of life and death, and on reflection turned out to be an absurdly funny story bouncing along the unpredictable lines of the vicissitudes of life.

OFSO
7th Dec 2014, 11:10
However drinking remains a huge part of their culture.

In Spain you sit down to a three course lunch and a bottle of wine is frequently included with the meal, that's in the price of the meal, usually around €10-€15 Mondays to Fridays. You are asked red white or rose, but that's it. You may drink one glass or the whole bottle: it's up to you. It's what is called "being responsible".

BabyBear
7th Dec 2014, 11:16
I doubt there will be many lives lost to drivers in the 50mg - 80mg bracket, consequently I question the claim for reducing same.

Be interesting to see the numbers specific to this and not to get carried away with total deaths caused by drunk drivers, as man seem to be doing. After all until the change deaths caused by drivers between 50mg and 80mg were not, by definition, caused by drunk drivers and therefore are not included in the figures for such.

BB

Sop_Monkey
7th Dec 2014, 11:36
I'm for zero tolerance. If I am going to drive, I wont have any alcohol 12 or more hours before. The reason is simple, we don't know how much even one unit will effect us, whether it be reactions or the breathalyzer reading. One thing is for sure our reactions are slowed significantly.

If you're going to drink, don't drive. If you have downed any alcohol, don't drive.

BabyBear
7th Dec 2014, 11:43
I'm not suggesting the level of 80mg should be reinstated, however taking it to the extremes you do, Sop_Monkey, is a little OTT. If there is any residual ill effects 12 hours after having a glass of wine or two I suggest they are of much less significance than countless other factors which influence performance.

BB

Krystal n chips
7th Dec 2014, 11:50
You may drink one glass or the whole bottle: it's up to you. It's what is called "being responsible".

That would be an interesting excuse to offer to the police....." I was being responsible by drinking the bottle ".

Personally, I would call anybody doing so as being a complete pillock.....

al_renko
7th Dec 2014, 12:43
Anyone who is affected by one class of beer or wine etc and is over the limit should make an appointment with their GP,they must be sick or something!

radeng
7th Dec 2014, 12:50
Back in about 1961 or so, there was an article in either 'New Society' or 'New Scientist' about a study done by a US university - I think it was in Iowa. They found that drivers with up to 20mg were actually more careful than those who hadn't drunk at all, because they realised that they had a drink.

The complications of ketosis are another matter. We learnt about the body's conversion of alcohols to ketones in chemistry....

G-CPTN
7th Dec 2014, 12:58
http://www.touncertaintyandbeyond.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/4863482255_ccf9c54f72_z.jpg
Anyone who is affected by one glass of beer or wine etc and is over the limit should make an appointment with their GP,they must be sick or something!

OFSO
7th Dec 2014, 13:21
Anyone who is affected by one class of beer or wine etc and is over the limit should make an appointment with their GP,they must be sick or something!

I agree completely.

One comment after re-reading the posts is that quite obviously many people accept it is usual to go out to a bar or a "pub" in the UK to have a few drinks.

I have never understood the pleasure of doing this. You could count the number of times I've been out for a 'drink' in the past 50 years on the fingers of one hand.

And I think driving after consuming alcohol on an empty stomach is reprehensible.

My previous posts in this thread refer only to alcohol consumed with food, and usually over a period of some hours. And because I don't sleep well with a full stomach, this is always at lunch time.

K & C, nanny always warned me against people like you.

Krystal n chips
7th Dec 2014, 16:16
" My previous posts in this thread refer only to alcohol consumed with food...."

" K n C. nanny warned me about people like you "

Well, if nanny warned you, possibly you were enjoying her hairbrush too much to pay attention....or, she was knocking back the gin at the time...no matter.

I never had a nanny, but, the Police in the form of innumerable public campaigns warned me... and several million others.. about..... people like you.....

And I think driving after consuming alcohol on an empty stomach is reprehensible

Love it ! the level of hypocrisy makes you a classical Mail reader and UKIP supporter !

Stuffing half a suckling pig and chips down your gob, whilst knocking back a bottle of wine, does not ensure you are safe to drive.....it just delays the effect before you become a life threatening liability to yourself....... and everybody else. it's the "everybody else" bit that is the cause for concern you understand.

This may clarify, for your benefit, what most of us already know.

A Glass of Wine :: Myths About Alcohol (http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall05/garcia/myths.html)

Of course, if you can provide scientific / medical / legal evidence to the contrary which can prove unequivocally your theory is correct, then a rapt world awaits that evidence here on JB.

Mechta
7th Dec 2014, 16:21
A friend's lodger, who worked at the main A&E hospital for our area, was compelled to go to work to report that he had flu (presumably due to the number of people who call a sickie just for a day off). He was certainly in no state to drive and would not have been pleasant company on public transport either. Behind the wheel he would have been many times more dangerous than a driver on the drink/drive limit, yet he would have received disciplinary action if he had not gone in for them to assess his state of health.

This was about five years ago, so I can only hope this stupidity has ended.

419
7th Dec 2014, 16:44
Stuffing half a suckling pig and chips down your gob, whilst knocking back a bottle of wine, does not ensure you are safe to drive.....it just delays the effect before you become a life threatening liability to yourself....... and everybody else. it's the "everybody else" bit that is the cause for concern you understand.

And by delaying the onset of the effects of alcohol, you may well have finished driving long before those effects are felt so eating whilst drinking can make sense in some instances.

Krystal n chips
7th Dec 2014, 17:06
And by delaying the onset of the effects of alcohol, you may well have finished driving long before those effects are felt so eating whilst drinking can make sense in some instances

Of course...how remiss of me and the police / A& E / emergency services not to take this into account... on that basis, we might as well repeal all that drink / driving legislation as well.


I see you have London as your location.....if you decide to prove your theory, please try and get the encounter with the Met. recorded...they will, I am sure, be delighted to hear your rationale in this respect.

MG23
7th Dec 2014, 17:40
If you're going to drink, don't drive. If you have downed any alcohol, don't drive.

So if I've had a beer and my girlfriend has a serious asthma attack, I have to call an ambulance and wait however long it takes, rather than drive her to the hospital that's five minutes away?

As I understand it, the vast majority of deaths caused by drunk drivers in the UK are people well over the existing legal limit. All a zero limit does is criminalize many people who are causing no harm to anyone, and bring the law further into disrepute. It's prohibition by the back door.

419
7th Dec 2014, 17:58
And by delaying the onset of the effects of alcohol, you may well have finished driving long before those effects are felt so eating whilst drinking can make sense in some instances

Of course...how remiss of me and the police / A& E / emergency services not to take this into account... on that basis, we might as well repeal all that drink / driving legislation as well.

What do you find so hard to understand about the fact that food slows down the rate of alcohol absorption into the body so therefore it will take longer before you reach and pass the prescribed limit for dring driving?
If it takes longer, you may be able to drink whilst eating and drive home whilst being below the limit.

al_renko
7th Dec 2014, 19:05
I also have to inform everyone on this matter,that
I have been in the company of drivers who have not consumed any of the amber nectar who are and remain downright dangerous.

Sop_Monkey
7th Dec 2014, 19:08
Look MIG

Your question tends to point to me being a moron. Of course anyone with a half a brain would drive her to the hospital. The same reason I would break every aviation law if I had too, in an attempt to save a life.

My point is how do you know when you're over the top before driving in a normal non emergency environment? The only sure way is not to drink before driving. Or do you have a way of checking you're ok to drive after a unit of alcohol, for example? The answer is, you don't know. Therefore it is a guess, so if you do get behind the wheel with alcohol in your body, you are taking a risk of being done for drink driving and worse, putting your life as well as others at risk.

In this scenario I don't think I'm the moron.

Fareastdriver
7th Dec 2014, 19:10
Think of the block who has been to a party the night before and gets picked up because a light bulb packs it in and he is just over 50 mg.

Three years ban, £400 fine.

Serve the basteward right!

Can't drive so loses his job. Doesn't live near a bus route so is now unemployed.

Serve the basteward right!

He now goes on jobseekers allowance, can't pay the rent so gets housing benefit. In a couple of weeks he has recuperated the £400 and is now set up for three years.

Government now plus £400 and a nice warm feeling but minus £45,000 in benefits.

TomJoad
7th Dec 2014, 19:38
Tough call indeed Fareast, as tough as the parent's who have to live with the anguish of the loss of a child to the same drink driver who was just over the limit? I think the worth of the new law is in its simplicity - you drink - you should not be driving.

Tom

goudie
7th Dec 2014, 19:39
Government now plus £400 and a nice warm feeling but minus £45,000 in benefits.

Nobody said law enforcement comes cheap

Krystal n chips
7th Dec 2014, 20:14
What do you find so hard to understand about the fact that food slows down the rate of alcohol absorption into the body so therefore it will take longer before you reach and pass the prescribed limit for dring driving?
If it takes longer, you may be able to drink whilst eating and drive home whilst being below the limit

What do I find so hard to understand ?

The pious and weak excuses offered in support of the indefensible perhaps ?

The "ever so slightly flawed logic" that is proposed as being rational in that, if you have a meal, then, it's fine to drink as well because...you're eating.

That in 2014, there are still those with the intellectual capacity of a granite block who feel they are capable of defying the normal metabolic processes of mere mortals, get into a mass of machinery weighing say 900kgs....travel at varying speeds with varying road conditions and varying driving skills of other road users, whilst having had alcohol with their meal.

It really is dead easy to understand.....go out for a meal, have a drink, enjoy yourself...just don't drive thereafter.

Walk, take a taxi. take public transport, get a sober driver...just don't drink and then feel you are safe to drive...because you are not.

Difficult to comprehend it would seem.....

om15
7th Dec 2014, 20:38
Can't drive so loses his job. Doesn't live near a bus route so is now unemployed.

I remember working in the Netherlands some years ago and discussing this, I seem to recall that if you lost your driving licence for a misdemeanour, you were still able to ride a very low powered scooter or moped in order to get to work, seems like a very sensible idea, and prevents the situation described by FE.

Capetonian
7th Dec 2014, 20:48
In Belgium and I think France and Italy, they have small cars which can be driven without a licence, I think they have a 50cc motor and are officially called a 'quadricycle'.

Having seen them on the roads, I think they are rather dangerous to the user, since they are very slow and flimsy, but if one were to hit a pedestrian or cyclist, the latter would come off worst. They also cause frustration to other road users.

I find it absurd that someone who has lost their licence after a drinking (or other) offence should be allowed to drive a powered vehicle on the public road, but then it is France and Belgium ........

Flash2001
7th Dec 2014, 21:17
I guess that another question is: Could you pass the license test with 1,2 maybe 3 drinks in you? If you could, then you're no worse than a newly qualified driver.

After an excellent landing etc...

419
7th Dec 2014, 21:57
That in 2014, there are still those with the intellectual capacity of a granite block who feel they are capable of defying the normal metabolic processes of mere mortals, get into a mass of machinery weighing say 900kgs....travel at varying speeds with varying road conditions and varying driving skills of other road users, whilst having had alcohol with their meal.

The link that you provided earlier was where I found the information that states alcohol is absorbed into the body slower if it is taken along with food, so it does in fact alter the normal metabolic process.
FACT: Eating a meal while drinking alcohol does slow down your body's absorption of alcohol, but it does not prevent it. You will only get drunk slower.


It really is dead easy to understand.....go out for a meal, have a drink, enjoy yourself...just don't drive thereafter.
I don't see anything wrong with having a meal and a drink then driving providing that the alcohol is in moderation and the driver isn't close to or above the legal limit.
In fact, in my very first post on this thread I stated that I was in favour of the limit being lowered.

Be truthful now KnC.
Do you act as arrogant and rude to people who have a different opinion to you if you are having a face to face discussion or only when hiding behind the safety of a computer screen as you seem incapable of writing a single post without insulting at least one person.

Pappa Smurf
7th Dec 2014, 22:35
You have to put a figure on the "limit"as it is easier to control.
No 2 people are the same when it comes to alcohol for various reasons.
Empty stomach,tired etc have an effect on everyone.
If you drink lots each day,then give it up for a few months,when drinking again you find the "jelly legs" set in long before they used to.
In the younger days a friend was paraletic and had an argument with a tree on the way home.Was only .11,yet another mate who looked completely sober blew .18.
Maybe the American sobriety test is the way to go.If you get effected by alcohol easily you want pass.

Union Jack
7th Dec 2014, 23:15
I find it absurd that someone who has lost their licence after a drinking (or other) offence should be allowed to drive a powered vehicle on the public road, but then it is France and Belgium ........

.....and in certain of the United States, provided that the driving is only for the purposes of travelling to and from work. Known as "Limited Driving Privileges" in North Carolina as an example, and permitted only under very stringent conditions, it certainly gets round the major issue of consequential job losses that we experience in the UK.

Additionally, and using NC as an example again, there are variable permissible blood alcohol concentration according to factors such as offenders being aged under 21, commercial drives et al.

Jack

tdracer
7th Dec 2014, 23:24
All a zero limit does is criminalize many people who are causing no harm to anyone, and bring the law further into disrepute. It's prohibition by the back door.


I originally supported MADD on this side of the pond - when the focus really was getting drunk drivers off the road. However I stopped when it became apparent that their end game was in fact prohibition.


I don't think any sane person is in favor of people driving while significantly impaired - be it by alcohol, drugs, or extreme lack of sleep. The vast majority of drunk driving fatalities are either young people (at least in this country not even old enough to legally drink), or repeat offenders that are several times the legal limit. Let's focus on getting those people off the road.
When we start criminalizing people for stopping to have a pint with your mates after work, everyone loses.

con-pilot
7th Dec 2014, 23:25
.....and in certain of the United States, provided that the driving is only for the purposes of travelling to and from work. Known as "Limited Driving Privileges" in North Carolina as an example, and permitted only under very stringent conditions, it certainly gets round the major issue of consequential job losses that we experience in the UK.


I think that in some states that travel exemption is expanded to driving to church* on Sundays as well. Also, there is a breathalyzer connected to the ignition of the car and the car will not start if any alcohol is detected on the driverís breath.

* No communion wine for them. :p

Loose rivets
7th Dec 2014, 23:42
For which the driver pays. And it's a bloody expensive device. So I'm told.


Well, I went to the yacht club lunchtime and mindful of this thread reduced to one pint of cider in 3 hours. The trouble is, bar talk is encoded in a very strange way and needs alcohol to awaken the decoding sections of the brain. I fear one pint leaves the incoming conversation sounding like utter bo-lox.

Krystal n chips
8th Dec 2014, 05:22
419...

About that link you quoted....the one that, in your opinion justifies drinking and driving...if you are eating.....try reading it again and you may note the bit you omitted...."The only safe way to drive is being sober ".

Be truthful now KnC.
Do you act as arrogant and rude to people who have a different opinion to you if you are having a face to face discussion or only when hiding behind the safety of a computer screen as you seem incapable of writing a single post without insulting at least one person

Well, how can I put this in response to your sanctimonious question, or rather the start of the question.

I've never been tolerant of " fools and idiots" ( those advocating drinking and driving for example meet both criteria ) , those who have a perception of themselves as being somehow "important ", those who feel they have a right to impose their self perceived "authority" without fear of being contradicted....and those who are basically pretentious pillocks, accustomed to getting their own way and being fawned over by others. Invariably, but nor exclusively, they have right wing philosophies....strangely enough.

Normal people however, are fine.

If it's any consolation to you, I will be sending myself a new Christmas card this year....the last one is over 20 years old and needs replacing.

probes
8th Dec 2014, 07:38
I guess that another question is: Could you pass the license test with 1,2 maybe 3 drinks in you? If you could, then you're no worse than a newly qualified driver.
the actual question, or problem is - you never know how the drinks work on you on that specific occasion (tired, food/no food, things like that). Therefore, if you have a glass of wine, you know that it's a risk. If the limit is not zero, it's not a risk.
And I'm not a pious person to never have risked. Still, it has to be zero.
Although drugs may be a more serious issue already. Harder to find out, too.


P.S if something happens, you'd certainly wish you were zero.

Capetonian
8th Dec 2014, 07:59
I think Probes makes a very valid point there, and certainly one of my reasons for 'no bottle before throttle' is that if I were involved in an accident and breathalysed, there could be no accusations of alcohol being a factor.

Some years ago I was stopped in a routine road-block near CPT, late at night, and asked to get out of the car. I stepped out and being naturally clumsy, tripped on the metal barrier conveniently placed by the traffic cop, who clearly wasn't a Mensa member, next to the car. I grabbed the door to steady myself and this to him was 'proof' that I was drunk. I let him make the accusation and was then arrested and taken for a blood test which proved ......... zero.

The compensation I claimed from them for wrongful arrest was enough for a few good bottles of Stellenbosch's finest!

cornish-stormrider
8th Dec 2014, 08:38
Oh the ignominity, or summat.

I actually agree with KnC......

It's hardly rocket science is it?
Going out, take an extra tenner for the cab home.

Live too far, then go with friends.

Have no friends? Either stay home and drink or take money for a cab.

I really do not want to meet you, pissed up behind the wheel.
Neither does anyone else.

419
8th Dec 2014, 09:12
I really do not want to meet you, pissed up behind the wheel.
Neither does anyone else.

Well seeing as the maximum I drink with a meal and then drive is 1 pint, you never will meet me "pissed up behind the wheel"

Capetonian
8th Dec 2014, 09:20
Oh the ignominity, or summat.

I actually agree with KnC......I haven't read KnC's 'views' on this topic but if he supports no drinking then I too am in agreement with him.

This will no doubt cause him to change his view so that he can launch one of his childish and envious tirades against me, and he will probably trawl through my postings of the last 15 years and find somewhere where I said I'd driven home after a Tia Maria coffee or a half of shandy, thus proving I'm a liar, hypocrite, UKIP supporter, frog basher, EU hater and right wing fascist (all of which is true!)

Fareastdriver
8th Dec 2014, 10:18
I'm just waiting for Ayatolla Sturgeon to ban smoking; anywhere.

Fliegenmong
8th Dec 2014, 10:24
Pretty sure CASA flight crew limitation is 0.02% BAC....think this is to accommodate for the bodies sometimes natural production of alcohol (endogenus ethanol production?? or some such thing) or to allow for cough syrup consumption etc.....

Good points made about being in an accident and being 0%, fair enough.....that said I still believe that doubling the Oz limit from 0.05% to 0.10% is the way to go.....but you know, I hate government interference, and no one has ever yet adequately, or even at all, explained the logic behind a 0.05% limit arbitarily introduced 30 odd years ago...

And to be fair, you don't think this is an easy one for revenue raising???? I AM NOT in favor of people being pi$$ed and driving, before you start.....but like speed cameras.....they raise revenue....and a type of tax......my local pollie really doesn't give a flying F&*k about me (as evidenced by their policies)......but I am (even more) potential revenue.

As an aside, 3 weeks ago I was heading out through the hinterland to a horse stud. On a winding country road, a copper heading opposite direction to me hit his brakes, performed an illegal U turn across a double white line on a bridge!!!!, in order to chase me down. I duly stopped in the driveway of a local Army barracks, and when interrogated by the Cop I gave the answer of '90' when the question was asked of me 'Do you Know the speed limit here?'

Well, for 30 odd years it HAS been 90, just recently reduced to 70 :hmm: .... because of numerous recent fatalities....none of which have ever been reported in the local news, and every fatality here gets reported in the local news!!

So bad cop hops out of patrol vehicle now, dressed in black and orders me to 'blow into the bag'........now this one had me a little worried, as I'd had a big one the night before....and a beer with lunch, maybe an hour beforehand :uhoh::uhoh:

When I finished blowing Mr smart arse cop rolled his eyes and walked off....I had to shout out, excuse me.....by way of curiosity?? How much?? ....0.00%

:D,....thought being hung over may have been a factor.......

Anyway, be aware of changing speed limits with no apparent reason. and in my case on this day, hung over and a hair of the dog beer for lunch I still blew 0.00%! :cool:

probes
8th Dec 2014, 10:36
I'm just waiting for Ayatolla Sturgeon to ban smoking; anywhere.
:D excellent idea! :E


P.S, sorry, rgb :sad:

cockney steve
8th Dec 2014, 10:42
On the very rare occasions I go out for a meal, a glass of wine or a 1/2 pint of beer is the lot. I don't go to pubs to drink.

France,outwith the conurbations, is extremely sparsely populated, Roads are well- maintained, no edging-stones,often no level verge,fairly narrow, far from straight. To compound this, population is very sparse, a quick look at a map will show small hamlets of under 20 houses predominate in rural areas. there is no public transport, no street lighting.

The Microcars, such as Ligier and Aixam, are a warmer, dryer, more convenient alternative to a moped / motorcycle / Quad "bike". They have, nominally, 4 seats. as the design speed is ~40 MPH, the performance, even 2-up,is hardly going to set the pulses racing.
I think they are an excellent compromise to France's rural trnsport problem for those who do not hold a car-licence for whatever reason.
Their lack of crash-protection is also an incentive to the driver to be prudent . If you think that is bad, perhaps the UK Gov't could mandate that banned drivers are allowed to pilot the motorised bog known as the Sinclair C5.....Oh, wait, they did, and C5 went bust :}

MagnusP
8th Dec 2014, 11:31
I'm just waiting for Ayatolla Sturgeon to ban smoking; anywhere.

Well, that's the Scottish salmon industry stuffed, then.

Groundbased
8th Dec 2014, 13:37
Moderate night out say 4 or perhaps 5 pints, walk home and in bed by 11.30.

I suspect most people would blow 0.1 - 0.2 the following morning at 8.30.

Drink driver?

This is where I think a zero limit (ahem) falls down.

Fareastdriver
8th Dec 2014, 15:57
How much alcohol is produced by a home bread maker amd how much is left after the baking process? Or will you find out if you are breathalised.

Krystal n chips
8th Dec 2014, 17:03
I haven't read KnC's 'views' on this topic but if he supports no drinking then I too am in agreement with him.

Thank you, I am indebted for your support in this matter.

May I therefore, by way of reciprocation, offer my own unstinting support for your own perceptions. True, the list is no means exhaustive, presumably your modesty prevented this from being the case, but, overall I would concur with your self analysis.

I am bemused as to why you included the words childish and, in particular envious, when I have managed to successfully have relationships with women, have had no travel "dramas" have managed to eat in Chinese restaurants without, allegedly, being attacked with a machete ( although I am still confused as to what a Chinese Hole in the Wall is...do you enter a menu number and the food gets squeezed out through a tiny grill ?) and, have a spam free PC !.

This will no doubt cause him to change his view so that he can launch one of his childish and envious tirades against me, and he will probably trawl through my postings of the last 15 years and find somewhere where I said I'd driven home after a Tia Maria coffee or a half of shandy, thus proving I'm a liar, hypocrite, UKIP supporter, frog basher, EU hater and right wing fascist (all of which is true!)

Paracab
8th Dec 2014, 18:24
My own take on the British attitude towards driving having consumed alcohol and getting behind the wheel at the moment is that it's fine, as long as you beat the breath test; indeed current law fully supports that.

Another way of thinking is, would you prefer to have 34 mcgs on board if a toddler ran out in front of you, or would you rather be clear, therefore giving you every chance of dealing with an emergency situation to the best of your ability?

Food for thought I think - whether we like it or not, alcohol, even in very small amounts impedes our motor skills. There are variables of course, at twice the current prescribed limit the average person is fifty times more likely to be involved in a fatal RTC, a heavy drinker only (!) twenty seven times more likely.

The zero limit is not that far away IMHO.

radeng
8th Dec 2014, 20:28
Except the zero limit will catch a lot of innocent people whose metabolism for one reason or another produces a false reading. Now if it were to be a case that everyone caught by a false reading could, after a zero alcohol blood test, be awarded compensation for all their costs (including loss of earnings) AND get something around £1000 tax free for every 8 hours in custody, then I could JUST go along with it.

Paracab
8th Dec 2014, 20:37
My understanding is that breathalysers can/will be calibrated to disregard any potential 'background' natural/mouthwash alcohol.

radeng
8th Dec 2014, 20:50
What about ketosis?

Fliegenmong
8th Dec 2014, 20:56
Still stand by doubling from 0.05 to .01 down here, and after 30 years not one can tell me why 0.05 was 'the figure'....

radeng
8th Dec 2014, 21:02
Because some w***ker picked a number out of a hat?

Amelia_Flashtart
9th Dec 2014, 05:46
Here's the science behind the 0.05 limit Flieg

This is one of the simpler papers - the others are a great cure for insomnia:)

Alcohol and driving: is the 0.05% blood alcohol concentration limit... - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16840263)

probes
9th Dec 2014, 08:54
Except the zero limit will catch a lot of innocent people whose metabolism for one reason or another produces a false reading.
but 0,05 (or whatever) will not produce false readings for those innocent people?


Just asking.

Fareastdriver
9th Dec 2014, 09:10
would you prefer to have 34 mcgs on board if a toddler ran out in front of you

Whose fault would it be? The driver's or the parents.

fitliker
9th Dec 2014, 09:42
The number one name chosen for baby boys last year was ?
No communion wine for those boys.
Just a matter of time until all alcohol is banned and women banned from driving.
All in the name of safety :)

Fliegenmong
9th Dec 2014, 10:16
Whose fault would it be? The driver's or the parents.

Tis never the Parents fault FAREASTDRIVER!.....witness another Nanny state law in action that contributes to the gummint coffers.......law Pool Fences!!!

:ugh::ugh:

probes
9th Dec 2014, 10:27
Just a matter of time until all alcohol is banned and women banned from driving.
All in the name of safety.
Oh, thank you very much, indeed...
although you might have a point! :E (at least so my husband says, but he's wrong, obviously, as I haven't destroyed our gate and he has... mainly because I wouldn't reverse a lorry with no rear view at all, but that's irrelevant of course :p)

Whose fault would it be? The driver's or the parents. isn't that a great consolation when you're trying to get the mental picture of the injured or dead toddler out of your mind.

fitliker
9th Dec 2014, 12:50
I was not explicit enough,I do not share the mysoginists view of who should or should not be allowed to drive .I was merely alluding in perhaps a too cryptic manner in an attempt not be inciting ,but insighting. As the demographics change so will the tolerance to our traditional values and use of alcohol.
The anti-alcohol patrols in some communities are reminiscent of the old temperence movements and the anti-gin leagues.
As the number one boys name last year in the UK is that of a particular religion that forbids alcohol and extreme forms of that cult forbid women from driving or being out of the house without a chaperone.
Almost as bad as the wee free in Scotland who also tried to ban alcohol and fornication.Although judging by the low birth rates in the wee free communities they may have successful at one thing.

rgbrock1
9th Dec 2014, 13:20
Here in the U.S. alcohol consumption is measured by Blood Alcohol Concentration or Content (BAC). In most, if not all, States the limit is 0.08

A person's BAC level is the result of a complex interaction of weight, gender, alcohol consumed and time.

rgbrock1
9th Dec 2014, 13:21
Just a matter of time until all alcohol is banned and women banned from driving.

The former would be an outrage, the latter? Not so much. :E:E:E

Exascot
9th Dec 2014, 14:40
There is a load of sanctimonious pompous twaddle on this thread. Let he who has never drunk and driven cast the next stone. That should end this discussion. I have been drinking since 09.00 and driven all the way home from our night stop with glass in hand. The only other boat on the lagoon was a friend who intercepted us for a beer.He was driving as well.

Blues&twos
9th Dec 2014, 20:36
Ok Exascot, I am a former lorry driver. I have driven ambulances. I used to drive 35000 miles a year in my own car (now down to a meagre 18000 for the last 10 years). I have held my licence for 27 years.

I have never drunk & driven. Not even a half pint of lager.

Just sayin'.

Fliegenmong
14th Dec 2014, 02:59
Just blew .045.......faaaarkk!!! that was close! :eek::yuk:

12 hours after last drink.......? Maybe the machine was broken....

Lucky!...

..still copped a $400 speeding ticket [email protected]!!!...He seemed almost upset I didn't blow over the limit :mad:

fitliker
14th Dec 2014, 11:11
It is just the thin end of the wedge.The slippery slope ,once THEY get the alcohol banned from cars ,They will start to remove it from bars,restaurants,pubs........etc.
Just how will we remove the grease in our mouths from our bacon butties if we cannot rinse out with some strong still products ?

bcgallacher
14th Dec 2014, 11:18
Fitliker - was it not the Wee Free's policy that you could have sex on Sundays as long as you didn't enjoy it?

Fliegenmong
14th Dec 2014, 11:20
Fitliker....make no mistake....I was (Accidentally) a Bees dick away from committing a criminal offence....

The officers disappointment in not being able to nab me was telling....enjoy working Sundays you Narcissistic A$$hole!!!

cattletruck
14th Dec 2014, 11:38
Whilst we argue the merits of drink driving here like mostly civilised folk, sadly there are those out there who no matter what the alcohol limit is set at, no matter how many times they have been fined, and no matter how many times they lose their driving license, they simply cannot make the connection between dring driving and dangerous behaviour and will continue to re-offend regardless of what the alcohol limit is.

Having a zero alcohol limit doesn't accurately address the drink driving problem.

TBirdFrank
14th Dec 2014, 19:33
That was exactly the point I was trying to make earier.

The latter day puritans who have taken over our world - where the hell did they come from? have no sense of moderation or discrimination.

Ban it is the only language they seem to understand - like "hang them" or "immigrants out" As for take a taxi - for me that would be the £50 pint - now that really is not on.

I like to go out and socialise, but I grew up with the breathalyser and have always been content with no more than a pint and a half at most, and have never had either an accident realted to a night out, or been pulled over for a test, in 47 years of driving.

I believe that if a survey of those who follow this level of consumption were actually totalled up nationally that would be very much the majority finding.

However - if you upped the alcohol consumption before such a survey to three pints, then five, then seven - or the equivalent spirits measurement, I am willing to bet that the statistics would soon show a different and increasingly frightening story.

It is NOT the social drinker or the low quantity drinker who should be targetted - it is the inconsiderate - of their own or anyone else's lives type who doesn't give a toss, drunk or sober about what the results of their actions could be. They will always down what they want and drive anyway. They need catching, and stopping.

Unfortunately we now live in a world of protocols and codes - not of responsbility or consequences for our actions. You are only statistically significant if you are caught. The number of traffic cars is being reduced - you only get breathalysed if you are very unlucky. The temptation to chance it and the catch me if you can mentality is being encouraged - and as I said at the outset, it is the normal reasonable type that is taking the hit.

I am grateful that I lived largely in a fairly liberal era. I fear for the kids.

ExSp33db1rd
15th Dec 2014, 00:48
Mrs. ExS once decided to leave her car behind and travel home with me - we could collect her car the next day -as she had consumed a small amount of wine with lunch.

I was stopped and was cleared - not been drinking - and drove on. Mrs. ExS. then suggested that we go back and have her tested, and if she was below the limit then we could collect her car and she could safely drive herself home.

Returning to the check-point I was once again tested, tho' the Hofficer recognised me from a few minutes previous, and having once again wasted his time Mrs. ExS. asked to be tested herself, and explained why. The Hofficer refused, telling her to present herself in her car then they would decide. She refused. I did a U-turn in front of the Hofficer as he watched, and as I approached the check point again he stopped me once more !!

Now tell me that this is all about road safety and not revenue gathering.

I totally agree with TBird, nothing will stop the those determined to drink and drive, the rules will only penalise the, generally, law abiding.

World's Gone Mad.

finfly1
15th Dec 2014, 01:17
In my locality in NY they have taken some rather more effective steps to combat this problem than merely writing tickets or suspending a piece of paper.

If a driver is stopped for DWI and is going to be arrested, a quick check is made to find out whether he/she has a prior DWI conviction (not arrest) on their record. If they do...the car is impounded!

This is far more effective that breath interlocks or suspended licenses. The idea that the problem cannot be dealt with is of course utter nonsense, as Saudi Arabia and Singapore demonstrate. And obviously, if the car were impounded on the FIRST offense, additional lives could be saved and property not destroyed.

My opinion is, too many people make too much money off drunk drivers for politicians to ever want them to disappear entirely. Hand wringing is so much more satisfying than actually combating the problem.

Krystal n chips
15th Dec 2014, 01:44
The latter day puritans who have taken over our world - where the hell did they come from? have no sense of moderation or discrimination.

Ban it is the only language they seem to understand - like "hang them" or "immigrants out" As for take a taxi - for me that would be the £50 pint - now that really is not on.

I like to go out and socialise, but I grew up with the breathalyser and have always been content with no more than a pint and a half at most, and have never had either an accident realted to a night out, or been pulled over for a test, in 47 years of driving.

I believe that if a survey of those who follow this level of consumption were actually totalled up nationally that would be very much the majority finding.

However - if you upped the alcohol consumption before such a survey to three pints, then five, then seven - or the equivalent spirits measurement, I am willing to bet that the statistics would soon show a different and increasingly frightening story.

It is NOT the social drinker or the low quantity drinker who should be targetted - it is the inconsiderate - of their own or anyone else's lives type who doesn't give a toss, drunk or sober about what the results of their actions could be. They will always down what they want and drive anyway. They need catching, and stopping.

Unfortunately we now live in a world of protocols and codes - not of responsbility or consequences for our actions. You are only statistically significant if you are caught. The number of traffic cars is being reduced - you only get breathalysed if you are very unlucky. The temptation to chance it and the catch me if you can mentality is being encouraged - and as I said at the outset, it is the normal reasonable type that is taking the hit.

I am grateful that I lived largely in a fairly liberal era. I fear for the kids.

TBF,

We both grew up in the same era near enough.

The emphasis on not drinking and driving has increased significantly over time from then...you must remember the adverts about "one for the road"...to now and, it's got nothing to do with "ban this and that " or latter day puritans.

It has a lot to do with educating the population that drinking and driving is a lethal mix.

You are correct about the lack of traffic patrols however. Round here, you will rarely see West Mercia's finest and the locals know it....there's a major arterial road I use frequently, and in the last 6 years, I've seen two ANPR checkpoints....and no sign of the police other than then.

I was following a BMW two weeks ago....his brakes worked....a lot !....and the credible impression of a sine wave as he drifted over the double white lines and then towards the verge for the 10 miles I was behind him suggested he was far from sober.

He's but one of many you encounter on an almost daily basis.

I'm hardly a fan of authority and those who seek to impose their authority, but I am a supporter of not drinking and driving.