new drink driving laws.

goldspanners

these new drink driving laws that are being recommended,am i the only one who thinks this is another revenue raiser?

how many folk who have between 50mg and 80mg of alcohol have caused serious road accidents?

to me it seems all this law will do is catch out people at the lower end of the scale who are causing no problem.

im against drink driving as we all know how stupid it is,but im against the real drink drivers,the folk who do it constantly, the ones miles over the legal limit who are clear dangers to everyone else.

if i have the car i never even have one pint as i don't see any point in just one. but if i do go out for a night out "binge drinking" then the next day will be a serious gamble whether i drive or not,even if im perfectly sober,the risk of there being 50mg of alcohol still in my blood is higher than there being 80mg.

one glass of wine or one could seriously affect the rest of your life.

i know other countries have similar limits but these countries don't have the same consequences.
loosing your liscence for 12 months and a drink driving conviction on your record for years in this country could seriously affect you depending on your job.

also another point that makes me suspicious about the real concerns is this,
"The transport secretary, Philip Hammond, said he would "carefully consider" the report but would balance it against the possible damage to the drinks industry.
"It is important that we fully investigate the economic and public service resource impact of any suggested changes to the law, taking account of the financial and economic situation."


(i quoted the last part from here)

if its all about saving lives then what has the economy have to do with it?

Mankysteve

goldspanners wrote: »

miles over the legal limit who are clear dangers to everyone else.

if i have the car i never even have one pint as i don't see any point in just one. but if i do go out for a night out "binge drinking" then the next day will be a serious gamble whether i drive or not,even if im perfectly sober,the risk of there being 50mg of alcohol still in my blood is higher than there being 80mg.

Test have shown that your reaction time and ability to drive are still seriously impeded the next morning even if you thing your sober.

goldspanners wrote: »

how many folk who have between 50mg and 80mg of alcohol have caused serious road accidents?

to me it seems all this law will do is catch out people at the lower end of the scale who are causing no problem.

I don't know the exact numbers but I bet their plenty of accident caused by drunk drivers in that band. Different people respond differently to different levels of alcohol while some may be perfectly sober other will be wasted its impossible to set a law to individuals so they must set the levels toward the person who cant handle a lot of alchol

The lower limit is not 50mg btw it is:
35mg in a breath test
85mg in blood
107mg in a urine

goldspanners wrote: »

"It is important that we fully investigate the economic and public service resource impact of any suggested changes to the law, taking account of the financial and economic situation."


(i quoted the last part from here)

if its all about saving lives then what has the economy have to do with it?

Err perhaps the money spent on
A-Policing the roads
B-Police time and money wasted pulling people failing road side test the passing the police station test.
C-The money spent by the police dealing with the accident scene
D-The cost of medical care for people involved in drunk driving accidents

goldspanners

Mankysteve wrote: »

Err perhaps the money spent on
A-Policing the roads
B-Police time and money wasted pulling people failing road side test the passing the police station test.
C-The money spent by the police dealing with the accident scene
D-The cost of medical care for people involved in drunk driving accidents

did you read the article in my link?

this is the part i was meaning, The transport secretary, Philip Hammond, said he would "carefully consider" the report but would balance it against the possible damage to the drinks industry.

Wee_Willy_Harris

The current DD limit is an absolute, pass or fail measure. But you can still be prosecuted below the 80mg. The chances are that the vasy majority of license holders are adults. As such, we are resaponsible for the decisions we make. If yoy are worried about being intoxicated when yotake to your car in the morning, simply drink less the night before. Drinking isn't compulsory.

Alcohol limits are soon converted into handy units of measure (ie 2 pints) and, like speed limits, this has a nasty habit of being percieved as a target rather than a limit.

goldspanners

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

If yoy are worried about being intoxicated when yotake to your car in the morning, simply drink less the night before. Drinking isn't compulsory.

Alcohol limits are soon converted into handy units of measure (ie 2 pints) and, like speed limits, this has a nasty habit of being percieved as a target rather than a limit.

but if you already think your fine to drive in the morning how can you possibly tell if you have more than 50mg of alcohol in your system?

dzug1

goldspanners wrote: »

these new drink driving laws that are being recommended,am i the only one who thinks this is another revenue raiser?

it?

Sounds a good idea if it is - what's wrong with raising revenue?

I think I heard it is estimated to save 100 lives a year.

Wee_Willy_Harris

goldspanners wrote: »

but if you already think your fine to drive in the morning how can you possibly tell if you have more than 50mg of alcohol in your system?

Alcohol absorbtion rates are easy enough to calculate, The more worried you are about your license, the more care you should take. Accurate breath testers are available to the general public. But I will say that the idea isn't to see how close you can get to the limit.

eamon

The present laws are sufficient. But the units of measure needs better explanation and clarification. For example "35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood)" means nothing to most people and is dangerous. In my local 2 pints could easily be 2 pints of Timothy Taylors Golden Best @ 3.5% abv (alcohol by volume) or 2 pints of Lindeboom @ 5% abv or even 2 pints of Westons Old Rosie @ 7.5% abv. As for wine I know of some pubs that sell the equivalent of flower vases.

I know the difference, I suspect that most people don't.

amcluesent

Of course it's another tax raising scam. I expect the politicians will now blather on about 'listening' and make 50-80mg a £500 fine, nothing on the license etc. Pure cash in the bank.

Obviously it's the law of diminishing returns. How many are killed because of drink in the 50-80mg range, vs. those killed by crack heads, illegals and 'seekers' who have never passed a driving test in their lives etc. etc.

You can be sure that the 'estimate' of 100 lives saved (100 - what a nice round number) is a complete sham and dreamt up by the 'great and the good' justifying the cost of this study, all their 1st class rail tickets and long lunches where strong liquor will have been enjoyed.

chris1973

Lower limits and even a blanket ban on drinking and driving are not unique to the UK, so other countries governments must be far more active at 'revenue raising' then?, even the penalties are much harsher in parts of Europe too, over here for a first offence you get a fine and a driving ban, but in some other countries it can be a prison term.

I drove to Croatia a few years ago which has a zero tolerance to drink driving, i.e drinking any Alcohol and then driving will get you into mither. Amazingly all of the pavement cafe's were still full of people enjoying a drink and I wasn't always in a tourist area, these were mainly locals. Perhaps attitudes to drinking are different elsewhere.

In fact the UK has one of the highest existing breath alcohol allowances in Europe. So we are hardly hard done too are we now??. Even non EU countries like Turkey have a 0.0mg limit for cars.

http://www.safetravel.co.uk/EuropeDrinkDrivingLimits.html


I think most people here live close enough to their local or 'a' local to mean that they don't have to risk any drink driving offence, in fact clusters of several pubs, eateries and off licenses can often be seen well within walking distance of most densely populated areas, and even those in rural areas surely have a country inn or a wide enough circle of friends to warrant a rolling designated driver, for nights out.

I used to work in a leisure environment, and it frequently amazed me how many people would binge drink and spend £20, £30 or even £40 over the bar on a night of drinking, yet wouldn't pay a £7 cab fair to get home or even have bothered to have the foresight to pre-arranged their actual means of getting home!.

The only time I would imagine a lower limit being an issue on the wider scale would be driving the following morning after a heavy night.

If the Government really wanted to raise more revenue, if could send patrols out to every Primary School in the UK and fine those irresponsible parents who still haven't got a correct child seat for their little darlings or even got them properly restrained, as I believe that has been law now for several years, yet is rarely seen policed!.

Wee_Willy_Harris

amcluesent wrote: »

Of course it's another tax raising scam. I expect the politicians will now blather on about 'listening' and make 50-80mg a £500 fine, nothing on the license etc. Pure cash in the bank.

Obviously it's the law of diminishing returns. How many are killed because of drink in the 50-80mg range, vs. those killed by crack heads, illegals and 'seekers' who have never passed a driving test in their lives etc. etc.

You can be sure that the 'estimate' of 100 lives saved (100 - what a nice round number) is a complete sham and dreamt up by the 'great and the good' justifying the cost of this study, all their 1st class rail tickets and long lunches where strong liquor will have been enjoyed.

Don't talk soft. Offset a typical DD fine + court costs against the actual costs of prosecution, police time, detention costs, admin, court costs etc. Then further offset it against the probable drop in (tax heaxy) alcohol sales. If it was extra revenue they wanted, thwey would scrap the DD rules altogether!

At ther end of the day, we all have choices. No-one forces drink on us.