new drink driving laws.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Judas wrote: »

Only because of the repercussions. Of course we could make the law equal and only charge drink drivers who kill someone. a year a death fair?

No need. We have the technical capacity for establishing objective measures of alcohol in the body.

A._Badger

It's interesting to see the political classes hiding the real story here. It's not even remotely about drinking and driving - it's a proposal being promoted using faked figures to suit an EU demand for identical levels across its empire.

As usual it's a 'report' whose conclusion was settled long before it was commissioned.

The real menaces - the idiots who drink six pints then drive - will carry on, regardless of the limit, just as they do now. But at least a few bureaucrats in Brussels will be happy.

tomstickland

This whole topic falls foul of the current obsession wih reductionalism. Personally I think the zero tolerancers are failing to take an overall view on the risks that surround us all of the time. The risk levels from a pint of 3.5% beer are going to be tiny and well within the noise floor of the other statistical factors.

The original studies into drink driving found that those who had one drink were safer and the researchers thought that this was due to risk compensation. The driver's thought "I've had one beer, it's dark, I'm tired, let's be careful".

tomstickland

bigbulldog wrote: »

If you drink alcohol then you should not drive no ifs or buts.:)

Why not?
Are you going to apply the same logic to people who've just got off a plane and are going to drive home after 20 hours of travelling? Or talking to passengers, fiddling with sat nav or just plain lack of attention?

Harry_Flashman

Is the system so broken that it needs to be fixed?

There can be alcohol in the system for many reasons other than a boozy night out. How would you feel if you got a conviction because (for example) you'd used a mouthwash that contains alcohol?

shandypants5

Driving causes accidents.

Lets have a total ban on driving, no driving at all, not even a little bit just just for fun.

Just think of the lives that will be saved.

The current law is ok imho.

More should be done to crack down on real boozy DRUNK drivers that ignore the law, not catching hung over drivers on the way to work in the morning.

bigbulldog

tomstickland wrote: »

Why not?
Are you going to apply the same logic to people who've just got off a plane and are going to drive home after 20 hours of travelling? Or talking to passengers, fiddling with sat nav or just plain lack of attention?

Having alcohol in your system(regardless of the amount consumed) is not quite the same logic as talking to passengers or just plain lack of attention? is it now.:eek:

If you have been drinking or going for a drink....Then you dont drive.:)

TiTheRev

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

You shouldn't drive when you are tired, or too ill.
You shouldn't drive when you are under the influence of certain prescription drugs.
We already have a ban on mobiles and the like, and don't get me started on those gut rotting drinks, only a fool drinks those.

We are on the same page my friend. :T

At the end of the day, people are the cause of accidents, but other 'factors' like drink/drugs/phones/tiredness etc all contribute. If it's illegal to talk on your phone and drive, how much MORE illegal should it be to have any[u/] alcohol in your system. If, God forbid, you go out for a night out and get a taxi home, sleep it off and then get in your car for work a little tired/hungover and knock over a kid crossing the road for school, would you EVER drink (even the night before) and drive again? The doubt in your mind as to whether the drink effected your reactions should be the doubt in your mind about having any alcohol in your system before getting behind the wheel.

cyclonebri1

bigbulldog wrote: »

If you drink alcohol then you should not drive no ifs or buts.:)

Not picking on this post in paticular but, from my point of view this is the issue.

I will not drink anything if I am going to drive the same day, I'm quite a "robust" drinker, but can still feel the effect of the 1st drink, actually a much greater effect than any after. I don't know if everyone else gets the same effect but that would be a point scored in favour of the above poster.

The real rub is the morning after effect, and no one seems to be able to get a grasp on that. I think it was the Rev that said "alcohol is disspersed at a rate of 1 unit per 2 hours", something to that effect. My own understanding was "1 unit per hour from 1 hour after the last drink". We simply don't know and I suggest it is going to be very variable between individuals.

Also, there are various devices available, ie, diy breathalisers, that the consiencious driver can use to determine his fitness to drive. But they are just that, breath analisers. They check breathlevels, not alcohol in the blood which I believe hangs around longer and is the measurement used for prosecution? Is there any effective method to determine or have any idea of blood alcohol?.

And to the other posters that sugest we adopt a zero limit, remember drinking is a way of life to the UK community, probably as many drink as drive, you won't stamp it out. There will be hardcore idiots, but the need is for reasonable limits for reasonable people and a method that enables responsible drinkers to self monitor. protecting other road users and themselves from harm or procecution

TiTheRev

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And to the other posters that sugest we adopt a zero limit, remember drinking is a way of life to the UK community, probably as many drink as drive.

...but do you think that this is a good thing??

Surely we need certain rules in place to increase the consequence of abuse of the system. As you so rightly say, alcohol's effect is different for each person, so a zero tolerance policy is surely the best measure as it's absolute.