new drink driving laws.

Paradigm

DrScotsman wrote: »

Surely this entire debate boils down to one thing: Whether or not there is scientific evidence that 50mg significantly impairs you compared to 0mg?
Assuming the pint brings you to 50mg: If there is evidence that 50mg significantly impairs you then this theoretical guy is clearly not being responsible! There's no way to argue he is!
If there's no evidence then that's fair enough.
If the pint doesn't bring you to 50mg then he's not being criminalised.

So come on guys, let's see some evidence.

I think you'll be struggling there The only large scale study I can find was done in the early 60's by the inventor of the breathalyser!

His findings were that at 50mg there was little or no increased risk. Given that this study is 40 odd years old, using the technology available then & that statistics can be slewed to suit any purpose, I don't know how reliable it is now!

The findings from this study were used when the UK limit was set at 80mg as it found that the risk increased dramatically at 100mg+

Best I can do at the moment

Paradigm

If you want to read the North report (the guy who's proposing the change) it's here http://northreview.independent.gov.uk/report in pdf format.

It's not light reading

cyclonebri1

Been thinking too much. If bread and gord knows what else, ripe fruit?, for example, contain alcohol, would anyone ever have zero, as in 0.0000% alcohol in their system?

So the bar cannot be set at zero.

Devils advocate mode I supose but.............

jimbms

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Been thinking too much. If bread and gord knows what else, ripe fruit?, for example, contain alcohol, would anyone ever have zero, as in 0.0000% alcohol in their system?

So the bar cannot be set at zero.

Devils advocate mode I supose but.............

Quite correct but from my understanding zero means at the highest possible level of natural background alcohol without taking a known alcoholic substance. Also bckground alcohol levels can vary rapidly and can also be eliminated by type via blood analysis machines that countries having zero levels use as the basis for prosecution.

cyclonebri1

jimbms wrote: »

Quite correct but from my understanding zero means at the highest possible level of natural background alcohol without taking a known alcoholic substance. Also bckground alcohol levels can vary rapidly and can also be eliminated by type via blood analysis machines that countries having zero levels use as the basis for prosecution.

And this is how vague that could get, bread, fruit and others are "known alcoholic substances". Consider mouthwash, cough medicines etc and zero = impossible;)

tomstickland

Paradigm wrote: »

If you want to read the North report (the guy who's proposing the change) it's here http://northreview.independent.gov.uk/report in pdf format.

It's not light reading

I'll read that when I have some time (next few days).

jimbms

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And this is how vague that could get, bread, fruit and others are "known alcoholic substances". Consider mouthwash, cough medicines etc and zero = impossible;)

That's the point, there are machines that can seperate alcohol found in items such as these from that type found in drinks.

Paradigm

tomstickland wrote: »

I'll read that when I have some time (next few days).

Good luck to you We'll compare notes when you have

shandypants5

jimbms wrote: »

That's the point, there are machines that can seperate alcohol found in items such as these from that type found in drinks.

Are there?

I would like to see some evidence of these machines if you have a link.

cyclonebri1

shandypants5 wrote: »

Are there?

I would like to see some evidence of these machines if you have a link.

Sounds like a pretty expensive piece of kit if it does exist,