N.Ireland lower drink drive limit.

AlexisV

So somebody having two glasses of wine at night could be over the limit driving to work at 7 the next day.

giraffe69

First of all it is an idea of the Environment Minister rather than a piece of legislation so whether it sees the light of day in the form he says or another form or no form at all is yet to be seen. Secondly whatever you think of any drinking and driving 0 is a particularly stupid limit. It is quite possible to have a drink or two on Day X and still find traces in your blood on Day Y albeit at a very low level. Do we really want the courts dealing with people who had a glass of wine yesterday or perhaps a liqueur chocolate today? It's also not a great idea, whatever the limit, to start having different ones according to where you are in the UK.

Lum

SailorSam wrote: »

If i were making the law i'd go along with Teagan and make it zero.

Then I'm glad you two aren't making the law, since your proposal would also ban people taking certain medications, such as Ciclosporin, from ever being able to drive.

It would also criminalise anyone who accidentally swallowed a bit of mouthwash that morning - especially with the new clause to make failure of the roadside breath test be sufficient to gain a conviction.

cord123

I dont think that having two glasses of wine in the evening would be traceable the next day ..... to get a bottle of wine out of an average womens system is takes about 12 hours.....

I think it should be made zero. Many people drive nowadays do rotating who drives on a night/lunch out is very easy..... i cant understand our culture of needing to drink to have a good time - but perhaps that is me!

whatmichaelsays

I'm going out on a limb here but I'd wager that most drink driving offenders and indeed, most accidents, are the result of people being considerably over the drink drive limit, rather than just a few mgs. I know shows like 'Traffic Cops' aren't exactly representative of the UK as a whole, but it seems that most drunk drivers caught on there tend to be 2/3times+ the legal limit.

I believe that most police forces won't even bother prosecuting anyone between 36-40mg, even though they are over the limit and even if they tried to, by the time a blood test could be done, you'd probably be in the clear. Do we need to reduce the limit further? When do we get to the point where we aren't actually making the roads safer, despite putting more and more people before a magistrate?

moonrakerz

Totally agree with the last post. This idea smacks of another politicians "we must do something" idea.

The police will probably support it because they will be able to catch more "drink divers" and tick more boxes to show how effective they are, whilst ignoring even more real crime that is going on around them.

It WILL NOT catch any more of the the heavy drinkers who habitually drive well over the current limit.

Lum

And the reactions on this thread show why all these badly thought out "be seen to be doing something" policies that don't actually do anything are always such good vote winners.

They do it all the time. Look at the current stories about tackling incapacity benefit fraud for example. They made the means test much much harder to pass, meaning that lots of current claimants now failed the test then reported that 70% of current claimants are now fit to work. In many cases this is blatantly untrue and people are suffering real hardship due to the goalposts having been moved, but the headline number looks bloody awesome!

Labour pulled the same crap in the early days of speed cameras. Installing them at sites which had seen an unusually high number of accidents that year, sites that would likely have had a lower number anyway, then used it to justify a massive and expensive programme that actually worsened the rates at which RTAs were falling and didn't even bring in much of a profit, but it looks good, looks like they're taking road safety seriously.

Now it's just lowering the BAC requirements to ensnare more perfectly safe drivers in the name of reporting bigger numbers. If they really wanted to get at the dangerous ones, they would introduce a US-style "impairment test", e.g. the old-fashioned "can you walk in a straight line" only hopefully with a more scientific basis. This sort of test would also catch drug drivers and excessively tired drivers as well as other conditions that would mean you shouldn't be driving.

Problem is it would require spending actual money, having proper police on the roads, would be costly to run and the numbers wouldn't look as nice. They'd be quietly dealing with the real dangers on our roads, but they wouldn't be seen to be "doing something".

The Daily Mail readers would never stand for it.

jase1

I would be in favour of a zero limit for drivers (with certain medical conditions excluded) who have recently passed their test, or drive for a living.

But I think the main change I would make would be to punish drink drivers much harder than they are already. Mandatory (lengthy -- 3 months minimum) jail sentences for anyone caught over twice the limit for a start.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who drink and drive. If it takes the complete destruction of a few thousand families' lives through jail terms to get the message through, so be it.

spike7451

jase1 wrote: »

I would be in favour of a zero limit for drivers (with certain medical conditions excluded) who have recently passed their test, or drive for a living.

But I think the main change I would make would be to punish drink drivers much harder than they are already. Mandatory (lengthy -- 3 months minimum) jail sentences for anyone caught over twice the limit for a start.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who drink and drive. If it takes the complete destruction of a few thousand families' lives through jail terms to get the message through, so be it.

That's the target area according to the news I heard on R2 earlier.

seeke

The current 0.8 legal limit is rather high. My understanding is that in almost every non-uk jurisdiction it's 0.5.

In fact, 0.8 is ridiculously high. For your average 13 stone man, we're looking at about 2.5 pints/5 units. To be definitely over the limit, this hypothetical chap would need to consume 6 units. But get this, the body absorbs alcohol at approx 1 unit an hour. This means that most men of normal weight could consume 8 units over say, two hours, get into their cars, and, though borderline, pass the breathalyzer. How many of you, honestly, would feel competent to drive after a lunchtime pub session where you drank 4 pints of beer? More or less, thats what .08 means.

0.5 would mean that the same guy would be able to consume roughly 3 units over the same time. This is a pretty sensible level at which to set the limit. Though still high enough to affect judgement and reaction times, much of the residual bloodstream alcohol would soon burn off, and anyway, I doubt that a level under 0.5 would be happily enforced.

I know you're tempted,but don't go out, drink four pints of lager then drive on the basis of my calcs! Everyone differs in body weight and speed of absorption. And besides, the limit really is too permissive.