N.Ireland lower drink drive limit.

redped

moonrakerz wrote: »

I am afraid statements like that are meaningless without a lot more information to go with them - what percentage drink ? what percentage drugs. How many were killed by drivers NOT impaired by drink or drugs ?

Good question - as I didn't make the statement, I don't know! I had a look at the PSNI's statistics website (not very interesting), and found the following - http://www.psni.police.uk/content_-_news-drink-driving-campaign-2.

Every year the PSNI sets up a large number of vehicle checkpoints during December, to (a) catch drink drivers (and detect those on drugs), and (b) act as a deterrent. In last year's report, they say "During last year’s operation (i.e. 2009), we carried out over 5,780 roadside preliminary breath tests and detected 414 drunk drivers."

I assume these 414 people were prosecuted, and will have lost their licences as a result. I would also assume this action prevented a number of accidents, and potentially saved lives. If the legal limit is reduced then, assuming the same percentage of people drink & drive, the figure of 414 will increase. I would also conclude that this will prevent a higher number of accidents, and save a higher number of lives.

I agree that a large number of accidents are caused by either people on drugs or non-drink drivers. This is something that should also be addressed, but IMHO reducing the legal alcohol limit is better than doing nothing.

Just found some more info, which may help in answering your questions. From http://www.psni.police.uk/10_11_recorded_injury_rtcs-2.pdf:

"The most common causes of fatal and serious injury road traffic collisions in 2010/11 were ‘excessive speed having regard to conditions’ (84 collisions), ‘inattention or attention diverted’ (81 collisions) and ‘impaired by alcohol – driver/rider’ (72 collisions)"

So alcohol was the third biggest cause of collisions in 2010/2011.

scheming_gypsy

Those 414 people would have been taken to the police station and had a full breath test or blood test. So only a percentage (could be 100%, could be 6% or somewhere in between); the preliminary tests are the road side tests; once they're shown to be over the limit there they get arrested and taken for the official tests. If you're only slightly over the limit at the roadside then you'll probably be clear on a blood test.
Which could also be why they're quoting the preliminary test results and not the actual results (highest of the two)

Lum

414 is a better number than, say, 187 or however many were actually found to be legally drunk on the proper, reliable, blood or urine test done at the station..

Lowering the BAC limit will make the numbers higher and make the number look even better. Look how great we're doing because we detected 4897 drivers with unlawful levels of alcohol in their blood of which none of them got to be tested by an actual reliable machine, and only 180ish were actually impaired in any way clearly this new policy is working and totally doesn't criminalise people who aren't any danger to anybody, please vote for us!

tuggy12

Spike Milligan analysed this in 2001, just before he died, with his conclusions as follows:

Of all the road traffic collisions in the UK in 2001:-

80% occurred when neither driver had been drinking.

15% occurred when one driver had been drinking.

5% occurred when both drivers had been drinking.

" Therefore, if everybody were to drink and drive there would be fewer accidents ";)

redped

Lum wrote: »

414 is a better number than, say, 187 or however many were actually found to be legally drunk on the proper, reliable, blood or urine test done at the station..

Lowering the BAC limit will make the numbers higher and make the number look even better. Look how great we're doing because we detected 4897 drivers with unlawful levels of alcohol in their blood of which none of them got to be tested by an actual reliable machine, and only 180ish were actually impaired in any way clearly this new policy is working and totally doesn't criminalise people who aren't any danger to anybody, please vote for us!

Ah, but if the number detected rises (to say 4897) based on a lower limit, then it follows that the number of "actual" legally drunk people will also rise from 187.

I don't see how "only 180ish were actually impaired in any way" and "totally doesn't criminalise people who aren't any danger to anybody" are valid. ANY level of alcohol in the bloodstream impairs the human body, and any impairment (be it alcohol, drugs, tiredness, etc.) increases the risk of an accident (see http://www.doeni.gov.uk/roadsafety/justonescientificsummary.pdf).

Reducing the limit isn't about making numbers "look even better" or winning votes - it's about saving lives. Yes it is only one element of a plan to improve road safety, but the less families who have the police arriving at their door to tell them their relative has been killed in a traffic accident the better.

A._Badger

redped wrote: »

Reducing the limit isn't about making numbers "look even better" or winning votes - it's about saving lives. Yes it is only one element of a plan to improve road safety, but the less families who have the police arriving at their door to tell them their relative has been killed in a traffic accident the better.

If politicians were in the slightest concerned about that they could achieve a vastly greater effect by banning motorcycles.

This is just dog whistle politics designed to thrill tiresome neo-puritans.

cardinalbiggles

Lum wrote: »

That bit worries me as the breath test isn't something I would consider reliable enough for actually convicting people.

It's a reliable way of convicting people. If you don't like it they will do a blood test instead.

redped

A._Badger wrote: »

This is just dog whistle politics designed to thrill tiresome neo-puritans.

I assume that jibe was aimed at me. Far from being a "tiresome neo-puritan", I'm actually someone who wants to see the number of people killed on our roads reduced. I don't want to stop people from enjoying themselves by having a few drinks (especially as I also drink), but it's not difficult to either arrange a designated driver or get a taxi, rather than getting into your car afterwards.

You are obviously okay with people dying needlessly in road accidents, which seems bizarre.

whatmichaelsays

redped wrote: »

Reducing the limit isn't about making numbers "look even better" or winning votes - it's about saving lives.

I disagree. Statements like that are a catch-all claim that doesn't actually deal with the issue.

Say we keep reducing the legal limit. Somewhere along the line, there becomes a plateau whereby we can't reduce road deaths any more but yet, we'll be putting more and more drivers before the courts. With the number of people on the roads in this country, its an inevitablity that some will bump into each other.

Lowering the existing limit doesn't deal with the most dangerous element of drink drivers. All it does is take them from 2-3 times the legal limit to 3-4 times the legal limit. Therefore, all you are actually going to achieve is criminalising the small proportion of drivers that, in truth, don't really create much of a problem (if any at all).

It's why a "zero" limit would never work, because it is perfectly possible to drive unimpaired with a marginal level of alcohol in your body. Do we really want to be clogging up magistrates across the country with people who have been stopped after having a chocolate liquour after their evening meal?

scheming_gypsy

tuggy12 wrote: »

Spike Milligan analysed this in 2001, just before he died, with his conclusions as follows:

Of all the road traffic collisions in the UK in 2001:-

80% occurred when neither driver had been drinking.

15% occurred when one driver had been drinking.

5% occurred when both drivers had been drinking.

" Therefore, if everybody were to drink and drive there would be fewer accidents ";)

that'll probably go over Redped's head as well