N.Ireland lower drink drive limit.

redped

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

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

No - surprisingly I actually do have a sense of humour, and always did find Spike Milligan funny.

redped

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

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).

Good points. The problem is that most of us, including me, don't know the level at which alcohol doesn't create much of a problem. In that case, I look at what the scientific experts say (who I assume know more about the subject than I do) - there must be a reason why a number of other European countries have a lower limit than we do, and I assume this is based on scientific advice. In addition, the medical professionals & road safety charities have also been calling for a reduction in the limit, e.g. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/cut-drinkdrive-limit-even-further-charity-16055627.html. These aren't people who are chasing votes, they're people who have to deal with the mess created by drink-driving idiots.

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

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?

There's a sister thread on the Northern Ireland board, where I agree that a zero limit isn't practical.

moonrakerz

redped wrote: »

"The most common causes of fatal and serious injury road traffic collisions in 2010/11 were ‘excessive speed having regard to conditions’ (84 collisions)

....slight change of emphasis there - is this because speed cameras are now falling out of the "things to be seen to have" bracket because people have now seen through the dodgy statistics that were being used to justify them ?

Lum

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

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

Under this new scheme, and there is similar legislation in the pipeline for the rest of the UK, you can be convicted purely based on the breathalyser reading and do not have the rights to a proper test.

Interestingly I heard about a proposed scheme for the Irish Republic where they planned to have a mobile van with the facilities to do proper blood or urine tests and have that at the checkpoints, thus giving reliable results and removing the opportunity for delaying tactics for the legally drunk, as well as removing the inconvenience of those who would otherwise be dragged down to the station based on a bad reading. No idea if this scheme was ever implemented.

redped wrote: »

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.

Yes, which is why I changed the wording to "impaired inany way"

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).

This is true, but there are thousands of things that can cause similar or worse levels of impairment, hayfever and colds, stress, headaches, would you also propose to regulate the amount of histamine in the bloodstream, after all it's about saving lives right?

FWIW, I abhor drinking and driving, I will refuse to drive even if I have just poured out a drink and taken a single drink, largely because if anything did happen that was my fault it would always be on my mind that maybe it could have been prevented if I hadn't had that sip after all that sip was a choice. I know that the chances of this are almost zero but for me consuming alcoholic drinks vs driving is an either/or choice, never an and.

What I object to is the people suggesting zero levels which would have criminalised all of my driving while I was on ciclosporin and I object to this change because I believe that the difference it makes to accident rates will be zero or very close to zero, but it will criminalise a lot of people.

scheming_gypsy

redped wrote: »

No - surprisingly I actually do have a sense of humour, and always did find Spike Milligan funny.

even though it was the same thing that i said?
A sixth of accidents are caused by drink drivers, therefor the majority are caused by sober drivers. Less drink drivers = more sober drivers = more accidents.

scheming_gypsy

Lum wrote: »

What I object to is the people suggesting zero levels which would have criminalised all of my driving while I was on ciclosporin and I object to this change because I believe that the difference it makes to accident rates will be zero or very close to zero, but it will criminalise a lot of people.

doesn't the body produce alcohol naturally as well?
Sure i've read that somewhere

Lum

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

doesn't the body produce alcohol naturally as well?
Sure i've read that somewhere

Yes, that can happen, one reason is a genetic mutation that some people have, more common is that any yeasts that may be living in your body produce it while they digest something you just ate.

zappahey

seeke wrote: »

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

That may be so but how do the penalties compare? In Belgium, for example, you need to be over 1.5 to be automatically taken to court. At 0.5, it's a fairly small fine.

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/C.pdf

zappahey

redped wrote: »

According to Alex Attwood (via the BBC):

"over the past five years, 75 people had been killed and 463 seriously injured by drivers impaired on drink or drugs"

Northern Ireland isn't a huge place (population of just over 1.5 million), so I personally find those figures to be very high.

They might be high but they mean nothing in the context of the proposals.

As someone else asked, how many of the 75 were caused by those impaired by drugs? Are we to assume that the alcohol impaired were over the current limit?

The real question is how many deaths were demonstrably caused by those with BACs between the current levels and the proposed new level.

Frankly, those who ignore the current limit will continue to ignore the new limit and the death rate will not change.

Just for the record, none if the above is in defence of drunk driving but I do get hacked off with populist politicians misusing statistics so they can be seen to be "doing something" and they can exploit the hard of thinking.

redped

Lum wrote: »

FWIW, I abhor drinking and driving, I will refuse to drive even if I have just poured out a drink and taken a single drink, largely because if anything did happen that was my fault it would always be on my mind that maybe it could have been prevented if I hadn't had that sip after all that sip was a choice. I know that the chances of this are almost zero but for me consuming alcoholic drinks vs driving is an either/or choice, never an and.

I agree entirely - I personally don't believe it's worth the risk, and when I'm out for a meal with friends then either my wife or I'll have a drink, with the other one driving.

Lum wrote: »

What I object to is the people suggesting zero levels which would have criminalised all of my driving while I was on ciclosporin and I object to this change because I believe that the difference it makes to accident rates will be zero or very close to zero, but it will criminalise a lot of people.

As I've already said, I don't believe a zero limit is practical (both on this thread and the sister one on the Northern Ireland board), which is why I haven't said there should be one. What I do agree with is reducing the current level to bring it into line with a number of other European countries. I don't know what impact prescription medication has in terms of BAC, but I'd be very surprised if it raised up to the proposed 50mg limit (although I'm not a medical expert).