Safe Speed Forums

Good point.

I think a lot of these cases of 'accidental' drink driving may arise from the nonsense that is 1 pint of beer = 2 units and 1 glass of wine = 1 unit. While this may well have been true during the war, the reality is now that even the 'weaker' largers they sell in pubs like carling or fosters would have about 2.5 units per pint. A 250ml glass of red, at 14%abv has over 3.5 I believe.

Its easy to see how people get confused but I firmly believe the majority of people caught drink driving knew what they were doing and only use the "i only had 2 drinks" excuse to get a shorter ban/fine

My pharmacology degree.

There is sufficient body water in an eleven stone man, to comfortably dissolve 40ml of ethanol (4 units) without the concentration of ethanol exceeding the legal limit.

Exactly. Who's going to stand up in court and say in mitigation "I'm very sorry, I had 8 pints and knew I was well pissed but I didn't think I would get caught"?

Fair enough, it works in theory, but does it actually work in real 11 stone men? Has it been tried and tested?

I'm asking because I don't know.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Neither does passing the driving test.

Let's assume that testers with the accuracy margins and calibration of, say, a car speedometer were available. Would you advocate their use?

The situation is analogous to speed. You can be unsafe both below and over the limit. You have a meter to guide you as to your compliance with the law but, in the end, you make your own decision on what is safe.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I really would hope that extensive research on this nature has been conducted by the government in relation to their drink drive and general alcohol policies.

I doubt it would be freely available in the public domain as in today's climate of 'have none for the road' they wouldn't want to publicise how much booze drivers could safely get away with.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Yes I think it would, this is one of my concerns. Especially if it were shown that drivers were not significantly impaired at this level.


Correct me if i'm wrong, but countries with this limit, on the whole have lower penalties than ours, from which could be inferred that 'low end' drink driving of this nature is considered less serious.

Could this lead to an increase in drink drive related incidents, and encourage people to think drink driving is no big deal?

I think there's a lot of truth in that. Currently there is little sympathy for anyone convicted of drink-driving, but with a 50 mg limit a lot of offenders in the 50-80 range would feel badly done to and the widespread acceptance of the law would be eroded.

Now where have we heard that before?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Pure conjecture and supposition Peter. Maybe people would wake up and smell the coffee and simply stop drinking if they are driving, which is ultimately the overall aim.
And anyway, you earler said you didn't know where Fisherman was getting all of his marginal offenders from, you believed the average BAC for offenders to be 160. Where would all these marginal offenders who would feel hard done by suddenly come from if the limit were lowered?

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Alert! Alert! Logic failure!

You may wanna rethink this bit mate!

Surely we DON'T want to stop people driving lawfully within the current limit. We want to reduce accidents and injuries. Having a target of reducing the blood alchohol in drivers from 80 max to 50 max is completely a red herring. Reducing accidents and injuries should be the target or is that harder ? It takes more time and thought. Trouble is it does not produce the quick soundbite for the politicians and media.

Richard

Am from the drink zero if you drive school of thought

However, since we are not prosecuting those currently driving whilst impaired on some substances (und I do not just mean alcohol ),
just simply reducing the set limit seem a bit silly.

From what I gather from reading all the various press reports - it does seem that the "roadside random" only occur at Christmastime or Football Final Days. Most copped are only copped if policeman check out an accident scene or if they spot car with blown bulb und something make them think person might have had a drink recently.


I think people will still continue to have a drink but not really realise that they are running foul of the lowered legal limit when or if it come into force.

If people do lose licence for drinking a half pint of whatever - then people may not roll eyes und call the person a right twazak. It may even take stigma of the drunk driver as they are not appearing drunk with such a low level.

However, the logic of the low limit? Some do get a bit "squiffy" after one drink but usually many decent folk out there know it affect them so they tend not to drink anyway.

As for the proposals "to bring us into line with mainland Europe"? I think the argument really lie in the penalty difference. Fine with points up to our current level qwith discretioanry ban for repeat performances. They start the mandatory ban at our current level.

The other logic?



Well - that down to blind faith in scams/humps/lowered limits whatever but fewer s


When France introduced its 1000 speed cams - they also increased number of dedicated traffic officers to pull up the drunks/non seat belt wearers und all other really dangerous types.

It appeared to work the right way in reducing incidents with cams in the right place und policement doing the job properly (Though some might disagree when copped on autoroute.

But rule of thumb? Just have a glass of water with twist of lemon or lime. It does clear the palate effectively. You enjoy the taste of the food all the more

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Nope, I'm perfectly happy with it. Peter believes that under the current regs there are not as many marginal fails as Fisherman claims. He also believes that, in effect, people won't necessarily change their behaviour and will be caught over the new limit.
Bearing in mind the consequences for the individual will be equally as dire as they are now I believe responsible people will alter their behaviour and drink less - they'd be bloody fools not to. Ergo, the number of marginal fails will remain the same.
Admittedly the above is also based on speculation and conjecture.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

An interesting site I have just found.

Not read all through it yet but what I have read seems to make sense!

http://www.80mg.org.uk/

D

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

In a very obese man of that weight with a lot of body fat there may well be enough water.
In a fit individual of the same weight with very low body fat there probably won't be.

In any case you can't make accurate predictions from weight alone.

As a pharmacologist you will be familiar with the work of Egland and Landry who have done a lot of work in this field - work which does not seem to support your assertion.


Bold added by me. Original can be found at
http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic19.htm

No one.

But we do see a number of people who believed that 2 drinks/4 units/over 11 stone etc etc would leave them legal. They often go to great lengths to prove what they drank. All of which does them no good at all because its the level that counts not how you got there.

I find it very unpleasant to convict someone who did what they thought was right and kept their alcohol intake within the commonly accepted wisdom. I think its those people who would benefit from a lower limit.
If they know that one drink is too much, some of them at least wouldn't drink.

This document is sometimes quoted in court by the defendant. Especially the bit that says



There is a small amount of truth in the medical emergency bit, but VERY few situations would be considered to be serious enough for a defence to be sucessful.

It is not possible to make an exceptional hardship claim when faced with a disqualification for drink driving. So, job or no job, you lose your licence.

Good site Dusty. I knew for a while that small amounts of alchohol actually reduced accident risk. The government couldn't officially recognise this as it would "send the wrong message". Does this mean that we should ensure all drivers have at least one pint - purely in the interests of safety ! It does highlight how (for the government )
a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

Richard

Hi Fisherman,
Don't you think that the 99.9999% of the population can decide for themselves. Ban the rest if required. As on another thread by Mole :
Educate don't Legislate

The more people know or learn the less they get into trouble. Banning any drink at all could INCREASE risk of accidents. This is without taking into account the respect for the law and the police declining.
I think the way forward is to get more traffic police on the roads catch the risky drivers.

Richard