Safe Speed Forums

The document you quote has some phrases that bear close scrutiny.

"As a rough guide"
"after about an hour"
"This is an idealised picture as rates of absorbtion vary so much"

In other words it says more or less what I said. You can't predict blood levels of alcohol.



I don't doubt that some do lie. But we see quite a few who are (usually) in the region of one and a half to twice the limit who produce evidence of low consumption. Its fairly common for such people to produce statements from bar staff, waiters and dining companions who swear that they only had two drinks.



Have you actually visited a court and seen any drink driving offences go through? I do that regularly and the majority by far are twice the limit or less in the courts I sit in. That may not be the case where you live.



If you assume that all the alcohol was consumed at once and was absorbed immediately, you tested the liver function of the person, you know their body weight, you calculate their cardiac output and have a fairly good guess at their circulating blood volume. All of that would enable you to make an educated guess.
But its not real world.



I don't. But I could guess.

Edit- A bit strong.


Are you serious? Sorry Malcolm but I am utterly incredulous that anyone could try to make such a statement with any real conviction.
How can an individual make an objective decision about whether they should drive when we know that alcohol affects, amongst other things, our powers of reasoning and judgement?

_________________
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.

This is the main point I have been trying to make.
To arrive at a situation where people will know if they are legal we must either drop the limit to a very low level or allow drink driving.
Dropping the limit to a low level will let drivers know that even one drink is to many to drive immediately. It won't help morning after drivers. I hope you would agree that allowing drink driving is not a sensible move.




In other words, they used their judgement.
As does every driver every time he makes a decison about overtaking, turning across oncoming traffic, going through an amber light etc. All of whom will only make the move if its safe ie will not damage their car or see them in court.
Significant numbers of drivers find out every day that there judgement was faulty - and they were the sober ones. There are lots of grey areas when it comes to the affects of alcohol on drivers. One area that is certain, is that booze doesn't make you a better driver.

I'm out of the UK until around the end of June... If I remember when I get back (not a guaranteed "cert"!) I'll dig it out.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Just to get a few things clear, I absolutely do not condone driving while impaired by drink, drugs, tiredness etc.

Using my own experience, which I assume will be broadly similar to other humans, I can sense the effect of one bottle of strong lager or one large glass of wine. This amount is insufficient to affect my gross "powers of reasoning or judgement" so I don't go on drinking blithely imagining all is OK. Instead, I know this amount is marginally affecting me and thus would not drive. It is this early individual judgement at low levels which people should exercise.

I support the existing laws which give a strong and hugely observed warning against drinking and driving but allow society to function practically. The reported recent rise in drink driving is related to lack of enforcement which should be corrected.

To go back to my question, can anyone think of another offence where the citizen cannot tell if he is breaking an objective limit set in law?

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

There's speeding, of course, given the possibility of wrong speedos or missed signs.

With drink drive, it's usually easy to know that you are fully compliant. Once you have started drinking it takes up to a couple of days for certainty to return.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Hi Fisherman,
It seems that lots of first pass research has been done. Most of this does not give the real life data needed. What I would like to see is what effect does blood alchohol level have on accident risk. From the only scientific approach we have ( based inthe 1960's - see the ABD site ) It seems little REAL LIFE CRASH RISK is involved by drivers using the current law. What this discussion seems to say is we need more scientific data to enable the real effect of levels to be found. Don't forget we have no scientific control studies for speed cameras. And here the over all death rate on our roads has stopped declining since we had them. The scientific world is full of cases of using early data not properly researched. Cold fusion being one of them.

The science at the moment for the causal link between blood alchohol level and accident risk is in it's infancy.

In my view the way to minimise deaths and accidents is :-
1/ Leave current level as is.
2/ Enforce with more traffic police.
3/ Undertake the real world research.
4/ If statisticaly significant benefit then lower limit.

The current mess with speed cameras was probably caused by knee jerk political reaction. which is probably happening now to cover up our terrible death rate on the roads.

Richard

Sadly - many people do not know when they've had enough or will just chance "the short ride home"

Best practice to me is just not to have one drink. Stick to the orange juice or the tonic with just ice and a dash of lemon.

If you want a drink with a meal - then use a taxi. Solves the parking outside the restaurrant problem as well.



True. I think we have a problem in some areas whereby normal patrols will not stop "because it does not feature on their "set target"" per a southern based colleague discussing this on the R4 a few days ago. He was from the South by the way. He did say that such a pull featured highly on the RPU "targets" - but that they were "under-resourced"

However, I can confirm that RPU here places a high priority on collaring the unfit and raising merry hell with them over it.


However, would this lower limit really reduce incidents. Most of the drunks we prosecute have been tested after causing an incident and found to be above the existing limit by more than a small measure.

In the case f anyone testing postive at the proposed change - I could not say postively how far the small amount of booze in their system affected them. I would say though that for a few - even a small amount can go straight to their heads - especially if they have not eaten anything.

But to catch any suspectedly impaired driver, the persistent hand held phone user and the downright incapable - we have to have police officers out there to catch them. The sad reality is that the cameras did not free up trafpol to concentrate on the other offences on the roads: it seemed to place an unnatural focus on speed and automatic devices and served to deplete an essential police service in many areas.

Then we wonder why the "chancers" try it on.



Only way to be sure is just not get behind wheel if you had one drink. Had not realised till Mad Doc spelled it out to me over a pub lunch where we both drank mineral water that certain bathroom and cosmetic preparations also contain alcohol which can get into system as constant but very low measure because of the very frequent useage. He says it probably would not register unless we went for point zero tolerance.

He also tells me that medical forensics can now determine how much someone drank over a sustained period by analysing a strand of hair from your head too as this contains booze residue from the blood around your scalp.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I would be grateful, i have a professional interest in this stuff in addition to the court aspect.

Main reason I am interested is that the Addiction paper from 1993 showed no significant difference in the time taken to complete a task - fractionally quicker with the booze than without it. But it did show a signifcant lengthening of time to react to an emergency situation.

I don't care how long it does or doesn't take a driver to get home. I do care how long it takes him to react to a dangerous situation.

Agree most definitely with InGear on this one, no drinks is the best policy where driving is concerned.

I rarely drink alcohol at all yet when i do/did i can tell you that even though i would have been well under the drink drive limits id still not have been anywhere near as safe as if id had none.
If in doubt, shanks pony or a taxi.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

In Gear, I agree with your sentiments regarding drinking and driving. Like you I see more of it, and its after effects, than most people.

In my case I often see victims in the course of my work. Ordinary decent people whose lives have been wrecked after a head injury caused by a drunk driver.
As a JP I also see the effects on people who have been convicted. A very recent one I saw was a driver who had ben stopped for a defective brake light and then breath tested. He blew 42 and ended up in court.

His driving job has gone and with it possibly his house as any job he gets won't be as well paid. There is no doubt in my mind he had been careful about what he drank. He had been misled by the common belief that 2 drinks with a meal and you are OK.

A lower limit may, or may not, have a beneficial effect on drink drive accident rates. But in this case I am sure that if a lower limit had been in place, so that he knew for sure that one drink would be too much, he would still have his licence.







For the benefit of anyone who may not be aware of the various limits.

This thread has mostly concentrated on blood levels, whereas in real life the vast majority of tests are breath tests.
The limit for blood is 80 millgrams in 100 milliliters.
The limit for breath is 35 micrograms in 100 millilitres.
The limit for urine is 107 milligrams in 100 millilitres.

I don't think this statement is logical, at all.

If the limit is to be reduced by about 30-40%, as the proposed law change is suggesting, then surely people will either:

A) Reduce the amout of alcohol they consume by a similar proportion, in order to stay legal

B) Ignore the law and continue to drink at their current level.

In either situation, the best case scenario would be that the number of life changing disqualifications (as you describe above)would stay the same; worst case scenario, massively increase. I don't se how they could feasibly be reduced as you're suggesting.

Is there any evidence to suggest that by reducing drink drive limits, the number of people being caught drink driving are reduced? I know that when speed limits are lowered the number of convictions for speeding tends to go up. So, common sense to me, would suggest quite the opposite of what you're suggesting - more people will lose their licences.

I can't think of any situation when you criminalise more people you'll get less crimes being commited......surely thats inverse logic?

As the effects of making an error and being "just over" are so dire, do you think that Intoximeters should be freely on sale to the public in order that they can ascertain their compliance with the law rather than guessing?

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

First of all, you are quite right. It is impossible to know whether or not you are over the limit if you've had a couple of drinks and I can't think of any similarity with another law. But I don't see how this observation alters anything.
The official message is, quite simply, don't drink and drive, however the leeway we are given means the public receives the message as 'drink a bit and you'll be OK'. Once the first few sips pass our lips we are away from the safe shores of certainty and into the seas of uncertainty. So, as the consequences of making an error and being "just over" are so dire, then the freedom of choice presented to a responsible individual should be clear - drink and get a taxi or don't drink and be OK to drive.
I can see that lowering the limit will still result in people gambling around the new lowered threshold. But if it means that, across the board, people are making a better choice by only having (say) one drink instead of two, then there will be less people driving around whose driving is impaired by alcohol consumption. If some still lack the self-disipline to comply and get caught at or around the threshold - tough.

_________________
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.

For discussion:

Wouldn't lowering the limit make drink drive a less serious offence? And isn't that a bad move?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

My view is that a significant percentage of those convicted have fallen for one or other of the frequently quoted - and utterly inaccurate statements -
you can drink 4 units of alcohol and pass a breath test
you are OK if you only have two drinks
you are OK if you drink with a meal

They have done their best to stay legal but failed due to poor information.



If the limit were to be reduced to a point where even 1 drink would put you over I would hope that those people would heed the publicity about failure levels and not drink at all.

Lowering the limit would have no effect on those who are convinced they can drive pefectly well on 10 pints. It would have no effect on those who know they drive badly after one drink but are sure their route home is never policed.
I would hope it would have a beneficial effect on those who do try to stay legal but can't imagine a night out without a drink.

You can already buy breath testers. The one time I have seen one tested a colleague of mine passed on the over-the-counter tester ( an amber light indicating some alcohol but under the limit, no numerical display on the device) and blew 40 on the evidential tester 30 seconds later.

I am not sure how I would feel if an accurate one were to be available.

In any event, being under the limit doesn't prove you are safe to drive.

The vast majority of >11 stone men can indeed drink 4 units of alcohol, even on an empty stomach, and not be over, or critically close to, the legal limit. So I don't know how you have come to this conclusion.

I'm sure from your experience you'll be aware there is some discrepency between what people say they have drunk, and what they have acutally drunk, especially when they are faced with a driving ban.

In anycase, a BAC of 50 limit would not make it unsafe to have just one drink, so would not have the desired effect of effectively prohibiting consumption of any alcohol prior to driving.

I have to say that, while I accept fisherman is speaking from personal experience, I do find his statement hard to believe. I am not saying that no 11-stone man has ever been over the limit after consuming 4 units, but I am sure it is exceptionally rare and not, as he suggests, a commonplace event.

Over the years I have known a few people who have been banned for drink-driving and none has ever said indignantly "but I'd only drunk two pints of ordinary bitter" - by and large they have accepted their fate and felt it has taught them a salutary lesson. In contrast, I have known others who have been breath tested after consuming more than 4 units, sometimes considerably more, and received a negative result. Obviously this is only anecdotal evidence.


Indeed, and they may also have drunk two pints of Stella Artois which would be 6 units, not 4.

_________________
"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

Where are you getting your information from?

_________________
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.