Scotland and the new alchohol limits...

[revian]

Saw this...

Having worked for over a decade as an A&E doctor, I can honestly say I have never once seen somebody who's had a car accident due to being under the influence of alcohol who's not significantly over the 80mg/ml limit we have in the UK today. The people who drink and crash are invariably more than 1.5 times the legal limit, and most are 2, 3 or 4 times the limit.

Henceforth, we must expect perfectly safe drivers to lose their driving licenses; and - probably - an increase in cases of depression from lonely people who live in rural areas and will no longer be able to go over to a friend's for a pint.

Any thoughts out there?

Ian

[jont]

I'd rather they were lowering drink drive limits than speed limits....

In rural areas I'd expect it to make sod-all difference as you're unlikely to come across police on the road anyway so those chancing it will probably continue to do so.

I know it's hard to be exact, but roughly what does the old/new limit equate to in terms of amount drunk?

/thinking about it a bit more, I suspect it's more likely to catch people who still have alcohol in the system after a particularly heavy night out, than those who are driving home directly from a pub/friends after a pint.

[fungus]

Whilst alchohol impairs a persons ability to carry out a task, I think that drivers who are near the limit are not the problem. It is the ones who blatantly flout the law who are the problem. IIAC there is evidence that mobile phone use and distraction are a bigger issue. Personally I think the UK limit has stuck a reasonable balance for the past forty odd years, and I doubt that lowering the limit will have much impact.

[akirk]

It is a difficult balance - reduction is always seen as popular / as a populist move - to not, suggests you don't care - and most people don't know what the significance might be of various levels...

also in the balance - different people are affected at a variety of levels of alcohol - smaller people / those who don't drink regularly might be affected at lower levels...

also - too low and people might be affected by alcohol in cooking, esp. puddings etc. - even perhaps alcoholic chocolates!

it isn't easy to work out the right level - but the pressure now is that we are one of the higher levels as a country (England) in the EU...

perhaps lower levels, but with more graduated penalties (from training courses to bans etc.) might make sense...

and agree that distraction issues (and of course drugs) may well prove to be a much bigger issue...

Alasdair

[revian]

I'd rather they were lowering drink drive limits than speed limits....

Yes.. Though I'd be surprised if it's one and not the other... Brake?

I think the case is (?) that 80%+ of accidents involve those who are well over the limit. Lowering it may be justifiable in general safety terms but will not touch those who are 'well over'.

Ian

[GJD]

I don't think the doctor's comments are particularly surprising or insightful - s/he's stating the obvious really.

There are already ways for perfectly safe drivers to lose their licences. It's unfortunate but, depressingly, not surprising that there are still people out there zealous about creating more.

[revian]

I don't think the doctor's comments are particularly surprising or insightful - s/he's stating the obvious really.

There are already ways for perfectly safe drivers to lose their licences. It's unfortunate but, depressingly, not surprising that there are still people out there zealous about creating more.

Agreed.. Though isn't that his point? And isn't this 'obvious observation' missing from the change in the law.

That wouldn't automatically make me against the change but to ask; 'Does 'the change' deal with the problem in a meaningful enough way?"

Ian

[jont]

That wouldn't automatically make me against the change but to ask; 'Does 'the change' deal with the problem in a meaningful enough way?"

Doesn't matter. Legislation these days is created by politicians who are only interested in the appearance it gives (not the actual result it achieves) and how it plays in the media (and therefore how it plays into their chances of re-election).

[TripleS]

Saw this...

Having worked for over a decade as an A&E doctor, I can honestly say I have never once seen somebody who's had a car accident due to being under the influence of alcohol who's not significantly over the 80mg/ml limit we have in the UK today. The people who drink and crash are invariably more than 1.5 times the legal limit, and most are 2, 3 or 4 times the limit.

Henceforth, we must expect perfectly safe drivers to lose their driving licenses; and - probably - an increase in cases of depression from lonely people who live in rural areas and will no longer be able to go over to a friend's for a pint.

Any thoughts out there?

Ian

I can fully accept what he says in his first paragraph, but I have no means of knowing if the problem he anticipates in his second paragraph is likely to occur.

It looks as if this measure is a matter of wanting to be 'seen to be doing something', but I expect it will penalise quite a lot of people and yet do nothing about the really excessive drinkers. It is therefore a bad move, I'd say.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[GJD]

I don't think the doctor's comments are particularly surprising or insightful - s/he's stating the obvious really.

There are already ways for perfectly safe drivers to lose their licences. It's unfortunate but, depressingly, not surprising that there are still people out there zealous about creating more.

Agreed.. Though isn't that his point? And isn't this 'obvious observation' missing from the change in the law.

Very much so. The negative effects of changes in regulation like this are given far, far too little prominence in the debate. From the way they talk about it, you get the impression policy makers don't even think the negative effects exist, and that makes them bad policy makers and the system of government that allows them to behave that way a bad system of government.

That wouldn't automatically make me against the change but to ask; 'Does 'the change' deal with the problem in a meaningful enough way?"

It's not just "will this fix the problem?" that's missing. "Is there a problem that merits government intervention?" and "do the pros outweigh the cons?" are notable by their absence too.

[Stephen]

Roadside it makes a big difference limit in England now 35ugs per 100 milltres of breath
Scotland now 22ugs ~~~#~##
so, I suppose it depends on how much you drink will determine what happens to you at the end, which hopedully means higher penaltys in Scotland as when higher readings means higher sentencing .