I think one of the problems with the current limit is that people try and second guess it. i.e. "I think I can drink two pints and not be over" "no I can drink three and be okay". Many people treat it like an allowance that they can can use up but don't really know how much alcohol will actually take them over the limit.
I think perhaps a lowering the limit may be effective in some cases if people then thought "ah I can't have any pints before driving" rather then trying to get themselves 'just under' the target.
|
I don't know the statistics for this, but i would guess that of the 560 drink-drive fatalities, a fair proportion were absolute scum with no respect for the law, to which stricter enforcement or lower limits will make no difference - they probably have no license/tax/mot/insurance anyway.
So the remainder, whom this change in the law will effect, is a fairly small problem compared with the potential of other improvements in road safety. It's just that drink-driving is such an emotive issue, it gets blown out of proportion.
|
I'm interested in the statistics. "560 drink-drive fatalities." What is included? Does it include drunk pedestrians walking in front of cars, or is it just related to drunk drivers?
No real view on this - I never take the risk (though mornings after may be being ignored) but I do remember years back, when D&D was still nod-and-a-wink acceptable, I used to serve in a club in Sheffield. One chap used to have 12 double gins, then drive home. Quite clearly, cutting the limit wouldn't affect him in any way at all. What would affect him would be getting caught, so I tend towards the "implement the law, don't change the limits" viewpoint outlined elsewhere in this thread.
V
|
Don't know if the 560 fatalities were actually those guilty of drink-driving, or innocent victims.
If only we could rely on those who insist on driving while drunk to quietly end themselves against a brick wall or a concrete pillar, instead of running into some poor, innocent family in another car or mowing down a queue at a bus stop......
|
50 lives a year could be saved? Firstly, how did Prof come to this conclusion? Presumably by counting the number of deaths involving a driver registering 50-80mg. Were these definitely all unconditionally caused by the drink? Perhaps the driver simply wasn't concentrating in some of the cases and would have caused the same accident sober?
Tragic though these 50 losses are, a balance needs to be reached. You can't legislate to avoid all death or we'd not be living in a free world. Ban smoking (1,000s of deaths), drinking, incompetent drivers (more than 50 deaths - how about regular re-testing of driving ability?), sky-diving, DIY, poor mechanics, planes (they crash sometimes), the list goes on and on. A sensible answer to every question, not a zero-tolerance one.
Mattster
Boycott shoddy build and reliability.
|
|
Further to Mattster's point, did the Prof check if any of those who died were also under the influence of drugs ? Levels of alcohol are relatively easy to detect, whilst it is harder to determine drug abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
I also wonder how many of those were affected by drugs (no equipment to measure at the roadside or in the nick) but just over the alcohol limit, and therefore put down as "drink drive"?
|
|
Great minds think alike Brian
|
|
But some are two minutes quicker than others. LOL
|
OP wrote:
'I think perhaps a lowering the limit may be effective in some cases if people then thought "ah I can't have any pints before driving" rather then trying to get themselves 'just under' the target.'
Spot on OP, i agree completely with that sentiment.
It would be interesting to see a distribution graph of the alcohol levels in those drivers who died, however, as i suspect that the mean amount would be way above 80mg/l, therefore counting out people who simply mis-judged the limit by accident.
I used to go by the 'one pint is ok, two isn't' idea until recently, and i think lowering the limit to 50mg/l or less would mean most of these people would revert to 'no pints is ok, one isn't' instead - a good thing
|
Drugs? Some statistics I have seen suggest 10% of all drivers are under the influence..
madf
|
IIRC the Chief Constable of Durham reckoned nearer 25% of drivers are under the influence of drugs.
V
|
Well the matrix signs on the M60 have changed from "Think, Do't phone while driving" to "Think, Don't Drink and Drive".
I find it hard to believe that after all these years, the message still hasn't got through.
|
Drink-drive deaths reach new high
Drivers are said to consider themselves above the law
More people are dying in drink-drive accidents than at any time in the past decade, according to Department for Transport figures released on Thursday.
The number rose 6% to 560 deaths last year alone - despite an overall 1% drop in deaths on Britain's roads.
Total drink-drive casualties rose 7% to more than 20,000 - the highest level since 1990, the figures indicate.
Road safety charity Brake says the drink-drive limit encourages drivers to risk having one or two drinks, and is calling on the government to take "urgent action".
Chief executive Mary Williams said: "We need more high profile anti-drink and anti-drug advertising all year round to combat a rise in young drivers impaired behind the wheel.
"Meanwhile, the police have one hand tied behind their back because they cannot randomly breath-test high-risk drivers late at night near nightclubs."
'Tough penalties'
A Department for Transport spokeswoman told BBC News Online that lowering the drink-drive limit would "dilute" the message the government was trying to convey - "Don't drink and drive at all".
The government has already poured millions into advertising campaigns.
But a group of drivers in their twenties and early thirties are said to consider themselves above the law.
Road safety minister David Jamieson said a hardcore of reckless drivers were presenting "a danger to themselves and everyone else on the road".
But he warned: "They should remember our penalties are among the toughest in Europe.
'Unlikely to be caught'
"Drink-drivers face an automatic 12-month ban, hefty fine and possible prison sentence.
"Hard-hitting publicity campaigns have helped establish an anti-drink-drive culture.
"But these statistics show education and enforcement must continue to be a priority.
"Motorists must be responsible for their actions."
But Andrew Howard, the AA Motoring Trust's head of road safety said some drink-drivers "assume they can break the law because they are unlikely to be caught".
"The public perception of road safety enforcement at the moment is that it is done by camera and concentrates on speeding motorists and not other criminal motoring behaviour."
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3158184.stm
madf
|
Drink Related Crime a Bigger Problem Than Drugs, s
29 October 1999:New survey calls for tougher action in local crime strategies Alcohol causes more problems for the Police than drugs - according to a new survey of serving Police officers conducted by Police Review in association with Alcohol Concern.
29 October 1999 - Embargoed until 3 November 1999
DRINK RELATED CRIME A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN DRUGS, SAY POLICE
New survey calls for tougher action in local crime strategies
Alcohol causes more problems for the Police than drugs - according to a new survey of serving Police officers conducted by Police Review in association with Alcohol Concern.
A majority of officers taking part in the readers' survey - 60% - said that alcohol had a greater impact on their workload than drugs, with 40% saying that the effect was about the same. None said that drugs were the greater problem.
Most of the officers surveyed - 68% - said that they encountered alcohol-related crime and disorder on a daily basis, with 96% believing that the scale of the problem was not reflected accurately in their local crime statistics. 84% believed that insufficient priority was given to alcohol in their area's crime and disorder strategies/partnerships.
A ban on drinking in the streets was amongst the most popular solutions put forward as a means of tackling the problem - as were tougher penalties for offenders who commit crimes while drunk and a review of licensing legislation.
The survey findings are to be announced at Alcohol Concern's Annual Conference on Wednesday, November 3rd (details below) - which is entitled 'Alcohol, Crime and Disorder: Joined Up Action or stuck behind bars?'.
Keynote speaker at the conference will be Home Office Minister, Charles Clarke MP, who will be describing Government policies designed to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder. Among subjects on the agenda will be crime audits, the Police view, problems in prisons and community safety.
Alcohol Concern Director, Eric Appleby, comments: "The survey offers an interesting insight into the views of the people who have to deal with the effects of alcohol-related crime each and every day - and we ignore what they say at our peril.
"What we need urgently - and we have said this forcefully in our proposals for the Government's National Alcohol Strategy - is a concerted, coordinated attempt to tackle this important issue, both nationally and locally.
"Nationally, we need 'joined up' action by the different Government departments responsible for issues such as policing, help-giving services, community safety and licensing. Locally, we must keep up the pressure to make sure that alcohol is taken seriously, and tackled, by anti-crime strategies."
Adds Gary Mason - Editor of Police Review: "Government emphasis on the drug threat has meant that the well-catalogued link between alcohol abuse and crime and disorder has been largely ignored."
From Alcohol Concern
madf
|
|
|
|
