Drink Drive Limit Differences

[007stuart]

In two days time we have new lower Drink Drive limit in Scotland.

With NI also looking at reducing their limit and bearing in mind this will bring us into line with the bulk of Europe will the UK Government have ever the gumption to follow and invoke legislation in England & Wales?

[Mr K]

It'll come and quite right too. People don't seem to realise that any amount of alcohol affects your ability to drive. If you're driving don't drink, it's not complicated. Govt. probably don't want to upset their rural drunk drivers/voters so will delay till the next parliament. Probably bring back fox hunting to compensate.

[alferret]

IMO there should be a zero limit, consumption of alcohol and driving do not mix regardless of how the law stands.
1 unit for a large male may make no difference to alcohol levels and/or effects, but the same amount in someone of slight build could have adverse cognitive issues and put then on the wrong side of the law.
If there is a blanket ban on drinking alcohol and driving then that would be fire the better.

[Taf]

Zero is best, it'll make a lot of drivers squeal, but it is best.

[rhyds]

The problem with a zero limit is that things like mouthwash etc. can lead to a trace reading. My personal preference would be for a very low limit rather than absolute zero.

[007stuart]

Originally Posted by rhyds

The problem with a zero limit is that things like mouthwash etc. can lead to a trace reading. My personal preference would be for a very low limit rather than absolute zero.

Agreed.

In an ideal world zero would eliminate the "I'll have just the one and I'm alright" mentality but we don't live in utopia so a low limit is the next best thing.

I know drink driving amounts for a small amount of incidents on the roads but the effects are so dramatic that if one more life is saved then there's no argument.

---------- Post added at 11:40 ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

It'll come and quite right too. People don't seem to realise that any amount of alcohol affects your ability to drive. If you're driving don't drink, it's not complicated. Govt. probably don't want to upset their rural drunk drivers/voters so will delay till the next parliament. Probably bring back fox hunting to compensate.

And also it will be seen by Farage and his crew as another example of the unwanted influence of the EU!

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by 007stuart

Agreed.

In an ideal world zero would eliminate the "I'll have just the one and I'm alright" mentality but we don't live in utopia so a low limit is the next best thing.

I know drink driving amounts for a small amount of incidents on the roads but the effects are so dramatic that if one more life is saved then there's no argument.[COLOR="Silver"]

I can't agree with that mindset. Banning alcohol completely and limiting all car speeds to 5mph would save even more lives, but would rightly be thrown out as draconian. You can't justify anything on the "well if it saves one life its worth it" principle.

[007stuart]

Originally Posted by rhyds

I can't agree with that mindset. Banning alcohol completely and limiting all car speeds to 5mph would save even more lives, but would rightly be thrown out as draconian. You can't justify anything on the "well if it saves one life its worth it" principle.

May I suggest the handgun ban after Dunblane?

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by 007stuart

May I suggest the handgun ban after Dunblane?

Its the same as using "think of the children". Its usually means that a politican has applied a gross oversimplification and overreaction to the problem at hand, rather than a properly nuanced approach.

Regarding the handgun ban, there were allready rules and laws in place, that, if properly enforced would have meant that the Dunblane killer would have had his guns confiscated. Now you're in the position where criminals still have access to handguns, but law obiding target shooters (including the olympic pistol shooting team) don't. Indeed, the olympic team have to train in France.

Other examples of oversimplified answers to complex questons include:

The dangerous dogs act

Blanket 20mph speed limits in certain aeras (not really a law, more of a local authority policy in some areas)

Web filtering by ISPs

Part P wiring certification

Originally Posted by rhyds

Indeed, the olympic team have to train in France.

Due to a piece of late-90s Labour popularism, rather than the handgun ban as originally enacted after Dunblane, which exempted .22 pistols of the type used in Olympic sport.

But I digress.

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by Chris

Due to a piece of late-90s Labour popularism, rather than the handgun ban as originally enacted after Dunblane, which exempted .22 pistols of the type used in Olympic sport.

But I digress.

I did not know that, but thanks for the clarification. It does still reinforce the point however.

[Taf]

.22 rounds "the choice of the assassin" apparently.

Scandinavia has a zero alcohol policy for drivers. And a pretty severe anti alcohol system

Buying alcohol in Norway
Wine, spirits and strong beer are only sold at Vinmonopolet - special shops that are wholly owned by the state. Such shops are found in the larger cities and towns.

Beer can be bought at supermarkets, but only before certain times of day. This can vary from place to place but is by law no later than 8:00 pm on a weekday and 6:00 pm on Saturdays and other days immediately preceeding public holidays. The exception is the day before Ascension day, which counts as a weekday. No alcohol is sold in shops and supermarkets on Sundays, public holidays and days when elections or referendums are held, nor is it legal for shops to sell alcohol on the 1st or 17th of May. Beer with less than 2.5% alcohol by volume may be sold for as long as the shop is open.

Most restaurants are licensed, and may also serve alcohol on days when shops are prohibited from doing so.

Originally Posted by Taf

.22 rounds "the choice of the assassin" apparently.

In other words, the sort of person who could get hold of one if they needed it, regardless of the law...

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Chris

In other words, the sort of person who could get hold of one if they needed it, regardless of the law...

And if its deadly enough in their hands, it'll be just as deadly in anybody's hand.

Back to drinking and driving, I am appalled more ans more by the poor standard of driving these days. And if they're like that sober, what would be they be like under the effects of alcohol (or drugs)?

Originally Posted by Taf

And if its deadly enough in their hands, it'll be just as deadly in anybody's hand.

So are plenty of things that are a lot less emotive, and of varying degrees of utility. I could go up to my local fishing tackle shop right now, and buy a crossbow which could easily kill someone. Being as I don't look like I'm under 18, the shopkeeper's only legal responsibility is to charge me 5p for the carrier bag.

In the legal systems of the UK there is a long-established precedent for regulating things only so far as to balance safety against wider public freedom. With regards to a Scandinavian-style zero alcohol limit, it may sound like being tough on the causes of road death, but once you go beyond the very low limit now being set in Scotland, how effective is it, when weighed up against the burden placed on the individual to consider exactly how long ago they had that drink, and whether they may still have a trace of alcohol in their system?

Scandinavian countries have a peculiar relationship with alcohol. I wonder how far their laws are a reflection of their culture, and how far they are based on hard proof that the additional burden on the individual is justified by the wider benefit to society.