Surprised this hasn't been mentioned - Scottish drink drive limit

[Milo]

BBC News - Scottish drink-drive limit 'to be lowered'

Surprised no one has picked up on this?
Personally, I don't agree with it (for reasons I've gone into in the past). I wonder how 'professional drivers' will feel if the limit is dropped from 80mg to 20mg, as per the Rep of Ireland?

[CarMad]

What they done say is that other European countries only fine at 50 not ban as they seem to be suggesting in Scotland. A ban needs a similar or higher alcohol level to Englands.

I'm not at all for drink driving the facts of these changes aren't been reported properly but what is new there hey.

[Milo]

I don't condone drink-driving in any way, nor do I do it. But changing the limit (for a ban) to 50mg from 80mg isn't going to help the current status quo re deaths and injuries one jot in my opinion. Change it to zero and it still won't.
The number of drink-drive convictions reduced for years and then plateaued. This is because there is a hardcore section of society who will continue to drink and drive regardless of the limit (or the penalties in many instances). That is where they should be putting resources - hammering those people who are habitual offenders. I would like to see a sliding scale of punishment in black and white, depending on how far over the [current] limit you are. And quite frankly, if you're stupid enough to get a second conviction for DD, it should carry a minimum of a 5 year ban, probably more. A third should be 10 years in jail.

Cutting the limit from 80mg to 50mg will acheive nothing other than seeing more people losing their licences and livelihoods. It won't reduce accidents and it won't reduce injuries and deaths*

You could always ban alcohol and tobacco altogether, reduce all speed limits to 5mph, replace all knives with plastic cutlery, outlaw fast food and make it the law to exercise 8 hours a day.


* like I've said before, if someone can show me the stats that people with a blood alcohol level of 50-79mg are statistically involved in more accidents, killing and maiming people on the roads, I'd be willing to change my point of view.

[garcon]

Reducing the limit will simply increase the number of morning after convictions. There'll be no other impact in my view.

[Andrew]

I think it is the morning after thing that I'd be most concerned about. How does one accurately tell that they are ok? I could say the same of 80mg of course but I wonder if 80 was set because that is the point at which you start to feel the effects of booze - albeit mildly. Could I tell if someone gave me enough to put me at 55mg for example?

I understand the self test things have varying degrees of reliability.

[eldavo69]

The morning after a heavy session I never feel like having a drink so I guess I'm ok?

[Mook]

Reducing the limit is a good thing. If it increases the number of morning after convictions, then that's a good thing, IMO.

[garcon]

Reducing the limit would be a positive move in one sense - it will mean a large number of people like me will have none instead of just the one if we're driving.

However, I really don't expect that to have any significant impact on accident statistics. I'm no more likely to have an accident after a pint than after none, unless there are other more significant contributory factors such as extreme tiredness.

I also don't see the point in changing the limit when the current limit isn't policed properly (and never could be with current police numbers).

In fact rather than a change to the limit I would rather see entirely random stops and tests.

[Mook]

In fact rather than a change to the limit I would rather see entirely random stops and tests.

They do that a LOT around us over xmas - even at 4pm on a weekday in the lead up to it.

It really makes people think around here, although there's still a load of people who happily drink half a bottle of wine and still drive. Twunts.

[Milo]

Reducing the limit is a good thing. If it increases the number of morning after convictions, then that's a good thing, IMO.

If it doesn't reduce the accident rate or the death/injury rate, how is it a good thing?

Reducing the urban speed limit to 15mph would be a very good thing as it *would* reduce accidents/injuries.
OK, it will increase the number of speeding convictions but that's a good thing. Isn't it?