Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Milo

Milo

    Doodles

  • Members
  • 14,035 posts

Posted 30 May 2012 - 09:45 PM

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?

#2 CarMad

CarMad

    ...

  • Moderators
  • 15,216 posts

Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:14 PM

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.

#3 Milo

Milo

    Doodles

  • Members
  • 14,035 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 07:58 AM

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.

Edited by Milo, 31 May 2012 - 08:01 AM.


#4 garcon magnifique

garcon magnifique

    Jezabelle

  • Members
  • 24,981 posts
  • Locationnot found

Posted 31 May 2012 - 08:03 AM

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

Never pick a fight with an ugly person, they've got nothing to lose.


#5 Andrew

Andrew

    TSN Printer Expert l'extraordinaire

  • Members
  • 7,987 posts
  • LocationEdinburgh & London

Posted 31 May 2012 - 08:15 AM

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.
E92 M3, Silverstone II
Leon Cupra R, Black
Devizes to Westminster 2011 blog: accdw2011.blog.co.uk

#6 eldavo69

eldavo69

    I owe Milo £45

  • Members
  • 4,716 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 08:59 AM

The morning after a heavy session I never feel like having a drink so I guess I'm ok? ;)
Mine: BMW 318d Sport Plus Touring
Hers: Nissan Leaf
General Hoonery: Porsche 944 Turbo S
Soon to be joined by a 1966 Triumph Tiger 90

#7 Mook

Mook

    the Puke like

  • Moderators
  • 30,831 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 11:32 AM

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

#8 garcon magnifique

garcon magnifique

    Jezabelle

  • Members
  • 24,981 posts
  • Locationnot found

Posted 31 May 2012 - 11:40 AM

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.

Never pick a fight with an ugly person, they've got nothing to lose.


#9 Mook

Mook

    the Puke like

  • Moderators
  • 30,831 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 11:43 AM

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.
Yeah, yeah...

#10 Milo

Milo

    Doodles

  • Members
  • 14,035 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 11:59 AM

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?

#11 NewNiceMrMe

NewNiceMrMe

    Findle Kneve

  • Members
  • 43,581 posts
  • LocationHere, obviously.

Posted 31 May 2012 - 12:05 PM

I don't see the problem in all honesty. I understand what is being said about the hardcore element but I also still believe there are those that think they'll be okay, even if they feel a little drowsy from the night before - and if it puts 1 of those potential threats off driving, then it's worth it.

As for reducing the urban speed limit - they're doing it in our area and you've probably seen it in the same way I have. I now travel through 3 areas there the limit has been reduced from 30 to 20 everywhere. The main road all the way through Shiremoor is now 20 mph, as is all of Whitley Bay centre and the roads leading up to it.

#12 Milo

Milo

    Doodles

  • Members
  • 14,035 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 12:11 PM

I don't see the problem in all honesty. I understand what is being said about the hardcore element but I also still believe there are those that think they'll be okay, even if they feel a little drowsy from the night before



Are they the ones that would blow between 51mg and 79mg? Or are they the ones who are over 80mg anyway?

I'm in favour of a system fitted to cars that links to the ignition. Over the limit? Then no starty. That's a good thing.

#13 stooH

stooH

    Porsche Carrera 4S

  • Members
  • 7,393 posts
  • LocationSunny South Coast

Posted 31 May 2012 - 12:40 PM

I don't see the problem in all honesty. I understand what is being said about the hardcore element but I also still believe there are those that think they'll be okay, even if they feel a little drowsy from the night before - and if it puts 1 of those potential threats off driving, then it's worth it.

As for reducing the urban speed limit - they're doing it in our area and you've probably seen it in the same way I have. I now travel through 3 areas there the limit has been reduced from 30 to 20 everywhere. The main road all the way through Shiremoor is now 20 mph, as is all of Whitley Bay centre and the roads leading up to it.


With the speed limit thing I think Portsmouth was the first city in the country where ALL side roads were restricted to 20mph about 5 (or maybe more) years ago. The main roads through town are still 30 but as soon as you enter a residential side street it's 20mph. Still get occasional idiots that speed through them at 35 - 40 though.

120d Sport in Crimson Red with funny steering


#14 pingpongpo

pingpongpo

    Subaru Impreza WRX

  • Members
  • 2,828 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 12:43 PM

Watching these copper programs on TV, anyone who is caught drink driving has already got a ban they are still serving from the last time they were caught, no tax, no mot, no insurance.

You could double the limit and these pr1cks would still be over the limit. Put them in a boat and then use it for target practice. Scum.

#15 Mook

Mook

    the Puke like

  • Moderators
  • 30,831 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 01:12 PM

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

I'd rather see a maximum of zero, i.e. no tolerance.

Despite what a load of people say, just having half a pint affects your reactions. I'd prefer to see it being against the law to drink with any alcohol in your system, but that would become very difficult, especially if you've unknowingly had something with a tiny bit of alcohol in it after something like a meal.

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?


Reducing the speed limit to 20mph in urban zones has been proven to reduce accidents. If it increases the number of speeding convictions, then so be it. There's a reason it's 20, 30, 50 or whatever.

I have no qualms saying I often drive over the speed limit, but if I get caught, then I get fined or prosecuted. It's not rocket science.

Edited by Mook, 31 May 2012 - 01:15 PM.

Yeah, yeah...

#16 eldavo69

eldavo69

    I owe Milo £45

  • Members
  • 4,716 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 01:53 PM

I'm in favour of a system fitted to cars that links to the ignition. Over the limit? Then no starty. That's a good thing.


Until their stoopid "mate" blows into it for them
Mine: BMW 318d Sport Plus Touring
Hers: Nissan Leaf
General Hoonery: Porsche 944 Turbo S
Soon to be joined by a 1966 Triumph Tiger 90

#17 Mac

Mac

    BMW Mechanic

  • Members
  • 20,878 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 02:04 PM

'd prefer to see it being against the law to drink with any alcohol in your system, but that would become very difficult


More like metabolically impossible :P

#18 Mook

Mook

    the Puke like

  • Moderators
  • 30,831 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 02:40 PM

[/I]More like metabolically impossible :P

Sod off - you know what I mean.

Go eat some Jaegerbomb chocolates :P
Yeah, yeah...

#19 Milo

Milo

    Doodles

  • Members
  • 14,035 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 05:38 PM

Until their stoopid "mate" blows into it for them


Then more fool them. It wouldn't be there to police drivers, that's the job of the police. It's there as another safety device.
10 pint night out, wanting to drive the following day at 3PM - would you rather know you're OK or take a chance? You cannot use a scientific scale to predict when you're OK to drive as there are too many variables.



Despite what a load of people say, just having half a pint affects your reactions. I'd prefer to see it being against the law to drink with any alcohol in your system, but that would become very difficult, especially if you've unknowingly had something with a tiny bit of alcohol in it after something like a meal.

Reducing the speed limit to 20mph in urban zones has been proven to reduce accidents. If it increases the number of speeding convictions, then so be it. There's a reason it's 20, 30, 50 or whatever.


But then 10mph reduces risk even more, so why not 10mph? Why have you gone for 20?
"I'd like to see a zero speed limit" but it's not entirely workable. However, I guarantee it'll reduce acccidents to almost zero.
And I'll say again, show me the evidence that reducing the limit from 80mg to 50mg is proven to reduce accidents/deaths/injuries (as per the speeding stats) and I'd reconsider my opinion +++

I can also guarantee me driving after half a pint, would have far better reactions and a better standard of driving then many people let loose on our roads every day.

#20 NewNiceMrMe

NewNiceMrMe

    Findle Kneve

  • Members
  • 43,581 posts
  • LocationHere, obviously.

Posted 31 May 2012 - 05:49 PM

I agree with all the comments about zero tolerance. Plus, I like the 'ignition coupled' system idea - I like that a lot.

I recognise those that get prosecuted are also those most likely, in many cases, not to give a hoot about it and simply drive with no license, tax, MOT, insurance etc - and that side of the law needs to be harsher in my view. If they're caught under those circumstances I'd like to see them behind bars for a week. Then a month. Then a year.

I understand that the statistics of 1 in 10 cars in the UK are uninsured is rising and getting close to tipping over the 1.5 mark - and I think that makes for a very poor reflection on society. That being one where people still think they have a right to do something even though they don't abide by the law in doing so.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users