As I don’t drink alcohol, drinking and driving isn’t really an issue for me. I was in my late teens when I rode home once after a couple of ciders and frightened myself silly. From that moment I adopted a zero drink policy when riding or driving. Over the next few years I gradually stopped drinking alcohol anyway – the foul taste coupled with the loss of cognitive control combined to put me off.
You would think, therefore, that I would be a natural ally of speedkermit.
The public assumes the drink-drive limit is far lower than it is; lowering the threshold will catch those who are truly intoxicated
Speedkermit is a serving copper, so he probably would say that, wouldn’t he? I know exactly what the drink-drive limit is, as I am bound by a much lower one imposed by the Transport and Works (1992) Act. The limit for driving is 80mg per 100ml of blood, for railway workers it is 30mg and we can be randomly tested at any time, quite apart from the wake of an incident. I have also had to instigate testing, on one occasion leading to a signaller losing his job. So, yes, I do know what the limit is. That others do not is hardly a reason to reduce the current limit.
The perennial debate about drink-drive limits is upon us again, this time instigated by Sir Peter North at the request of the previous government. He argues that a reduction in the current limit from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg is necessary in order to save lives, and he might have a point.
He might if he can provide hard evidence…
As a police officer, I’m often asked how much a person can drink and still be safe to drive. My first answer is that they should probably consider not drinking at all, but if they insist I usually say “it depends”. There are many impact factors that can either reduce or increase the intoxicating effects of alcohol. These include body weight, whether you have recently exercised or eaten a meal and even gender – women have a higher fat-to-water ratio in their bodies and so water-soluble alcohol molecules present themselves at higher concentrations in their blood.
This is quite right. It is also the opinion I would proffer if asked. “It depends” is spot on and makes a mockery of all that bunkum about safe limits bandied about by health control freaks and government ministers.
As a non drinker, a glass of wine would adversely affect my driving. I’d only downed a couple of ciders all those years previously and felt light-headed with my reactions affected.
But how far is the gap between perception and reality? Well actually, really quite wide. Although it is worth noting that you can still be arrested for being “unfit” on amounts of alcohol well below the legal limit (if you happen to be someone who has trouble coping with intoxicants), the more resilient drinkers among us would probably find that they could imbibe a lot more than is generally considered acceptable.
Lurking in that paragraph is why I have a problem with the author’s overall conclusion. While he sees a logical justification for reducing the limit in line with what most may think it is, I would argue that surely it is bad driving that should be the focus. If the police can pull over a driver for driving in a manner that causes them concern, then alcohol becomes a moot point. It doesn’t matter why the driver is unfit, merely that they are. Surely the best option is to vigorously prosecute people who cause harm through their bad driving, irrespective of the underlying cause of that bad driving.
To my mind, this information presents us with an excellent opportunity to bring down the current limit to the level that the public imagine it to be.
Why? If the many already drink well below the current limit and only a few ignore it, why would those few obey the new limit and what difference will it make – let alone “save lives”?
” I would argue that surely it is bad driving that should be the focus.”
Yes! I’d like to see more police patrols and less CCTV cameras and special pre-Christmas blitzes. There seem to be far too many people on the road who have forgotten any rule they ever learned.
Indeed, I wonder how they ever passed in the first place…
Well put. A bereaved mother stated on TV a while ago that the threshold should be cut because the driver who killed her son was between 50mg and 80mg. It was the alcohol wot dunnit, apparently.
The fact that he was driving 80mph in a 30mph limit on the wrong side of the road was apparenty irrelevant.
I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that the difference between driving safely, and driving like a certifiable maniac, is an arbitrary half a pint.
They did as their instructor told them for the twenty minutes or so necessary to convince the examiner 😉
Lowering the limit would merely criminalise those who are currently innocent, rather than save a notable number of lives. Sure, you’ll pull in more money from fines and ruin the lives of those who’ve misjudged either how much they’ve drunk or how sober they are the morning after, but whether reducing the limit will save any more lives depends on a different issue.
For the past twenty or so years the number of vehicle miles driven has increased every year, and on average the number of people killed on the roads has decreased.
Lurking in this argument is the following point: they are talking about reducing the limit to that which is used in other countries in the EU, but they don’t want to reduce the penalties accordingly, which amount to a slap on the wrist in many cases.
Chris and TT – quite so.
“They did as their instructor told them for the twenty minutes or so necessary to convince the examiner ;)”
Ah, yes, that could well be it. Frankly, though, I’m surprised they possessed the necessary self-discipline for that!
“For the past twenty or so years the number of vehicle miles driven has increased every year, and on average the number of people killed on the roads has decreased.”
I wonder how much of that is as a result of the increased safety devices in cars and the increasing options available to the medical profession?
Julia, having taught some of them, so do I.
The real reason they want to reduce the limit is the EU told them to do it. It was decided in 2002 and if it is not done voluntarliy EU wide a directive will be issued. The Report was merely a smokescreen, the conclusions were known before the commision sat.
What Lemi said.
It’s the old elephant in the room again.
Can we leave yet?