Reality TV2 mins ago
Lowering Of Legal Drink-Drive Limit 'to Save Lives' Urged
http://
Seems like a good idea to me....what do we all think about this ?
Seems like a good idea to me....what do we all think about this ?
Answers
We have debated the rights and wrongs of drink-
17:19 Sat 04th Mar 2017
I found a bit about the report the figures cone from, "The North Review commissioned new research by the Centre for Public Health Excellence10
into the likely effects of lowering the drink drive limit, which indicated that the number of lives
saved by a lower limit would be much greater than previous estimates.
The North Review concluded:
A reduction to 50 mg/100 ml would undoubtedly save a significant number of lives. In the
first year post-implementation, estimates range from at least 43 to around 168 lives saved –
as well as avoiding a larger number of serious injuries – a conservative estimate is 280
although as many as almost 16,000 has been modelled. It is estimated that the impact of
any lowering in the blood alcohol limit will actually increase over the first few years of
implementation with an estimate of up to 303 lives annually saved by the 6th year.
Sir Peter North recommended that the limit be lowered to 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml blood.
The estimates in the North Report of the number of lives that a lower limit would save do not
include Scotland, which account for about 7% of drink drive-related casualties in Great
Britain, so the overall number of lives saved would be even greater" Not sure I'm any the wiser since the reduction suggests no deaths as a result which seems unlikely.
into the likely effects of lowering the drink drive limit, which indicated that the number of lives
saved by a lower limit would be much greater than previous estimates.
The North Review concluded:
A reduction to 50 mg/100 ml would undoubtedly save a significant number of lives. In the
first year post-implementation, estimates range from at least 43 to around 168 lives saved –
as well as avoiding a larger number of serious injuries – a conservative estimate is 280
although as many as almost 16,000 has been modelled. It is estimated that the impact of
any lowering in the blood alcohol limit will actually increase over the first few years of
implementation with an estimate of up to 303 lives annually saved by the 6th year.
Sir Peter North recommended that the limit be lowered to 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml blood.
The estimates in the North Report of the number of lives that a lower limit would save do not
include Scotland, which account for about 7% of drink drive-related casualties in Great
Britain, so the overall number of lives saved would be even greater" Not sure I'm any the wiser since the reduction suggests no deaths as a result which seems unlikely.
We have debated the rights and wrongs of drink-driving many times, and my position remains as it has for as long as I have been driving - forty-five years and counting.
We have a cultural history of people regarding being caught drink-driving as being rather bad luck, instead of what it is - criminal behaviour.
We also have a culture of imposing limits, and then trying our best to facilitate people to drink as near to the limit without going over it - which is utterly futile since 'limits' are a moveable feast depending on a bewilderingly complex set of circumstances.
And finally, we have a cultural attitude that drinking alcohol and driving is some sort of God-given right.
My view is that it is not.
If you are adult enough to drive a car, you are adult enough to accept the responsibilities that go with driving a car, and that includes keeping yourself mentally and physically fit to drive safely.
So if you want to drink on Saturday, no problem, don't drive until Monday. If you want to drink on Monday, don't drive until Wednesday.
It is not a right to be able to get up and drive to work after you have been drinking the night before, it is irresponsibility at its highest level.
The privilege is being able to drive a car, and if you can't do that and abstain from intake of alcohol, then you are neither adult or responsible enough to be driving, and if the new limits take your licence away, then that is a good result for the public at large.
We have a cultural history of people regarding being caught drink-driving as being rather bad luck, instead of what it is - criminal behaviour.
We also have a culture of imposing limits, and then trying our best to facilitate people to drink as near to the limit without going over it - which is utterly futile since 'limits' are a moveable feast depending on a bewilderingly complex set of circumstances.
And finally, we have a cultural attitude that drinking alcohol and driving is some sort of God-given right.
My view is that it is not.
If you are adult enough to drive a car, you are adult enough to accept the responsibilities that go with driving a car, and that includes keeping yourself mentally and physically fit to drive safely.
So if you want to drink on Saturday, no problem, don't drive until Monday. If you want to drink on Monday, don't drive until Wednesday.
It is not a right to be able to get up and drive to work after you have been drinking the night before, it is irresponsibility at its highest level.
The privilege is being able to drive a car, and if you can't do that and abstain from intake of alcohol, then you are neither adult or responsible enough to be driving, and if the new limits take your licence away, then that is a good result for the public at large.
Andy - you keep trotting out the same thing. Being caught drink driving is not considered bad luck in any circles I mix with.
The same as using a phone while driving. I used to use my phone until it was made illegal and I can honestly say that I've never answered my phone since then.
As far as I'm concerned there is a shame in being caught drink driving. I think the limit should be 'trace' to take into account that someone might have eaten a sherry trifle or used mouth wash containing alcohol.
If the levels are reduced to that then everyone who goes into a pub knows they can't have a drink...
Reaction times changes even after a couple of drinks.
The same as using a phone while driving. I used to use my phone until it was made illegal and I can honestly say that I've never answered my phone since then.
As far as I'm concerned there is a shame in being caught drink driving. I think the limit should be 'trace' to take into account that someone might have eaten a sherry trifle or used mouth wash containing alcohol.
If the levels are reduced to that then everyone who goes into a pub knows they can't have a drink...
Reaction times changes even after a couple of drinks.
ummmm - //Andy - you keep trotting out the same thing. //
I only 'trot out' my response when someone 'trots out' the question. It's 'the same thing' because my opinion remains the same.
//Being caught drink driving is not considered bad luck in any circles I mix with. //
Then I suggest that the circles you mix in do not reflect the drink-driving fraternity as a whole.
//As far as I'm concerned there is a shame in being caught drink driving. //
The 'shame' is not that people are caught, it's that one third of the corpses pulled out of totalled RTA vehicles contain over-the-limit levels of alcohol. That does not include innocent pedestrians mown down.
//I think the limit should be 'trace' to take into account that someone might have eaten a sherry trifle or used mouth wash containing alcohol. //
Again, we look for excuses.
There are none.
If the levels are reduced to that then everyone who goes into a pub knows they can't have a drink...
Reaction times changes even after a couple of drinks.
I only 'trot out' my response when someone 'trots out' the question. It's 'the same thing' because my opinion remains the same.
//Being caught drink driving is not considered bad luck in any circles I mix with. //
Then I suggest that the circles you mix in do not reflect the drink-driving fraternity as a whole.
//As far as I'm concerned there is a shame in being caught drink driving. //
The 'shame' is not that people are caught, it's that one third of the corpses pulled out of totalled RTA vehicles contain over-the-limit levels of alcohol. That does not include innocent pedestrians mown down.
//I think the limit should be 'trace' to take into account that someone might have eaten a sherry trifle or used mouth wash containing alcohol. //
Again, we look for excuses.
There are none.
If the levels are reduced to that then everyone who goes into a pub knows they can't have a drink...
Reaction times changes even after a couple of drinks.
Andy - it's not an excuse. Even some medications contain alcohol so it should be lowered to 'trace' the bare minimum.
And can I suggest to you that being brought up, and having worked in many pubs that I know the attitude of most people. Drink driving is wrong and I've seen landlords take car keys off people which indicates the attitude to it.
It might have been acceptable in the 60s and 70s but it's certainly not now.
And can I suggest to you that being brought up, and having worked in many pubs that I know the attitude of most people. Drink driving is wrong and I've seen landlords take car keys off people which indicates the attitude to it.
It might have been acceptable in the 60s and 70s but it's certainly not now.
ummm - // And can I suggest to you that being brought up, and having worked in many pubs that I know the attitude of most people. //
No, but you can suggest that you know the attitude of most people who drink in the pubs you have worked in, which hardly qualifies as a national viewpoint.
I maintain that the twin cultures of playing Russian Roulette by drinking as near to the limit as possible, and being caught is really rather unfortunate, are still prevalent in the minds of people who drink and drive.
No, but you can suggest that you know the attitude of most people who drink in the pubs you have worked in, which hardly qualifies as a national viewpoint.
I maintain that the twin cultures of playing Russian Roulette by drinking as near to the limit as possible, and being caught is really rather unfortunate, are still prevalent in the minds of people who drink and drive.
I agree with Ummm on this one. Zero is an unnecessary limit as there are plenty of ways you can take in alcolhol without realising it. For instance, I learned the other day that Black Forest Gateau has kirch on it; I don't eat the stuff but, if I did, I would have had no qualms driving after a portion of it. By al lmeans reduce the limit to a trace but zero is not sensible.
OK - let's concede that a 'zero' level is impractical, and we could introduce a 'trace' level.
The fact remains, drinking and driving is an ingrained aspect of our culture, and to tamper with it represents political suicide for any party that tries to do the right thing and ban drink driving altogether.
If the nation genuinely wished to eradicate drink driving, the government would have a mandate to legislate, and would do so in a heartbeat - any popular legislation is a boon to any government that spends its life being unpopular.
The fact that no government tampers with the drink-driving legislation in any significant meaningful way indicates quite obviously the way society jealously guards its inability to take proper responsibility for driving, which means not drinking.
Gradually, society will accept its responsibilities for its own safety.
But given that there are still people driving who have never taken a driving test because they learned in wartime, and there are teenagers driving who lack the maturity and experience to drive properly and safely, and anyone can roar off down the M6 two minutes after passing their test - that level of responsibility is not going to be seen in my lifetime, and probably not that of my children either.
The fact remains, drinking and driving is an ingrained aspect of our culture, and to tamper with it represents political suicide for any party that tries to do the right thing and ban drink driving altogether.
If the nation genuinely wished to eradicate drink driving, the government would have a mandate to legislate, and would do so in a heartbeat - any popular legislation is a boon to any government that spends its life being unpopular.
The fact that no government tampers with the drink-driving legislation in any significant meaningful way indicates quite obviously the way society jealously guards its inability to take proper responsibility for driving, which means not drinking.
Gradually, society will accept its responsibilities for its own safety.
But given that there are still people driving who have never taken a driving test because they learned in wartime, and there are teenagers driving who lack the maturity and experience to drive properly and safely, and anyone can roar off down the M6 two minutes after passing their test - that level of responsibility is not going to be seen in my lifetime, and probably not that of my children either.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.