drink driving

[andy morgan]

what is the law

[bernardo]

What is the question?

[treaclefight]

don't do it

[andy hughes]

In the UK, the limit is 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood' althogh campaigns are under way to get the limit lowered. The problem with such an arbitrary test is that it fails to account for any variables - age, weight, time of last meal, tolerence, and so on. I am teetotal, so if i drink two pints of beer, I may be legally within the limits, but I would be incapable of finding the ignition with the key, much less driving safeley! My rule would be zero tolerance - ANY alcohol at all = lifetime ban from driving, then everyone knows where they are.

[gazzawazza]

I couldn't agree more with Andy.

[tracymort]

yep sounds like a good idea to me too Andy. I haven't drunk very much at all in the past few years so i am not at all capable of driving after 1 drink tbh.

[BenDToy]

Zero tolerance is great in theory but just consider the practicalities of this. Many food dishes, or confectionery, contain alcohol, albeit in small quantities. I am sure we can name hundreds, but for starters - coq au vin, sherry trifle, rum truffles, beef & ale pie, even over-ripe fruit. And you did say ANY alcohol, so eating a slice of Xmas cake could get you banned for life! Good idea eh? Also, consider someone who has a drink - say 2 glasses of wine. When are they safe to drive? 1 hour, 4 hours, 8 hours, 1 day. I would be surprised if anyone would know where they stand never mind everyone. I am totally opposed to drinking & driving but also to lowering the limit. It is the pi55ed up continual offender who we should concentrate on getting off the road. not the poor sap who had a half of lager the previous evening, or a glass of wine at lunch 5 hours ago. And for info, the current measure does account for many of the factors you mentioned. The rate of absorption of alcohol is influenced by your stomach contents, and the level of alcohol in your blood varies with the amount of blood, and so body mass. It doesn't reflect tolerance (I guess) but it isn;t perfect. Low tolerance means you are probably less likely to take a chance anyway!

[andy hughes]

Come on Bendy - alcohol in almost all foodstuffs is destroyed by the cooking process. People who are breathalysed have either had an accident, or look like they are about to have one - so anyone eating Christmas cake etc. is unlikely to fall foul of the law. I stand by my argument - the notion of trying to guess an individual limit, and then working out how to drink enough to stay inside it is simply selfish and irresponsible. If you drive a car, don't drink alcohol - is it so hard? A little adult self-discipline is all that's required, and littile less of the 'poor me' culture that sees being penalised for drink-driving is more a matter of bad luck than stupid selfish potentially leathal behaviour. You need to be an adult t drive, what's wrong with behaving like one?

[BenDToy]

How naive that anyone still believes that people are only tested as a result of their driving (or crashing). Random breath testing is a fact. It is common practice to set up road blocks and test every motorist who comes along. I am also amused that you seem to dismiss the time factor - that involves significantly more guesswork than staying below the current limit. When exactly does your blood alcohol level reach zero? I have no idea, but like most of the population I can ensure that I control my moderate alcohol intake to remain below the current limit whenever I take the wheel. I think there are much more serious road safety issues than people with a blood alcohol level somewhere between zero and 80mg/l. I stand by my argument - the current level is much more appropriate than zero, and lowering the level would not improve road safety one iota, and would make many people's lives very difficult. Or are you advocating that someone who drives should never drink at all, because that would of course solve the matter?

[tracymort]

http://www.jengajam.com/r/Dont-Drink-And-Drive

[BenDToy]

tracyh - for the record, I totally condemn drink driving, and nothing I have said implies anything different. I am against lowering the present limit, especially to zero, for the reasons I have outlined above. This does not make me some sort of anti-social pariah who is a snarling lunatic behind the wheel. I am a high mileage, responsible driver who is not tee total, and I object to this demonising treatment. I believe that a zero level is unworkable, and that only people who never touch alcohol in any form could be confident of not being banned. I am offended that this view seems to make you think you are entitled to regard me as a menace to society.

[andy hughes]

Yes Bendy, that is exactly what I'm advocating. One third of the bodies pulled out of cars have above the legal limit of alcohol in their systems. I think just one body is one too many. People who want to drive should be in a fit state to do so, with their faculties in peak condition, not playing guessing games with their metabolism.

[BenDToy]

Andy - I feel we have thrashed this one pretty much to death. Suffice to say I think we do both agree that DD is a dangerous and severe criminal act, and offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law. A good discussion and thanks for the well argued - if slightly misguided - opinions. ;-)

[andy hughes]

And thanks to you too Bendy - an excellent exchange of views, as usual. Thanks to Andy Morgan as well, hope we didn't hijack your Question, but this tends to be how the AB works. Thanks for starting the debate.

[apricot]

In Cumbria a few years ago I was stopped and 7.30 am on my way to work and questioned about my drinking habits. I was pleased to take part and would defend the right of the police to make random checks.