Scotland raises the standard

[Ted]

This can only be a good thing - and in plenty of time for Christmas too.

I wonder when England will follow Scotland's lead.

I just hope that it is policed well.

 

[Bellow]

From the same article, this:

''However, speaking on BBC Radio Scotland, George Goldie from the Institute of Advanced Motorists, said he did not believe the change would improve road safety and he questioned the motivation behind it saying it would "increase income" gathered from fines.

He added: "We have very few statistics, if any, to show how many accidents are caused by people who are marginally over the limit. Most of the accidents are caused by people who are blatantly blitzed.

"I'm much more concerned about improving driving, as opposed to improving the one in 10. I am much, much more interested in improving the nine in 10." ''

Exactly.

 

[Dryce]

This can only be a good thing - and in plenty of time for Christmas too.

It's rather meaningless - as per Bellow's reply above.

But Scottish politics is currently about being seen to do something because they don't have much to actually do. One possible benefit of giving them more devolved powers is that they get down to some real work and taking real responsibility instead of fiddling with the ornaments on their desks.

 

[grober]

It's rather meaningless

Your man George Goldie needs to do a teensy weensy bit of reseach. Took me all of 3 minutes to find this .
http://www.aaam.org/BAC.pdf

 

[Dryce]

Your man George Goldie needs to do a teensy weensy bit of reseach. Took me all of 3 minutes to find this .
http://www.aaam.org/BAC.pdf

The interpretation of the research is more iffy than it appears because of the inability to do a controlled study. When the change is made there is publicity and also in some cases an increasee in enforcement. In addition over the last 20 years passive safety in cars has improved.

So announcing a reduction from 80 to 79.9 would potentially have a similar effect given the publicity and visible enforcement matches.

At the same time it's usually acknowleged that shaving away at the blood alcohol limit doesn't necessarily have any impact on the worst offenders. Nor does it have any impact on those who drive while under the influence of other drugs and medication.

 

[Giantvanman]

80 mg / 100ml blood = 35mg / 100ml breath.

50mg / 100ml blood = 29/30mg /100ml breath (if my mental arithmetic is correct).

I wonder what their advertising strategy will be; people still think in terms of two pints of lager or two small glasses of wine etc.

 

[Dryce]

I wonder what their advertising strategy will be; people still think in terms of two pints of lager or two small glasses of wine etc.

I'd rather thought that the whole point of the publicity over the last 20 years was the idea that even at 80mg/100ml people shouldn't even have a half if they're going to drive. That and the concept of a designated driver.

Current enforcement is limited. Catching people by breathalysing them after an incident is a stable door situation not a solution. So really the success of the legislation is mainly down to publicity and culture.

Rather than doing the fashionable thing with the drop from 80 to 50 I'd be rather more impressed if Police Scotland innovated the enforcement aspect - particularly in rural areas where my feeling is the level of offending is a lot worse - and the morning after issue where I suspect the level of offending is much much higher than realised (mainly through ignorance).

 

[Giantvanman]

I'd rather thought that the whole point of the publicity over the last 20 years was the idea that even at 80mg/100ml people shouldn't even have a half if they're going to drive. That and the concept of a designated driver.

Current enforcement is limited. Catching people by breathalysing them after an incident is a stable door situation not a solution. So really the success of the legislation is mainly down to publicity and culture.

Rather than doing the fashionable thing with the drop from 80 to 50 I'd be rather more impressed if Police Scotland innovated the enforcement aspect - particularly in rural areas where my feeling is the level of offending is a lot worse - and the morning after issue where I suspect the level of offending is much much higher than realised (mainly through ignorance).

I agree wholeheartedly with the second and third paragraphs.
Unfortunately, I haven't been given a pound every time someone mentioned the 'two pint' rule. The problem with advertising is that there are many who never watch the news or read a newspaper so the myth continues, perpetuated by the pub experts (expert in all things law related, don't you know).

 

[grober]

The interpretation of the research is more iffy than it appears because of the inability to do a controlled study. When the change is made there is publicity and also in some cases an increasee in enforcement. In addition over the last 20 years passive safety in cars has improved.

So announcing a reduction from 80 to 79.9 would potentially have a similar effect given the publicity and visible enforcement matches.

At the same time it's usually acknowleged that shaving away at the blood alcohol limit doesn't necessarily have any impact on the worst offenders. Nor does it have any impact on those who drive while under the influence of other drugs and medication.

Here is the conference program for the recent AAAM conference. You will notice several of the presentations appear to be actively addressing several of the issues you raised. Their conclusions don't appear to be "back of the envelope" stuff.
The Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine http://www.aaam1.org/annual/program.pdf

 

[Dryce]

Unfortunately, I haven't been given a pound every time someone mentioned the 'two pint' rule. The problem with advertising is that there are many who never watch the news or read a newspaper so the myth continues, perpetuated by the pub experts (expert in all things law related, don't you know).

Doesn't help when they're doing reruns of The Professionals and while in the pub Bodie knocks back a couple and has Doyle's soft drink spiked - and then the call comes and they're screeching off in their car.

How times have changed since the 60s and 70s.

 

[Derek Smith]

The current problem is, and it will get worse as further reductions hit the ability of the police to police, that the last thing any sergeant wants is for a PC's time to be taken up with a drunk driver. The officer can be lost to the shift for hours. When calls which should be attended within 20 mins are going unanswered for an hour or more, a PC dealing with a driver over the limit, in essence preventative legislation, is seen as a luxury, one no force can really afford.

When I ran a shift in a large town, I used to tell my guys not to bother with drink drive/possession of drugs unless confronted with the offences if the shift was down to 6 officers. Nowadays I'm told they never reach 6. If they put out two cars it is seen as flooding the area.

I used to be my force's Substantive Breath Test Machine liaison - pretty cool title but it just meant I used to train officers to operate the device at the station, the one used as evidence. I am of the opinion, honed over many years, that the limit is too high. Most people have their ability to drive affected at less than half the current limit.

When on a course to be a SBTM instructor at Harrogate, one part was for the students to consume alcohol and test themselves, this on the final night of the course. They were also to tell me - as the only sober one on the group of 8 - when they felt unfit to drive.

All said they would not drive when well under the limit. Those few, two I think, who did blow positive were unsteady on their feet and none were able to test themselves.

Most of the students were not regular drinkers - negating the stereotype I suppose.

One thing which we proved, as did every course, was that the two pints limit is a nonsense. We also set little tests and discovered that even one pint affected coordination substantially.

Two pints will affect negatively your ability to drive and make judgements and will ruin your spacial awareness. All tests have show this and it is my experience from the course. Even an ex-prop, all 18 stone of him, was affected by two pints.

Alcohol has the same effect on women at a significantly lower intake.

I've been to a considerable number of RTAs (as was) and the norm was that alcohol was a factor. I always believed that if I got someone for driving over the limit I'd done a good job that shift.

Speeding, on the other hand, was noticeable only because of its rarity. I'm trying to think of any RTA I attended where the main or a significant cause was exceeding the speed limit. Fair enough, I'm 67 and can hardly be expected to remember my name if asked suddenly, but even so I'd expect to dredge something up from the depths.

 

[Druk]

^ Fantastic post. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[gIzzE]

Is drink driving in Scotland more prevalent that in England?

I live in the sticks and no one really drink drives, if they are driving they tend to have a pint after work and then shoot home, if they have 2 or 3 they leave the car and collect in the morning.

However, when in Scotland, and this was near Kenmore, when we left the pub at close to midnight to stumble back to our place everyone who was in there jumped into their cars and drove home, I was really shocked.
This was every night we were in there.

I presumed maybe it was because it was the middle of no where, but again in Edinburgh last summer we were at a couple of venues and when the place closed at midnight people left and jumped into their cars, this was not people who had had a half or a pint.

Just wondering if it is more of an issue up there?

 

[grober]

This from the Daily Mail sorry. There does appear to be a relationship between remote location, lack of public transport, local drinking mores and convictions
Rural motorists 'are twice as likely to have drink-drive convictions than those living in cities' | Daily Mail Online

 

[Rustrust]

they say 1 in 10 accidents involve drunk drivers, what about the 9 in 10 ones which aren't?

i bet the ones with the ones over the limit are a lot over the present one, not in the 50-80 zone or 80-100 zone

 

[Wheelsnuts]

Derek Smith's post says it all. Thank you for such a cogent and informative contribution.

 

[Derek Smith]

I appreciate the very nice comments and thanks.

Most police officers will have had the task of telling the next of kin about a loved one who has been killed or seriously injured in an RTA and those sorts of things stick in your mind.

I don't want to get too morbid but their lives change fundamentally in an instant. When you turn up for your next RTA and find the driver who was mainly at fault breathing fumes over you, trying to justify some weird manoeuvre, there is no sense of guilt when you bag them despite their life being likely to change for the worse, and that of their family.

With an illness or age, the NoK are forewarned but in a sudden death in an RTA you knock on the door and the wife (hubby/mother/child), often with children, opens it with a smile and then they just know. The change in expression as you say your bit stays in your mind for years. All hope gone.

The thoughts that go through your mind are things like: I hope he was fully insured. Or: This is a nice house. I wonder if she will have to sell it to make ends meet. Odd things to consider I know but it is better than watching someone deconstruct before your eyes.

Don't drink and drive. Quite apart from the effects on your family, job, etc, think of having that on your conscience. It will come back at night when you are struggling to sleep. You will have no excuses.

Sorry to preach. It is, though, something that has stuck in my mind over the years, as it would anyone's of course.

Thanks again for the comments.

 

[Ted]

Now in place BBC News - Scotland cuts drink-drive alcohol limit - Once again Scotland leads the UK.

However, the UK government said it had no plans to reduce the drink drive limit in England and Wales as it said this would have no impact on "high risk offenders".

Weasel words and a cop out IMHO.

 

[grober]

The legal limit elsewhere in Europe

(All figures per 100ml of blood)

Zero - Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia (drivers with less than three years experience), Germany (less than two years experience or aged under 21)

20mg - Estonia, Poland, Sweden, Cyprus (south), Ireland (learner drivers only), Latvia (less than two years experience), Lithuania (less than two years experience), Greece (less than two years experience), Luxembourg (less than two years experience and professional drivers), France (bus drivers only)

24mg - Slovenia
30mg - Germany (for those involved in an accident)
40mg - Lithuania

50mg - Scotland, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany (if not involved in an accident), Gibraltar, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus (north)

80mg - England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Malta

 

[Charles Morgan]

Got rather sidetracked into painting my garage walls but a couple of questions - having watched all the various motorway patrol programmes on Dave etc which of course makes me an expert - do the Police keep a record of those causing accidents who are breathalysed but found to be below the limit? It would be quite interesting to see what the figures are for those causing serious accidents between the new and old limits.

Secondly, what are the punishments in the countries at the 50mg level? Here a conviction invariably ends up with a ban of a year, is that the same elsewhere?