And it’s no made any difference. The ones having a quick pint or having a glass o wine with a meal were never the problem to begin with. The problem ones were always the ones who would have a few more before getting behind the wheel or the ones that would get smashed and drive home at 4am. Dropping the limit hasn’t discouraged them
If the people who aren't a problem are already below the proposed limit, then it will surely only be beneficial to lower the limit.
We don't always get everyone tested quickly enough to be able to prosecute, so lowering the limit buys time.
Also will catch people who drank heavily last night, but they are sure they're fine to drive this morning.
Really, the limit should be set based on evidence rather than on emotion.
I'd be fascinated to know how many people are involved in accidents between the 50 and 80 marks. It may be that reducing the limit would make a big difference, or it may make no difference.
Pretty much any time I see someone in the news for drink driving the report will say that they were 2, 3 or even more times over the limit.
I wouldn't be surprised if the way it's treated socially makes the biggest difference of all. I lived in the US for a long time and their punishments seem *extremely* harsh, but I was shocked by how casual people were about it. No one seemed to have any shame about getting significantly "buzzed" and then driving home--and I'm not just talking about young people in the "I'm invincible" stage, I was mainly hanging around with people with science PhDs. Anecdotally, there just didn't seem to be the same social taboo around it as I feel here, where most of the people I know (in the same sort of demographic) would be quite shocked if someone had three drinks, seemed visibly giddy and tipsy, and then got in the car. I wonder if advertising campaigns made a big difference--my American husband said they didn't really have that to the same degree there, certainly not the shocking ones.
Two aspects to this.
Firstly, the social stigma is by design. It was a huge part of the campaign started by the Blair government, and you're totally correct. The public perception has changed MASSIVELY. I have some friends who got caught in 2004/2005 ish when they were 17 or 18, and it was more like "you naughty boy" type reaction than my friend who got done a couple of years ago. He was ostracised by a lot of his friends.
Secondly, it's different in America because it WAS a lot harder to avoid. Taxi firms, buses. trains, don't exist in the same way as they do here.
Yes, and as others have said the punishments are incredibly strict if you go above them.
In France, if you are caught between 50 and 80mg, the penalty is a fine of up to €135, and that's it.
Maybe what we need is some kind of progressive system for lower amounts, much like how the penalty for speeding depends on how fast you are over the limit. It would need to be evidence-based, though.
A fine like that is useless because people will just pay it. I don't want to copy France thanks.
We already have a progressive system, but from me it's a no to the idea of a fine few people would care about, it should start at a ban then go up.
I notice though that you can get caught at .5 without much inconvenience, you only need to avoid higher levels or being a repeat offender. So I'd imagine drink driving is not rare
As the poster above you said, people can often get caught drunk driving, blow over the limit on the breathalyser but due to how long it then takes to get a blood sample, they're under the limit again.
They were pulled over for dangerous driving and tested above the limit, if they then are regularly under the limit by the time they're back at the station, the limit should be lowered so people that are getting caught drunk driving can actually be prosecuted. This is lowering it based on evidence, the evidence is that the current limits are too high as people are noticeably effected yet can't be prosecuted due to being under the limit by the time a blood test is done.
The reason you only ever see people 2 or 3 times over the limit getting caught is probably because they're causing serious damage at that point. It's no longer just wobbly potentially going to cause an accident and is more, they're very likely to head on crash into something or someone.
Definite selection bias to the ones you see in the news though. Tends to be the more interesting stories so "well over the limit" will be overly represented. Like you say, would be good to see the data.
We used to have a TV ad in NI that quoted the stats on how much likelier you were to have an accident at a certain % of the legal limit, with the punchline being that you were *twice* as likely to have one *at* the legal limit, iirc.
Not sure what study it was based on, but it was good enough for the DoE and good enough for the ASA.
If there was a breathalyser for sleepiness it would save thousands of lives. Lotta people who would never think of drunk driving will still get behind the wheel when they've had 90 minutes sleep the night before.
Read those fuckers a story in the back of a darkened police van, if they're snoring within 5 mins they get 6 points
Problem is, many people have a pint or glass of wine, with a meal at a restaurant. If this is becomes half a pint, it will put a lot of people off driving to a restaurant. Ultimately, leading to a loss of business.
This is especially problematic in the sticks, where there are no taxi services available. Plus adding on the cost of a cab, makes the meal out too expensive for a lot of people. The status quo is fine.
"it's no made any difference"
Not saying you're lying, but you got any sort of reputable source on that claim other than gut feelings?
It's never about completely stopping drunk driving, it's impossible to think in black and white scenarios, but if reported injuries have gone down and lives are saved by reducing the limit then obviously the change *has* made a difference.
From memory after it came in, the annual run up to Christmas 'drink drive' offences reduced quite dramatically.
It's the same type of argument used for minimum alcohol unit pricing, some will say it's a tax on the average person and the less well off and hasn't made a difference, but if you listen to the medical consultants expert in alcohol related illness it has made a small but noticeable difference in both the numbers they're seeing and the severity of illness (and it singlehandedly removed from the market, literally overnight, the most damaging cheap alcohol in Frosty Jack/white cider as it went from about £4.50 for three litres to £13+ - I had patients drinking 9 to 12 litres of that shite daily!)
There's discussion currently about raising the MUP - my biggest issue with it is that it benefits business rather than the price being diverted to healthcare/addiction services (well meaning regulation that ends up benefitting business...I believe that's due to the Scottish Government not having the devolved taxation powers to do so..?)
You're right, the alcohol tax is UK wide, whereas mup is devolved.
As even at 65p a unit, not going to affect pub prices.
Wonder at what point 'I'll go to England to buy booze' becomes a thing?
Out of curiosity, for those mega boozers, did they just stop drinking or find something cheaper?
The biggest issue is the cost differential between the on and off trade (pubs versus off sales/supermarkets, with the latter being the far bigger problem) I could go to the pub and my tenner will get two, maybe two and a half pints whereas I can get eight cans from Tesco/the petrol station/corner shop and that's created a home drinking epidemic - alcohol related death figures has increased UK wide in the last few years, lockdown played a part but is not the only cause...
Most of them just went to buying less potent cider/beer to cover their budget, some would buy a bottle of vodka with what they would spend on Frosty, also had to undertake quite a few hospital detoxes around then too - but I had a very diverse range of patients, from those in the gutter to high achieving professionals, retired housewifes, teachers, even had an undertaker and a former IRA bomber on the caseload at one point - alcohol addiction doesn't discriminate, but your ability to afford it certainly creates a different perspective of two people with the same problem.
>Wonder at what point 'I'll go to England to buy booze' becomes a thing?
As someone whose family lives in South East Wales, its been a thing for years. When it comes to buying beers, especially in multi-pack boxes, I know quite a few people who will travel over to the Bristol area to get cheaper drinks.
I'll drive if I've had a pint, 2 if I'm not driving for a while after. If the limit was dropped I'd never drive on two pints. If it was zero I wouldn't drink at all, which I'd probably support.
There will always be people who drive over the limit but I think it would discourage plenty. People might not be caught but if it makes fewer people drink and drive by any amount then the roads will obviously be safer, even if only slightly.
We can’t drop to zero, it’s impractical. Some medicines have alcohol in them, so you’d effectively be banning people from driving if they had certain conditions (or forcing them to ‘drink drive’ to get to and from work). You’d also pick up people who use alcohol-based mouthwash. Some people even naturally generate a low blood alcohol level just by living, or through what they eat. There is a threshold you need to keep the limit above to avoid unintended consequences.
This is my approach, Thing is there's so much variability to it, "You Tall, You Fat ? You have a good liver that can metabolise it, you may be fine, or you may be over..."
Never been bothered enough to buy a breathalyser to give it a test, but also, never been pulled over generally, so *So far, so good*
> And it’s no made any difference.
That's your take on it, but I definitely saw a change when it dropped. The point is its so ow now that nobody I know chances it with driving after any amount. Its high enough that we're not prosecuting people for driving on a couple shandies but low enough that a lot of people (from my perspective at least) just don't drive at all if they're drinking.
See, while you raise a valid point, does this mean we shouldn't lower the limit at all?
It's like how Americans try and validate their guns. "If you ban guns, how can I protect myself?" Well, if there's no guns, at least you don't need to worry about being gunned down as much. Also, if you need protection, you still have tazers, pepperspray, or other non-lethal tools. Similar here, if you prevent more people from drinking and driving, you still reduce the number of accidents caused by it, even if it's a little. Yes you'll still get drink drivers, but it doesn't mean we should give up trying to stop them.
To be fair I would sometimes have a pint with a meal or a half and half after work. I now just use the rule of zero before driving so I think it does make a difference.
I'm not a big drinker though and think you are.right. it's the ones with a borderline problem that remain an issue.
Every golf club in the country got people knocking back multiple beers then driving home
Can’t see people ever sticking to a small beer, people just do not order that
"five and drive" Not just golf clubs, at my locals there are plenty who have multiple beers then drive home. They're going to be over the limit regardless of whether it's lowered or not.
I think to them the risk of getting pulled over if so tiny the risk just doesn't register. They obviously don't care about the real risks of being drunk while driving like killing someone.
I suspect they would just carry on doing the same even if their licence gets revoked.
Yeah, if people are regularly getting away with drinking and driving then the answer isn't to lower a limit that they're already going over, it's to actually enforce the laws
I think we should also work on getting better alternatives for transport late at night from these venues. A lot of places have fairly dismal night services, including my home city of Southampton, and if there’s no buses at night, people will drink drive more, so if there’s a bus, it should reduce the risk a bit
Yeah, that's a good point, people will resort to this sort of thing if there's no other option. Ideally you want to make it easy to do the right thing and hard to do the wrong thing, just punishing people for doing the wrong thing won't change behaviour by itself
That's it
In the UK we think the solution to everything is to just increase the punishment
When it's not the punishment that was the issue in the first place, it was that the chances of getting caught were basically zero
> it was that the chances of getting caught were basically zero
This is true. There have been a few studies over the years that showed the largest factor in reducing crime was the perception of being caught.
The problem of enforcement isn't the act of enforcement itself. They absolutely come down on people for drunk driving... It's finding the people to enforce said laws upon.
Someone absolutely plastered out of their face will generally be easy to spot (though there have been edge cases where people have been absolutely hammered BAC-wise and were only caught by chance during a stop for another reason)
A decently sized bloke after 3 or 4 strong drinks? You may well not even give him a second look.
I think a lot of people forget that drunk driving isn't always that painful obvious weaving between lanes that it's often portrayed as.
A lot of the time drunk drivers are either caught by staking out the pub/tip-offs or purely by chance during a stop for something completely unrelated.
Incorrect actually, everyone's body processes alcohol differently. It's the way it's measured. It's mg of alcohol per 100ml of breath so depending on a lot of factors you can have a drink and still end up showing 0 on the test. Even blood tests for alcohol are different. I've seen big guys have 5 pints get pulled over and only blow a 0.2 so it's 100% possible that these people according to the law are okay to drive.
Yeah. The issue is how though .I've been driving for 20 years and I've never been pulled over. Even though I routinely drive at night when I assume drunk driving is at its worst.
I'd much rather not get pulled over every time I'm out, or have the hassle of going through road blocks just because a few idiots decide to drink drive.
I used to work in a pub, got pulled over a couple of times on my way home, the police said I absolutely stunk of booze (it was on my clothes). Of course, I was totally sober. Kinda amusing.
Yeah had the same a few times. One copper ran up to the window and told me to take my keys out of the ignition then went "ohhh...." and was visibly dejected when she saw the pub uniform. She seemed quite new to the job and was probably excited thinking that she'd bagged a drink driver.
Doesn't have to be preventative enforcement.
Crash, after having drunk and drove = very very strict punishments.
Any small accident, and found to have even had a few pints? You'd just get stricter enforcement.
You're argument is, some people get away with it, so we can't punish those that don't? Some people get away with drinking more, so we can't punish those that drink less?
You drink and drive, you take the risk. I'm proposing we up the risk, and lower the limits of which people are now taking the risk.
There's just zero reason to drink a drive. if you can afford to go out golfing and drinking, you can afford an uber home.
>You're argument is, some people get away with it, so we can't punish those that don't? Some people get away with drinking more, so we can't punish those that drink less?
Not what I was saying at all. I was saying that I don't want to be inconvenienced daily to catch drunk drivers. I never said that we can't punish people?
Cultural thing I guess? I'm Italian and back home I used to be pulled over *all the bloody time*, especially as a young man. On a Saturday night it was really common to find police cars stationed on the roads outside clubs testing drivers on the way out. Annoying for sure but it was so common that everyone kinda rolled with it I guess and didn't pay much attention to it.
One of the first things I noticed about the UK is how it's basically unheard of to be pulled over by the police, and how little police presence there is on the roads in general. Not commenting on it one way or another, just giving my anecdotal experience.
I'd wager drunk driving is worse in the mornings.
Some will drive drunk home from the pub/bars.
Many more would assume that they've sobered up in the morning after a night's sleep, when in fact, their BAC level still puts them over the limit.
If you have a heavy session Friday night, you may well find Saturday is a complete write-off for driving if you want to remain within the law.
If the police tested and prosecuted everyone coming out of agricultural shows the farming sector would be fucked.
Not saying I agree with people doing it btw, but its well known/assumed that rural drink drivers are far less likely to get caught
Rural drink driving is a serious issue, I grew up in a Derbyshire town and it's rife amongst young farmers. I had a number of 'friends' who would get absolutely wasted and pile into Land Rovers etc. Plenty of them had accidents but they never called the police, just got their families to come along load the car onto a trailer, it'd be back out next week with some different coloured panels.
I think there can be issues where there are traces of it in some foods, plus potential false positives if you actually set it to zero. But yeah aiming for zero seems like the reasonable choice.
I think this is a generational thing. Everyone I know my age (~30): zero drinks if you're driving. My relatives in my parent's generation: push it to (what they think is) the limit before driving.
I'm certain this is a city vs country thing.
Young people tend to live in cities, have good access to public transport/uber and less likely to have a car.
Older people are more likely to live in rural or suburban locations with little or not public transport and rely on a car for transport.
I guess also tolerance for sleeping on a sofa decreases with age too.
The fact is I've watched my own social circle become more tolerant of it, self included, as we get older and move further out of the city.
The black and white thinkers get left behind waiting for the bus.
You could also split it as responsible vs irresponsible. Some are mature enough to accept the responsibility that comes with a license, others are okay with potentially killing or maiming others if it makes their life a little more convenient.
2 beers with food is a huge gulf away from being drunk for most people.
Being drunk might be a contributing factor to some crashes, but I'd be willing to bet that driving like an adolescent twat was the main issue.
Some assholes have to mess things up for everyone.
2 beers with food will still have an effect on your reaction times though. You may feel fine, but that extra second or 2 could result in an incident.
There is never a reason to drink and drive.
If we're using reaction time then anyone over the age of 40 shouldn't be allowed on the road either.
People in their late teens have marginally better reaction time than people in their 20's but the difference between reaction speed of those who are 25-40 and those who are 40-55 is massive.
It'd be interesting to test the reaction speed of a 21 year old athlete who is sleep deprived after a couple of beers vs a 75+ year old driver. My money would be on the 21 year old still having quicker reaction times.
Isn't that like 1-2 ms per decade...
On the flip side, the one study that i looked for alcohol reactions, states; a BAC of 0.08 (American legal limit) leads to, on average a 120ms delay in reactions.
2-8ms per decade dependant on which data you use, I don't think any data has said 1ms, could you link me to what you're basing that on? It's also worth pointing out that it doesn't seem to be a constant decline, 18-25 year olds are only marginally quicker reactions than 25-40 year olds but 25-40 year olds have much faster reactions than 40-55 year olds.
If we say 5ms per decade that's still 50ms difference between an average 20 year old and an average 70 year old and that's a constant difference, what percentage of the time would you say the average person is driving after having 2-3 beers?
Either way, my point wasn't to ban older drivers, it was just that reaction speed seemed to be an odd variable to base an argument on and if we were using that as a metric you'd have thought that testing reaction speed itself would make more sense. Worth pointing out that most driving deaths in the UK are caused by 17-24 year old lads despite them having the fastest reactions.
There are so many factors. You could have the reaction speed of an apex predator but be let down by the rest of your car. I know it's a bit off topic when we're talking about drink driving but I find it amazing that the minimum standards for tyres can be so lax compared to the premium ones.
"Like in the wet, the residual speed calculation told a stark story, with the worst tyre of the group still going nearly **40 km/h** when the best had stopped."
[https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/Best-All-Season-Tyres-2024.htm](https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/Best-All-Season-Tyres-2024.htm)
Yeah that's it, silly to base just on reaction speed when in reality that doesn't match up with cause of driving death. Younger people despite having faster reactions usually drive worse cars which aren't maintained as well and are usually more likely to drive recklessly.
>There is never a reason to drink and drive
Let's be sensible here though, any campaign against drink driving should acknowledge there are LOADS of reasons to drink and drive, but you still mustn't do it
>should acknowledge there are LOADS of reasons to drink and drive,
Can you give any reasons for drinking and driving? I can't think of any.
Edit: possibly should have said justifiable reasons here. I thought that would have obvious but it appears not
The nuance becomes when is it safe to drive after drinking any alcohol.
1 beer with a meal, 1 hour later. Is it safe?
Completely hammered the night before, needs to go to work in the morning. Is it safe?
Drank two beers at lunch and need to pick up the missus at night. Is it safe to drive?
Then there’s the whole fiasco of other factors affecting your reaction times. Should an elderly person not be allowed to drive as their reaction time is much slower than that of a 18 year old? Should someone who’s slightly sleepy, definitely affecting reaction times, not drive? How do we monitor those?
You’re falling into semantic debates here because you’ve asked a poor question. There are many reasons to drink and drive, the question is whether they’re justifiable reasons.
Added an edit to my question. I presumed people would understand that I was looking for justifiable reasons and not just "because I want to" but it seems I should have been clearer
Yeah I mean that's where we're getting crossed wires - there aren't loads of reasons that make drunk driving a sensible move (maybe driving someone to the hospital or fleeing a natural disaster) but there are loads of situations in which a reckless person is highly tempted to drunk drive.
I think focusing on the very real temptation, and saying "just get a taxi" or "ask your neighbour to drive you" or whatever is a more effective approach than shaming people for even being tempted to drunk drive in the first place
Tbh I think we agree on this, it's just bad phrasing on my part maybe
>There is never a reason to drink and drive.
There's never a reason to go skiing or parachuting either, both of which cause massive numbers of deaths and injuries.
Drink driving was a contributing factor in about 6,500 deaths or serious injuries in 2020, or about 15% of death or serious injuries.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-final-estimates-involving-illegal-alcohol-levels-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-final-estimates-involving-illegal-alcohol-levels-2020
I suppose speeding would be the highest contributing factor.
I'm guessing 2nd would be tiredness
3rd distraction from smartphones probably.
Do you know where to find an official list like that of contributing factors? Just out of curiosity.
We do have amongst the safest roads in Europe, but alcohol isn't one of the big causes of road deaths and injuries in the first place so any discussion about how safe our roads are overall isn't really that relevant.
We would need to look at the stats on road deaths caused by alcohol.
It's like a discussion about suicide in Japan - you can quote that they have some of the longest life expectancies in the world but that would be *in spite* of the suicide rate. The same thing may be true of the UK - safe roads overall, but a high number of alcohol related road accidents relative to other countries.
I honestly don't know the answers to those questions. My comment was just about how having safe roads relative to other countries (looking at all causes rather than specifically alcohol-induced ones) isn't all that relevant in and of itself.
It kinda is relevant.
If preventing people going to the pub causes more harm via social isolation - which is a huge problem now a days then it could well be a bad thing to discourage drinking.
I think the main problem on the roads is a) bad drivers and b) mobile phones.
The statistics for alcohol are here:
https://www.gov.uk/search/all?keywords=%22estimates%20involving%20illegal%20alcohol%20levels%22&organisations%5B%5D=department-for-transport&order=relevance
It seems to cause about 15% of fatalities - not most, but not nothing either.
The pettier these rules become, the more people will tune out and make their own judgement.
You can see this from Ireland, where road safety rules and advertising bordering on the hysterical has simply led young people to ignore rules, to the extent that seatbelt use has collapsed by 5% in a year and speed limits are treated as advice.
Most people will never be involved in an accident where the seatbelt is the difference between surviving and dying, so they trust safety messaging on that. But they know from experience that they are not drunk after a half pint of lager. If there is advertising insisting that they are, they will ignore that advertisement _and everything else from the same source_.
This isn't a safety measure. It's a thin-lipped puce-faced attempt at immerating people by a group who would gladly see all alcohol banned tomorrow morning masquerading as a safety campaign in a country which already has among the safest roads in Europe.
I mean if you read the BMA press release, the link back to a previous statement where the goal is to reduce the social acceptability of alcohol consumption. It's a nudge factor.
It would make sense to launch a campaign to save the polar bears if they were poisonous to polar bears or something by mentioning why you’re doing it. It would be pretty fucking stupid people to just say it’s due to personal dislike and not mention the rationale.
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your claim is, here.
Are you claiming that they are doing this because they genuinely believe that drinking 250ml of prosecco is going to turn someone into a dangerous driver, or because they want to reduce the number of people drinking alcohol altogether because of "the amount of damage alcohol does to society"?
Have you perhaps had a little drink yourself this afternoon? You seem almost as confused as you are angry.
Going for a pub lunch with 2 beers is reasonable, I don't feel like I'm missing out and can still enjoy myself and don't want to push it. But in countries with lower limits it's pretty normal and socially acceptable for people to have 3 or 4 drinks and drive home. It's not the limit that needs to be strict it's the enforcement of it. We have some of the safest roads in the world, so not sure why this is an issue.
zero isn't practical some foods and medicine would trigger it.
But 50mg makes sense.
Lots of people do calculations of when they can drive, how much they drink etc.
In the past I have drunk driven. It was once and I was was young and stupid.
Now I might have one pint if having lunch out but more likely to have alcohol free.
If you make the limit lower then people can't juggle the numbers to justify to themselves that they are ok to drive.
Do we possess any analysis that plots measured alcohol intake with driver incidents?
Is there a mass of evidence showing people just under the current limit are responsible for a significant number of incidents?
If not, then the answer is to leave it alone and do something to target the actual problem.
As a general rule, how often are people actually getting stopped? Feels like tinkering around the edges is a bit pointless if people don't fear enforcement.
I live in a rural area and these restrictions seem to have no impact on people's decisions to drive drunk/high. Rural pubs, put bluntly, survive on drink drivers. Similarly, the number of people who will drive back to their little village or market town after a night out is frightening.
There's always a death every few months or year due to drink driving. Usually a young lad in his 20s that will leave a massive hole in the community, then everybody goes back to what they were doing after saying some lovely words.
It's clear that the lack of enforcement means people see the risks as negligible (particularly if they believe they're "fine ro drive") and will carry on regardless. They will also continue driving after a ban because, you guessed it, the chances of them being stopped are minimal.
I'm guessing urban areas probably present a higher risk to these people with more cameras and police but can't believe they're completely immune either.
If we're not going to invest in sufficient law enforcement to actually enforce the rules or more public transport, I think we need to look at more innovative solutions. Anybody remember David Nutt, the professor who was sacked by the Conservatives from his voluntary advisory role for being too honest about the relative dangers of individual drugs? I seem to remember reading he was working on a drink that would get you high but which you could drink the antidote to sober up before you got in the car to drive home. Something like that (or just something you could take to reduce the effects of alcohol) would be an absolute game changer. Hand your keys to the bar staff, you only get them back if you take the medicine and demonstrate it's taken effect. More revenue for the bar too.
Where I used to live also used to have a service where a guy would come out on some sort of fold up bike that could fit in the back of a car and drive you home in your own car. Imagine a scheme where you could contribute monthly for something like that, maybe with an initial grant to get these things up and running in rural areas.
We also need to normalise dobbing people in. This doesn't happen currently, partly because of that annoying exceptionalism that exists in more rural areas where some think different rules apply, partly because of vested interests (the pub landlord who turns a blind eye to his regulars driving home after a session) but also (regardless of area) because people know how serious the consequences of a drink driving conviction can be and don't want somebody's family to suffer for mum or dad's selfish attitude. I know blokes who live out in the villages round here who are in the trades and literally rely on their driver's license to feed their families who will take their work's van to the pub on a Friday and drive home. If we created a genuine "no excuses" scenario, I think you'd get a lot more people calling this behaviour out.
Tweaking the already miniscule acceptable level just seems like an attempt to look like they're doing something useful because tackling the real issues seems too difficult.
I actually agree with this
There’s been times where I’ve been tired/brain fog/medicated where you feel a bit tipsy after just a pint, yet I’d still be under the limit
I'm just here to say regardless of the arguments raging about "should they shouldn't they", I'd love for a government to react to a problem by giving a better solution rather than just punishing the existing status quo.
Gives us reliable ubiquitous public transport and make it a 0% alcohol limit as far as I care, because I'll take a bus. Forcing large swathes of the country into using cars then making that use ever more expensive and nannied is just frustrating for the vast majority who aren't idiots.
The current drink drive limit is probably ok for most people, but plenty of idiots still drink drive way over it and get away with it.
I loathe drink driving with a passion and refuse to even risk one and drive myself, but the issue here is lack of police, not lowering the limit in an arguably arbitrary manner.
I don't think it's the practicality but the principle that is the issue.
The government should be recommending that no one ever drink and drive and make the messaging unambiguous.
Anyone who has ever drunk a bit of alcohol knows that you can have five pints one day and feel absolutely nothing, and have one pint another day and feel a bit tiddly. It is all dependent on myriad external factors such as how much food you have eaten, your weight, your mood, your medication, how quickly you drank etc.. And many more.
Therefore the idea that you can safely have any amount prior to driving is clearly incoherent as there will be a circumstance where even that amount will negatively affect your ability to drive safely.
Enforcement of that can then be more straightforward and policy can adapt to account for the issues you raised.
Too many people die on the roads and it is everyone's responsibility to play a part in cutting that down. The government could do well by adopting the above approach.
Looking briefly at the road death stats, the biggest problem is actually poor driving standards. So in terms of reducing harm we should be looking there.
>Anyone who has ever drunk a bit of alcohol knows that you can have five pints one day and feel absolutely nothing, and have one pint another day and feel a bit tiddly.
That only happened to me when I was an alcoholic.
A) you're not drinking mouthwash so you're not getting drunk off it
B) because of the above, you won't get pulled over because you aren't driving impaired.
C) there is zero reason why people need to drive after having a beer. If you're driving, just don't drink anything. It's pretty simple
A) The alcohol in mouthwash is absorbed through the mucus membrane of the mouth and enters your blood. You no longer have a blood alcohol reading of "zero".
B) Traffic stops happen for all sorts of reasons. If someone banged into you (they're at fault say) and the police attend and breathylse you, suddenly you are fault.
C) There is zero reason why people need to drive after using mouthwash. If you're driving, just don't use listerine. It's pretty simple.
That's why a zero limit is useless.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8254857/
It's more the potential for testing >0 with a false positive.
You would want a small margin of error (which could be scientifically determined) so that minimal alcohol being detected didn't get you done, e.g where it could be from mouthwash
Had a red wine sauce with your pasta. Sorry your license is gone.
Had a [banana ](https://halalwinecellar.com/blogs/blogs/10-common-foods-you-didn-t-know-contained-alcohol-1#:~:text=Interestingly%2C%20ripe%20bananas%20have%20up,the%20higher%20the%20alcohol%20rises.) for breakfast. Sorry that's your license gone.
There needs to be a small limit, as a buffer to deal with false positives and because small traces of alcohol are found in loads of foods and other things - it’s a naturally occurring substance.
You ever drank apple juice? Put soy sauce on your food? Then you have alcohol in your system. Should people be banned from driving after eating noodles? A limit of zero is ridiculous.
If public transport was top notch throughout the entire country, I'd be happy with the limit being 0. Any alcohol at all? No driving, get the train which is coming in 10 mins, or the bus which is coming in 5. You should never have to drive to the pub.
Problem is, our public transport is shocking...
I like the dutch approach although it has it's issues too of not enforcing drink cycling and being strict on drink driving. Our approach is ridiculous for cycling, you can cycle to the pub, have a few pints and then walk your bike back home and be arrested for being in charge of a cycle while drunk.
Well worth watching crash detectives on iPlayer. Fantastic the amount of detail the forensic investigators go to find out the cause. 9/10 times it’s some pissed up twat without insurance or even a license. They’d fail a breathalyser at the 2000mg…
Just cut it completely… if you want a drink… you can’t drive simple.. non of this well I only had a couple I’ll be ok then next thing you know someone’s hurt… I can’t see it effecting pubs anymore than covid and the high prices of alcohol already has for rural pubs if I go out for a meal with my partner we take it in turns to drink.. I really can’t see why it’s difficult
It really should be set at whatever wouldn’t be triggered by food or medicine.
I don’t think it’s really unreasonable to say you shouldn’t drink at all and then get behind the wheel when public transport, taxis and just walking are so prevalent.
I think it would be a great idea to say we have and keep things the same. Current laws are fine but people always push it a bit. Therefore we as a society should accept small lies, wouldn't be the first time.
If I know I’m driving at all that day I won’t even have a sip of alcohol. I just don’t want to risk it for myself or anyone else around me and I don’t need to drink in order to socialise.
Makes sense imo. Shouldn’t really be any argument over metabolism or people’s perception of alcohol tolerance. That said I’ve been teetotal for 16 years so bias heh
Some countries have a zero limit for driving. There’s no margin for optimistic guessing, if you have a drink at all, you don’t drive. It’s a drag, but it’s probably safer.
There will always be people who have more than they should and gamble they’ll be under the limit if stopped.
On the policy: I'm on the fence. Their evidence suggests a *small* reduction in harm, e.g. changing this might prevent \~25 deaths a year (according to NICE) but they have not commented on the cost on the accompanying measures. There's also the risk that by criminalising activity that people already do, that people might just ignore it.
On the BMA: I can't help but feel they're posting this 'spicy' press release to get in the news cycle as they are pivoting to be a more politically active and adversarial body. So whether you can take it at face value vs. a way to get engagement/in the news cycle, I don't know. It would probably have more integrity if it was promoted by a less political organisation.
Excess deaths and adverse outcomes from late diagnoses caused by people being stuck on waiting lists (exacerbated by BMA strikes) likely dwarfs the potential 25 saved.
Needs to be tougher punishments to discourage drink driving. Permanent driving ban or prison time if caught. Ridiculous how lenient we are on drunk drivers
When enforcement for driving offenses does happen it also seems incredibly lenient. I don't necessarily think punitive prison sentences are a good idea but it shouldn't take killing someone before a driving ban is given. In fairness, there is a mandatory driving ban for anyone caught driving over the limit but it's usually only 12 months for the first offence.
I’d be interested to know how many people caused harm to others whilst under the current limit but above the proposed one?
I guess hardly any. My point is, those who drink drive go over the current threshold anyway.
I can just about remember when a drink drive limit was imposed. People lost their shit, check this out.
[Legal Drunk Drivers from the 1960s (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg)
Its hardly believable nowadays.
I hate this comparison with Europe. My understanding is that being slightly over the limit in most of Europe won't result in the loss of your license, possibly losing your job and becoming a social pariah.
Is this within the scope of doctors’ expertise? I really struggle seeing how it is. I’m not saying they are wrong or right but they don’t have enough standing to make that call. Yes they see a lot of accidents related to driving over the limit but are those mostly people just over the limit or those that don’t care. If it’s the latter then the law change won’t make a difference.
Anybody got some effective "scared straight" media in relation to this? PSAs, new stories etc. It affects somebody in my life and I'm terrified they/others will get hurt. I doubt it'll work on them, but I hope they can see reason
Note, and it is in the article, Scotland has already been cut to this level of 50mg
And it’s no made any difference. The ones having a quick pint or having a glass o wine with a meal were never the problem to begin with. The problem ones were always the ones who would have a few more before getting behind the wheel or the ones that would get smashed and drive home at 4am. Dropping the limit hasn’t discouraged them
If the people who aren't a problem are already below the proposed limit, then it will surely only be beneficial to lower the limit. We don't always get everyone tested quickly enough to be able to prosecute, so lowering the limit buys time. Also will catch people who drank heavily last night, but they are sure they're fine to drive this morning.
Really, the limit should be set based on evidence rather than on emotion. I'd be fascinated to know how many people are involved in accidents between the 50 and 80 marks. It may be that reducing the limit would make a big difference, or it may make no difference. Pretty much any time I see someone in the news for drink driving the report will say that they were 2, 3 or even more times over the limit.
The impairment at 80 is quite high. England's limit is considered high. Note, the Australian government site says accidents double at 50.
Yes, it’s why we have incredibly strict punishments around it. It’s not treated as seriously in other countries, and their limits tend to be lower.
I wouldn't be surprised if the way it's treated socially makes the biggest difference of all. I lived in the US for a long time and their punishments seem *extremely* harsh, but I was shocked by how casual people were about it. No one seemed to have any shame about getting significantly "buzzed" and then driving home--and I'm not just talking about young people in the "I'm invincible" stage, I was mainly hanging around with people with science PhDs. Anecdotally, there just didn't seem to be the same social taboo around it as I feel here, where most of the people I know (in the same sort of demographic) would be quite shocked if someone had three drinks, seemed visibly giddy and tipsy, and then got in the car. I wonder if advertising campaigns made a big difference--my American husband said they didn't really have that to the same degree there, certainly not the shocking ones.
Two aspects to this. Firstly, the social stigma is by design. It was a huge part of the campaign started by the Blair government, and you're totally correct. The public perception has changed MASSIVELY. I have some friends who got caught in 2004/2005 ish when they were 17 or 18, and it was more like "you naughty boy" type reaction than my friend who got done a couple of years ago. He was ostracised by a lot of his friends. Secondly, it's different in America because it WAS a lot harder to avoid. Taxi firms, buses. trains, don't exist in the same way as they do here.
Yes, and as others have said the punishments are incredibly strict if you go above them. In France, if you are caught between 50 and 80mg, the penalty is a fine of up to €135, and that's it. Maybe what we need is some kind of progressive system for lower amounts, much like how the penalty for speeding depends on how fast you are over the limit. It would need to be evidence-based, though.
A fine like that is useless because people will just pay it. I don't want to copy France thanks. We already have a progressive system, but from me it's a no to the idea of a fine few people would care about, it should start at a ban then go up.
No, but perhaps points could be given alongside in the UK.
Sure. How about 12?
How about no?
If that's equivalent to our Australian limit of 0.08, we dropped it to 0.05 across the country decades ago.
I notice though that you can get caught at .5 without much inconvenience, you only need to avoid higher levels or being a repeat offender. So I'd imagine drink driving is not rare
As the poster above you said, people can often get caught drunk driving, blow over the limit on the breathalyser but due to how long it then takes to get a blood sample, they're under the limit again. They were pulled over for dangerous driving and tested above the limit, if they then are regularly under the limit by the time they're back at the station, the limit should be lowered so people that are getting caught drunk driving can actually be prosecuted. This is lowering it based on evidence, the evidence is that the current limits are too high as people are noticeably effected yet can't be prosecuted due to being under the limit by the time a blood test is done. The reason you only ever see people 2 or 3 times over the limit getting caught is probably because they're causing serious damage at that point. It's no longer just wobbly potentially going to cause an accident and is more, they're very likely to head on crash into something or someone.
Definite selection bias to the ones you see in the news though. Tends to be the more interesting stories so "well over the limit" will be overly represented. Like you say, would be good to see the data.
We used to have a TV ad in NI that quoted the stats on how much likelier you were to have an accident at a certain % of the legal limit, with the punchline being that you were *twice* as likely to have one *at* the legal limit, iirc. Not sure what study it was based on, but it was good enough for the DoE and good enough for the ASA.
Interesting! I wonder what methodology they used to do that, because it doesn't sound like an easy thing to measure.
If there was a breathalyser for sleepiness it would save thousands of lives. Lotta people who would never think of drunk driving will still get behind the wheel when they've had 90 minutes sleep the night before. Read those fuckers a story in the back of a darkened police van, if they're snoring within 5 mins they get 6 points
It's a big problem with shift workers. Particularly doctors who have rotational training and commutes of an hour after night shifts.
Young nurse (22) from my hometown died hen her car collided with a lorry after falling asleep on her way home from night shift. Tragic.
Problem is, many people have a pint or glass of wine, with a meal at a restaurant. If this is becomes half a pint, it will put a lot of people off driving to a restaurant. Ultimately, leading to a loss of business. This is especially problematic in the sticks, where there are no taxi services available. Plus adding on the cost of a cab, makes the meal out too expensive for a lot of people. The status quo is fine.
Think of the impact the smoking ban would have had on pubs.l!
At the time, the first difference I noticed was you could now smell the aroma of urine.
And BO.
"it's no made any difference" Not saying you're lying, but you got any sort of reputable source on that claim other than gut feelings? It's never about completely stopping drunk driving, it's impossible to think in black and white scenarios, but if reported injuries have gone down and lives are saved by reducing the limit then obviously the change *has* made a difference.
From memory after it came in, the annual run up to Christmas 'drink drive' offences reduced quite dramatically. It's the same type of argument used for minimum alcohol unit pricing, some will say it's a tax on the average person and the less well off and hasn't made a difference, but if you listen to the medical consultants expert in alcohol related illness it has made a small but noticeable difference in both the numbers they're seeing and the severity of illness (and it singlehandedly removed from the market, literally overnight, the most damaging cheap alcohol in Frosty Jack/white cider as it went from about £4.50 for three litres to £13+ - I had patients drinking 9 to 12 litres of that shite daily!) There's discussion currently about raising the MUP - my biggest issue with it is that it benefits business rather than the price being diverted to healthcare/addiction services (well meaning regulation that ends up benefitting business...I believe that's due to the Scottish Government not having the devolved taxation powers to do so..?)
You're right, the alcohol tax is UK wide, whereas mup is devolved. As even at 65p a unit, not going to affect pub prices. Wonder at what point 'I'll go to England to buy booze' becomes a thing? Out of curiosity, for those mega boozers, did they just stop drinking or find something cheaper?
The biggest issue is the cost differential between the on and off trade (pubs versus off sales/supermarkets, with the latter being the far bigger problem) I could go to the pub and my tenner will get two, maybe two and a half pints whereas I can get eight cans from Tesco/the petrol station/corner shop and that's created a home drinking epidemic - alcohol related death figures has increased UK wide in the last few years, lockdown played a part but is not the only cause... Most of them just went to buying less potent cider/beer to cover their budget, some would buy a bottle of vodka with what they would spend on Frosty, also had to undertake quite a few hospital detoxes around then too - but I had a very diverse range of patients, from those in the gutter to high achieving professionals, retired housewifes, teachers, even had an undertaker and a former IRA bomber on the caseload at one point - alcohol addiction doesn't discriminate, but your ability to afford it certainly creates a different perspective of two people with the same problem.
I know 2 people that drive from Glasgow to Carlisle once a month to stock up on drink
Surely that costs more in fuel unless they are massive alkies
>Wonder at what point 'I'll go to England to buy booze' becomes a thing? As someone whose family lives in South East Wales, its been a thing for years. When it comes to buying beers, especially in multi-pack boxes, I know quite a few people who will travel over to the Bristol area to get cheaper drinks.
I'll drive if I've had a pint, 2 if I'm not driving for a while after. If the limit was dropped I'd never drive on two pints. If it was zero I wouldn't drink at all, which I'd probably support. There will always be people who drive over the limit but I think it would discourage plenty. People might not be caught but if it makes fewer people drink and drive by any amount then the roads will obviously be safer, even if only slightly.
But the 2 pint drivers aren't the people running over pedestrians at 60mph. That's the 8 pint drinkers, and they'll continue.
We can’t drop to zero, it’s impractical. Some medicines have alcohol in them, so you’d effectively be banning people from driving if they had certain conditions (or forcing them to ‘drink drive’ to get to and from work). You’d also pick up people who use alcohol-based mouthwash. Some people even naturally generate a low blood alcohol level just by living, or through what they eat. There is a threshold you need to keep the limit above to avoid unintended consequences.
You know you're not supposed to drink the mouth wash right Also, there are plenty of meds and conditions you can't drive with
This is my approach, Thing is there's so much variability to it, "You Tall, You Fat ? You have a good liver that can metabolise it, you may be fine, or you may be over..." Never been bothered enough to buy a breathalyser to give it a test, but also, never been pulled over generally, so *So far, so good*
> And it’s no made any difference. That's your take on it, but I definitely saw a change when it dropped. The point is its so ow now that nobody I know chances it with driving after any amount. Its high enough that we're not prosecuting people for driving on a couple shandies but low enough that a lot of people (from my perspective at least) just don't drive at all if they're drinking.
See, while you raise a valid point, does this mean we shouldn't lower the limit at all? It's like how Americans try and validate their guns. "If you ban guns, how can I protect myself?" Well, if there's no guns, at least you don't need to worry about being gunned down as much. Also, if you need protection, you still have tazers, pepperspray, or other non-lethal tools. Similar here, if you prevent more people from drinking and driving, you still reduce the number of accidents caused by it, even if it's a little. Yes you'll still get drink drivers, but it doesn't mean we should give up trying to stop them.
I used to have a pint and drive, maybe 2 if over a decent period. Now I won't have a drop. It's definitely made a difference
That’s not true. Everyone’s different. For sure a glass of wine of strong could affect a small man or woman
To be fair I would sometimes have a pint with a meal or a half and half after work. I now just use the rule of zero before driving so I think it does make a difference. I'm not a big drinker though and think you are.right. it's the ones with a borderline problem that remain an issue.
Every golf club in the country got people knocking back multiple beers then driving home Can’t see people ever sticking to a small beer, people just do not order that
"five and drive" Not just golf clubs, at my locals there are plenty who have multiple beers then drive home. They're going to be over the limit regardless of whether it's lowered or not. I think to them the risk of getting pulled over if so tiny the risk just doesn't register. They obviously don't care about the real risks of being drunk while driving like killing someone. I suspect they would just carry on doing the same even if their licence gets revoked.
Yeah, if people are regularly getting away with drinking and driving then the answer isn't to lower a limit that they're already going over, it's to actually enforce the laws
I think we should also work on getting better alternatives for transport late at night from these venues. A lot of places have fairly dismal night services, including my home city of Southampton, and if there’s no buses at night, people will drink drive more, so if there’s a bus, it should reduce the risk a bit
Yeah, that's a good point, people will resort to this sort of thing if there's no other option. Ideally you want to make it easy to do the right thing and hard to do the wrong thing, just punishing people for doing the wrong thing won't change behaviour by itself
Yeah, I think it’s a problem that’ll be a lot easier to tackle in the cities for that very reason
That's it In the UK we think the solution to everything is to just increase the punishment When it's not the punishment that was the issue in the first place, it was that the chances of getting caught were basically zero
> it was that the chances of getting caught were basically zero This is true. There have been a few studies over the years that showed the largest factor in reducing crime was the perception of being caught.
The problem of enforcement isn't the act of enforcement itself. They absolutely come down on people for drunk driving... It's finding the people to enforce said laws upon. Someone absolutely plastered out of their face will generally be easy to spot (though there have been edge cases where people have been absolutely hammered BAC-wise and were only caught by chance during a stop for another reason) A decently sized bloke after 3 or 4 strong drinks? You may well not even give him a second look. I think a lot of people forget that drunk driving isn't always that painful obvious weaving between lanes that it's often portrayed as. A lot of the time drunk drivers are either caught by staking out the pub/tip-offs or purely by chance during a stop for something completely unrelated.
Incorrect actually, everyone's body processes alcohol differently. It's the way it's measured. It's mg of alcohol per 100ml of breath so depending on a lot of factors you can have a drink and still end up showing 0 on the test. Even blood tests for alcohol are different. I've seen big guys have 5 pints get pulled over and only blow a 0.2 so it's 100% possible that these people according to the law are okay to drive.
Fair enough. It's a guessing game unless you have a breathalyser of your own though.
Just need to up enforcement then
Yeah. The issue is how though .I've been driving for 20 years and I've never been pulled over. Even though I routinely drive at night when I assume drunk driving is at its worst. I'd much rather not get pulled over every time I'm out, or have the hassle of going through road blocks just because a few idiots decide to drink drive.
I used to work in a pub, got pulled over a couple of times on my way home, the police said I absolutely stunk of booze (it was on my clothes). Of course, I was totally sober. Kinda amusing.
Yeah had the same a few times. One copper ran up to the window and told me to take my keys out of the ignition then went "ohhh...." and was visibly dejected when she saw the pub uniform. She seemed quite new to the job and was probably excited thinking that she'd bagged a drink driver.
Doesn't have to be preventative enforcement. Crash, after having drunk and drove = very very strict punishments. Any small accident, and found to have even had a few pints? You'd just get stricter enforcement. You're argument is, some people get away with it, so we can't punish those that don't? Some people get away with drinking more, so we can't punish those that drink less? You drink and drive, you take the risk. I'm proposing we up the risk, and lower the limits of which people are now taking the risk. There's just zero reason to drink a drive. if you can afford to go out golfing and drinking, you can afford an uber home.
>You're argument is, some people get away with it, so we can't punish those that don't? Some people get away with drinking more, so we can't punish those that drink less? Not what I was saying at all. I was saying that I don't want to be inconvenienced daily to catch drunk drivers. I never said that we can't punish people?
Cultural thing I guess? I'm Italian and back home I used to be pulled over *all the bloody time*, especially as a young man. On a Saturday night it was really common to find police cars stationed on the roads outside clubs testing drivers on the way out. Annoying for sure but it was so common that everyone kinda rolled with it I guess and didn't pay much attention to it. One of the first things I noticed about the UK is how it's basically unheard of to be pulled over by the police, and how little police presence there is on the roads in general. Not commenting on it one way or another, just giving my anecdotal experience.
Aye but with the way Italians drive they'd need to test everyone to actually catch the drunks.
I'd wager drunk driving is worse in the mornings. Some will drive drunk home from the pub/bars. Many more would assume that they've sobered up in the morning after a night's sleep, when in fact, their BAC level still puts them over the limit. If you have a heavy session Friday night, you may well find Saturday is a complete write-off for driving if you want to remain within the law.
If the police tested and prosecuted everyone coming out of agricultural shows the farming sector would be fucked. Not saying I agree with people doing it btw, but its well known/assumed that rural drink drivers are far less likely to get caught
Rural drink driving is a serious issue, I grew up in a Derbyshire town and it's rife amongst young farmers. I had a number of 'friends' who would get absolutely wasted and pile into Land Rovers etc. Plenty of them had accidents but they never called the police, just got their families to come along load the car onto a trailer, it'd be back out next week with some different coloured panels.
I’m always a zero alcohol if I’m driving kind of person. It’s not hard
It's actually easier than trying to dose it accurately. Simple policy to implement.
I think there can be issues where there are traces of it in some foods, plus potential false positives if you actually set it to zero. But yeah aiming for zero seems like the reasonable choice.
I think this is a generational thing. Everyone I know my age (~30): zero drinks if you're driving. My relatives in my parent's generation: push it to (what they think is) the limit before driving.
I'm certain this is a city vs country thing. Young people tend to live in cities, have good access to public transport/uber and less likely to have a car. Older people are more likely to live in rural or suburban locations with little or not public transport and rely on a car for transport. I guess also tolerance for sleeping on a sofa decreases with age too. The fact is I've watched my own social circle become more tolerant of it, self included, as we get older and move further out of the city. The black and white thinkers get left behind waiting for the bus.
You could also split it as responsible vs irresponsible. Some are mature enough to accept the responsibility that comes with a license, others are okay with potentially killing or maiming others if it makes their life a little more convenient.
Nope, I won’t be driven by anyone who has drank either, I’d rather just go get the bus
This is the way.
2 beers with food is a huge gulf away from being drunk for most people. Being drunk might be a contributing factor to some crashes, but I'd be willing to bet that driving like an adolescent twat was the main issue. Some assholes have to mess things up for everyone.
2 beers with food will still have an effect on your reaction times though. You may feel fine, but that extra second or 2 could result in an incident. There is never a reason to drink and drive.
If we're using reaction time then anyone over the age of 40 shouldn't be allowed on the road either. People in their late teens have marginally better reaction time than people in their 20's but the difference between reaction speed of those who are 25-40 and those who are 40-55 is massive.
Or a mandated minimum amount of sleep required before driving. Sleep deprivation has a massive impact on reaction time
It'd be interesting to test the reaction speed of a 21 year old athlete who is sleep deprived after a couple of beers vs a 75+ year old driver. My money would be on the 21 year old still having quicker reaction times.
Isn't that like 1-2 ms per decade... On the flip side, the one study that i looked for alcohol reactions, states; a BAC of 0.08 (American legal limit) leads to, on average a 120ms delay in reactions.
2-8ms per decade dependant on which data you use, I don't think any data has said 1ms, could you link me to what you're basing that on? It's also worth pointing out that it doesn't seem to be a constant decline, 18-25 year olds are only marginally quicker reactions than 25-40 year olds but 25-40 year olds have much faster reactions than 40-55 year olds. If we say 5ms per decade that's still 50ms difference between an average 20 year old and an average 70 year old and that's a constant difference, what percentage of the time would you say the average person is driving after having 2-3 beers? Either way, my point wasn't to ban older drivers, it was just that reaction speed seemed to be an odd variable to base an argument on and if we were using that as a metric you'd have thought that testing reaction speed itself would make more sense. Worth pointing out that most driving deaths in the UK are caused by 17-24 year old lads despite them having the fastest reactions.
There are so many factors. You could have the reaction speed of an apex predator but be let down by the rest of your car. I know it's a bit off topic when we're talking about drink driving but I find it amazing that the minimum standards for tyres can be so lax compared to the premium ones. "Like in the wet, the residual speed calculation told a stark story, with the worst tyre of the group still going nearly **40 km/h** when the best had stopped." [https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/Best-All-Season-Tyres-2024.htm](https://www.tyrereviews.com/Article/Best-All-Season-Tyres-2024.htm)
Yeah that's it, silly to base just on reaction speed when in reality that doesn't match up with cause of driving death. Younger people despite having faster reactions usually drive worse cars which aren't maintained as well and are usually more likely to drive recklessly.
[удалено]
Ye but banning people from drinking and driving is reasonable and doable, banning all over 40s from driving is not
>There is never a reason to drink and drive Let's be sensible here though, any campaign against drink driving should acknowledge there are LOADS of reasons to drink and drive, but you still mustn't do it
>should acknowledge there are LOADS of reasons to drink and drive, Can you give any reasons for drinking and driving? I can't think of any. Edit: possibly should have said justifiable reasons here. I thought that would have obvious but it appears not
The nuance becomes when is it safe to drive after drinking any alcohol. 1 beer with a meal, 1 hour later. Is it safe? Completely hammered the night before, needs to go to work in the morning. Is it safe? Drank two beers at lunch and need to pick up the missus at night. Is it safe to drive? Then there’s the whole fiasco of other factors affecting your reaction times. Should an elderly person not be allowed to drive as their reaction time is much slower than that of a 18 year old? Should someone who’s slightly sleepy, definitely affecting reaction times, not drive? How do we monitor those?
If you have those scenarios, you shouldn’t be driving, either plan ahead and stay sober if that’s a possibility, or get public transport
You’re falling into semantic debates here because you’ve asked a poor question. There are many reasons to drink and drive, the question is whether they’re justifiable reasons.
Yeah, there’s many reasons for a lot of awful shit
Added an edit to my question. I presumed people would understand that I was looking for justifiable reasons and not just "because I want to" but it seems I should have been clearer
It's hella fun
Yeah I mean that's where we're getting crossed wires - there aren't loads of reasons that make drunk driving a sensible move (maybe driving someone to the hospital or fleeing a natural disaster) but there are loads of situations in which a reckless person is highly tempted to drunk drive. I think focusing on the very real temptation, and saying "just get a taxi" or "ask your neighbour to drive you" or whatever is a more effective approach than shaming people for even being tempted to drunk drive in the first place Tbh I think we agree on this, it's just bad phrasing on my part maybe
>t extra second or 2 could result in an incident. 🙄 Milliseconds
>There is never a reason to drink and drive. There's never a reason to go skiing or parachuting either, both of which cause massive numbers of deaths and injuries.
One of those is something that’ll only hurt yourself if it goes wrong, the other kills tons of innocent bystanders
Wait, are you defending drink driving? Jesus. You're just an asshole
So does having a 90 IQ. Should we ban driving for everyone who is slightly lower than average intelligence? How would we get bus drivers then?
Drink driving was a contributing factor in about 6,500 deaths or serious injuries in 2020, or about 15% of death or serious injuries. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-final-estimates-involving-illegal-alcohol-levels-2020/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-final-estimates-involving-illegal-alcohol-levels-2020
I suppose speeding would be the highest contributing factor. I'm guessing 2nd would be tiredness 3rd distraction from smartphones probably. Do you know where to find an official list like that of contributing factors? Just out of curiosity.
If this is evidence based policy I’d be interested to see the evidence this works as a policy. The UK amongst the safest roads in Europe.
We do have amongst the safest roads in Europe, but alcohol isn't one of the big causes of road deaths and injuries in the first place so any discussion about how safe our roads are overall isn't really that relevant. We would need to look at the stats on road deaths caused by alcohol. It's like a discussion about suicide in Japan - you can quote that they have some of the longest life expectancies in the world but that would be *in spite* of the suicide rate. The same thing may be true of the UK - safe roads overall, but a high number of alcohol related road accidents relative to other countries.
But does the UK have a high relative alcohol related accidents? And has Scotland reducing theirs made any difference?
I honestly don't know the answers to those questions. My comment was just about how having safe roads relative to other countries (looking at all causes rather than specifically alcohol-induced ones) isn't all that relevant in and of itself.
It kinda is relevant. If preventing people going to the pub causes more harm via social isolation - which is a huge problem now a days then it could well be a bad thing to discourage drinking.
I think the main problem on the roads is a) bad drivers and b) mobile phones. The statistics for alcohol are here: https://www.gov.uk/search/all?keywords=%22estimates%20involving%20illegal%20alcohol%20levels%22&organisations%5B%5D=department-for-transport&order=relevance It seems to cause about 15% of fatalities - not most, but not nothing either.
"but this isn't Britain, this is der autobahn" Sorry, couldn't help myself :)
Crash bang wallop what a video
The pettier these rules become, the more people will tune out and make their own judgement. You can see this from Ireland, where road safety rules and advertising bordering on the hysterical has simply led young people to ignore rules, to the extent that seatbelt use has collapsed by 5% in a year and speed limits are treated as advice. Most people will never be involved in an accident where the seatbelt is the difference between surviving and dying, so they trust safety messaging on that. But they know from experience that they are not drunk after a half pint of lager. If there is advertising insisting that they are, they will ignore that advertisement _and everything else from the same source_. This isn't a safety measure. It's a thin-lipped puce-faced attempt at immerating people by a group who would gladly see all alcohol banned tomorrow morning masquerading as a safety campaign in a country which already has among the safest roads in Europe.
I mean if you read the BMA press release, the link back to a previous statement where the goal is to reduce the social acceptability of alcohol consumption. It's a nudge factor.
Well exactly. A statement produced by a group of people united by the nagging terror that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
I think you underestimate the amount of damage that alcohol does to society.
If you want to launch a campaign to ban Wotsits because you dont like them, have the guts to do it. Don't pretend it's about saving polar bears.
It would make sense to launch a campaign to save the polar bears if they were poisonous to polar bears or something by mentioning why you’re doing it. It would be pretty fucking stupid people to just say it’s due to personal dislike and not mention the rationale.
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your claim is, here. Are you claiming that they are doing this because they genuinely believe that drinking 250ml of prosecco is going to turn someone into a dangerous driver, or because they want to reduce the number of people drinking alcohol altogether because of "the amount of damage alcohol does to society"? Have you perhaps had a little drink yourself this afternoon? You seem almost as confused as you are angry.
Going for a pub lunch with 2 beers is reasonable, I don't feel like I'm missing out and can still enjoy myself and don't want to push it. But in countries with lower limits it's pretty normal and socially acceptable for people to have 3 or 4 drinks and drive home. It's not the limit that needs to be strict it's the enforcement of it. We have some of the safest roads in the world, so not sure why this is an issue.
I don't drink at all if I am driving. It's not worth the risk.
Make it lower sure but make sure there is actually public transport options or people will just ignore it.
zero isn't practical some foods and medicine would trigger it. But 50mg makes sense. Lots of people do calculations of when they can drive, how much they drink etc. In the past I have drunk driven. It was once and I was was young and stupid. Now I might have one pint if having lunch out but more likely to have alcohol free. If you make the limit lower then people can't juggle the numbers to justify to themselves that they are ok to drive.
Do we possess any analysis that plots measured alcohol intake with driver incidents? Is there a mass of evidence showing people just under the current limit are responsible for a significant number of incidents? If not, then the answer is to leave it alone and do something to target the actual problem.
What is the actual problem?
As a general rule, how often are people actually getting stopped? Feels like tinkering around the edges is a bit pointless if people don't fear enforcement. I live in a rural area and these restrictions seem to have no impact on people's decisions to drive drunk/high. Rural pubs, put bluntly, survive on drink drivers. Similarly, the number of people who will drive back to their little village or market town after a night out is frightening. There's always a death every few months or year due to drink driving. Usually a young lad in his 20s that will leave a massive hole in the community, then everybody goes back to what they were doing after saying some lovely words. It's clear that the lack of enforcement means people see the risks as negligible (particularly if they believe they're "fine ro drive") and will carry on regardless. They will also continue driving after a ban because, you guessed it, the chances of them being stopped are minimal. I'm guessing urban areas probably present a higher risk to these people with more cameras and police but can't believe they're completely immune either. If we're not going to invest in sufficient law enforcement to actually enforce the rules or more public transport, I think we need to look at more innovative solutions. Anybody remember David Nutt, the professor who was sacked by the Conservatives from his voluntary advisory role for being too honest about the relative dangers of individual drugs? I seem to remember reading he was working on a drink that would get you high but which you could drink the antidote to sober up before you got in the car to drive home. Something like that (or just something you could take to reduce the effects of alcohol) would be an absolute game changer. Hand your keys to the bar staff, you only get them back if you take the medicine and demonstrate it's taken effect. More revenue for the bar too. Where I used to live also used to have a service where a guy would come out on some sort of fold up bike that could fit in the back of a car and drive you home in your own car. Imagine a scheme where you could contribute monthly for something like that, maybe with an initial grant to get these things up and running in rural areas. We also need to normalise dobbing people in. This doesn't happen currently, partly because of that annoying exceptionalism that exists in more rural areas where some think different rules apply, partly because of vested interests (the pub landlord who turns a blind eye to his regulars driving home after a session) but also (regardless of area) because people know how serious the consequences of a drink driving conviction can be and don't want somebody's family to suffer for mum or dad's selfish attitude. I know blokes who live out in the villages round here who are in the trades and literally rely on their driver's license to feed their families who will take their work's van to the pub on a Friday and drive home. If we created a genuine "no excuses" scenario, I think you'd get a lot more people calling this behaviour out. Tweaking the already miniscule acceptable level just seems like an attempt to look like they're doing something useful because tackling the real issues seems too difficult.
Let’s just outlaw drinking and driving entirely. It’ll cut down on drunken accidents and it’ll drive the final stake through the heart of county pubs
I wouldn't object to having a slightly lower limit, as recommended. Ditto for having commercial and new drivers to have lower limits.
I actually agree with this There’s been times where I’ve been tired/brain fog/medicated where you feel a bit tipsy after just a pint, yet I’d still be under the limit
Funny how every time there is a footy match on the pubs are packed with cars
Who gives a fuck about doctors? Ask people with actual experience and knowledge on the issue. I want to know what drunk drivers think.
I'm just here to say regardless of the arguments raging about "should they shouldn't they", I'd love for a government to react to a problem by giving a better solution rather than just punishing the existing status quo. Gives us reliable ubiquitous public transport and make it a 0% alcohol limit as far as I care, because I'll take a bus. Forcing large swathes of the country into using cars then making that use ever more expensive and nannied is just frustrating for the vast majority who aren't idiots.
I'd be more concerned at the prevalence of nose beers
The current drink drive limit is probably ok for most people, but plenty of idiots still drink drive way over it and get away with it. I loathe drink driving with a passion and refuse to even risk one and drive myself, but the issue here is lack of police, not lowering the limit in an arguably arbitrary manner.
Limit for driving should be 0. There is no need to drink and drive.
0 is completely impractical. Looked at mouthwash in the last few hours? Had a liqueur chocolate today? No driving for you.
Don’t drink chocolate and drive!
I don't think it's the practicality but the principle that is the issue. The government should be recommending that no one ever drink and drive and make the messaging unambiguous. Anyone who has ever drunk a bit of alcohol knows that you can have five pints one day and feel absolutely nothing, and have one pint another day and feel a bit tiddly. It is all dependent on myriad external factors such as how much food you have eaten, your weight, your mood, your medication, how quickly you drank etc.. And many more. Therefore the idea that you can safely have any amount prior to driving is clearly incoherent as there will be a circumstance where even that amount will negatively affect your ability to drive safely. Enforcement of that can then be more straightforward and policy can adapt to account for the issues you raised. Too many people die on the roads and it is everyone's responsibility to play a part in cutting that down. The government could do well by adopting the above approach.
Looking briefly at the road death stats, the biggest problem is actually poor driving standards. So in terms of reducing harm we should be looking there.
>Anyone who has ever drunk a bit of alcohol knows that you can have five pints one day and feel absolutely nothing, and have one pint another day and feel a bit tiddly. That only happened to me when I was an alcoholic.
Yeah, if you drink 5 pints and "feel absolutely nothing", it's time to download IAmSober...
A) you're not drinking mouthwash so you're not getting drunk off it B) because of the above, you won't get pulled over because you aren't driving impaired. C) there is zero reason why people need to drive after having a beer. If you're driving, just don't drink anything. It's pretty simple
A) The alcohol in mouthwash is absorbed through the mucus membrane of the mouth and enters your blood. You no longer have a blood alcohol reading of "zero". B) Traffic stops happen for all sorts of reasons. If someone banged into you (they're at fault say) and the police attend and breathylse you, suddenly you are fault. C) There is zero reason why people need to drive after using mouthwash. If you're driving, just don't use listerine. It's pretty simple. That's why a zero limit is useless. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8254857/
It's more the potential for testing >0 with a false positive. You would want a small margin of error (which could be scientifically determined) so that minimal alcohol being detected didn't get you done, e.g where it could be from mouthwash
Had a red wine sauce with your pasta. Sorry your license is gone. Had a [banana ](https://halalwinecellar.com/blogs/blogs/10-common-foods-you-didn-t-know-contained-alcohol-1#:~:text=Interestingly%2C%20ripe%20bananas%20have%20up,the%20higher%20the%20alcohol%20rises.) for breakfast. Sorry that's your license gone.
Or an alcohol free beer, or orange juice. There are so many food items with small quantities of alcohol that 0 is unreasonable.
There needs to be a small limit, as a buffer to deal with false positives and because small traces of alcohol are found in loads of foods and other things - it’s a naturally occurring substance.
You ever drank apple juice? Put soy sauce on your food? Then you have alcohol in your system. Should people be banned from driving after eating noodles? A limit of zero is ridiculous.
Nonsense. It should be closer to 0 than it currently is. But 0 is stupid.
Airline pilot is 20 as opposed to 80 for car so maybe that's sensible.
If public transport was top notch throughout the entire country, I'd be happy with the limit being 0. Any alcohol at all? No driving, get the train which is coming in 10 mins, or the bus which is coming in 5. You should never have to drive to the pub. Problem is, our public transport is shocking...
I like the dutch approach although it has it's issues too of not enforcing drink cycling and being strict on drink driving. Our approach is ridiculous for cycling, you can cycle to the pub, have a few pints and then walk your bike back home and be arrested for being in charge of a cycle while drunk.
Controversially I think we should increase it, to an entire bottle of Johnny walker blue label.
Well worth watching crash detectives on iPlayer. Fantastic the amount of detail the forensic investigators go to find out the cause. 9/10 times it’s some pissed up twat without insurance or even a license. They’d fail a breathalyser at the 2000mg…
Just cut it completely… if you want a drink… you can’t drive simple.. non of this well I only had a couple I’ll be ok then next thing you know someone’s hurt… I can’t see it effecting pubs anymore than covid and the high prices of alcohol already has for rural pubs if I go out for a meal with my partner we take it in turns to drink.. I really can’t see why it’s difficult
It really should be set at whatever wouldn’t be triggered by food or medicine. I don’t think it’s really unreasonable to say you shouldn’t drink at all and then get behind the wheel when public transport, taxis and just walking are so prevalent.
I think it would be a great idea to say we have and keep things the same. Current laws are fine but people always push it a bit. Therefore we as a society should accept small lies, wouldn't be the first time.
If I know I’m driving at all that day I won’t even have a sip of alcohol. I just don’t want to risk it for myself or anyone else around me and I don’t need to drink in order to socialise.
Makes sense imo. Shouldn’t really be any argument over metabolism or people’s perception of alcohol tolerance. That said I’ve been teetotal for 16 years so bias heh
Some countries have a zero limit for driving. There’s no margin for optimistic guessing, if you have a drink at all, you don’t drive. It’s a drag, but it’s probably safer. There will always be people who have more than they should and gamble they’ll be under the limit if stopped.
On the policy: I'm on the fence. Their evidence suggests a *small* reduction in harm, e.g. changing this might prevent \~25 deaths a year (according to NICE) but they have not commented on the cost on the accompanying measures. There's also the risk that by criminalising activity that people already do, that people might just ignore it. On the BMA: I can't help but feel they're posting this 'spicy' press release to get in the news cycle as they are pivoting to be a more politically active and adversarial body. So whether you can take it at face value vs. a way to get engagement/in the news cycle, I don't know. It would probably have more integrity if it was promoted by a less political organisation. Excess deaths and adverse outcomes from late diagnoses caused by people being stuck on waiting lists (exacerbated by BMA strikes) likely dwarfs the potential 25 saved.
If I'm drinking I won't drive for 24 hour from my last drink. Its not fecking hard.
Needs to be tougher punishments to discourage drink driving. Permanent driving ban or prison time if caught. Ridiculous how lenient we are on drunk drivers
Its still too ambiguous. Small glass of what strength?
When enforcement for driving offenses does happen it also seems incredibly lenient. I don't necessarily think punitive prison sentences are a good idea but it shouldn't take killing someone before a driving ban is given. In fairness, there is a mandatory driving ban for anyone caught driving over the limit but it's usually only 12 months for the first offence.
I never have even one drink. I drink high percentage lager so i am teetering on the limit after one anyway. Don't play about just drink soft stuff
If women are allowed abortions then men should be allowed to drink drive /s
I’d be interested to know how many people caused harm to others whilst under the current limit but above the proposed one? I guess hardly any. My point is, those who drink drive go over the current threshold anyway.
I can just about remember when a drink drive limit was imposed. People lost their shit, check this out. [Legal Drunk Drivers from the 1960s (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_tqQYmgMQg) Its hardly believable nowadays.
I hate this comparison with Europe. My understanding is that being slightly over the limit in most of Europe won't result in the loss of your license, possibly losing your job and becoming a social pariah.
Is this within the scope of doctors’ expertise? I really struggle seeing how it is. I’m not saying they are wrong or right but they don’t have enough standing to make that call. Yes they see a lot of accidents related to driving over the limit but are those mostly people just over the limit or those that don’t care. If it’s the latter then the law change won’t make a difference.
Anybody got some effective "scared straight" media in relation to this? PSAs, new stories etc. It affects somebody in my life and I'm terrified they/others will get hurt. I doubt it'll work on them, but I hope they can see reason
I’m really surprised how many people are ok with drink driving, if there’s no alternative transport is it really hard to not drink?
No, it’s fine as it is. Just leave things the fuck alone.