View Full Version : Drinking/Driving - getting something done?
I'd host a list of people who signed a petition for a ZERO blood alcohol level on my web host for eventual submission to the Downing Street policy site.
Downing Street demands full verifiable postal addresses. These would NOT be listed on my website - the only details I would publish however would be name and town.
300 signatures is the number required for listing on the No 10 webpage - OK so it may not amount to something, but it could amount of a little bit of something...
I can do promotion through the media...
Who would support a ZERO tolerance limit and would be prepared to email friends/family asking them to contribute as well?
I'm in for one...
The Gill
31-01-2003, 11:07
I'm very anti DD (you can see my views on this from past posts) but I feel a zero tolerance policy is unworkable (for reasons below) and undesirable after witnessing the eagerness of police forces to fine/prosecute motorists at every available opportunity.
As we all know alcohol stays in the blood for some time after injestion. I'm not advocating the morning after the BIG night before drivers but I would like to be able to have a glass of wine or two with a meal, take a taxi home, have a nights sleep and feel happy to get in my car the next morning and drive without worrying that an insignificant point of a milligram is still in my blood and could get me banned, lose my job etc etc.
Finally many over the counter cough medicines contain alcohol, or even a chocolate liqueur - would you like to be banned for taking something like that ?
As much as Im against drink driving, I think a Zero Limit is far to harsh.
OK fair enough there is a limit at the moment, and people may think it is too much, but think of the problems ZERO could cause.
For any tee totalers its easy, but for people who do like a drink and do not drive after, there is always the problem of the morning after.
The alcahol level may have reduced to the point where you are safe to drive (below current level), but there could still be a very very very slight trace that would show up.
Im in no way endorsing Drink driving, If Im driving I wont touch anything more than 1 shandy, but I think the example above shows it could be totally impractible.
That is a fair point.
However, if you take the view that one unit takes 1 hour to digest (without food with hinders absorption and so makes alcohol pass quicker as it doesn't enter the blood - or so I've been told):
A few glasses the night before is no problem, certainly not if you have more than 4 hours or so sleep. If a glass of white wine is one unit, then you're fine for 6 or so, even if you stop at midnight and have to get up at 6am. Of course, this doesn't take into account the first glass you had at 8pm which would have been digested by about 10pm maximum on a 1 unit/hour basis...
I'm sure someone has some more accurate figurs than I do at this moment, but I'll be looking some up for myself over the next day/two while this idea germinates.
As for over the counter medicines... a tricky one. Not all have alcohol in - and if they do, is it the same ethanol as is found in beverages? If not, then surely the blood test would show this up?
And anyway, you should be made aware of the alcohol content of medicines.
I doubt "Sorry Officer, I've got a tickly cough" will cut it after an accident (OK very extreme example but you know what I mean).
Chccoy liquers - there was a test on this a while back. Someone (a jouno) ate a boxful and was breathalyzed - nothing. Ate one and the breath count went through the ceiling. Blood was minimal.
However, this is a VERY good point. I think that I will contact my local Plod and investigate this with a trial. COnsidering I'm likely to be running this in a mag I write for, I think that it would be an excellent idea. Cheers The Gill - remind me that I owe you a drink somewhere :D
DOH :(
Just read The Gills post - my feeling exactly :)
Originally posted by StuyMac
For any tee totalers its easy, but for people who do like a drink and do not drive after, there is always the problem of the morning after.
As I've said, it is the interval in question.
A mate of mine has a rule - 12hour MINIMUM after a decent night out, or 9 hours after a beer/two at home.
By his rule, if you stop drinking by 9pm, you are fine to get up at 6am and drive after a nite in, or 9am after a decent nite out (which lets face it, is probably about right for friday night drinkers)
Nathan_200sx
31-01-2003, 11:31
Originally posted by Starionman
As I've said, it is the interval in question.
A mate of mine has a rule - 12hour MINIMUM after a decent night out, )
Thats ok then cos I sleep for 12 hours minimum after a decent night out ;):D
Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
Thats ok then cos I sleep for 12 hours minimum after a decent night out ;):D
Well there you go then - a limit of 12 units just for the sleep time. By the time you're ready to drive add another few.
The Gill
31-01-2003, 11:44
Though I'm no medical expert, I would expect that any alcohol you injest would eventually pass into the blood via the stomach lining whether you had eaten or not. Perhaps the action of food helps dilute the alcohol however it would still end up in the bloodstream eventually.
Unfortunately with breath/blood tests we are not talking of units but milligrams and if the level was zero any fraction (0.0001mg/l - add more zeros if you want) could give you a ban.
Starionman - I'd love a pint but i'm driving mate :rolleyes:
I hate to make excuses :confused: and throw a spanner in the works, but who is the better driver:
Subject A who has had 1 shandy at 10pm and is driving at 11pm
or
Subject B who has not slept for 2 days
I understand that the current level could well be a balance of the 2 examples listed above, but surely, how can someone after a shandy be classed as less incapable to drive than the person who has not slept.
I realise the implications of drink driving, but if your gonna punish someone for having that little alcahol in their system it only just registers, then surely something must be done about drivers who are tired, but how to prove it?
The Gill
31-01-2003, 11:58
Maybe you could look at drug driving - this is supposedly becoming a big issue in RTA's these days.
In my opinion it's difficult to see what good it will do to have a zero alcohol level. I would imagine nearly all accidents that involve drink are where the drivers are over the limit - surely if they drink more than the limit now they will continue to drink more than the limit if it is lowered.
I understand the desire to reduce injuries and deaths due to drink driving but tightening a law will not make people obey that law when they are currently ignoring it.
Zero tolerance = wouldn't sign in.
I may be in the minority here but I wouldn't mind being stopped by the police occasionally for an on-the-spot test, especially during late / early hours. To me it the advantages of potentially catching people in the act outweighs the minor inconvenience of a few minutes lost driving time.
Originally posted by andyf
Zero tolerance = wouldn't sign in.
I may be in the minority here but I wouldn't mind being stopped by the police occasionally for an on-the-spot test, especially during late / early hours. To me it the advantages of potentially catching people in the act outweighs the minor inconvenience of a few minutes lost driving time.
I don't mind either, that isn't the issue in point.
Zero means that whatever your height, bodyweight, amount of food injested, you know where you are.
2 pints to an 18 stone man with food has a different effect to 1 pint on an underweight 19year old girl on an empty stomach.
You can't argue with Zero. Its done OK for the Swedes...
Anyway...
Getting back to the point...
Zero... A good figure because I know that the Govt will not agree to it in all likelihood. However, if enough support is shown then teh current high level will get reduced to an inbetween figure - and that has to be good.
Something that will take into account the Morning After but will rule out the quick 2 in the pub on your dinner break. 35mg perhaps?
Originally posted by StuyMac
Subject A who has had 1 shandy at 10pm and is driving at 11pm
If one hour to one unit and one pint of shandy at 75% strength (where 100%strength is one pint = one unit) - you are in teh clear anyway???
Originally posted by The Gill
Starionman - I'd love a pint but i'm driving mate :rolleyes:
Then an orange juice - I only said a "drink" lol
JonnyBoy
31-01-2003, 13:25
Hmmm. Appears Im on my own here, but I am more than happy to go to the pub, drink one pint of beer then drive home. I dont floor it or try to get sideways, but I do drive after a beer.
I may well get flamed for saying this, but I still think I am a safer driver after one beer than many kids/old people/idiots are when they havent had a drink.
Papa Lazarou
31-01-2003, 14:05
I would not support zero tolerance as IMHO it is ridiculous, for the reasons already stated..
Can of Top Deck = ban
Half of lager = ban
10 ml of cough medicine (and the ethanol is exactly the same as what you'd find in a drink) = ban
Personally I think the law as it is is reasonable.
I regularly drink 4 cans of lager in the evening and am driving again 7-8 hours later. That would be a ban. Zero means zero and even if the level was micrograms per hectalitre of blood, it would mean a ban.
So no I don't support it.
Nathan_200sx
31-01-2003, 15:01
Originally posted by Starionman
You can't argue with Zero. Its done OK for the Swedes...
Anyway...
I think the swedes do have an upper limit of 20mg, I just spoke to one and he said ".2 whereas you are .8 arnt you?" the thing is if you get caught as far as Im aware you go straight to jail and have to attend counciling. one hell of a deterant if you ask me.
Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
I think the swedes do have an upper limit of 20mg, I just spoke to one and he said ".2 whereas you are .8 arnt you?" the thing is if you get caught as far as Im aware you go straight to jail and have to attend counciling. one hell of a deterant if you ask me.
Hmmm
That sounds interesting, and in principle, yes, I do agree a margin is required for such cases as people have cited already.
But I stick by what I said earlier: a)with Zero you always know and b) ask for Zero and find a reduction. Its playing politics against itself - Govt will NEVER go to zero due to driver pressure groups, so they will keepp Zero campaigners sort of happy by lowering it and not infuriating the others too much...
Devious? Why thank you :D
lol
mattpayne
31-01-2003, 23:19
I dont drink much, and at the pub I tend to be on cokes and coffee... but again im not for a Zero tolerence ban would be bad... the points have been well documented above... but what I would like to see is better enforcement over the christmas period, I saw ONE situation where the police were parked up doing thir random checks, they should be bang on the people that stunble out of the pubs into thier cars, a much more sensible way to bump up thier arrest scores than annoying law abiding people travelling about in modifed cars...
tim rome
31-01-2003, 23:30
i dont drink and drive, not even a half, if i am driving then i drink soda and lime, i cant support a zero limit though for reaons already mentioned and also certain medicines contain traces of alcohol. i would like to know if there are any statistics for how many deaths on our roads are cause by drivers under the limit but with alcohol in their system. i also think that a good way of stopping drink driving is to increase the reward for shopping people to say 2 grand. personally i would give the old bill i ring for free if i saw someone attempting to drive after drinking more than a couple of pints. i was first on the scene of a nasty road accident in germany caused by drunk driver, he survived but managed to kill 3 people.
Originally posted by Starionman
COnsidering I'm likely to be running this in a mag I write for, I think that it would be an excellent idea. Cheers The Gill - remind me that I owe you a drink somewhere :D
What magazine do you write for?
I've read that if you eat a lot of fruit, you can trigger a slight (but significant) blood alcohol reading because of the fermentation of fruit sugars in your body. A zero alcohol limit seems a bit irrelevant.
Who here ever speeds? Boots it away from the lights? Tries to get the back end out on a roundabout? How dangerous is any of that compared with driving with 50mg blood/alcohol?
Anyway, anyone who drives a Starion is on thin ice talking about danger on the roads ;) Scariest time I ever had on the road was driving one of those.
Papa Lazarou
31-01-2003, 23:54
Originally posted by The Gill
Maybe you could look at drug driving - this is supposedly becoming a big issue in RTA's these days.
Yep you wouldn't believe how common it is.... I think theres a fair chance at least half the people driving around in the early hours are on drugs of some sort...
Drink driving has a real social stigma to it now but unbelievably I've heard people say they would never drink and drive, and then quite happily drive around on pills, coke, marijuana or whatever :rolleyes:
Just for the record, it is not possible to have a zero blood-alcohol reading.
Your body can naturally create a reading of 29 on it's own.
Comment: IF the DD limit was effectively zeroed we'd all be f*cked. Imagine having been for an Indian meal and they wanged a spot of booze in there or sherry trifle etc.
Not exactly quantites to worry about but you'd be had. Is that really practical?
ALSO, you are more dangerous if you are tired that if you had 3-4 pints (Govt. study job).
I think it's about right as it is. Still ain't gonna stop the 10-pint merchants from driving whatever limit you apply.:(
Martin T
02-02-2003, 22:11
The current limit for blood alcohol is 35mg alcohol per 100 ml of breath, it is Essex police's policy not to prosecute people with less than 40 mg/100ml
I was breathalysed last year after 4 Pints of Stella, and the reading came out as 41mg/100ml, however I wasn't driving so it doesn't matter.
Originally posted by Martin T
The current limit for blood alcohol is 35mg alcohol per 100 ml of breath, it is Essex police's policy not to prosecute people with less than 40 mg/100ml
I was breathalysed last year after 4 Pints of Stella, and the reading came out as 41mg/100ml, however I wasn't driving so it doesn't matter.
Er, why were you tested, then?:confused:
And I would suggest you were lucky to get a reading of 41. Had you just had the last couple or something?
mickstreet
02-02-2003, 22:59
Originally posted by Starionman
If one hour to one unit and one pint of shandy at 75% strength (where 100%strength is one pint = one unit) - you are in teh clear anyway???
You can't simply state that 1 unit takes 1 hour to clear from the system. If that was the case you could say you drink 1 pint per hour then after 1 hour after X amount of pints you will be ok?? It depends on so many other factors, what you have had to eat, bodyweight is a big issue, male/female, how often you drink etc etc....
Whenever I go out I usually have a pint of lager (not Stella) the drink coke for the rest of the night and drive home. I believe the limit in pint terms is about 1 1/2??
Like someone else said, problems arise when people obviously have well over this amount and no matter what the limit is, zero or not they will still drink the same.
The other issue of drug driving (as someone else mentioned) is another major problem. I still don't believe there is any official test is there? although there was talk of some mouth swabs being trialed.
Anyway, I wouldn't support a zero tolerance I'm afraid, I believe the resources that would be required to police it could be far better employed in catching AND CONVICTING offenders who are going to drink silly amounts and still drive regardless of the limit.
Mick.
Originally posted by Starionman
That is a fair point.
However, if you take the view that one unit takes 1 hour to digest (without food with hinders absorption and so makes alcohol pass quicker as it doesn't enter the blood - or so I've been told):
It may slow down absorption, but it's foolhardy to assume that therefore it won't get absorbed at all. Don't base any drink-driving calculations on this. :)
Originally posted by Starionman
If a glass of white wine is one unit
A common misconception - a glass of wine is usually a sixth of a bottle of wine, or even more. But a bottle of wine has 9 units held within. Count 'em :) Assume 1.5-2 units per glass. Or count the number of bottles :D
Originally posted by Starionman
As for over the counter medicines... a tricky one. Not all have alcohol in - and if they do, is it the same ethanol as is found in beverages? If not, then surely the blood test would show this up?
And anyway, you should be made aware of the alcohol content of medicines.
I doubt "Sorry Officer, I've got a tickly cough" will cut it after an accident
It's very very very unlikely that ingesting an OTC medicine would cause a blood level high enough to register. Also, don't forget some mouthwashes are full of alcohol - the problem for both would be if it was still lingering on your breath. Half a measure of sherry will put you over the breatherlyser limit 2 mins after drinking it. If you're ever stopped having just had (for example) a single shot of whiskey am I right in thinking that you can refuse a breathalyser test, and demand a blood test? Or you could always try Withnail's trick :D :D
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou
Drink driving has a real social stigma to it now but unbelievably I've heard people say they would never drink and drive, and then quite happily drive around on pills, coke, marijuana or whatever
A study in America (amusingly funded by the US Gov, hence it's not been publicised much ;) ) showed that stoned people were actually safer drivers, as they were aware that they had distinct limitations, and drove within them. Also, they weren't prone to the same rushes of blood as drunk (or any 200sx ;) :D )drivers. This doesn't advocate driving when stoned, as a simulation will never replicate reality properly, but it's certainly the lesser of two evils.
Originally posted by mickstreet
You can't simply state that 1 unit takes 1 hour to clear from the system. If that was the case you could say you drink 1 pint per hour then after 1 hour after X amount of pints you will be ok?? It depends on so many other factors, what you have had to eat, bodyweight is a big issue, male/female, how often you drink etc etc....
Of course it does - but for an average fully grown male, 1 unit per hour is a reasonable estimate. It's hardly the sort of evidence you'd pull out in court, but it's something to go on.
And an average pint is at least 2 units, BTW. :rolleyes: ;)
I agree that a zero limit wouldn't ever work, and is actually rather unreasonable. I don't mind (although some of my friends do argue against this) having a small glass of wine say half an hour before driving, if the situation demands it. I don't make a habit of it, as even a small amount of blood alcohol will impair driving skill, even if you're well under the limit, and is therefore somewhat immoral.
Lower it? Yeah! Ban drink drivers for life after the second conviction? Yeah!
Martin T
02-02-2003, 23:49
Originally posted by Ripper
Er, why were you tested, then?:confused:
And I would suggest you were lucky to get a reading of 41. Had you just had the last couple or something?
I was in a car that crashed, and the police saw us walking down the road home, and breathalysed the whole lot of us, so the driver couldn't wait a day, then say someone else was driving, and therefore get off the drink driving charge (amongst other things) Bloke got what he was asking for in the end - £2500 fine and 1 year ban.
I had drunk the beers over the space of about 1.5 - 2 hours, with the last one about 1 hour before being breathalysed.
Papa Lazarou
03-02-2003, 01:17
Originally posted by Tombs
A study in America (amusingly funded by the US Gov, hence it's not been publicised much ;) ) showed that stoned people were actually safer drivers, as they were aware that they had distinct limitations, and drove within them. Also, they weren't prone to the same rushes of blood as drunk (or any 200sx ;) :D )drivers. This doesn't advocate driving when stoned, as a simulation will never replicate reality properly, but it's certainly the lesser of two evils.
Talking drugs in general, there is no way you'll convince me that taking drugs like heroin, crack cocaine, crank (methamphetamine) or ketamine for example, and then driving, is the lesser of two evils..
Heres another one. I wonder how many people are driving around under the influence of legitamately prescribed tranquilisers and anti-depressants? Granted some of them will impair judgment more than others, but things like diazepam have a very similar effect to alcohol. Surely this has got to be a contributory factor in many accidents???
Nathan_200sx
03-02-2003, 09:43
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou
Talking drugs in general, there is no way you'll convince me that taking drugs like heroin, crack cocaine, crank (methamphetamine) or ketamine for example, and then driving, is the lesser of two evils..
Heres another one. I wonder how many people are driving around under the influence of legitamately prescribed tranquilisers and anti-depressants? Granted some of them will impair judgment more than others, but things like diazepam have a very similar effect to alcohol. Surely this has got to be a contributory factor in many accidents???
The list is endless, I get a buzz from some decongestiants due to the pseudoephedrine content, and these are over the counter stuff.
You know the feeling, the stuffy nose, that you blow and blow and blow, but you're still blocked up and wind up feeling like you've been rubbing your nose with sandpaper.
So you head to the chemist for some relief and grab some tablets that include - most likely - pseudoephedrine in their ingredients.
Pseudoephedrine has copped a rap over the knuckles today, with a Brisbane Supreme Court judge saying the drug should only be available on prescription.
He also said many people in prison would not be there, if Sudafed - in particular - was not so readily available.
The reason for this attack is that a $10 packet of pseudoephedrine can apparently be used to make around $2,000 worth of methylamphetamines, more commonly referred to as speed.
I also think people should undergo an eyesight test every 2 years for the dvla. some people just dont realise how bad there eysight is. Bearing in mid that the human brain only ever evolved it's spatial awareness to cope with a speed of flat out running, poor eyesight or slow reaction time's can lead to some appauling driving.
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou
Talking drugs in general, there is no way you'll convince me that taking drugs like heroin, crack cocaine, crank (methamphetamine) or ketamine for example, and then driving, is the lesser of two evils..
I was referring specifically to Cannabis in this case. But why should you be so convinced that drugs are worse than alcohol whenit comes to impairing your driving skill? Not that I'm making a but pro-drug stand, or anything, I'm just interested. Coke, Crack, and Amphetamines, will almost certainly make you a faster, more aggressive, less safe driver, but this effect is different and distinct from that of alcohol, and so fairly incomparable without a specific study. Heroin - who knows - but judging by the reactions of some people to Morphine around here, you're probably right ;)
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou
Heres another one. I wonder how many people are driving around under the influence of legitamately prescribed tranquilisers and anti-depressants? Granted some of them will impair judgment more than others, but things like diazepam have a very similar effect to alcohol. Surely this has got to be a contributory factor in many accidents???
Agree with this one - it's frightening to think how many X5s and MPVs are being piloted on the school runs by middle-class flowerly-legging-wearing mums who are stoned out of their gourds on Valium! :eek: :D
Originally posted by mickstreet
You can't simply state that 1 unit takes 1 hour to clear from the system. If that was the case you could say you drink 1 pint per hour then after 1 hour after X amount of pints you will be ok?? It depends on so many other factors, what you have had to eat, bodyweight is a big issue, male/female, how often you drink etc etc....
Mick.
That is part of my reasoning aboveand why a zero tolerance works - because then everyone knows where they are.
For the record: I think Zero would be difficult if not impossible to achieve. Zero is idealistic and I doubt it can be achieved for the reasons cited. However, as a political tool to get the current limits lowered, I think that it may work.
Also, I have not suggested advocating a ban for trace elements, I feel that a staged penalty system would be better.
<15mg - a producer for sheer inconveniance value.
15-30mg - a small fine, generally for inconveniance value
35mg+ then start shouting
(haven't thought about exact measurements, just rough idea)
Talking units of alcohol rather than measurements of liquid intake - I heard a technical def. of what a unit is on the radio the other day - anyone know it?
Papa Lazarou
03-02-2003, 12:01
Originally posted by Tombs
I was referring specifically to Cannabis in this case. But why should you be so convinced that drugs are worse than alcohol whenit comes to impairing your driving skill? Not that I'm making a but pro-drug stand, or anything, I'm just interested.
Not "worse" necessarily. Just equally as bad.
A couple of years ago someone drove into a tree just a few hundred yards from where I live. They would have died instantly. At the post mortem they were found to have high levels of opiates in their body.
I think stimulants can be equally as bad especially the more potent ones. If the effects of smoked methamphetamine can make someone go on a frenzy stabbing people with a screwdriver, feck knows what they'd be like in charge of a car...
Personally I'd leave the DD limit at or near to where it is now. The change I'd make would be to enforce it more like the French do.
Get caught over the limit there and you appear before the beak and get sent to prison the next day. No messing, down you go.
Have an accident and hurt someone and within a week or so you find youself locked up for a good number of years.
Back in the early 1970s I had a cousin in France who was knocked off his bike by a DD. The woman was so pissed she didn't even realise she'd hit him and dragged him under the car for a quarter of a mile reducing him to shreds. She got a fine and a 6 months ban. Under their new system such incidents have been greatly reduced because people know that if they get caught they'll be sent to prison immediately.
Martin T
03-02-2003, 23:15
Originally posted by Starionman
Talking units of alcohol rather than measurements of liquid intake - I heard a technical def. of what a unit is on the radio the other day - anyone know it?
1 unit is the equicalent to 10ml of pure ethanol (a purely theoretical measure, since ethanol cannot be concentrated above 98% under STP conditions). You can work out the no of units in a drink by the volume and the ABV% that has to be somewhere on the container. i.e. 1 pint of normal beer is 2 units.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.