|
Very sensible no doubt, we should be like the Swedes probably. But I'm glad I'm not a Jock.
|
|
Excellent, I hope it happens and we get the resources to enforce it.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 24 Oct 14 at 07:22
|
All well and good, but I honestly don't know the difference of what 80 mg and 50 mg of alcohol in your blood feels like. I think it should be zero and save the arguments.
I don't think this change will deter the people likely to drink more than the limit and drive anyway?
Probably just going to catch out more morning after drivers, maybe that's a good thing to raise awareness?
|
|
Its a complete farce, and will do nothing to prevent drink driving or save lives.
|
>> Its a complete farce, and will do nothing to prevent drink driving or save lives.
>>
People said that when the breathlyser law was first mooted. 'It won't work' is, IIRC, taught as the first stage reaction of those facing major change at work.
|
,
'It won't work' is, IIRC, taught as the first stage reaction of those facing major change at work.",,
Of course they were quite often right. :-)
|
>>. 'It won't work' is, IIRC, taught as the first stage reaction of those facing major change at work.
Civil-service condescension at its best as justification for a pointless change.
|
1) People who don't drink at all
2) People who drink but stay under the limit
3) People who drink and don;t give a stuff about the limit.
Changing the limit *only* affects people in group 2).
So, changing the limit from 80 to 50 means the positive impact can be measured by counting the number of accidents had by people with a blood level between 50 & 80 solely BECAUSE of that blood level that will now not happen because the blood level is below 50.
That is not even measured, never mind significant.
|
Succinctly put. Thank you.
Why can't the BBC say that instead of just spewing the propaganda?
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 24 Oct 14 at 15:54
|
>> Civil-service condescension at its best as justification for a pointless change.
Go for the man not the ball then....
Alternatively one could look for evidence such as the Review of effectiveness of laws limiting blood alcohol concentration levels to reduce alcohol-related road injuries and deaths published by Centre for Public Health Excellence NICE in March 2010.
tinyurl.com/lhg8d2d
Relative risk increases exponentially with the level of alcohol in the
blood and the average risk of being involved in an accident at alcohol
levels of half the legal limit, the legal limit and twice the legal limit are
respectively 2.4, 5.6 and 31 times the risk encountered by a driver who
has not been drinking
|
>>
>> Relative risk increases exponentially with the level of alcohol in the
>> blood and the average risk of being involved in an accident at alcohol
>> levels of half the legal limit, the legal limit and twice the legal limit are
>>
>> respectively 2.4, 5.6 and 31 times the risk encountered by a driver who
>> has not been drinking
How do they know when no-one has the actual details of blood alcohol levels under the 80mg limit after an accident?
|
That report is shocking.
The authors concluded that...
It is accepted that...
It can be assumed that....
Did you look at their list of references and sources? In fact, did you actually sit down and read the report? I just did.
Shocking.
If that is the level of proof, diligence, study and evidence that you expect, no wonder "it'll never work" was so often heard.
|
>>'It won't work' is, IIRC, taught as the first stage reaction of those facing major change at work.
Absolutely true.
Mind you, its also the first stage reaction of an intelligent and knowledgeable person when confronted with a pile of nonsense from ill-informed idiots.
|
The morning after is the one that worries me - if you have had a good social evening the night before with drink involved, I don't think anyone can really drive the next morning and be totally sure their system is alcohol free.
I listened to that plonker Kenny MacAskill on the radio justifying this change but admitted that he also wants to extend police powers to random spot checks. If he got his way there would be barriers every mile with armed police and you would need to accept a full strip search and he won't stop until we are a full Police State.
I was surprised to see that UK and Malta were the only countries on 80mg but I would like to see the evidence to back up the claims that this move will prevent deaths on the road. If our limit is 80mg currently, presumably anyone between 50-80 will not have been charged with drink driving so how can they have stats to show how many deaths were caused by people driving with between 50-80mg and thus prevent these in the future?
I would hazard a guess that there have been very few deaths caused by drivers at 81 or 82mg and the deaths are more likely to have been caused by drivers who were far over the limit and these same drivers will ignore any new limits as well.
|
>> I was surprised to see that UK and Malta were the only countries on 80mg
this statement, while true, makes us sound very lax and behind the times indeed, but that is not the whole story.
Most countries use a sliding scale of penalties based on blood alcohol level. In most countries for example a 50mg level will only produce a fine, and in many countries even an 80 mg level is not harshly penalised.
The UK is the only country that kicks off right away with automatic life changing penalties. Now given that the UK has the lowest road accident and death rate, and the lowest incidence of drink driving (its even lower than some "dry" muslim states!) surely we are doing something right?
Given that, there is no need at all to change the limit. If they want to drill the numbers down either further they could try putting more coppers in more cars, and random stops.
Its true we do have a hard core of drink drivers, for them where the limit is set is pointless.
|
>>The UK is the only country that kicks off right away with automatic life changing penalties
I think that we should consider what other counties do but we see little information except zero limits/ Sweden.
|
Consider Bobby's morning after example, which is probably the most poorly understood of the alcohol hazards. I'd like to see statistics for positive tests the morning after, but I suspect a lot are still well over 80mg but greatly underestimated their recovery time. A lower limit and a well directed campaign might persuade some more not to drive at all, realizing that it doesn't take much to put them over 50mg.
And I don't agree with Z that there's no problem to address. We may have safer roads than other countries, but there are still unnecessary hazards out there. Morning-after drivers are one; phoners and texters are another.
|
>> Consider Bobby's morning after example, which is probably the most poorly understood of the alcohol
>> hazards. I'd like to see statistics for positive tests the morning after, but I suspect
>> a lot are still well over 80mg but greatly underestimated their recovery time. A lower
>> limit and a well directed campaign might persuade some more not to drive at all,
>> realizing that it doesn't take much to put them over 50mg.
>>
>> And I don't agree with Z that there's no problem to address. We may have
>> safer roads than other countries, but there are still unnecessary hazards out there. Morning-after drivers
>> are one; phoners and texters are another.
I disagree with you on every level
If you introduce a 50mg limit, with the same tariff of penalties as existing, it does nothing to address your hard core of drinkers. ONLY massive enforcement of the current rules will do that. That is where we should start, not tinkering with limits.
|
|
FWIW the measure was widely supported in public consultation.
|
>> FWIW the measure was widely supported in public consultation.
No surprise there, there is no sensible debate on this at all.
Meaningless statistics abound.
"The latest estimates are that approximately one in 10 deaths on Scottish roads involve drivers who are over the legal limit."
What are we to make of that? How far over the legal limit? Would a good starting point be to achieve observance of the existing limit? What about the other 9, how much alcohol did they have in their system? What proportion of drivers who are not having accidents are above the existing limit? What is the biggest cause of accidents?
And if the reduction is imposed, presumably one result will be that more than 1 in 10 deaths etc will involve drivers over the limit - so what conclusion will be drawn from that?
"Research has suggested that just one alcoholic drink before driving can make you three times as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash."
So how likely is that, then? I dare say going outside in a thunderstorm will make me 100 times more likely to be struck by lightning too.
Good for George Goldie of the IAM, who was brave enough to say
""We have very few statistics, if any, to show how many accidents are caused by people who are marginally over the limit. Most of the accidents are caused by people who are blatantly blitzed.
"I'm much more concerned about improving driving, as opposed to improving the one in 10. I am much, much more interested in improving the nine in 10."
He would probably also have been correct to say we have even fewer statistics to show how many accidents are caused by people who are marginally UNDER the limit.
It's no longer possible to have a sensible public debate about anything meaningful. The BBC does an increasingly bad job of digging out and providing facts and impartial views, all it does is to regurgitate Big Brother's PR.
Zero is right on this one. Why it's been floated now is the question - is he trying to deflect attention from something else, or just look as if he is doing something?
|
>> "The latest estimates are that approximately one in 10 deaths on Scottish roads involve drivers
>> who are over the legal limit."
>>
>> What are we to make of that?
Indeed. It's so woolly it could mean that the drinkers are entirely blameless. Say a perfectly sober driver collided with them because the sun was in their eyes or something. Someone dies, it transpires one of them had alcohol in their bloodstream, there we are, that accident has "involved" a driver over the limit, by some amount from just measurable to a distillery. Doesn't really tell us much.
|
>> FWIW the measure was widely supported in public consultation.
>>
One can say that about anything by asking the right people the right questions.
A few years back now I carried out an interview with MORI (initiated by HMG) that was blatantly designed to make me say that national identity cards were a good idea.
|
|
Would it possibly be preferable to be approached head on by someone who was mildly intoxicated or some chattering 'Bint' updating (two) Facebook whilst yapping to her equally dopey friend in their wide wheeled and lowered Saxo? O:)
|
>> I think it should be zero and save the arguments.>>
It can't be zero. The body produces a certain amount of alcohol naturally.
|
>>Excellent, I hope it happens and we get the resources to enforce it.
Why would it take more resources than enforcing the current limit? Its still just the one limit for an unchanged number of drivers.
|
|
now here is a thought. If I was caught drink driving in Scotland, why should my ban apply in England where I have committed no offence?
|
|
How about if a curvy road between the pub and your house takes you across the border briefly and perhaps unknowingly?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 24 Oct 14 at 19:01
|
Indeed, if you hold a UK driving licence then the laws should be applied across the UK as a whole.
What do we have next, different points for speeding in each country or county of the UK?
A £35 fine for jumping a red in Yorkshire, a five year ban for jumping a red in Lancashire, two years in Wales, nothing in Scotland?
Sorry, if it's a UK licence then the penalties have to be UK wide. Have no problem with Scottish Law applying to things that can have a penalty applied solely within Scottish jurisdiction but if this is going to be a goer then distinct Scottish licences are going to be put on the agenda.
|
>> Indeed, if you hold a UK driving licence then the laws should be applied across
>> the UK as a whole.
>>
>> What do we have next, different points for speeding in each country or county of
>> the UK?
>>
>> A £35 fine for jumping a red in Yorkshire, a five year ban for jumping
>> a red in Lancashire, two years in Wales, nothing in Scotland
While I can see your point we've had different parking penalties in London for years without the sky falling in. I think it's also case that parking on crossing zig zags is a points offence where police enforcement applies but fine only where councils have taken it on.
|
Start be enforcing the current one. If you haven't done that, then no point changing the limit.
And establish, as you have already said, a reasonable estimate of how many "surplus" accidents there are in the 50-80 range, otherwise equally no point. Iriots.
|
|
Blurry iriots at that.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 24 Oct 14 at 19:06
|
|
I couldn't care less what the limit is, if you just don't drink and drive it's irrelevant. Have a drink if you want, have as many as you want, just don't drive until it's out of your system. Couldn't be simpler to understand really.
|
|
Its simple when you don't give it any thought. Thats a ridiculous statement, how do you know when its out of your system?
|
On the contrary, it's you who is being ridiculous in making that statement. Wind your neck in, you were doing fine there for a while.
How does anyone know how much is too much if they choose to drink and drive at all, far simpler just not to drink if you're going to drive. How hard is that to understand.
|
>> On the contrary, it's you who is being ridiculous in making that statement. Wind your
>> neck in, you were doing fine there for a while.
>>
>> How does anyone know how much is too much if they choose to drink and
>> drive at all, far simpler just not to drink if you're going to drive. How
>> hard is that to understand.
Ok how much is safe? what is a limit? How long does it take to get safe? 12 hours, 24 hours, 72 hours? have one drink and never drive again?
As I said a ridiculously simplified overstatement with no thought. Didn't even need to wind my neck out to kick that into the long grass .
Stand there and preach from a pedestal of self righteousness if you like, but you will have to dodge the rotten apples thrown at you from those who live in the real world.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 25 Oct 14 at 12:48
|
|
The coolest thing about common sense is that it doesn't require a lot of thought.
|
>> The coolest thing about common sense is that it doesn't require a lot of thought.
It has to be sensible tho.
|
>> How does anyone know how much is too much if they choose to drink and drive at all, far simpler just not to drink if you're going to drive. How hard is that to understand.
It's all too easy to understand Humph, but it really doesn't suit everyone. It's the default position of fun-hating pessimists and puritans. Not that you are one of those of course, far from it. Yes, it's easy to understand, but it's too easy. It's simple all right, but too damn simple.
It's perfectly possible to drink in a restrained manner and drive safely. I often do it. Obviously people who can't do it shouldn't try.
|
|
Pretty sure I could remove an appendix or get a urinary catheter in after 4 pints, but it doesn't make me want to try it.
|
>> get a urinary catheter in after 4
>> pints, but it doesn't make me want to try it.
You'd make room for another 4 pints tho.
|
>> I could remove an appendix or get a urinary catheter in after 4 pints, but it doesn't make me want to try it.
I was thinking more along the lines of 2 pints, below the limit. But obviously an operation on a human being is not really analogous to operating a crude Heath Robinson machine. Driving isn't brain or bowel or genito-urinary surgery FFS, it's a far lower and less precise form of activity.
That doesn't give anyone an excuse for doing it badly of course.
|
>> >>Excellent, I hope it happens and we get the resources to enforce it.
>>
>> Why would it take more resources than enforcing the current limit? Its still just the
>> one limit for an unchanged number of drivers.
>>
>>
If you have ever driven in Australia you will know that we have totally inadequate traffic policing and drink and drug driving enforcement. I think we should have graduated penalties and not a one size fits all system.
|
And Australia will be affected by a change in limit in Scotland how?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 25 Oct 14 at 12:14
|
|
Not at all as you know. But at least they have the enforcement and graduated penalties which Scotland and the UK in general lack.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 25 Oct 14 at 12:21
|
I think I'm confused.
My question was why would a change in limit change the cost of enforcement?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 25 Oct 14 at 12:20
|
|
Obviously the cost the current level of enforcement will not change. But there is little point in changing the limit if it is inadequately enforced.
|
The point of the limit is to discourage any drinking and driving - currently it is possible to drink 1.5 to 2 pints of lager before you're risking the limit, so many people do.
There will always be some brinksmanship practitioners who will see any limit as a target, but there will also be a number who will now decide not to drink at all rather than taking one for the road.
Whether it will impact on road safety, I've no idea - certainly won't worsen it - might also help reduce the overall acceptibility of drinking at a population level, and while the drinks industry is intent on stymieing the minimum unit pricing laws this is likely Holyrood having a dig back that can't be challenged.
|
>> Whether it will impact on road safety, I've no idea - certainly won't worsen it
Not a safe assertion Lygonos. My own observation is that there are a significant number of drivers so jumpy and nervous that their driving would benefit from a nice relaxing sedative ball of malt. It's more important to do the right thing slowly than the wrong thing very quickly. The effect on their reaction times would be insignificant in driving terms.
Why does everyone assume that a couple of drinks turn any person into an uncoordinated idiot? Might have that effect on a few, and they are the ones who shouldn't drive after drinking. It wouldn't really affect regular non-abusive topers.
And stopping people from drinking at all as a desirable public health aim? Me don't tink so comrade. It's a cultural thing. You want qat, go live in Yemen.
|
A long time ago, a motoring magazine carried out test on drinking. Can't remember how many people or any real details but I do recall some drivers appeared to get better on a small alcohol intake before getting worse. But as I say, I can't remember anything else.
|
>>There will always be some brinksmanship practitioners who will see any limit as a target
I'm not sure about that. I think there re undoubtedly people who are overly optimistic about what they drink, but I'm not sure I think they are indulging in brinksmanship.
Nonetheless, there are two different things here;
At the moment the limit is 80.
So, which is the more damaging? (number, severity of accidents etc. etc., - evidence required).
1) People with a level over the 80 limit having accidents BECAUSE of that level which would otherwise not occur?
2) People with a limit between 50 and 80 having accidents BECAUSE of that level which would otherwise not occur?
If its 1), then lets spend money on enforcement.
If its 2), then lets change the limit.
Then we don't need to spend time arguing with sad people desperately needing to spend their energy sanctimoniously t***ting around with tightening a law for no valid purpose other than satisfying the politically correct needs of some small minded individuals whose primary purpose is to control the lives of others needlessly in the absence of any valuable content within their own.
|
While your logic appears sound superficially, your premises are flawed.
Reducing the limit and the accompanying advertising/'public education' isn't entirely to bring drink-drivers down from 80 to 50mcg, it's more to encourage no consumption of alcohol at all.
ie. by reducing the limit by 30mg will it significantly reduce the number who then decide not to drink at all?
AC mentions performance enhancement with small amounts of alcohol - I think this is the case in a fair portion of the population, but the amount of alcohol which produces minor improvements are in the order on one unit, so at blood alc levels around 20mcg.
The benefit rapidly diminishes as overconfidence and difficulty judging distance accurately increases.
|
>>Reducing the limit and the accompanying advertising/'public education' isn't entirely to
>>bring drink-drivers down from 80 to 50mcg, it's more to encourage no consumption of
>>alcohol at all.
I agree. And in fact that may even be effective. But;
1) That is not how the change is presented.
2) Nobody is quantifying the potential benefit.
At best the current presentation is disingenuous, at worst incompetent and delusional.
Equally, the returns need considering.
An analogy;
If you do not play conkers then you cannot be blinded by a conker.
If stopping all children playing and enjoying conkers saves the eyesight of 10,000 children then it is seemingly worth doing.
If stopping all children playing conkers maybe saves the sight of one child every 50 years, is it still worth doing? I think not.
And what is most certainly not flawed about my logic is this; if enforcing the current law provides a greater benefit/impact than changing the law, then why do we not simply do that first?
And in my experience the potential for being caught outweighs pretty much any other consideration. Consider a pub car park the morning after a police car was parked in the layby next to it.
I suspect because enforcing a law does not pander to the needs of the inadequate busybodies.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 25 Oct 14 at 20:35
|
>>ie. by reducing the limit by 30mg will it significantly reduce the number who then decide not to drink at all?
Further, then even if one subscribes to that benefit, this can still only be justifiable if one believes that the number of accidents caused by alcohol levels between 0 and 80 outweigh the value of increased enforcement to capture those above 80.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 25 Oct 14 at 20:37
|
>> isn't entirely to bring drink-drivers down from 80 to 50mcg, it's more to encourage no consumption of alcohol at all.
I'm casting doubt on that as a worthy aim. If you're a habitual low-level drinker, you'll be generally OK with a drink or two (not 12 though), seems to me. And trying to stop people from drinking at all is goddam barmy.
>> The benefit rapidly diminishes as overconfidence and difficulty judging distance accurately increases.
Those faults don't set in as early or as badly as you seem to assume. If you're talking about kamikaze boozing then you have a point. Otherwise, it's just alarmist PC carp.
This isn't sodding brain surgery. It's pretty simple and straightforward.
|
|
I think the Doc knows a bit more about the effects of alcohol on the body than you AC.
|
>> I think the Doc knows a bit more about the effects of alcohol on the body than you AC.
I don't doubt it for a moment. But how much do you have to know?
Ideally, human beings don't need drink or drugs. In practice however they think they do, and they're going to take them anyway whatever the informed view may be. It's more sensible to counsel moderation and restraint than to lobby for total abstinence like a screaming fundamentalist prat.
As I'm sure you will agree ON.
|
>>
>> As I'm sure you will agree ON.
>>
I am a believer in anything in moderation, its the people with little or no self discipline who are the problem.
|
>>1) People who don't drink at all
>>2) People who drink but stay under the limit
>>3) People who drink and don;t give a stuff about the limit.
Lets change that to;
1) People who caused the accident tested after with a level of 0
2) People who caused the accident tested after with a level of >0 <50
3) People who caused the accident tested after with a level of >50 <80
4) People who caused the accident tested after with a level of 80+
So, changing the limit is trying to directly address 3) with some belief of an impact on 2)?
It is therefore based upon evidence that reducing *caused* by levels between 0 and 80 are more significant that those above 80. Or at the very least that changing the law is a greater priority with a greater return than increasing enforcement.
Presumably nothing to do with the fact that increasing enforcement costs money and doesn't satisfy the life-interfering need of those behind the suggestion?
I don't think they even have measurement of 2) and 3), never mind any evidential method for establishing likely change.
And I live in a country with recent zero tolerance, whereas until a few months ago it was not dissimilar to the UK.
Getting caught over the limit here, and God forbid that is as a result of an accident, is catastrophic.
Its just not very likely.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 25 Oct 14 at 20:57
|
>>I don't think they even have measurement of 2) and 3)
I can't see how they would: if you have a breath test that's positive for alcohol but below the limit they won't then do another test to quantify the level (unless you appear impaired and a Police surgeon is called to assess drugs etc)
There is plenty of study evidence on driving performance and doses of alcohol.
The difficulty is tying the lab results in to real life accidents.
The question is pretty simple: Will reducing the legal limit of blood alcohol from 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml significantly reduce the number of accidents.
I would suggest the only way to have a better evidence base is to allow it to happen in Scotland and see if there is any divergence of accidents with the 'control' group in rUK.
Ultimately this is politics, which is often practiced at the pseudo-science level: applying science properly would see alcohol and tobacco much more strongly restricted and cannabis being much more freely available - and that's not politically acceptable ;-)
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 25 Oct 14 at 21:15
|
>> Ultimately this is politics, which is often practiced at the pseudo-science level: applying science properly would see alcohol and tobacco much more strongly restricted and cannabis being much more freely available - and that's not politically acceptable ;-)
What a very disarming post Lygonos. But when did politicians ever do anything with science except bend and twist it to conform with their needs? Next week they're on about something else, off with the old, on with the new for ten minutes.
Personally I take a libertarian view of these things. People who want to harm themselves with drink and drugs will do it anyway. People die of this and that all over the place all the time. Even harmless beneficent things like booze and dope, which help a lot of people to behave better than they otherwise would, cause trouble here and there, kill people and so on, or make them implode. C'est normal quoi.
|
|
It'll close even more Pubs.
|
An additional 35 drivers a week could lose their licences over the festive period once new alcohol limits come into force, Police Scotland has said.
So far this year more than 3,000 people have been caught driving over the limit.
Last Christmas, 434 drivers were caught driving while under the influence of drink and more than 100 others received warnings.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29905827
|
>> Last Christmas, 434 drivers were caught driving while under the influence of drink and more
>> than 100 others received warnings.
Whats a warning? there is no provision in DD legislation for giving someone a warning if they are over the limit is there?
|
>> Whats a warning? there is no provision in DD legislation for giving someone a warning
>> if they are over the limit is there?
>>
I think like speeding there is a small margin above the limit before prosecution, this may be the warning zone.
|
>> a small margin above the limit before prosecution, this may be the warning zone.
First time I was breathalysed it was because I was driving sprauncily like a South London minicab driver which I more or less was at that time, got pulled by a traffic car, breathalysed, green, arrested and put in the cells where not without difficulty I managed to produce a pee sample. For some unknown reason the fuzz seemed to think I was all right though. When the pee sample turned out to be fairly marginal they let me go, but it was a real drag getting the car back from the pound off Finchley Road.
|
>> Whats a warning? there is no provision in DD legislation for giving someone a warning
>> if they are over the limit is there?
>>
Perhaps they were just a tiny fraction below the limit.
|
>>
>> Perhaps they were just a tiny fraction below the limit.
>>
So no offence, why a warning ?
|
>> Whats a warning? there is no provision in DD legislation for giving someone a warning
>> if they are over the limit is there?
>>
I think the roadside devices, while not (yet) evidential, are accurate enough to show a 'near miss'. A warning that you're near the limit and are maybe a very lucky driver would be in order. Fact there's no provision in legislation is neither here nor there.
|
>> I think the roadside devices, while not (yet) evidential, are accurate enough to show a
>> 'near miss'. A warning that you're near the limit and are maybe a very lucky
>> driver would be in order. Fact there's no provision in legislation is neither here nor
>> there.
In that case nor is there any recording of near miss data at the roadside, so either way thats a load of bull shine;
|
Purely in the interests of research I had a few drinks last night. I also downloaded an app to my phone which claims to track your drinking, your levels etc.
So my drinking for the night was
20.08 Beer 275ml 4.7% 1.29 units
20.21 Beer 275ml 4.7% 1.29 units
20.46 Beer 500ml 3.8% 1.90 units
21.21 Beer 500ml 4.5% 2.25 units
22.09 Beer 500ml 4.5% 2.25 units
23.04 Beer 500ml 4.0% 1.76 units
Anyone want to guess at what point the app told me that it thought I was over the 80mg limit? Bearing in mind the APP allegedly keeps a "live" track so you tell it when you start each drink and when you have finished it?
|
|
I couldn't hazard a guess, but that's very interesting BobbyG. Do tell!
|
> 20.08 Beer 275ml 4.7% 1.29 units
>> 20.21 Beer 275ml 4.7% 1.29 units
>> 20.46 Beer 500ml 3.8% 1.90 units
>> 21.21 Beer 500ml 4.5% 2.25 units
>> 22.09 Beer 500ml 4.5% 2.25 units
>> 23.04 Beer 500ml 4.0% 1.76 units
>>
>> Anyone want to guess at what point the app told me that it thought I
>> was over the 80mg limit? Bearing in mind the APP allegedly keeps a "live" track
>> so you tell it when you start each drink and when you have finished it?
>>
After the second beer ?
|
>> Anyone want to guess at what point the app told me that it thought I
>> was over the 80mg limit? Bearing in mind the APP allegedly keeps a "live" track
>> so you tell it when you start each drink and when you have finished it?
>>
I would hazard a guess that it didn't show you over the limit at all, or until very near the end, if it was actually an app with decent algorithms that took timescale into account.
|
It showed that I crossed the 80mg threshold at 10.50pm.
I wouldn't have ever contemplated driving after the first two beers never mind at that point!
Any experts in calculating these things want to comment on how accurate do u think the app was in reality? Obviously lots of assumptions, the settings were for an 80kg male with normal alcohol absorption levels etc.
|
That doesn't seem right. I think I read that you can dispose of 1 unit per hour. So it should look something like this...
20:00 =0
21:00 1.29 +1.29 + 1.9 -1 =3.48
22:00 3.48+2.25 - 1 = 4.73
23:00 4.73 + 2.25 + 1.76 - 1 = 7.74
Difficult to see then, how you went over the limit at 22:50.
As you say, personally I would have discounted driving around 20:21
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 26 Oct 14 at 18:07
|
Depending upon factors such as stomach contents, there is a delaye between the alcohol going in and being absorbed into the bloodstream/re-distributed around the body - not unusual for the alcohol level to increase for up to a couple of hours after drinking ceased.
Might be a 'fun' experiment to have with an Alcosense meter...
|
So if you had to stick a wild-ass guess, how long from mouth to blood stream?
Is it really a couple of hours? Because my personal feeling would be that I feel it much more quickly than that. Perhaps an hour?
|
I do remember an "experiment" being carried out by one of the national newspapers many years ago where they sent, IIRC, a couple for dinner with wine and a couple for an evening in a pub, and then breath tested them.
None of them were over the limit at any time, but they all said there's no way they felt OK to drive.
|
I'm certainly not a big drinker. Sometimes weeks, months or even whole years pass between alcohol consumption. Not because I have any objection to it, more because I never seem to have the time to set aside to do it. I work most days and go out for a swim or to the gym most nights so those activities both require me to drive.
Anyway, when I do have a drink or two I find that "white" drinks like gin or vodka or some white wine seem at least to be less debilitating than "brown" ones like whisky or brandy or even dark beers.
I never drink and drive, as I've made clear above, but if I were to I feel I'd make a better job of it if id had a skinful of gin than if I'd had a similar amount of whisky. Might be nonsense of course. Straw poll of one after all.
Only the musings of an amateur.
;-)
|
>>Only the musings of an amateur.....;-)>>
The effects would be even more of a problem if you ever did succumb to temptation because you are not used to having a drink.
|
>> None of them were over the limit at any time, but they all said there's no way they felt OK to drive.
Wimps, or liars, or willing to go along with the national newspaper's anti-booze manipulation by lying.
|
I finished my last beer at 23.38 and the app gives you a graph of your levels. According to that I peaked at 93mg at about 12.15am.
App is called Alcodroid. It's free on androids. Would be interested if someone else wanted to try it out purely for research purposes of course??
|
>> I'll give it a go
Don't break it
|
I think I have.
I need to recheck, because it seems to think that right now my level 583mg/100ml
I must have missed a decimal point somewhere.
|
Oh yes, cl not ml.
I'm really at 112mg/100ml. Well, can't hang around here, I need to get busy experimenting.
|
There are several similar types of this app. I'm assuming this is the one you mean?
play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.M.alcodroid
|
>> Yeah thats the one.
An app like that is ok-ish when you have clearly defined alcohol inputs, i.e. qty and strength. Completely useless however when you have undefined inputs like "a large slug of gordons over 5 lumps of ice"
|
Unlikely to be too accurate, but will no doubt prove of some interest..:-)
Prefer bus to drinking establishment and taxi home...:-):-)
|
Well I tried it yesterday.
As Zero said, it gets a bit difficult when drinks are free poured rather than measured out, but nonetheless I tried pretty hard to be accurate.
I don't think its very good. It said I would be under the limit around 11.20pm and sober around 4am.
I didn't feel *able* to drive, never mind safe or under the limit at 11.20pm. It would have been daft to try. As for sober at 4am, I was asleep, but it seems unlikely.
Its all a bit irrelevant here with a zero limit, but I don't think I'd rely on it anyway. I'll just stick to keeping drinking and driving separate.
|
Its all a bit irrelevant here with a zero limit, but I don't think I'd rely on it anyway. I'll just stick to keeping drinking and driving separate.
Is that a zero with a tolerance or would the imbibing of one spoonful of cough medicine put you over?
|
|
There are far too many variables to make any "counting units app" to be anything other than a joke.
|
|
Or a toy for the terminally bored.
|
All we need is an "Abiltytodriveometer".
|
Ok, so playing the reverse logic card, who thinks that increasing the limit from 80mg/100ml to 160mg/100ml will have a null effect on drink-related driving incidents?
Or 240mg/100ml.
etc.
Like tax rates, there must be a level that gets the optimum effect of reducing drinking and driving without excessively criminalising people who are fit to drive.
Is it pure luck that 80mg/100ml is that Holy Grail level?
Doubt it.
|
I don't know, but for me 1 pint or 1 glass of wine in a lunch is ok. More than that is probably not. but the potential direct impact should at least be measurable.
It is probably known how many accidents involve people with a limit between 80 & 160 where the level was seen as significant to the accident.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 5 Nov 14 at 17:36
|
I think I know when I'm drunk and it doesn't make me dangerous because I compensate. If I feel obliged to go so cautiously that it will be noticeable I stop.
I used to think the 80mg limit was too low but nowadays it's a bit on the high side for me, an effect of age. Lygonos puts the case for it succinctly without really approving, chapeau.
In my minicabbing days I was parked in some sleazy South London layby welcoming in the new year next to a metropolitan police colour car. The coppers, in amiable mood, appeared far drunker than I felt, if you see what I mean. It was new year''s eve.
|
It's been said well enough before.
The problem drinker as far as drink driving goes isn't the one that's had 2 - 2.5 pints of normal strength lager or the equivalent (depending on their build, habitual drinking habits, food intake, rest, etc).
That person will now have to restrict themselves to 1 - 1.5 pints of lager.
The ones that cause the problems are the 'p' heads that drink too much and are well over the 80mg limit, let alone a 50mg one.
All that will happen is you will unnecessarily penalise those slightly over the limit and who would formerly have been legal ...those well over would still get done by the current system.
I note that huge chunks of Scotland are like the wild west anyway when it comes to drink/drive, because they are so remote and the policing coverage is so sparse.
The change is pure politics.. and it's ridiculous.
|
The ones that cause the problems are the 'p' heads that drink too much and are well over the 80mg limit, let alone a 50mg one.
Absolutely (the rest is right too but in terms of issues, these offenders are the ones that should be locked up and introduced to Bubba).
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Thu 6 Nov 14 at 09:24
|
|
Too true. See the court cases in the local rag... repeat offenders.
|
Unfortunately with the SNP losing their referendum, a lot of distraction politics is going around that gets headlines but achieves little else. The Police are unlikely to be stopping more cars; they aren't being gifted with mystical powers to spot the previously, "safe" drivers who now fall into the illegals, they will continue to stop those that they are pretty sure are potential dangers to themselves or others. The interesting test case lies before us when the innocent motorist awakes from his Carlisle hotel, has a swig of alcohol based mouthwash and finds himself stopped half an hour later in Scotland and becomes a criminal. Public opinion will sway away from Kenny MacAskill and supporters will realise his sole contribution to politics is, "Do what I say, not as I do".
Perhaps a mistake to have a Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice fronting such laws who also appears to be the only Cabinet Minister to have been detained by the Police for being drunk and disorderly.
|
>
>> to politics is, "Do what I say, not as I do".
>> Perhaps a mistake to have a Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice fronting such laws who
>> also appears to be the only Cabinet Minister to have been detained by the Police
>> for being drunk and disorderly.
>>
Np worse than a prominent road safety campaigner and Shadow Minister for Transport being photographed driving whilst using a mobile one day.. and reading a paper the next.
|
Colino, I don't know where you are based but in Glasgow over the last couple of years there has been a huge upturn in police driving about in bog standard unmarked Astras and Focus pulling drivers for mobiles, seatbelt etc offences.
Has purely been a money driven and target making exercise.
I fully expect them now to turn their attention to "random" stops to catch drivers who will be over the 50mg limit so that Police Scotland and McAskill can claim that they are making the roads safer.
|
|
Same in my area over in the east, road policing has become more covert. Unmarked Audi A3s and 3 series BMWs.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 6 Nov 14 at 21:14
|
I'm based in the West of Scotland, but cover a lot of the UK in the motorway muncher. I can honestly say that, if anything, there appears to be fewer Police on main routes in the past couple of years, marked or otherwise.
For reasons that are still not apparent to me, last night I was family main, free taxi service and in a couple of trips to Glasgow and back, even when there should have been a presence, at Plantation on the M8 for example, where minor (long abandoned for the weekend) roadworks combined with a mighty deluge made some soccer mums drive at approximately walking pace. Into the early hours there was still no sign of the usual suspects, the suspiciously clean BMWs and Astras, but then again, it was pretty wet.
|
Scotland to reduce drink-drive limit @ 05 Dec 2014 - Armel Coussine
