12 penalty points ≠ ban

What I am saying is that you would be battling perception - it is widely accepted that the current limit is fair, I think people would view a total ban as unfair.

All of that aside it will have zero effect on the people who currently flout the limit.
alright dammit, based on the stats posted by Blue Quinn (and assuming that they reflect reality and are reliable etc), can you think of any arguments to justify not lowering the limit in light of the risk that it poses to road users?

Wayward drunken cyclist wobbling all over road, gets hit by car/falls off bike.
is that a downside for society resulting from a ban on drink cycling? I don't geddit.

Plus will we move ban anything that has a similar level of effect such as tiredness, headaches, conversations, deep thinking about that last kiss...
driving without due care and attention, I think it's called ;)

tricky enforcement = no point in a specific ban. Easy to read level on handy road-side machine = lots of point in a specific ban.

Would reducing the drink drive limit to zero be the best use of time and resources in terms of accident prevention? How would it stop those who knowingly drink and drive now?

Another way to look at this would be: of those drivers who are aware that the limit is so low, how many do not consume alcohol at all when driving as they are aware of the risks?

Would reducing the drink drive limit to zero be the best use of time and resources in terms of accident prevention? How would it stop those who knowingly drink and drive now?
Time and resources? Piece of piss to tack on an amendment to whatever's trundling through right now. Political will is what's missing.

It wouldn't stop those who deliberately think "i'm over the limit, but balls to that" but it WOULD stop those who wouldn't deliberately drive and just drink a bit to try and stay under. At a wildly unstatistical guess the latter category vastly outnumber the former.

Why do people obey a law?

Because otherwise hippy hits them with the banhammer?

You have to be careful relying on isolated stats taken out of context. Spin has already been applied. They were compiled for a purpose and selected to support the required conclusion.

You'll note that the figures quoted above only show drivers killed. It's likely that this has been chosen because it provides a wider set of figures than if you include other consequences collisions.

• They do not show people killed by drink-drivers
  
• They do not show drivers seriously injured
  
• They do not show other people seriously injured by drink drivers.
  
  
  

The fact that these consequences have been ignored is likely to indicate that the difference between a driver at 0.2 BAC and 0.8 BAC on these three figures is little or nothing.

You will note also that they do not show this percentage in absolute figures, nor over what time period. For example if in a year 300 sober drivers die and 900 under 0.5 BAC and 1800 at 0.8 BAC then there is a very clear case for action and Wannabe is right

If on the other hand if in 10 year period 1 sober driver dies , 3with < 0.5 BAC and 6 with<0.8 BAC then it's clear that there's not really a problem and there is no real need to change the law and Dammit is right.

I have no idea what these figures really are - that^ is by way of illustration how meaningless the percentage stats are when taken in isolation. The figures will be in the public domain, but I have no idea how you go about finding them.

Slightly misrepresenting me Niall- I agree that a driver with 0 BAC is going to be safer, even if only slightly.

What I am saying is that a) to reduce the limit to zero would lead many people to ignore the new law, and that b) there are probably easier targets in terms of road safety.

I'd go for a compulsory re-test if you got any points, with a sterner re-test every five years. Also, if you undertake at traffic lights you are banned for life and your car crushed.

Sorry, Neil, I mean you would be right that changing the law is not going to be effective or necessary

Incidentally, what with all the caveats about these stats being selected to support an opinion, that link really is worth a read vis a vis the effectiveness of lowering BAC limits in other countries. It pretty much gives the lie to the ABD view that lowering to 0.2 is unenforceable. Lower the limits and you do reduce casualties. It then boils down only to a cost/benefit analysis.

Wayward drunken cyclist wobbling all over road, gets hit by car/falls off bike.

is that a downside for society resulting from a ban on drink cycling? I don't geddit.

Ok, swap car for bus full of people, bus swerves to avoid pissed cyclist and hits an oil tanker, BANG.

You can't ban for one and not another.

buses and oil tankers are dangerous.

You have to be careful relying on isolated stats taken out of context.

You also have to be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. It is possible that there could be a correlation between low levels of blood alcohol and driving risk without any causal link. e.g. if driving is most dangerous at certain times of day for other reasons (roads busier, darkness, tiredness, etc), and if drivers are more likely to have non-zero blood alcohol at the same times of day then there will be a correlation between blood alcohol and risk even if the alcohol isn't causing the risk.

Not that i approve of driving with any intoxicant in your system.

buses and oil tankers are dangerous.

Only when pissed cyclists are out and about.

What I am saying is that you would be battling perception - it is widely accepted that the current limit is fair, I think people would view a total ban as unfair.

All of that aside it will have zero effect on the people who currently flout the limit.

Would reducing the drink drive limit to zero be the best use of time and resources in terms of accident prevention? How would it stop those who knowingly drink and drive now?

Why do people obey a law?

I think you are too pessimistic. People obey the law for complex reasons; fear of being caught is one of them. But with regard to drink driving it is not only that. The argument has been won. I am old enough to remember how resistant people were to changing their behaviour and all the bogus arguments they put forward (they were really quite similar to the ones people going to Forum drinks put forward actually). But over time the anti-drink driving argument won and now people accept it because they see it as valid and for their own good. In fact I think a lot of people, members of my own family for example (to dip in to anecdote as evidence) stay well below the limit and would not actually be outraged if the limit was reduced to zero.
You say people knowingly drink and drive and of course there is going to be small hard-core of selfish idiots who do that regularly but there is another larger group who do it occasionally and probably feel bad about it. I think it there is every chance that their behaviour will be affected for the better if the limit is lowered and what you might call the cultural pressure not to drink and drive is strengthened. Considerably more severe penalties for people who are well over the limit would also play a part. Bit by bit these changes can be made. They take time and effort. In the seventies and even in to the eighties there would have been people making the same arguments as you are now. Because of the efforts of politicians and police and campaigners in overcoming those arguments hundreds of people continued to live who would otherwise have died. I don't think we have reached a point where we can go no further and should accept that the number of drink related deaths on the roads is as low as it ever can be.

fuck me, is this a proper serious grown up thread and everything, gonna have to read one this month.

I broadly agree with everything you have written Will, I suppose my main point is that whilst the bulk of the effort has been made as you have said it would still take a considerable push to make society as a whole accept a total ban.

We therefore get into the realm of diminishing returns, with millions spent on advertising campaigns and enforcement in equal measure.

And at this point we have to put a value on our efforts- for example if we spend 100 million on "Project Zero" and save 100 lives then great, that's 100 lives saved.

However if we spend that 100 million on, say, vigorous seizure and destruction of un-MOT'd cars and the vehicles of uninsured unlicenced drivers and save 1,000 lives then that is better value for money, to use a crude term when it comes to saving lives.

2 year ban
2k fine
resit test.

My reading was 82.

I had had 5 pints the day before and was at home in bed for 10:30.
I was on my way to work on a saturday mornig (9.30 ish) as my boss had locked himself out (it was my day off).
Somebody crashed in to me. They were sober. Entirely their fault, failing to stop at a stop sign.

Runs and hides

Were you aware that you might still be over the limit when you set out?

How do you feel about it? Would you feel differently if you'd been caught by a random stop and test, rather than another's error?

Were you aware that you might still be over the limit when you set out?

The thought didn't even enter my mind. Had I finished drinking later/drank more then he'd have had to wait for me to get the bus in to town.

How do you feel about it? Would you feel differently if you'd been caught by a random stop and test, rather than another's error?

I feel lucky (now, but not at the time), it could easily have been so much worse. There but for the grace on Tynan etc etc

Do I think my driving was impaired in any way, No. The other legally sober drivers driving skills were clearly worse than mine.

82 in breath or blood? If the latter,most police forces wouldn't prosecute. If the former, you were well over double the limit, which strikes me as difficult for a morning after type thing.

Latter
.

Yikes, bit harsh then, that's only a shade over the limit.