12 penalty points ≠ ban

Hmmm. It makes sense to have it at zero, from a safety point of view. But clearly, for most people, this cost is greater than the benefit - at least until someone they know/love gets hit by a drunk driver.

You must distinguish between having a drink and being drunk.

There are many people living in isolation/rural that do not have oyster cards, or the option of 6 buses home per hour, for whom having a drink in the only pub (and social setting) for miles is very important.

Stats that show many people d&d because they percieve the risk of being caught as being very low. Changing bits of the law will not make the blindest bit of difference unless there is a bigger Police presense on roads and random road-side breathalysing.

Very good topic.

You remind me of a surgeon in America who got injuried during a hit and run, and the drivers even aware of it - he kept his license by stating that his job required him to have a car (his job involved in some sort of investment).

i have only just seen this.

a related point is that there is so much road crime about that the prisons are not big enough to house all the pesistent road crime offenders.

but that does strengthen the argument for 20 mph and speed bumps in residential areas. i.e. we acknowledge we cannot get them off the road therefore we will have to slow them down before they cause danger to other road users.

and before you all start howling - cos you have done before. i dont like speed bumps either. they are uncomfortable. but i have now lost four people i know to road death. and i am prepared to put up with the discomfort and inconvenince of speed bumps to try and reduce road death.

see you out there.

I've never quite understood why they (authorities) don't just keep filling up cells with people as they arrive. Surely the terrible conditions mean offenders would be less likely to go back? It would also allow those giving sentences to continue with (perceived) short sentences, no?

You must distinguish between having a drink and being drunk.

There are many people living in isolation/rural that do not have oyster cards, or the option of 6 buses home per hour, for whom having a drink in the only pub (and social setting) for miles is very important.
And it absolutely HAS to be alcohol? what is so bad about making people choose between operating heavy machinery on the public roads and the consumption of a fluid that impairs your motor skills, reaction times, everything??

Stats that show many people d&d because they percieve the risk of being caught as being very low. Changing bits of the law will not make the blindest bit of difference unless there is a bigger Police presense on roads and random road-side breathalysing.
More police needed, better enforcement of road traffic offences needed, agreed.

Does it?

Have you any evidence that 1 per 100 makes you less safe than 0 per 100?
I think there are some studies about super low level consumption...goes off to google

If you have (which I am sure you haven't) then I would bet my life that other factors (such as competence, time of day) would dwarf the effect of 1 per 100.
Quite possible!

I would be happy if the rules successfully forbade the drinking of more than 1 pint, or half a pint before driving.
This is what the new limit would be. 2 pints before midnight then driving at 7 am should be ok. And this is why the no tolerance thing is a good idea -- no more idiots saying "well there's 2 units in a pint, I've had 3 but over six hours, and I'm a big lad and can handle my drink, so where's me keys?"

No uncertainty, and a nice easy rule to follow - don't drink and drive!

Expense & effectiveness I guess.

It seems a far better solution to just take away the toys of those that don't play nice. Driving should be a privilege, after all.

Fines almost act as permission to those that can afford them.
Bang on. Deterrent effect is just about non existent. The yanks lock up more than 700 people per 100k of population, in the UK it's 140-odd. Punishment does not deter, as a criminal does not typically engage in a logical cost-benefit analysis before the criminal behaviour. This goes double for offences where the person is necessarily impaired (i.e. drink driving).

EDIT -- we should make like norway, fine as proportion of income, no exceptions, no limits. Nokia executive got hit for 300k € or something ridiculous. Unfortunately not for talking on his phone but for speeding.

And it absolutely HAS to be alcohol? what is so bad about making people choose between operating heavy machinery on the public roads and the consumption of a fluid that impairs your motor skills, reaction times, everything??

More police needed, better enforcement of road traffic offences needed, agreed.

Half a pint on the way to a very remote home?

i have only just seen this.

a related point is that there is so much road crime about that the prisons are not big enough to house all the pesistent road crime offenders.

but that does strengthen the argument for 20 mph and speed bumps in residential areas. i.e. we acknowledge we cannot get them off the road therefore we will have to slow them down before they cause danger to other road users.

and before you all start howling - cos you have done before. i dont like speed bumps either. they are uncomfortable. but i have now lost four people i know to road death. and i am prepared to put up with the discomfort and inconvenince of speed bumps to try and reduce road death.

see you out there.
RE 20 in residential areas

thinking about this the other day, and I think a sea-change in attitudes is needed. The best way would be to GPS tag new cars and electronically limit the acceleration that is available in built-up areas. It effectively caps a car's power in town. Traffic smoothing effect too?

There's a civil liberties downside, and retro fit would probably be expensive. Hmm, hard to know whether this would ever work.

Half a pint on the way to a very remote home?
why not have a coke / orange juice / cup of tea? Why does it have to be alcohol? Why is it wrong to make the person living in a remote area choose between the operation of heavy machinery and the consumption of something that affects motor skills and reaction times??

This sort of attitude is PRECISELY why people get killed. "It's quiet out, I'll be fine".

EDIT sorry, didn't mean to get all patronising, but I don't get the alcohol-worshipping culture and the disregard for others that prevails so often. This shit literally kills people, and I don't accept that it's essential to drink.

And now I sound sanctimonious. Fucking brilliant.

GPS equipment doesn't need to transmit or have persistent data storage.
True. Problem is the tabloid press' capability and willingness to understand engineering and design and its capacity to ignore the truth to generate a headline and a quick buck ;)

are there any actual downsides other than cost?

why not have a coke / orange juice / cup of tea? Why does it have to be alcohol? Why is it wrong to make the person living in a remote area choose between the operation of heavy machinery and the consumption of something that affects motor skills and reaction times??

This sort of attitude is PRECISELY why people get killed. "It's quiet out, I'll be fine".

Because there are centuries old traditions concerning drinking alcohol, and only a century or so of motor traffic. Lets ban cars.

Because there are centuries old traditions concerning drinking alcohol, and only a century or so of motor traffic. Lets ban cars.
I can go for this.

Can we also reinstate hanging for gays and remove the vote from women?

Discrimination goes back at least as far as booze. Age =/= validity. See also, Royal Family, The.

why not have a coke / orange juice / cup of tea? Why does it have to be alcohol? Why is it wrong to make the person living in a remote area choose between the operation of heavy machinery and the consumption of something that affects motor skills and reaction times??

This sort of attitude is PRECISELY why people get killed. "It's quiet out, I'll be fine".

EDIT sorry, didn't mean to get all patronising, but I don't get the alcohol-worshipping culture and the disregard for others that prevails so often. This shit literally kills people, and I don't accept that it's essential to drink.

And now I sound sanctimonious. Fucking brilliant.

I am not an alcohol worshipper. I'm trying to be realisitic. There is no way a 100% ban would be enated especially with the current economical state of things.
What about the fact that some folk naturally produce alcohol in their blood stream having never been near a boozer. How many years do you propose they get? People die because others go beyond the limit.
Like I've said I'd rather see more testing and presence from the police as well as much tougher laws for motorists breaking the rules.

I am not an alcohol worshipper. I'm trying to be realisitic. There is no way a 100% ban would be enated especially with the current economical state of things.
What about the fact that some folk naturally produce alcohol in their blood stream having never been near a boozer. How many years do you propose they get? People die because others go beyond the limit.
Like I've said I'd rather see more testing and presence from the police as well as much tougher laws for motorists breaking the rules.
A zero-limit is actually the 20 in blood so that the alcohol producing people don't get punished. Which also means a cheeky half pint is ok for most, I guess. I suppose the tax revenues on booze are massive right now, and HM Treasury needs the wedge.

Yes to more enforcement!

I've never really understood it as a numbers game.

Drunk=Tired=Talking on phone=Arguing with passenger=lighting cigarette as far as I can see as contributory effects in road accidents. Why not treat all of them equally?

I guess in theory that's what 'careless driving' and 'dangerous driving' prosecutions are supposed to acheive. It does seem that these are far more frequently applied to the breaking of some mandated limit than to genuine poor driving when contravention of a limit has not necessarily occurred.

I think cutting the drink driving limit would have a markedly lower impact on road fatalities than the active pursuit and prosecution of careless or aggressive driving where drink is not involved.

I've never really understood it as a numbers game.

Drunk=Tired=Talking on phone=Arguing with passenger=lighting cigarette as far as I can see as contributory effects in road accidents. Why not treat all of them equally?

I guess in theory that's what 'careless driving' and 'dangerous driving' prosecutions are supposed to acheive. It does seem that these are far more frequently applied to the breaking of some mandated limit than to genuine poor driving when contravention of a limit has not necessarily occurred.

I think cutting the drink driving limit would have a markedly lower impact on road fatalities than the active pursuit and prosecution of careless or aggressive driving where drink is not involved.
REPPED but it's easier to catch drink drivers, because you don't have to catch the exact instant of inattention, you can nab them an hour after they nearly squished someone and still get a tick in a box.

Actually, it's a curious thing that it's probably quite tricky to catch drink drivers in major cities. As long as you drive with your lights on and don't jump too many red lights, I'd say you could drive around London, moderately blasted with near impugnity. The irony is, if police did concentrate on the momentary lapses of attention and indiscretions that I mentioned, they'd have cause to breathalise more drivers and would likely catch far more DUIs.

I can go for this.

Can we also reinstate hanging for gays and remove the vote from women?

Discrimination goes back at least as far as booze. Age =/= validity. See also, Royal Family, The.

Are you suggesting that as a society, we can learn to live without booze and equating it to discrimination? Are you teetotal?

Are you suggesting that as a society, we can learn to live without booze and equating it to discrimination? Are you teetotal?
No, I'm saying that I don't understand the society-wide deification of alcohol, its properties, and those who are able to consume it in vast quantities. I'm not teetotal, at all. I'm just curious as to why we as a society allow our apparently irrational love for booze cost lives. I have a strict personal no-booze-at-all rule if driving/riding is required.

I wasn't equating it to discrimination, I was just being facetious to point out that just because something's being going on for a while, doesn't make it right. Which seemed to be the justification you advanced for not reducing drink drive limits to the effectively zero level.

No, I'm saying that I don't understand the society-wide deification of alcohol, its properties, and those who are able to consume it in vast quantities. I'm not teetotal, at all. I'm just curious as to why we as a society allow our apparently irrational love for booze cost lives. I have a strict personal no-booze-at-all rule if driving/riding is required.

I wasn't equating it to discrimination, I was just being facetious to point out that just because something's being going on for a while, doesn't make it right. Which seemed to be the justification you advanced for not reducing drink drive limits to the effectively zero level.

I think a lot of people don't understand the 'society-wide deification of alcohol' (least of all me) and this make me worry about moves to ban things, as the countryside drinker earlier pointed out - centuries old traditions often have far reaching influences.

I too was being facetious - but i can't help but think that in human history cars will be a blip that, when suitibly inebriated, will be easily bypassed in the future.

We need a proper study! Or a referendum. Held at 11.15 on a friday night...

Reducing the drink drive level from four units to zero would stop the people who have six units then hop in the car how?

Being able or not to hop in to a car seems to me a pretty good test of sobriety. If you can do it with one finger on the tip of your nose so much the better.

Reducing the drink drive level from four units to zero would stop the people who have six units then hop in the car how?

It is not four units.