12 penalty points ≠ ban

Whatever it is then- point is the same.

Part of the problem is that people see it as i can have 4/2/6/8 units and I'll be fine.

Far too many variables.

I was under the impression it was (approximately) two pints of 3% beer, which equates to around 4 units?

I may well be wrong!

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.

You could just nip to the car for a bit , jump in the car for a spin ...

I was under the impression it was (approximately) two pints of 3% beer, which equates to around 4 units?

I may well be wrong!

Too much of a generalisation, it varies greatly between people.

Part of the problem is that people see it as i can have 4/2/6/8 units and I'll be fine.

Far too many variables.
Which an effectively zero level would eliminate, I hope.

Too much of a generalisation, it varies greatly between people.
exactly, and people are doing all sorts of maths trying to justify getting behind the wheel. Mad.

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...
in the interests of a scientific trial i will volunteer to drink. I think I had better be the control group, on single malt. I do look forward to the day when all cars have alco-locks and autopilot. Science will save us once again ;)

I am plucking this out of the air, but I have a vague idea I read somewhere that the proportion of drivers under the current drink drive limit but over the 20% "zero" limit as a causal factor in collisions is statistically insignificant. Either it's simply not a problem, or the resources it would cost to tackle that problem could be used far more effectively on tackling some of the other, more significant causes of road collisions.

Legislation is expensive, and effective enforcement is even more expensive. It's very important to target it where it will do most good and least harm. Whilst single issues like this need to be highlighted, to ensure that they are considered in the process, legislators do us a disservice unless their approach is anything less than holistic.

Indeed, the deaths caused by people having between 20 and 80 microgrammes of alcohol in 100ml of blood (the ones who would be covered by a rule change) might be minimal, but the current culture is that X is OK but Y is not, where X and Y vary wildly between people.

So you have idiots necking five pints, and then thinking that because they've had a meal to 'soak it up', they can drive home. The zero limit reinforces the fact that there should be a choice between consuming alcohol and driving.

The issue would be then that people tend to rebel against laws that seem unfair, and disobey them.

It is important for the credibility of the drink drive law that it is seen to be reasonable - which broadly speaking it is at the moment.

Zero tolerance would possibly just create angry criminals out of previously reasonable people- the person who had two pints of weak lager shandy over a six hour evening out say.

The issue would be then that people tend to rebel against laws that seem unfair, and disobey them.

It is important for the credibility of the drink drive law that it is seen to be reasonable - which broadly speaking it is at the moment.

Zero tolerance would possibly just create angry criminals out of previously reasonable people- the person who had two pints of weak lager shandy over a six hour evening out say.
And here we go again...why is it unfair to ask people to choose between consumption of alcohol, which affects your motor skills and reaction times, even at lower concentrations than the current limits, and the operation of heavy machinery on the public roads?

Good question - and the one I am noe asking you, in a way.

Let me put it like this, as this is how I suspect the majority would view it:

Why is it fair to stop people having an amount to drink that does not (legally, currently) effect their ability to drive?

I.e if it has no effect, why are you banning it?

Why is it fair to stop people having an amount to drink that does not (legally, currently) effect their ability to drive?

why is it unfair to ask people to choose between consumption of alcohol, which affects your motor skills and reaction times, even at lower concentrations than the current limits

Erm.

I'm saying that, if any amount of alcohol affects ability to drive, then surely alcohol consumption in drivers should not be allowed.

Or cyclists.

My parents next door neighbour had a dig at me for cycling with no lights on a private little road in a residential area late one night. Ok point taken, wrist slapped. But then I asked where he and his wife had been and was informed that they had just driven back from an Italian restaurant. They were boasting about the good food, the bottle of red wine followed by several shots of Sambuca. I told him to get off his high horse. Shame that in this country a cyclist gets wrap for any wrong doing, but people seem to be relaxed about drink driving!!!

Good question - and the one I am noe asking you, in a way.

Let me put it like this, as this is how I suspect the majority would view it:

Why is it fair to stop people having an amount to drink that does not (legally, currently) effect their ability to drive?

I.e if it has no effect, why are you banning it?
Well to infringe on people's liberties to impair their bodily functions and risk lives I agree that I need some evidence. That is solidly medical territory, and I can only offer a quick google-survey...there are studies demonstrating impairment at levels below the current limit and studies demonstrating no impairment.

Assume that it is impossible for alcohol to impair driving performance at concentrations lower than the legal limit (which I don't think is the case).

The only argument in favour of allowing people to drink is that it allows people to drink, which raises revenue and avoids infringing on personal liberties.

There is still an argument in favour of banning it to be made -- the people who can't count, miscount, are lighter than they think. They have a glass or three, and without deliberately flouting the law, they drive with an illegal level of alcohol in their blood.

If a total ban was made, all of those cases would be eliminated if people had a basic respect for the law (which most do, I think). The idea is that people would no longer be able to try to drink up to the limit.

Now, if you assume that there is a non-zero effect on driving skill below the current limit, the argument gets stronger.

I'm saying that, if any amount of alcohol affects ability to drive, then surely alcohol consumption in drivers should not be allowed.
yup. that's exactly it.

That's pretty much the case for pilots. If you add up road deaths due to alcohol, there'll be a shite sight more than alcohol-caused plane deaths. So the one that causes less harm is treated more strictly than the one that causes the most in absolute terms...

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.

Just so we know the facts:
from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/460/m37.htm

Drivers with a BAC of between 0.02 and 0.05 have at least a three times greater risk of dying in a vehicle crash than drivers with no alcohol in their blood. This risk increases to at least six times with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, and to 11 times with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10.

Or cyclists.
The risk of killing or maiming someone on a bike is pretty low. But OK, what's the downside to society of banning drink-cycling?

The arguments in favour are eliminating the rare pedestrian deaths due to drink-cycling, and saving the cost of scraping people up (same argument for motorbike helmets).

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.

I dunno, I think No Drink is fair.
(Speaking from a hypocritical position of being a drunk driver once or twice when living abroad)

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

This

Plus will we move ban anything that has a similar level of effect such as tiredness, headaches, conversations, deep thinking about that last kiss...

Just so we know the facts:
from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/460/m37.htm

Drivers with a BAC of between 0.02 and 0.05 have at least a three times greater risk of dying in a vehicle crash than drivers with no alcohol in their blood. This risk increases to at least six times with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08, and to 11 times with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10.
the limit is currently 0.08. Food for thought.

The risk of killing or maiming someone on a bike is pretty low. But OK, what's the downside to society of banning drink-cycling?

The arguments in favour are eliminating the rare pedestrian deaths due to drink-cycling, and saving the cost of scraping people up (same argument for motorbike helmets).

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