Drink drive limit

[Dark Light]

I've been breathalysed after drinking 3 cans of 4%ish over 3 hours.

Breathalyser read zero.

If I'm just stopping in at the pub for 20 minutes then I won't drink, otherwise I might have a pint but certainly wouldn't have 2 and still drive unless it was going to be 3+ hours later.

Normally 2 pints over 3 hours or so.

From tests I have run, I am very confident I would not blow over the limit, or even a quarter of the limit.

I'll have a pint, used to have two but then a mate got pulled and taken to the station. He says he only had two and I have reason to believe him, by the time he was at the station he didn't fail. But obviously two can be enough to cause a load of hassle and aggravation, even if two pints of ****water doesn't even do anything!

Now as I usually want more than one drink and two pints is perhaps too much I'll have bottles instead. I'll make two bottles last as long as everyone else's two pints and that way there's zero risk. Not sure what it'd be like under the Scottish rules though.

You shouldn't be asking yourself "Am I under the limit", you should be asking yourself "Is my driving even slightly impaired". The limit is not there to cause the hassle of going down the station.

 

[div0]

Like I said, the limit should be 0.01 with the extension that it is illegal to drive after, during or with immediate intent to consume an alcoholic drink of your own or a meaningful amount of someone else's. With sizeable fines, £500+.

Problem with such a low limit is that it makes it even more difficult to judge how long it is before you can next drive.

Is it really better to make a criminal of the guy who has 5 pints and gets up to drive the next day. How long should he wait before driving? Is 10am ok? Lunchtime? 3pm? 5pm?

Being stopped the next day at 0.011mg would have the same consequences as for the guy who had 5 pints and drove home from the pub.

 

[Will Gill]

People are always desperate to tell everyone how anti drink driving they are. Naturally, these are the same people who will quite happily drive whilst tired, stressed, or angry and think nothing of it

I still find it hilarious how most of my friends are genuinely shocked if the designated driver has a pint or two on a night out, and yet are perfectly happy to be driven by someone who spends most of the drive looking down at their phone. Even worse are my colleagues in France, who constantly tell everyone how terrible drink driving is, then happily down 5 glasses of wine in the evening and drive home.

I quite agree and wrote nearly an identical response.

 

[Dark Light]

Problem with such a low limit is that it makes it even more difficult to judge how long it is before you can next drive.

Is it really better to make a criminal of the guy who has 5 pints and gets up to drive the next day. How long should he wait before driving? Is 10am ok? Lunchtime? 3pm? 5pm?

Being stopped the next day at 0.011mg would have the same consequences as for the guy who had 5 pints and drove home from the pub.

Well first off if you have 5 pints and drive the next morning then you deserve to get pulled over, and the difference to the current system would be only waiting 4 - 5 more hours. But in any case if you had so that much you would be quite drunk, so don't drink and then drive and don't get really drunk and drive the next day.

Currently if someone is way over the limit they will face much more then someone that is just over.

 

[div0]

Well first off if you have 5 pints and drive the next morning then you deserve to get pulled over, and the difference to the current system would be only waiting 4 - 5 more hours. But in any case if you had so that much you would be quite drunk, so don't drink and then drive and don't get really drunk and drive the next day.

I think you're missing the point. I'm not suggesting he should drive the next morning, I'm saying he could potentially be pulled over some time in the afternoon and still fail your test.

That's fine - he should wait longer. And if the law was such, then we'd just have to abide by that mentality.

But the only countries with any restriction below 0.02mg/100ml tend to be those with a 'zero tolerance' and in those cases, there are usually clearly defined punishment grades, where it may just be a small fine for anything up to more commonly accepted limits (eg 0.05mg/100ml).

In the UK, anything over the legal limit is treated very seriously (and rightly so).

Currently if someone is way over the limit they will face much more then someone that is just over.

They might face a larger fine - but any drink driving conviction in the UK is a very strict offence.

I am in no way advocating drink driving and I'm actually glad that we've reduced the limit up here. I'm simply suggesting that changes in the law should be evidence-based and apply appropriate levels of punishment.

Simply lowering the existing limit towards a complete 'zero tolerance' (or even 0.01mg/100ml) and keeping the existing punishment structure just means that you potentially apply a serious punishment to a relatively minor offence.

And before you come back and argue that there is evidence which shows that any alcohol makes you more likely to have an accident than a sober person - I'm not disputing that.

But you're proposing to make a criminal out of someone who has 0.01mg/100ml alcohol and punish them with very serious penalties, while people who use their phone while driving get a small fine, people who drive with almost no sleep get probably a warning at worst.

Those people are far more dangerous.

If you're proposing 'graded' penalties based on blood alcohol levels, then I'd be much more in agreement - but simply saying that we should just lower the limit to effectively zero tolerance (whilst maintaining the existing penalty structure), is not the right approach IMO.

 

[Dark Light]

I think you're missing the point. I'm not suggesting he should drive the next morning, I'm saying he could potentially be pulled over some time in the afternoon and still fail your test.

That's fine - he should wait longer. And if the law was such, then we'd just have to abide by that mentality.

But the only countries with any restriction below 0.02mg/100ml tend to be those with a 'zero tolerance' and in those cases, there are usually clearly defined punishment grades, where it may just be a small fine for anything up to more commonly accepted limits (eg 0.05mg/100ml).

In the UK, anything over the legal limit is treated very seriously (and rightly so).

They might face a larger fine - but any drink driving conviction in the UK is a very strict offence.

I am in no way advocating drink driving and I'm actually glad that we've reduced the limit up here. I'm simply suggesting that changes in the law should be evidence-based and apply appropriate levels of punishment.

Simply lowering the existing limit towards a complete 'zero tolerance' (or even 0.01mg/100ml) and keeping the existing punishment structure just means that you potentially apply a serious punishment to a relatively minor offence.

And before you come back and argue that there is evidence which shows that any alcohol makes you more likely to have an accident than a sober person - I'm not disputing that.

But you're proposing to make a criminal out of someone who has 0.01mg/100ml alcohol and punish them with very serious penalties, while people who use their phone while driving get a small fine, people who drive with almost no sleep get probably a warning at worst.

Those people are far more dangerous.

If you're proposing 'graded' penalties based on blood alcohol levels, then I'd be much more in agreement - but simply saying that we should just lower the limit to effectively zero tolerance (whilst maintaining the existing penalty structure), is not the right approach IMO.

Well no, if someone is over the current limit they ARE drunk. If under my system someone was 0.2 say, then they are not really drunk but impaired, so it would only face a fine for the first offence. But anything over say 0.4 should face a larger fine and points, with over say 0.1 a massive fine and 12 points.

 

[div0]

Well no, if someone is over the current limit they ARE drunk.

Which is why we have such strict punishment for anyone who currently fails the test, no matter how small the margin.

You appeared to be proposing just a lowering of the existing limit (to 0.01), which in my mind is ludicrous, without also acknowledging that we'd need to have more minor penalties for people who're just over that lower limit, but well below any commonly accepted actual 'limit' (eg 0.05).

If under my system someone was 0.2 say, then they are not really drunk but impaired, so it would only face a fine for the first offence. But anything over say 0.4 should face a larger fine and points, with over say 0.1 a massive fine and 12 points.

I think you're missing a 0 in there - 0.2mg/100ml = barely able to walk

So you're not just proposing lowering of the existing limit to 0.01. What you're actually talking about is lowering the existing limit to ~0.04 and then also introducing a new less serious offence for anyone between 0.01 and 0.04.

In which case that would at least be more sensible. A flat out 'near zero tolerance' with the existing level of punishment is just not workable imo. It's not just fines and points you have to think about, it's also insurance implications, court costs and time, etc.

 

[Dark Light]

Which is why we have such strict punishment for anyone who currently fails the test, no matter how small the margin.

You appeared to be proposing just a lowering of the existing limit (to 0.01), which in my mind is ludicrous, without also acknowledging that we'd need to have more minor penalties for people who're just over that lower limit, but well below any commonly accepted actual 'limit' (eg 0.05).



I think you're missing a 0 in there - 0.2mg/100ml = barely able to walk

So you're not just proposing lowering of the existing limit to 0.01. What you're actually talking about is lowering the existing limit to ~0.04 and then also introducing a new less serious offence for anyone between 0.01 and 0.04.

In which case that would at least be more sensible. A flat out 'near zero tolerance' with the existing level of punishment is just not workable imo. It's not just fines and points you have to think about, it's also insurance implications, court costs and time, etc.

You have to also keep in mind that if you get pulled over and are over 0.01 then you will not be able to continue driving and will have a criminal record, as you do now with 0.08. But also it would only be a minor penalty for the first offence, if you keep getting caught over 0.01 you will evenly get a ban.

 

[Cosimo]

If I'm driving I don't have a single drink, not really worth the risk.

This when I was still drinking.

 

[Gaygle]

You shouldn't be asking yourself "Am I under the limit", you should be asking yourself "Is my driving even slightly impaired". The limit is not there to cause the hassle of going down the station.

Oh then that's a much easier question to answer.

Simply put - no. Eating a hearty meal and having two regular strength pints over 3-4 hours I don't believe impairs me. If I can even "feel" the alcohol, then I absolutely wouldn't drive. Fortunately I've never had to worry about that as i don't put myself in that position.

P.s. EVERYONE says that they've had two pints. I've yet to meet someone who actually *has* only had two pints. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so idiotic.