More drink-drive madness
Saturday, June 5, 2010 First test of the new government's liberal credentials should be a resounding rejection of the proposal by government advisor Sir Peter North to cut the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.
I would love to see evidence that cutting the drink-drive limit by almost half will reduce accidents, fatal or otherwise. I suspect that, if it exists, it's pretty thin on the ground.
However, what bothers me more than the implication that one cannot have even a single pint or a large glass of wine without worrying about being over the limit, is the "morning after" syndrome.
Are we going to see more and more drivers stopped by the police, at eight or nine in the morning, to see how much alcohol is still in their blood from the night before?
I'm not condoning drinking and driving (or heavy drinking and driving the following morning), but a further reduction in the drink-drive limit would be a major blow to those of us who enjoy a (shared) bottle of wine most evenings and have to drive early the next day.
Another nail in the coffin for a civilised, sociable and, yes, liberal society.
Full story HERE.
Simon Clark
The Telegraph reports that "The idea of a lower limit has been backed by members of the AA and the British Medical Association".
No surprise that the BMA has thrown its weight behind yet another illiberal measure. But the "members of the AA"? I'm a member of the AA and I certainly haven't been consulted on my opinion.
Anyway, I thought the AA was supposed to defend the interests of drivers, not make our lives even more insufferable. The vast majority of AA members are unlikely to be teetotallers or, for that matter, irresponsible drunks, so where is the voice of reason when we need it?
If I needed an excuse to let my far from inexpensive membership lapse this is it.
Reader Comments (15)
Obviously the FLV has an interest in this, but I agree that a conviction will come to be regarded as a tax, rather than something to be ashamed of. I'm not going to alter my evening wine consumption and I predict that most people will just take a chance. Since the advent of cameras, speeding points have to a certain extent been ignored by insurance companies. How long before low level drink convictions are?
As a magistrates court reporter for many years, I used to feel for those people who came up on morning after drink drive charges.
In all cases, the defendants had made the right choices. They drove in to the city, parked up overnight, either got a taxi home or stayed with a friend, and then next morning after picking up their car to go to work, they were stopped by police.
Many of them drank freely the night before believing that they would be safe. It was very sad to see these morning after drink drivers then lose their licence and in nearly all cases their jobs, then their homes as well because of having no income.
Yes, if the limit changes, the police will look out for these drivers - it is easy money in the treasury coffers, it does help to reduce the number of cars on the road, and it does prove useful when trying to show Govt that a Force has reached certain targets on the number of drink-driving or drink related arrests.
It will be very interesting to see how this new Govt deals with this issue. My guess is that, like smoking and choice, there will be no change.
After all, no matter who gets the most votes at an election, the Govt always wins.
Has anyone looked at the blood alcohol levels present in drink/driving related deaths. Chances are that the people responsilble were not 'just' over the limit but heavily intoxicated. People who exceed the current limit will not give a stuff if it is lowered and will continue to drink and drive as they always have.
The lowering of the legal limit is to coincide with lower penalties where the BAL is 'only' between the new and old permitted level. As with speeding fines and penalty points, the public will come to see being caught for 'drink driving' as having more to do with the legal level being too low than the driver's consumption being too high, and it will undo the the many years of hard work, and campaigning that led to drinking and driving becoming unacceptable and anti social in the minds of most
Can I strongly recommend this commentary by John Brignell:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2010%20June.htm#and on
His analysis demonstrates very clearly that reducing the drink drive limit further would have no beneficial results.
It is very easy for a committee to make recommendations. Clearly, any committee investigating the effect of alcohol on driving ability MUST recommend that THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF DRINKING AND DRIVING. How can it be otherwise? They state the obvious, but only if, in fact, the argument is true. These committees are under no obligation to verify the facts. They need only to accept whatever 'facts' that they are supplied with. Is that not what happened in respect of the smoking ban?
These committees are corrupt. By that I mean, not that they are deliberately distorting anything, but that the nature of the beast cannot allow any conclusion other than a complete ban. For example, such a committee, when examining the effect of having armed forces, MUST say that armed forces cause the death of many people, and, therefore, armed forces must be banned. There is no other possible conclusion.
Proponents of the reduction of the alcohol limit from 80 to 50 (bla, bla) claim that 150 (approx) people will not be killed on the roads each year. Would it be wrong to ask these people to PROVE IT?. It may be right or, in fact, it may be wrong. People who have had a couple of pints may, in fact, be just a little more careful that people who haven't. Who knows?
When 500,000 people die in this country every year, what is the significance of 150 others?
Aah, but, Junican, only the right people must be allowed to die. There must be no premature deaths that could be avoided - the Government needs every able-bodied prole of working age (to be extended) to feed it £££. Why is there no political outcry about OAPs dying through NHS neglect, malnutrition or hypothermia? Why, indeed, do we seem to be edging towards euthanasia and, perhaps eventually, assisted suicide?
At the end of the day will any reduction in the legal drinking limit be "evidence based". Have the current limits shown any increase in deaths through drink-driving over the last 30 years? The trend I believe has been downwards, so why change the limit? To conform with the European limit?
Any decrease in the limits will only serve to criminalise more drivers and, no doubt, bring in much needed tax revenue at a time of belt-tightening. Secondly, it will also serve to accelerate the demise of rural public houses.
The sad fact remains that people who are stone cold sober can be absolutely appauling and dangerous drivers and you can not legislate against these sorts of people.
"the Government needs every able-bodied prole of working age (to be extended) to feed it £££....................."
WHICHEVER country the prole hails from.
And people still ask: "Why can't* the Government do something about all these immigrants ?"
Blimey, it's not THAT hard to figure out.
Nor why the art and skill of 'figuring out' is so low down on the teaching agenda in most of our State schools these days.
(The correct verb is 'won't', by the way - with or without the support of the EU)*.
It is really rather obvious what is going on here with the proposed reduction from 80 to 50. It really has nothing to do with saving lives - after all, they admit that the 'aim' is to reduce deaths by 150 per an, which is a drop in the ocean of deaths in the country overall (500,000).
No. The object of the exercise is simply to make it more and more difficult for the ordinary, law-abiding citizen to KNOW whether or not he is over the limit. The actual objective is to reduce 'drink driving' to zero.
If 'drink driving' was reduced to zero, would 150 lives be saved? Almost certainly not. Accidents happen for all sorts or reasons. The mere fact that one of the persons involved in an accident has had a pint or two does not mean that that person was responsible for the accident.
When the zealots (the medical profession) have succeeded in reducing 'drink driving' to zero, will they be satisfied? Well, no they will not. Accidents will continue to happen. What will be their next objective? Clearly, it will have to be a law to stop people walking on pavements if they are 'over the limit for pedestrians'. That is the only logical 'next step' if lives are to be saved on the roads.
We can see that this process is never ending. There will always be some further objective. What is the answer?
There is an answer, and it is quite simple - stop funding these organisations with public funds. If there are charities which have enough members who feel strongly enough about accidents on the roads, they can fund the quangos. If I was Cameron, I would say, "Stop! We will fund ONE organisation to produce the statistics and ONE organisation to make recommendations and another, totally separate organisation, to check the facts. There will be no collusion.
We had the recent example of NICE (the quango responsible for deciding what drugs and treatments the NHS can afford) weighing in with its opinion about minimum alcohol prices. We also have the Medical Association doing the same, and the College of Physicians as well, to say nothing of the Police. Why are we funding all these organisations to say the same thing? The same applies to Gobal Warming, the EU and the WHO.
It must be stopped.
I hope Cameron keeps his promise and culls all the quangos, they are a curse to civilisation and the main cause of all bans be it smoking, drinking, eating.
All european governments love quangos and have been increasing their number at the rate of noughts because they do their job for them, giving them more time for media interviews and high profile junkets abroad, making them look terribly important and giving the impression that they're doing something for the common good.
Any newly elected govt that doesent cull these bastards, especially Cameron after promising to do so, should be held to account and forced by the electorate at grass roots level to do what they say they would do, before the rot escalates to uncontrollable proportions.
Junican -
Spot on !
And I'm glad to see you mention that 500,000 annual mortality figure for the UK: it's a VERY useful number to remember, and a powerful antidote to the statistical dishonesty of our opponents.
I know I've said it before, but I think the point deserves to be hammered home:
When Deborah Arnott intoned the familiar mantra that "A hundred thousand smokers die every year in this country", the silent approval of the 'Titchmarsh' audience spoke volumes.
About their palpable ignorance.
The CORRECT response should have been "So bloody what ?".
Given that;
a) 500, 000 people (give or take) die every year, and
b) 20% of the population (give or take) are 'smokers', it MUST follow as a simple matter of logic that
c) 100,000 smokers die every year.
In fact, it's EXACTLY what you'd expect even from an activity that had an entirely NEUTRAL impact upon health.
To put it another way: if smoking were as HORRENDOUSLY destructive an activity as its opponets claim, than why is the figure not MUCH higher ?
By the same token - and given that (say) 90% of the population are TEA-DRINKERS, it must also follow that:
'450 THOUSAND TEA-DRINKERS DIE EVERY YEAR' (according to latest health report).
Why are people SO dumb when it comes to simple numbers ?
(And I've always been rubbish-at-maths, too - so THAT one won't wash, I'm afraid).
I'm sure records are kept of blood alcohol levels of people invoved in accidents. Does anyone know where they can be found? I think around 2,500 people die in road accidents each year. It doesn't seem plausible that 150 of these deaths would not have occurred had the new limit been in place.
I've just cancelled my AA membership. I've been meaning to for years. My RBS account includes an equivalent service.
See this article
http://aljahom.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/drink-driving-the-blood-alcohol-limit/
I have just returned, late last night, from Spain where I am not sure what the legal limit for drinking and driving is, but from what I have been told there, the police take a much more liberal approach to drinking and driving than what they do here.
A friend of mine who lives in a small mountain village, drives his small van into the village centre two or three times a week and has a drink in the local bars. At the end of the night he drives home again, down a twisting, turning, mountain road to his finca. When I asked him one night if he has ever been pulled up by the police, he told me that he had, and they ask him to get out of his van so they can judge for themselves if he is capable of driving the rest of the way home. They then drive slowly in front of him until he gets to the tiny, almost vertical slope that leads to his finca, and wave him goodbye, in the knowledge that he has caused no harm, and will continue to cause no harm. If only our police could be so sensible and so considerate!
On my way home from Gatwick airport last night, I like to go through south London rather than the motorway, and turn off at Streatham Common, but as I got to the turnoff, I missed it, a a huge lorry was blocking my path. I then pulled up at the next lights and turned right there instead of the actual turnoff. I was 20 yards down the road when the flashing lights started behind me and I was made to pull up. I got out of my car straight away and faced the police officer on the pavement. I immediately told her that I knew had done wrong, but I had failed to see the correct turnoff in time. But, and this is where it fits in with this story, all she was interested in, was if I had been drinking or not, she didn't mention my misdemeanour. Luckily for me, all I had drunk the whole day was half a glass of wine and absolutely bottles and bottles of water. This wasn't because I am some sort of drink-drive angel, it was because I had got so drunk the night before, that I just couldn't face more drink.
Anyway, the police let me go, telling me to be more careful in the future, which of course I said I would, and indeed I was, watching out for police cars behind me all the way home.
I have always argued that there should be no such thing as an alcohol limit, as everyone acts differently to alcohol. My mother-in-law for instance, cannot drive safely with no alcohol in her bloodstream, I dread what she would be like if she had one glass of wine. It is also a known fact that the larger people are, the more alcohol they can consume without effect, than smaller people.
Anyone suspected of a drink-drive offence, should be given a breath test and if that proves positive, they should then be taken to a police station and tested on a simulated driving machine that tests reactions. A driving offence should be exactly that. When you take a driving test, it doesn't ask you how much you drink a day, or if you take drugs or are too fat to get behind the wheel and control the vehicle properly. It only take one's driving ability into consideration. and that is what any driving offence should do.
"I have always argued that there should be no such thing as an alcohol limit."
Shock, horror !
Oddly enough, I've been saying something similar for years.
I've a notion that the old-fashioned, cruder Walk-A-Straight-Line/Close-Your-Eyes-And-Touch-The-Tip-Of-You-Nose routines were somewhat fairer for being more subjective somehow.
Some people get comatose on Lucozade.
Others can make love/play a mean game of chess immediately after downing six pints of Old John Prescott.
Hard to credit that such times ever existed now.
Like a doctor's advising a smoker to consider changing his brand of cigarette..............