CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

The Herald backs drink driving?

(21 posts)
  • Started 13 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from gembo

No tags yet.


  1. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Front page story today, opens with the line: "MOTORISTS in Scotland are to face tougher drink-driving laws that will put some over the legal threshold after just one glass of wine"

    Later they state: "The change would mean that some people who get behind the wheel after drinking a single pint of strong lager could face a mandatory 12-month driving ban and will put Scotland at odds with England and Wales, where an independent report recommending a lower limit was thrown out by the Transport Secretary last year."

    The AA are broadly in support of the lower limit, but even then their spokesman said, "clear signs would need to be put up at the Border advising English motorists of the lower limit" as well as wondering if the law would fall into disrepute if not enficed (why would it need any different enforcement than now?)

    Neil Grieg, a director of the IAM, was drafted in as the motoring nutjub who, "has warned that a lower limit could risk undermining the public's understanding of drink-driving laws, which are based on severe punishment at a relatively high alcohol threshold."

    What's difficult to understand? Drink alcohol, don't drive. There. I think that's explained it.

    Link to full article

    Posted 13 years ago #

  2. wingpig
    Member

    Wonder what Neil Greig actually said, seeing as he's not directly quoted in the article.

    Some sections of the public quite possibly believe "switch to halves after the first pint" or "make sure you have a bag of crisps before you start drinking" given that people are still being caught drink-driving (or simply crashing as a result) after all these years of campaigns and enforcement.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  3. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I think people being caught is more down to folk 'taking the risk' to be honest.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  4. Stepdoh
    Member

    What's the thoughts on it here? I'll usually happily drive (legally) if I've had a beer or a glass of wine with lunch or whatever.

    Are we advocating a zero line here?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  5. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I'm the same. I will drive if I've had one, knowing I'm legal, but 90% of the time will eschew alcohol if I know I'm driving (and will stop early the night before if I know I'm driving in the morning).

    Personally I'd actually be okay with a zero-tolerance (which in reality would have to be somewhere around the 20mg mark).

    Posted 13 years ago #

  6. Min
    Member

    1/2 pint or a shandy with a meal would be fine for me but personally I find it quite shocking that I can apparently drink a pint of strong lager and get behind the wheel of a car and I wouldn't do it.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  7. Instography
    Member

    What's difficult to understand is that the legal position is not "Drink alcohol, don't drive". It's "drink a little bit of alcohol and it's OK to drive". The bit that's difficult to understand is how much alcohol equates to 50mg or 80mg per 100ml of blood. The sensible, practical approach might be to avoid driving if you've had any alcohol to drink.

    As I read it, Neil Greig's point seems to be that at the moment there's no real room for ambiguity. 80mg is known to cause cognitive and motor impairment so becoming inadvertently over the limit is pretty difficult and getting clobbered is a reasonable outcome. That's the main reason that a lower limit has always been resisted - because at 50mg most people will not be impaired. When you reduce the limit to below the level of impairment, it becomes less clear in theory and in practice.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  8. Smudge
    Member

    I'm with winpig, a journo's version of what someone said and what they *actually* said are often poles apart. IME the IAM are pretty sensible and are for road safety above the privileges/rights of drivers.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    "because at 50mg most people will not be impaired. When you reduce the limit to below the level of impairment, it becomes less clear in theory and in practice."

    That's saying some people are impaired at 50 - so more must be between 50 and 80.

    Good enough reason for reducing the limit.

    If people say 'I don't know what 50 means for me, so I won't be able to drink' - well that's probably a good thing...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  10. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "The sensible, practical approach might be to avoid driving if you've had any alcohol to drink.2

    This.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  11. Instography
    Member

    Yes, of course some people's motor function is impaired at 50mg. For some people it is impaired at 20mg. I imagine in some very rare cases some people will be impaired by ingesting 1mg. Some people will die if they ingest any alcohol. Logically ... actually I'm not sure logically what. It's like discussing speed limits where the only logical outcome is that nothing should move or the helmet logic that would have everyone in motorcycle crash helmets. If some people are saved by flimsy polystyrene helmets then logically ... The selection of a threshold in almost every case where a non-zero threshold exists is always a balancing of risks. Some people will die if they are hit at 20mph but not as many as 40mph. The risk of death is still accepted.

    But my point wasn't to say what the limit should be. Zero would be much clearer although practically no one does that. 20mg would probably be the best non-zero level since there seems to be a sharper increase in the impairment effects of alcohol between 20mg and 50mg than there is between 50mg and 80mg. But my point was that Anth said he couldn't see what was confusing, in reaction to the AA and IAM. I think a law that permits behaviour up to any obscure and unclear threshold (which varies between individuals) is inherently confusing. It's like taking away speedometers and then criminalising driving that is 'too fast' or just expecting drivers to judge their own speed.

    I find it hard to see what isn't confusing about it. The message has always been confusing. Two official lines: "Don't drink and drive" and "It's OK to drink a wee bit before you drive". Changing the definition of what is an acceptable 'wee bit' only adds to the confusion.

    Yes, it's a good thing if people decide to avoid alcohol when they intend to drive but that's not an excuse for confusing laws.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    "Yes, it's a good thing if people decide to avoid alcohol when they intend to drive but that's not an excuse for confusing laws."

    I take your point(s), but actually I think 'this' is more about 'confusion' between England and Scotland if they have different d/d limits - and speed ones and alcohol pricing and...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  13. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "But my point was that Anth said he couldn't see what was confusing, in reaction to the AA and IAM. I think a law that permits behaviour up to any obscure and unclear threshold (which varies between individuals) is inherently confusing. It's like taking away speedometers and then criminalising driving that is 'too fast' or just expecting drivers to judge their own speed"

    Except it can be readily converted into the real world, i.e. a glass of wine/a pint of beer. The 20mg or 50mg or 80mg is a bit of a red herring - 80mg is as confusing, in that respect, as 20mg. As indefinable for Joe Public. But Joe Public gets round this by converting it into 'how many pints can I have' rather than 'what will these drinks correspond to as mg of alcohol in my bloodstream'.

    By moving to 50mg or 20mg essentially nothing is changing in people's understanding other than people can drink less before driving. Whereas at the moment people think 'I can have up to two', under the new law they'd think 'I can have up to one'. At the moment anyone having three will knowingly, for the most part, be over the limit. In the future people having more than one will be knowingly over the limit. Honestly, I really don't see what's confusing about that, unless we do actually think Joe Public ponders the mg rate rather than number of glasses?

    And yes, I think actually the tenet of the article was that there would be confusion between England and Scotland. Which didn't really seem to be the case with the smoking ban, but anyway, surely any French tourists driving over here will be confused by the difference, so maybe we should align with France (which has a very low limit).

    Posted 13 years ago #

  14. steveo
    Member

    And drives on the wrong side of the road....

    Posted 13 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "
    A LEADING motoring organisation today urged more lenient sentences for those breaking drink-drive laws after new lower limits are introduced.

    The Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) claimed plans to reduce the drink-drive limit in Scotland could mean less public support for enforcement measures.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/transport/go-easy-on-drivers-drunk-at-wheel-says-motoring-group-1-2338370

    Posted 13 years ago #

  16. crowriver
    Member

    Well the IAM have just reduced their credibility to zero. What a ludicrous own goal. "IAM - championing the rights of drink drivers" makes a great slogan.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  17. Smudge
    Member

    @crowriver, hardly. Rather Kenny McAskill continues to attempt to change laws in Scotland which will most likely have no benefit instead of dealing with things like inadequate sentencing for (for example) killing people with a car.
    I stopped believing anything he said when he started basing policy on campaigns by convicted drug dealers.(OT rant sorry)
    My experience of reading the full statements by Neil Greig and his colleagues is that they are a lot more sensible and worthwhile than carefully selected quotes in the likes of the Hootsman, the idea that the IAM as an organisation is some sort of Clarksonite sub group is rampant nonsense I'm afraid.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  18. minus six
    Member

    This story is still gaining traction, its been on Radio Scotland "NewsDrive" today, and the argument seems to be that if you drink-drive moderately but aren't involved in an accident, then hey, what's the problem, you have to think of the effect it will have on these peoples lives and careers.

    This was seriously discussed for over five minutes -- just after a matter-of-fact that's-life five second slot reporting the eight year old bicycle girl who 'died after colliding with a bus' earlier this morning.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  19. Smudge
    Member

    I am not advocating drink driving "moderately", or indeed at all, what I am suggesting is that the existing laws and penalties, rigorously enforced, should continue to make a large difference, tinkering with the level I imagine will make a minimal difference to road safety.
    Whereas having the moral courage to consider the prosecution of murder by car and carelessness/stupidity could have a far greater effect!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  20. minus six
    Member

    I am not advocating drink driving "moderately", or indeed at all

    I should hope not, Smudge.

    But the guy from IAM on the radio just now had a very soft view on it, and was given serious air time on a national news programme by a sympathetic news reader.

    And as I say, all this just after a remarkably brief footnote on the latest cyclist road death.

    Perverse BBC editorial policy.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  21. gembo
    Member

    One pint of strong lager could have more than 4 units and could it some people over the limit if they drive after downing it. Even very mild brown ale of the sort I drink has more than 2 units. Similarly a glass of Wine has one unit only if it is below 10% and is 125mls. Most wine is 13% and 175 mls. I would go for zero and strict enforcement and a linked attempt to seriOUS attempt to Evaluate whether accidents reduce. I know when I did drive, if I had any alcohol at all I became even worse at driving but I was already very bad.

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin