[eye30]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18226813

The drink-drive limit in Scotland will be lowered "as a priority", the Scottish government has said.

plans to lower the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg will be brought forward later this year.


I say make it NIL.....and include the rest of GB

[Shambles]

Absolutely the right way to go 

I say make it NIL.....and include the rest of GB

Leave the Eurovision result out of it

[diablo]

Be better if they just bothered to enforce the one we have now IMHO.

[bumpkin]

I agree, the whole limit idea is pointless, nobody actually knows what the limit is, much simpler to say zero alcohol ans as said enforce it, along with all the other stuff they say is illegal but fail to enforce, even on themselves, I got passed by 3 police vehicles who undertook me on a dual carriageway with a 30 limit yesterday, none of them with flashing lights or sirens   

[Phil №❶]

I got passed by 3 police vehicles who undertook me on a dual carriageway with a 30 limit yesterday, none of them with flashing lights or sirens   

They were probably coming off shift 

You can't have 0 limit. Law abiding citizens wouldn't drink or dine out & the government would loose tax revenue.

Still, .05 as we refer to it, is the same as Australia, so all things being equal, we're equal 

[Doggie 1]

OK, I'll stick my twenty cents worth in.
I'm not saying it's always the case, so not defending them totally, but there are some jobs where police need to get there ASAP but where it's inappropriate to use sirens etc. Many jobs in fact.
As for the zero limit - I agree in principal, but people still wouldn't know if they were at zero or not because you can still have alcohol in your system from the day before, therefore, would still be guessing at their BAC level.

[mjt57]

OK, I'll stick my twenty cents worth in.
I'm not saying it's always the case, so not defending them totally, but there are some jobs where police need to get there ASAP but where it's inappropriate to use sirens etc.

But I don't know of a situation where flashing lights and the sounding of horns to get vehicles to move over, or to give oncoming motorists a visual warning of a high speed approach by a cop car wouldn't be appropriate. And more importantly, safe.

I've seen so many of the pricks belting down the highway, no lights or sirens, just to catch someone doing a few kays over the limit. And they ram down our throats that "speed kills", that it's the "biggest killer on our roads" and that speed cameras and so on "save lives". But for some reason, the same laws of physics that apply to us when we speed don't apply to them.

Same for speed camera operators who park dangerously.

[Doggie 1]

OK, I'll stick my twenty cents worth in.
I'm not saying it's always the case, so not defending them totally, but there are some jobs where police need to get there ASAP but where it's inappropriate to use sirens etc.

But I don't know of a situation where flashing lights and the sounding of horns to get vehicles to move over, or to give oncoming motorists a visual warning of a high speed approach by a cop car wouldn't be appropriate. And more importantly, safe.

I've seen so many of the pricks belting down the highway, no lights or sirens, just to catch someone doing a few kays over the limit. And they ram down our throats that "speed kills", that it's the "biggest killer on our roads" and that speed cameras and so on "save lives". But for some reason, the same laws of physics that apply to us when we speed don't apply to them.

Same for speed camera operators who park dangerously.

I don't call them pricks, I call them police or cops, etc.
Try going to a situation where there is an armed offender or a violent domestic violence situation (which happen every day) and advertise the fact that you're coming with lights & siren.
That can be dangerous too, not only for the police officers involved to give the offender/s prior warning, but also for the victims involved.
That is only one scenario - there are many others.
Trust me, if you were doing the job there would be times when you wouldn't use lights & sirens too.
As for speeding, well, that's their job. They're aiuthorised to contravene road rules whilst acting on official duty and to be honest, I wouldn't really want the alternative.

[Surferdude]

OK, I'll stick my twenty cents worth in.
I'm not saying it's always the case, so not defending them totally, but there are some jobs where police need to get there ASAP but where it's inappropriate to use sirens etc.

But I don't know of a situation where flashing lights and the sounding of horns to get vehicles to move over, or to give oncoming motorists a visual warning of a high speed approach by a cop car wouldn't be appropriate. And more importantly, safe.

I've seen so many of the pricks belting down the highway, no lights or sirens, just to catch someone doing a few kays over the limit. And they ram down our throats that "speed kills", that it's the "biggest killer on our roads" and that speed cameras and so on "save lives". But for some reason, the same laws of physics that apply to us when we speed don't apply to them.

Same for speed camera operators who park dangerously.

These guys are trained to drive quickly. The average turkey on our roads isn't. But he can drive a car just as powerful as what the police have althought probably a hell of  lot less mechanically sound.
Try this. Take all the police off our roads for a week and close down all the radar sites.
There'd be mayhem.
I'll put up with the odd cop not doing the right thing as the lesser of two evils.

[Surferdude]

^^^ What db08 said.

[bumpkin]

Not convinced with that one guys, in broad daylight as it was, it is easy for the driver of another vehicle to make their intentions known to other motorists around them particularly if it is an emergency service.  If they can't use sirens, then in daylight a couple of quick flashes of the blues or even headlights followed by the direct to verge signal they use if stopping you would allow them to pass on the correct side safely.

As it was they simply contravene all the rules "because they are allowed to" and then society wonders why we are loosing control!!

As for drinking, I take the point about the next day, but social dining/drinking I am afraid I view as a no drive situation also.  The point is that whilst a regular drinker may well be able to consume a glass of wine and not feel any ill effects from it, a non-drinker would find a single glass quite intoxicating.  Both would pass a breath test, but I am convinced you would see the latter being more erratic than normal with their driving.  Even a regular drinker will find that a couple of units will slow them down.  That is what alcohol does.

[rustynutz]

A .00 level is ridiculous.... 

As Dave pointed out, people wouldn't know if they were at .00 or not because you can still have alcohol in your system from the day before......

Another reason is that some foods such as desserts can contain alcohol, enough for it to register and for you to lose your licence.

Our own States in Australia can't even agree on .00 alcohol levels for our P plate, taxi, bus and truck drivers with some States having a .00 level and some having .02.

Me, if you're gonna have a low level, it needs to be realistic, and .00 isn't.......

[bumpkin]

I hear all the points and well made they are too,  but the whole limit idea is IMO unrealistic, nobody knows how to equate the mg/ml limit to a volume of which % alcohol they are "allowed" to drink and how their own metabolism will deal with it on any given day, potentially resulting in two people drinking the same amount of two different wines and one giving a negative test whilst the other gives a positive whilst the result gets reversed on a warmer/colder day as their metabolisms counteract the weather.

Perhaps a limit of 0.1/0.2 allows for alcohol being present in foodstuffs and for the day after, but I personally never have a liquid drink if I am going to be driving home and it makes Joe Publics job much easier if s/he knows that any alcoholic drink is a no-no rather than "Oh, I'll be OK with two pints......probably"

[eye30]

Another reason is that some foods such as desserts can contain alcohol, enough for it to register and for you to lose your licence.

So no Rum Baba's for you then...........

[diablo]

Another reason is that some foods such as desserts can contain alcohol, enough for it to register and for you to lose your licence.

So no Rum Baba's for you then...........

People assume that the alcohol evaporates when the puddings are heated - but most of it stays really.

The police used to do early morning drink driving traps around this area a few years ago. They just booked 100s and the courts worked nights and weekends to process the bans.

By coincidence I bought two high quality breathalysers a few days ago. Out of interest, and to confirm some old findings I took a reaction test thing -


Result was 0.22, which is probably average for a 60 year old.

I then had 5 UK units of alcohol over 40 minutes and waited a further 20 minutes to reach max blood alcohol, then tried the test again.

Both breathalysers read 30mg/litre which is about 70 on the old scale. Reaction time was 0.22.

Most drink related accidents are caused by people who have had double or more the current limit. Though a lot are caused by youngsters who think they are Michael Schumaker after a pint and want to show off to their passengers.

[eye30]

France has a lower limit than UK which means it’s very easy to be over the limit the morning after.


New laws will make it compulsory for all cars on French roads from July 1 to carry portable breathalyser.  Anyone caught without the equipment facing an 11 euro (£9.20) fine.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9095573/Motorists-will-have-to-carry-portable-breathalyser-in-France.html

[Dazzler]

.08 was reduced to .05 many years ago in Tasmania (and most of Mainland Australia too I think) I think .05 is realistic..

I very occasionally have 1 glass of wine or occasionally 2 light beers if I am driving .. If not driving I might lash out and have 2 glasses of wine (I know, I'm a bit of a rebel... )

[rustynutz]

Just for you, Daz.....

[Dazzler]

Thanks russ 

[AlanHo]

I have been reading a study that concludes more than a quarter of adults in the most prosperous parts of the UK are drinking at hazardous levels.

The alarming snapshot shows how the middle classes in well heeled towns are damaging their health through regular drinking.

A league table of local authority areas ranked by how many people consume alcohol at “hazardous” levels is dominated by the towns boasting the highest house prices. The danger is defined as regularly drinking between 22 to 50 units a week for men and 15 to 35 units a week for women. The report shows that this lifestyle – which many see as totally harmless – is a real danger to their health.

At the top of the league is Scotland with Northern Ireland next in the table.

The report states that across the UK one in five adults are drinking enough to put their health at significant risk and one in twenty enough to make disease related to alcohol inevitable. In the worst areas these ratios are much higher. We need to tackle binge drinking, but we must also reverse the tolerance that most communities have built up by simply consuming excessive amounts on a regular basis.

A spokesman for The Scottish Authority has refuted the figures for his Country as highly misleading. He claims that the statistics for Scotland are distorted by the consumption of just one family in Aberdeen which is included in the survey area. If the excesses of this family were ignored, the figures for Scotland would bear favourable comparison with any other area in the UK he claims.......

[Shambles]

A spokesman for The Scottish Authority has refuted the figures for his Country as highly misleading. He claims that the statistics for Scotland are distorted by the consumption of just one family in Aberdeen which is included in the survey area. If the excesses of this family were ignored, the figures for Scotland would bear favourable comparison with any other area in the UK he claims.......

Buhahahaha good one

[bumpkin]