Reducing DUI limit in Scotland

Bobsyeruncle said:
Why would they need to be re calibrated?
Click to expand...

Don't the handheld meters just give a simple pass or fail indication ? That being so they must currently be set to a threshold that reflects the current limit.

Edit: Just noticed - Bernie has explained the situation.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
I like a drink.
But I have a zero tolerance for getting behind the wheel when you've been drinking.
Be a designated driver...soft drinks only.
If you can't do that then stay home.
It's an easy choice.
Click to expand...

It is an essential choice because if you are driving you really need to be as sharp as possible in case someone comes zipping about at 150 mph. Look out, here comes Steve ............:exit: :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
It should be based on factual evidence. If the accident rate is say 1:1000 for normal drivers and the same for whatever the limit is now, then it's fine. New rules or laws should only come in if there is a benefit.
 
cambsno said:
It should be based on factual evidence. If the accident rate is say 1:1000 for normal drivers and the same for whatever the limit is now, then it's fine. New rules or laws should only come in if there is a benefit.
Click to expand...

Cannot have that. it makes sense.

Peter B posted:- "Interesting comment from the IAM spokesman from the BBC Scotland website:

17:29: 'No road safety boost'

The Institute of Advanced Motorists has criticised Scottish government plans to lower the drink-drive limit.
Spokesman George Goldie said: "I don't think it's going to have an impact on road safety because in the vast majority of accidents where someone is killed or injured involving alcohol, the driver is way way over the limit, not just fractionally over the limit.
"I think this will have a much bigger impact on the people who are trying to be law-abiding and who perhaps have a drink in the evening and are caught the following morning."

On the face of it that is logical although I would like to see a breakdown of the accident figures that clearly demonstrated what George Goldie is asserting. Opinions are of no use. Hard evidence is.
 
Simon

The evidence is that any amount of alcohol will have an effect, even a surprisingly small amount.

However, this offence isn't one where impairment is at issue. It's simply having a BAC above a prescribed limit. Given that anything above zero can have an effect it does make sense. Reducing the current limits is a good thing, to zero if I had my way, it removes any uncertainty.


17:29: 'No road safety boost'

The Institute of Advanced Motorists has criticised Scottish government plans to lower the drink-drive limit.
Spokesman George Goldie said: "I don't think it's going to have an impact on road safety because in the vast majority of accidents where someone is killed or injured involving alcohol, the driver is way way over the limit, not just fractionally over the limit.
"I think this will have a much bigger impact on the people who are trying to be law-abiding and who perhaps have a drink in the evening and are caught the following morning."
Click to expand...

I don't agree with him.
 
POAH said:
lack of sleep is more of a danger than alcohol
Click to expand...

It's a big factor but it's harder to test/regulate.

DUI whilst IMHO isn't a major issue should be clamped down on to the extent that there's no ifs/buts about what's safe to drink. The current limit is a little ambiguous. This one rely means no drink.

That's not a bad thing. Certain things like mouthwash etc contain traces of ethanol so a 0 limit is not optional but the one here of 50mg is fair with leeway.
 
Surprised nobody yet has pointed out that the limit is just an easy and unambiguous way to test for the level of alcohol present and can't be an indicator of anyone's fitness to drive. Some people can drink a fair amount and be relatively unaffected by the booze while others show a marked effect after very little. Like some others here, if I'm driving, I don't have a drink and am careful about excessive drinking if I'm going to be driving the next day.
 
Morning after night before. People will drink a stupendous amount the night before and drive in the afternoon.

If people drank a safe sensible amount of alcohol ie no more than 4-5 units in a night it wouldn't be an issue.

Why do people feel the need to drink masses of drink to socialise and have fun. I had a cracking night with a few friends yesterday. No booze involved.
 
Nod said:
Surprised nobody yet has pointed out that the limit is just an easy and unambiguous way to test for the level of alcohol present and can't be an indicator of anyone's fitness to drive. Some people can drink a fair amount and be relatively unaffected by the booze while others show a marked effect after very little. Like some others here, if I'm driving, I don't have a drink and am careful about excessive drinking if I'm going to be driving the next day.
Click to expand...

Really is the only practical method. Once you go into the realms of testing for fitness to drive you'll soon find some folk who are alcohol and drugs free and yet are so poor drivers that they should not be behind the wheel. Therre are bound to be drivers who have had an accident when they were over the alcohol limit, but would have had the same accident without alcohol being present.
 
ST4 said:
...................... Why do people feel the need to drink masses of drink to socialise and have fun. I had a cracking night with a few friends yesterday. No booze involved.
Click to expand...

Was that one of The Temperence Society raves :LOL:
 
Really is the only practical method. Once you go into the realms of testing for fitness to drive you'll soon find some folk who are alcohol and drugs free and yet are so poor drivers that they should not be behind the wheel. Therre are bound to be drivers who have had an accident when they were over the alcohol limit, but would have had the same accident without alcohol being present.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of accidents every day. Some involve drink, some don't.
There are accidents where, yes, you have to feel sorry for the driver, who has had a drink, is driving perfectly, and, for example someone comes out of a side road and T bones them. It would have made no difference what the driver would have drunk, the accident would still have happened.
Also, you'll find that some drink drives, make themselves stand out because they are driving properly, instead of the more normal aim and hope of non drink drivers. Unfortunately it does make them stand out, and they end up getting nicked.

The original limit was based on what it was thought would be an average level of alcohol which was impair driving. It really is just an arbitary number though. a 17 year old who's never touched a drop before would be far more impaired than a 50 year old who's drunk 2 pints every day since he was 18. BAC concentration might well be the same.
People use the Americanism of DUI, and it really is misleading, the offence is driving while having a Blood Alcohol Concentration above the prescribed limit. Those 2 things are not the same. Nor is the offence of driving while unfit though drink or drugs.
 
arclight said:
Really is the only practical method. Once you go into the realms of testing for fitness to drive you'll soon find some folk who are alcohol and drugs free and yet are so poor drivers that they should not be behind the wheel. Therre are bound to be drivers who have had an accident when they were over the alcohol limit, but would have had the same accident without alcohol being present.
Click to expand...

As you point out, there are plenty of people on the road who are such poor drivers that they shouldn't be behind the wheel sober. The walk along the line type test is probably a better judge of drunkenness (although there are "balance impaired" people who couldn't do it sober) than any breath or blood test. I've long believed in regular retesting for ALL drivers - there's no RIGHT to drive, it's a privilege that shouldn't be abused or taken lightly. As for the number of people who drive without being able to see properly...
 
Bernie174 said:
There's a lot of accidents every day. Some involve drink, some don't.
There are accidents where, yes, you have to feel sorry for the driver, who has had a drink, is driving perfectly, and, for example someone comes out of a side road and T bones them. It would have made no difference what the driver would have drunk, the accident would still have happened.
Also, you'll find that some drink drives, make themselves stand out because they are driving properly, instead of the more normal aim and hope of non drink drivers. Unfortunately it does make them stand out, and they end up getting nicked.

The original limit was based on what it was thought would be an average level of alcohol which was impair driving. It really is just an arbitary number though. a 17 year old who's never touched a drop before would be far more impaired than a 50 year old who's drunk 2 pints every day since he was 18. BAC concentration might well be the same.
People use the Americanism of DUI, and it really is misleading, the offence is driving while having a Blood Alcohol Concentration above the prescribed limit. Those 2 things are not the same. Nor is the offence of driving while unfit though drink or drugs.
Click to expand...

Surely in your summation of the T boning accident then you'd surely say the alcohol wasn't the factor. Yes they'll be done for a driving with alcohol offence but the accidental nature of how they were detected wouldn't feature in sentencing.

Another question. Surely a police officer has to have suspicion to pull someone over. I doubt strongly a copper would pull someone for obeying the speed limit, having correct lane discipline etc. No you'd pull them for a display of bad driving and discover they were over the limit
 
On point 1, no, the minimum sentences for each 'layer' of alcohol in your system is prescribed in the sentencing guidelines. There's no budging from the 12 month disqual, except in "special circumstances" , which covers things like driving in an emergency.


The accident itself is purely incidental, although the insurance companies will automatically assign the fault to the drink driver.

There's 3 things you can breath test someone for. 1. Moving traffic offence. 2. Involved in an accident and 3 where a Constable has reasonable cause to believe that a driver is over the prescribed limit.

thats the power to breath test, but you said power to 'pull over'. A constable has the power to stop any car simply to examine the drivers documents. So while there's no random breath test power, if an officer stops a car to check driving documents, and while speaking to the driver, he smells intoxicating liquor, then there's the power to breath test.
 
As you point out, there are plenty of people on the road who are such poor drivers that they shouldn't be behind the wheel sober. The walk along the line type test is probably a better judge of drunkenness (although there are "balance impaired" people who couldn't do it sober) than any breath or blood test. I've long believed in regular retesting for ALL drivers - there's no RIGHT to drive, it's a privilege that shouldn't be abused or taken lightly. As for the number of people who drive without being able to see properly...
Click to expand...

On your last point, you are 100% correct, but people don't seem top realise that!

On your first point though, there's 2 offences. 1 driving with a blood alcohol concentration above a prescribed limit. Thats the breath test offence. But there is no requirement to prove impairment as such, it's taken as a given that it is there by virtue of the exceeding the prescribed limit.
The other offence is driving while unfit, so drunk in effect, but you would not have to be drunk to the level of rolling on the floor, unable to get up (or on drugs, and that includes precription drugs as well as the turbo cabbage type). Thats the offence where the Crown has to prove there's impairment.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
thats the power to breath test, but you said power to 'pull over'. A constable has the power to stop any car simply to examine the drivers documents. So while there's no random breath test power, if an officer stops a car to check driving documents, and while speaking to the driver, he smells intoxicating liquor, then there's the power to breath test.
Click to expand...

Would you normally pull someone over to check documents if the ANPR alert didn't flag anything. I can understand pulling over a scruffy car, a car that looks in a bad state of repair, or a car that looks to be driven by someone that shouldn't be driving it. ie a young lad in a big merc, or a neddy looking guy in a range rover, you know something outwith the norm. But to suggest you'd want to pull over a car for driving within the rules and well because you think theres a chance of a drunk behind the wheel. Kind of defeats the whole drink drivers are dangerous argument.

Bernie174 said:
Also, you'll find that some drink drives, make themselves stand out because they are driving properly, instead of the more normal aim and hope of non drink drivers. Unfortunately it does make them stand out, and they end up getting nicked..
Click to expand...
 
We didn't have ANPR, we relied on something called 'does it look right'. In any case what does ANPR, or PNC tell you? Nothing really. Yes, it may say the car has valid tax, valid MOT and there is insurance that RELATES to it. That was in capitals for a reason, I would have no idea who was driving, so no idea if that insurance relates to that driver.
You say you can understand someone being pulled for being outside the norm, I have to tell you Steve, that driving properly is often outside the norm. have a look next time you drive outside the rush hour. How many cars drive at bang on 30? or 40, or whatever the speed limit is. Very very few is the answer. So, yes it does stand out.

Last time I got breath tested, I was stopped because I had just driven out of a place where there was a big xmas do. As soon as I pulled out I noticed a car appear behind me, and thought, Ah, Old Bill. I kept looking and he drove exactly the same way I did, so yes, I though Police. About 2 miles later I got stopped. No big deal, he gave me the chat about documents, I knew what was coming, smiled and told him so. Breath test and zero reading later, I am on my way.

I'd like to think I am Mr Respectable.

But to eturn to your point, Mr Respectable is equally likely, some would say more likely to be over the limit. But just because he's driving well n ow, it doesn't mean he wont be 2 miles down the road.
 
Bernie174 said:
We didn't have ANPR, we relied on something called 'does it look right'. In any case what does ANPR, or PNC tell you? Nothing really. Yes, it may say the car has valid tax, valid MOT and there is insurance that RELATES to it. That was in capitals for a reason, I would have no idea who was driving, so no idea if that insurance relates to that driver.
You say you can understand someone being pulled for being outside the norm, I have to tell you Steve, that driving properly is often outside the norm. have a look next time you drive outside the rush hour. How many cars drive at bang on 30? or 40, or whatever the speed limit is. Very very few is the answer. So, yes it does stand out.

.
Click to expand...

And here's me habitually using cruise control to keep me on the speed limit :arghh:
 
Have a look next time you drive anywhere off motorway. Almost no one sticks to the speed limit. Unless they know the Police are behind them or a speed camera is coming up.

On night duty we'd drive round around 3am, and as soon as someone got behind, we'd start to slow down, very gently, to see what speed we had to be doing before people would overtake. Wasn't unusual for that to be down at 10 mph level. Wasn't unusual for those to be over the limit either!

But the point Steve seems to be making is that only yobbery and rough looking cars break the law. The reality is it takes all and any sort. I am less concerned about what the driver looks like, more the way they are driving, is it in character, for want of a better expression. If not, then my alarms start to go off.
 
Bernie174 said:
Have a look next time you drive anywhere off motorway. Almost no one sticks to the speed limit. Unless they know the Police are behind them or a speed camera is coming up.

On night duty we'd drive round around 3am, and as soon as someone got behind, we'd start to slow down, very gently, to see what speed we had to be doing before people would overtake. Wasn't unusual for that to be down at 10 mph level. Wasn't unusual for those to be over the limit either!

But the point Steve seems to be making is that only yobbery and rough looking cars break the law. The reality is it takes all and any sort. I am less concerned about what the driver looks like, more the way they are driving, is it in character, for want of a better expression. If not, then my alarms start to go off.
Click to expand...

So if you see a car obeying the laws of the road, it arouses suspicion. I take the point someone actually going 70 on a quiet motorway is outwith the norm, or even obeying the lane discipline. Bad driving is everywhere I concede that.
 
arclight said:
Many people throughout the UK have been, for some years, subject to the limits set by the Transport & Works Act which permits a maximum of 29mg of alcohol in 200ml of blood.
Click to expand...
Bernie174 said:
By "Many People" You mean train drivers/crews
Click to expand...
Bernie174 said:
The limits and offence in the Transport and works act only applies to railways/trams and people in safety critical roles. It doesn't apply outside of that.
There is other legislation on Shipping and Aircraft (and hovercraft too, which the CPS class as shipping under that act).

But to say that those acts apply to many people, is a tad misleading.
Click to expand...
In the narrow sense, you're probably right. But severely reduced limits can "apply" (without legal force, though with considerable peer pressure) much more widely.

Throughout the 1990s I worked in the rail industry. There was a fatal crash at Cannon Street in 1991. The train driver was tested and traces of cannabis were found in his blood. IIRC, the tests were conducted a few days after the crash so it was impossible to determine whether he had smoked it before or after; and it wasn't very much cannabis anyway. It wasn't deemed to be a factor in the crash. But the industry took it very seriously because he could so easily have had much more cannabis, or alcohol, in his blood. There wasn't a cultural recognition within the industry that it could be stupidly dangerous for drivers to drink alcohol, or smoke cannabis or whatever, before going on duty.

So overnight the industry went dry. The BR Chairman, Bob Reid, decreed that - regardless of the actual legal position - the maximum blood alcohol limit for train drivers whilst on duty had to be zero. And, he said, it would be hypocritical of him to enforce a limit which didn't apply to him, or to his office staff. So the logical policy was that it would be applied to everyone in the industry, without exception.

And it worked. In my office we never had a culture of Friday lunchtime pub trips, but obviously some others did. That stopped. I witnessed people being sent home by their colleagues (not their managers) because they had a headache after one too many beers the night before. There was a general perception that turning up for work with alcohol in your system was unprofessional, and from there it's a very small step to believing that driving a car with alcohol in your system is irresponsible. Obviously there won't be any comparative data available, but I'd be willing to bet that there would have been fewer incidences of driving under the influence amongst rail staff than amongst the population at large. The legal limit for us was still 80mg, but a lot of people acted as if it was considerably lower.
 
The problem is the drink people think it cannot happen to them. It doesn't matter on the limit if someone drinks to much they will drive as they think they are perfectly safe.
What we have to do is get a culture where we have a designated driver or we use public transport. It cheaper in the long run.
My self I don't drink and drive I either walk or get a bus or taxi, it so much safer
 
Stewart

The zero limit you talk of is internal company rules though, it's not legislative.
Many companies now have a policy on having alcohol or drugs in your body while working, but thats not a criminal matter.
 
ST4 said:
So if you see a car obeying the laws of the road, it arouses suspicion.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's why we leave this to experts.

I have no problem at all with random breath tests - but I bet that the police who do this for a living have a far higher hit rate by using their experience to spot something that just doesn’t look right.
 
Bernie174 said:
Can you not use Google?

Hungary
Romania
Australia (Certain classes of driver)
New Zealand (Again certain classes of driver)

There are others, but I am sure you get the point.
Click to expand...

Highly corrupt countries like Hungary and Romania maybe aren't the best places to emulate when making a new law.
 
Interesting. Japan used to be zero but there was some discussion about whether this was practical. For example, this list http://www.rup***ed.com/blood_alcohol_limits.html shows zero for them. I think it was because a high percentage of Japanese men (I think it's mainly men) lack the enzyme to metabolise alcohol. This means they can exhibit some of the symptoms of drunkenness (like extreme drowsiness) without having particularly high blood alcohol levels.

Mind you, it's the only country I've been to where you can buy alcohol in vending machines in public places.
 
Highly corrupt countries like Hungary and Romania maybe aren't the best places to emulate when making a new law.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, I've never been there, so can't comment, but I don't think you can level the same allegation at our Kangaroo and Kiwi Cousins.
We aren't making 'new' law, it's simply being amended, I suspect under a Regulation devolved to the appropriate minister, it happens all the time.
The zero also applies in some parts of the USA for certain classes of driver as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top