View Full Version : Zero Tolerance.
porshiepoo
07-Aug-07, 08:26
Thought we could conduct our own poll on the recent survey into zero tolerance on drink driving.
Do you agree that any drink driving should be banned all together?
Should we be automatically breathalysed when stopped for ANY offence?
Or are the current penalties enough to stop those people that have the ability to reason anyway?
Personally I think there should be zero tolerance on drinking even a smidging and driving. If there's alchohol in your system then you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car.
At least if the tolerance is zero there can be no excuses. No more 'But I only had one', 'I feel fine' etc etc. Any kind of alchoholic drink means no driving.
Surely it can only be of benefit in the long run?
yes , i wholeheartedly agree that there should be zero tolerence on drink driving & that all aught to be breath tested randomly.
Yes - I don't think there is any need to have even one drink if you are driving.
Just ask my boyfriend and his dad who lost their beloved father and grandfather to a selfish drink driver.
I'd like to see someone come up with a good reason for saying otherwise.
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 08:58
First some truth.
I am just about to finish an 18 month ban for drink driving.
I do not now and never have believed it is ok to drink and drive.
However I think if more emphasis was placed on stopping stupid and reckless driving far more lives would be saved than simply targeting the low level of drink driving currently happening in the UK.
I can certainly see sense in reducing the limit, but zero tolerance (assuming that means no blood alcohol) no. It is unworkable. There are many reasons why there can be a blood alcohol reading of greater than zero, without anyone drinking.
Other dangerous activities that lead to so called "accidents" require some effort from the police to detect and stop, drink driving does not. It is a simple crime for them to prosecute and clear up, so they pursue it with great gusto.
Also if there is a zero tolerance, the punishment really does need to be looked at.
How can a driving ban be fair?
Ban a driver living in London for 18 months, just about zero impact on their life and liberty. Ban someone who lives 40 miles from their nearest town, with no public transport (well 2 buses per week) it is virtual house arrest, and an almost certain guarantee of loss of job - wether involving driving for a living or not.
And just in case I haven't made myself totally clear.
No to drink driving.
No to zero tolerance of alcohol in the blood.
porshiepoo
07-Aug-07, 09:51
First some truth.
I am just about to finish an 18 month ban for drink driving.
I do not now and never have believed it is ok to drink and drive.
Eek!
However I think if more emphasis was placed on stopping stupid and reckless driving far more lives would be saved than simply targeting the low level of drink driving currently happening in the UK.
No one is disputing that we need to do something about reckless drivers also. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Zero tolerance to drink driving AND deal with reckless drivers.
I can certainly see sense in reducing the limit, but zero tolerance (assuming that means no blood alcohol) no. It is unworkable. There are many reasons why there can be a blood alcohol reading of greater than zero, without anyone drinking.
Obviously I think they'd have to be prepared for this fact and have something in place to verify the reasons for alchohol in your blood if you haven't had a drink.
Other dangerous activities that lead to so called "accidents" require some effort from the police to detect and stop, drink driving does not. It is a simple crime for them to prosecute and clear up, so they pursue it with great gusto.
Er and your problem is?
I pay my taxes for this service and I for one would be glad to know that something was in place that would be a serious deterrant to drinking and driving.
Also if there is a zero tolerance, the punishment really does need to be looked at.
Quite right!
How can a driving ban be fair?
Ask that to those people have lost loved ones to drink drivers.
Of course it can be fair. The only sad thing is that there has to be a law in place that prevents people from doing something so selfish and dangerous as to have a drink and then get behind the wheel of a car.
Ban a driver living in London for 18 months, just about zero impact on their life and liberty. Ban someone who lives 40 miles from their nearest town, with no public transport (well 2 buses per week) it is virtual house arrest, and an almost certain guarantee of loss of job - wether involving driving for a living or not.
Sorry but that is their choice. If a zero tolerance policy is in place, anyone who has a drink has the option to get a cab, a taxi, a lift, walk OR get behind the wheel of a car and drive. If they're caught and banned then they have no one else to blame but themselves - hopefully they won't have caused any death or destruction on the way home though.
And just in case I haven't made myself totally clear.
No to drink driving.
No to zero tolerance of alcohol in the blood.
Quite, quite clear! But you've subtly changed the question I see.
I'm suggesting zero tolerance to drink driving. If there are medications etc that may lead to having alchohol levels in your blood obviously this needs to be accomodated and something in place to cope with this without the individual being able to take advantage of this allowance.
First some truth.
I am just about to finish an 18 month ban for drink driving.
I do not now and never have believed it is ok to drink and drive.
I commend your honesty, Nick. :)
But...if you didn't believe it was ok, why did you do it?
And....when you get your licence back...? :confused
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 09:57
I am afraid that your views are over simplistic.
How long a break should there be between drinking and driving?
8 hours?
12 hours?
24 hours?
48 hours?
It's about responsibility.
Not drinking and driving is easy and if there are other reasons for having alcohol in the blood such as medication etc., they can be explained.
Of course other dangerous activities lead to accidents and maybe the police would have more time to curb these if they didn't have to deal with the effects of self imposed impairment and as was touched on in another thread if I remember correctly, the police nowadays are slaves to paperwork, ticking boxes and reaching targets just like the rest of us.
Drivers have proved that creating a tolerant level of alcohol does not work as they cannot be trusted to adhere to it therefore they must pay the consequences. Same goes for any alcohol induced incapacitation at work or elsewhere.
A driving ban is completely fair; ask any victim or victims' relatives is it fair that they have to suffer the consequences of a selfish drunk person. The question of not having transport (not due to one's own selfishness) applies to many people; those who cannot drive through disability, for financial reasons or through choice.
Yes, there are idiots driving completely sober but that is not the question being posed here and maybe if they only produced cars that can only do up to 60mph we would not have so much of this problem.
And yes, you can have an accident, kill or maim at any speed whilst sober but the stage we are at is of damage limitation. Or do we just go with the flow like all other excesses that have got out of hand..... but then that's another story....it's all gotten out of hand and we are on a fast track to self-destruction.....don't spoil our fun.....
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 10:08
I commend your honesty, Nick.
But...if you didn't believe it was ok, why did you do it?
And....when you get your license back...?
Without going into a great deal of detail I attended a works christmas dinner and had a couple of glasses of wine. I was taking prescription medicine. There was no warning whatsoever on the PIL regarding consuming alcohol whilst taking the medication. I asked the doctor if it was ok to do so. They said yes.
I have no recollection of leaving the dinner (at 7.45pm) or of attempting to drive (fortunately I was stopped in the carpark). I was booked into the hotel for the night and had no intention of driving.
When yo research on the internet you find many many many instances of total loss of memory of events and actions undertaken whilst under the influence of the combination of medication and alcohol.
I am not making excuses, simply stating the truth. I went out with no intention of driving. At no time did I intend to drive. At no time was I aware of trying to drive. But that's life.
Thankfully nothing disastrous happened, no one was hurt nothing was damaged.
And I never did and still don't condone drink driving :)
Thursday!
Quite, quite clear! But you've subtly changed the question I see.
I'm suggesting zero tolerance to drink driving. If there are medications etc that may lead to having alchohol levels in your blood obviously this needs to be accomodated and something in place to cope with this without the individual being able to take advantage of this allowance.
I see where you are getting at, but is the danger the drink driving or the alcohol in the blood. I would assume the alcohol in the blood so there cannot be an exception for medications. Especially when you consider that most of the stronger medications have recommendations against operating machinery etc. On top of that if the person is taking medication they are already sick/ill and will probably have slower reactions to begin with.
Given the same alcohol level (below the legal limit) I would rather face a driver who had one drink and got in their car 2 or 3 hours later, than an ill person on strong, alcohol containing meds.
I do like the idea of zero tolerance but my only concern would be at what point does alcohol clear the system?
I guess the other question I would have is it the person who goes to a pub/restaurant and has one glass of wine over the course of the meal the problem or are we better to look at the punishments etc for those who are over the limit.
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 10:16
Taken from - Casualties from road accidents involving illegal alcohol levels, 1986-2000: Social Trends 32
It is, however, an increase on 1999 when it was estimated that 5 per cent of all road casualties and 13 per cent of road deaths occurred when someone was driving over the legal limit for alcohol.
So without trying to make light of these figures, 95% of all road casualties, and 87% of all road deaths were not caused by illegal levels of alcohol in the blood.
As already stated, to drink and drive is wrong. But there are far more factors which need seriously looking at if we wish to genuinely improve road safety.
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 10:35
I do like the idea of zero tolerance but my only concern would be at what point does alcohol clear the system?
And that I am afraid is a question that is almost impossible to answer.
From http://www.nowtryus.net/article:Blood_alcohol_content :
This rate varies considerably between individuals; experienced male drinkers with a high body mass may process up to 30 grams (38 mL) per hour, but a more typical figure is 10 grams (12.7 mL) per hour. Persons below the age of 25, women, persons of certain ethnicities, and persons with liver disease, may process alcohol more slowly.
So if I go out one evening for a meal with a young asian lady of my acquaintance, and share a bottle of wine, and maybe a couple of glasses of exceedingly fine single malt whisky, then take a taxi to our respective homes, it might well be that in the morning I am totally ok to drive to work, and she still should not do so, possibly until the next day!
How can you legislate based upon thos kind of facts for a zero tolerance approach?
Perhaps people need to study the facts about road safety rather than just simple knee jerk reactions to a highly emotive issue.
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 10:45
If we accept that there is to be a zero tolerance approach would anyone care to define - in fairly precise terms what it means.
I've just been trying, and other than zero alcohol in the blood I cannot think of a single way in which it can be defined in such a way that it could be policed.
I look forward to hearing how we could do it.
Boozeburglar
07-Aug-07, 10:59
The sensible route, in my opinion, would be to reduce the level allowable. If they halved it it would then mean you couldn't have a pint or a nip and 'think you are still okay' so it would get rid of that culture of a guessing game as to when you are okay to drive again.
The recommendation could be that you do not drive for at least 24 hours after having 2 units, and 48 hours for 4 units. There would be no excuses for 'the day after' and the level would still be high enough to allow for medications/a Christmas cake/sherry trifle/choc liquor/etc. or any other small amount of alcohol taken in unwittingly.
Zero tolerance would result in thousands of people being dragged through the courts who are totally innocent, and more importantly who had levels of alcohol so low it had zero effect on their ability to drive.
They ought to start testing for people driving tired as a routine, tests show minor sleep deprivation results in the same lack of judgment and awareness that being mildly drunk causes.
;)
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 11:05
So therefore boozleburglar you are not in favour of zero tolerance...
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 11:12
Please, anyone of the 16 in favour of ZERO tolerance, tell me how it can be defined and policed?
24 hours for 2 units seems a bit extreme - you couldn't even have a glass of wine with dinner and drive the next morning!
Boozeburglar
07-Aug-07, 11:50
I certainly consider that a zero tolerance approach that meant that prosecution was automatic for any traces of alcohol would be unworkable.
I have voted no on the assumption that is what most people assume this means.
A reduction in allowable levels could be described as zero tolerance if it meant you could not have an alcoholic drink and then drive immediately and be below the prosecutable level. If that were the case I would support it.
I usually have a pint of shandy with a meal out, or a small glass of wine, but I would be happy enough to give that up.
Shame that I would have to though.
;)
Boozeburglar
07-Aug-07, 12:43
24 hours for 2 units seems a bit extreme - you couldn't even have a glass of wine with dinner and drive the next morning!
True, but if there were Government recommendations they would have to be fail safe in so far as no one who followed them could possible be driving illegally as a result.
Please, anyone of the 16 in favour of ZERO tolerance, tell me how it can be defined and policed?
Why should it have to be policed? If anyone is caught drink driving they should get an immediate and permanent ban. I used to drink and drive in the 60's and 70's but then began to have just one or two before going on to soft drinks. Now I always have soft drinks when I am driving.
As an aside... how many think that we should be re-tested every 5 years? Make the fee smaller and the tests more often. That shoud get rid of some of the bad driving habits! ;)
porshiepoo
07-Aug-07, 15:47
It's already proven that to reduce the amount of 'acceptable' alchohol simply doesn't work. People still have a drink, get in a car, make excuses, get a ban and then obviously learn nothing and do it all over again (obviously not everyone).
The fact is that anyone who takes any amount of alchohol has already made the choice to either walk home, get a cab or get behind the wheel. If you choose to get behind the wheel you don't only chance your life but the lives of those innocent people you run the risk of maiming in the process.
So you tell me, what 'limit' is acceptable for a court of law to find you 'within' the limits during the RTA that caused the deaths of innocent people??? What 'limit' would any of you say is worth a human life???
A driver could get behind the wheel of a car well within the limits but the fact is that the death that persons driving caused was preventable simply by either not drinking or not driving. It's murder!
My first instinct was to vote for zero tolerance because it seems obvious - if you've had a drink you shouldn't drive. However I suspect more people are killed by simple speeding than by drivers over the limit. So then I think the police should come down as heavily on drivers speeding. Torvaig mentioned cars being limited to 60 mph but that's the legal speed limit up here anyway so the police should be catching anyone who drives over 60 mph as well as anyone who drives after a drink. But there are many places where even though 60 is the legal limit, it's not a sensible speed to drive due to conditions, the road or any number of things. So then what?
As far as I can see there is no way the police can prevent accidents caused by drink, recklessness, sheer stupidity, carelessness etc. etc. unless they arrest and ban so many drivers that it simply becomes not worth driving "without due care and attention".
alcohol affects people in differant ways, someone can drink 2 - 3 drinks without "feeling" affected and others can feel the affects after only one drink. Its often the ones who think they can tolerate a certain amount, are the ones who misjudge situations. Any leeway in tolerance may give way to problems and confusion
anneoctober
07-Aug-07, 19:17
Zero tolerance gets my vote. That way it's clear cut, also should be applied to illegal drugs. Anyone can make a case for reasons "not to do anything" incase it offends someone else. Tough, maybe they've not had the experience of identfying a relative who's been killed through drink/drug driving. We're all adults and make choices daily, taxi or drink driving, designated driver or drink driving, we are ultimately responsible for our actions.
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 19:38
but please folks, what does zero tolerance mean? Nobody seems willing to commit. What exactly is it?
And yes, in common with most laws it will need to be policed despite what someone said earlier.
So please define and explain how to police zero tolerance.
George Brims
07-Aug-07, 19:43
I have zero tolerance for the expression "drink driving". It used to be called "drunk driving" and I have no idea when or why it changed. I suppose it is meant to convey the idea (well it's not an idea it's a fact actually) that you can be impaired in your skills and judgement even though you're not yet drunk, but I just find it grates on my nerves.
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 19:48
Why should it have to be policed? If anyone is caught drink driving they should get an immediate and permanent ban. I used to drink and drive in the 60's and 70's but then began to have just one or two before going on to soft drinks. Now I always have soft drinks when I am driving.
As an aside... how many think that we should be re-tested every 5 years? Make the fee smaller and the tests more often. That shoud get rid of some of the bad driving habits! ;)
Hi Ricco
As far as I am aware all laws unfortunately need to be policed. And for that to happen those laws need to be clearly defined. So my question needs to be answered. Lets face it, most folk know that it is illegal to murder someone, but it happens and therefire that law needs to be policed.
I would have no problem with re-testing as often as anyone wants. Nor awith a far stricter testing regime. However that it a completely differnt question to the one regarding "zero tolerance" whatever it may mean!
but please folks, what does zero tolerance mean? Nobody seems willing to commit. What exactly is it?
And yes, in common with most laws it will need to be policed despite what someone said earlier.
So please define and explain how to police zero tolerance.
Hi Nick,
It's a 'visceral' response to vote zero tolerance and I'm not sure how many people are listening to the (important!) detail of what you are asking.
Karia
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 20:02
Karia, you are right.
But I'll keep asking because it is a very important question. (And for what it's worth one that has had a massive impact on me from both sides over the years).
But it is good to know that at least one person knows that I'm not just being a git - many thanks :)
To me Zero Tolerance means if you drive and drink, then you are committing a crime and must be punished. No Excuses, any alcohol or drugs (even legal ones) in your system and you pay the penalty.
Damage to you the driver and your car, then a hefty fine and points on your license.
Damage to someone else's property then a stiffer fine and more points on your license.
Injury to a person even a passenger, then Jail
Fatality to a person, then throw away the key, a vehicle in the hands of someone who has taken drink or drugs is the same as a weapon IMO
NickInTheNorth
07-Aug-07, 20:15
To me Zero Tolerance means if you drive and drink, then you are committing a crime and must be punished. No Excuses, any alcohol or drugs (even legal ones) in your system and you pay the penalty.
Damage to you the driver and your car, then a hefty fine and points on your license.
Damage to someone else's property then a stiffer fine and more points on your license.
Injury to a person even a passenger, then Jail
Fatality to a person, then throw away the key, a vehicle in the hands of someone who has taken drink or drugs is the same as a weapon IMO
OK gollach, closest I've seen to someone prepared to express what they mean.
I'm having a couple of glasses of wine tonight with my evening meal. When can I safely drive again?
OK gollach, closest I've seen to someone prepared to express what they mean.
I'm having a couple of glasses of wine tonight with my evening meal. When can I safely drive again?
Nick, honestly ...I have no idea, my own yard stick would be at least 8 hours after the persons last drink, again this is my own opinion only, and psssst I am golach, not gollach:D
I disagree with a zero-tolerance approach to drink-driving because, as in all things, there is a compromise between public responsibilities and with public liberties.
Also, I still think that it is not the person that goes out and has a couple of pints that is the major problem, it is the hardcore drink driver that gets sloshed, and yes, I know all about how reflexes slowing down rapidly after only a small amount of alcohol before anyone wants to remind me. I think there is plenty of slow-witted drivers on the road that will not be affected by a zero booze tolerance approach and still be allowed to drive legally.
What we should have is regular testing for old folks, more public transport, more tv campaigns, cycling proficiencies, bring back Tufty, more community policing and better alcohol labelling on the point of sale in bars.
OK gollach, closest I've seen to someone prepared to express what they mean.
I'm having a couple of glasses of wine tonight with my evening meal. When can I safely drive again?
Obviously a trick question......Thursday!;)
A pint counts for two alcohol units and large glass of wine 3. People who even have a round may not be as safe as they think they are.
I think the current alcohol limits are probably safe enough, but the penalties for driving over the limit need to be increased and strictly enforced
An interesting piece of information from the NHS which I guess was part of their reason for their campaign to make sure you are safe to drive the next morning.
On average it takes about one hour for your body to process one unit of alcohol. This varies depending on your body size, sex and the amount of food in your digestive system. If your liver isn't functioning normally, the process takes longer. One unit of alcohol is roughly equivalent to half a pint of beer, a 25ml (pub) measure of spirit, or two-thirds of a small (125ml) glass of wine. This means that one pint takes your body about two hours to break down, and a large glass of wine (250ml) about three hours - longer if the ABV (alcohol by volume) content is higher than average. So if you have seven pints during a night out, it could take as long as 17 or 18 hours to leave your system.
It's very important to think about how long it takes your body to process alcohol before doing activities such as driving or operating machinery. Even if you feel fine the day after drinking, you could still be over the limit. The legal limit in the United Kingdom is 80 milligrams of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of blood in the body.
To avoid putting your health at risk, women shouldn't drink more than 14 units a week, and men shouldn't drink more than 21. Nor should you 'use up' all your units in one go - women shouldn't drink more than 2-3 units a day, and men should limit themselves to 3-4. Find out if you're drinking too much and how to cut down using our alcohol calculator:
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=853
Why should it have to be policed? If anyone is caught drink driving they should get an immediate and permanent ban. I used to drink and drive in the 60's and 70's but then began to have just one or two before going on to soft drinks. Now I always have soft drinks when I am driving.
As an aside... how many think that we should be re-tested every 5 years? Make the fee smaller and the tests more often. That shoud get rid of some of the bad driving habits! ;)
Hi Ricco,
By your own reckoning then your experience in decades past should have garnered you a 'life long' ban.
Will you be handing in your licence in the morning?
No?... Guess you have lived and learned?
Why shouldn't others do the same?
I don't drive, OH drives and never touches a drop, and yes, a test of competence every now and again is a very reasonable way to go.
Karia
It's a 'visceral' response to vote zero tolerance and I'm not sure how many people are listening to the (important!) detail of what you are asking.Precisely. What appears to come from the heart is often processed by the large intestine.
lassieinfife
08-Aug-07, 00:21
If anyone feels the need to drink the car should be left at home .... i am all for total ban on drinking and driving,working in the NHS we often see the results
Lolabelle
08-Aug-07, 02:56
First of all, I would like to state that I do not drink alcohol, ever.
But I don't have a problem with anyone who does. I don't condone drunk driving and I know that it is dangerous. But there must be some personal responsibility in this world.
If laws keep changing to restrict everyone and cover every angle, there will be no personal responsibility left.
So no I do not think people should drink and drive, but no, I don't think everyone should not be allowed to have one or two beers or wines and then not be allowed to drive. It is not the people who follow the already (IMO) adequate laws who cause deaths. It is the ones who don't. And do you really think that this kind of drinker is going to change just because the law say NO Blood Alcohol? I don't think so. They disregard the laws anyway. So I think that the consequences should be more severe.
porshiepoo
08-Aug-07, 08:02
but please folks, what does zero tolerance mean? Nobody seems willing to commit. What exactly is it?
And yes, in common with most laws it will need to be policed despite what someone said earlier.
So please define and explain how to police zero tolerance.
The term zero tolerance speaks for itself. Zero tolerance to drinking alchohol and driving a mechanical vehicle.
How to police this policy would obviously need some scrutiny but we shouldn't let that put us off. To claim it can't be policed and so just do nothing is as ignorant and selfish as actually drinking and driving. (I'm not suggesting that you have claimed this by the way).
Why would anyone with an ounce of integrity, compassion or sense of right and wrong believe that it is ok to have even 1 pint and then drive yourself anywhere when you know that just that one pint has affected your reflexes, perception etc and the consequences could be so devastating?
Boozeburglar
08-Aug-07, 09:11
Why would anyone with an ounce of integrity, compassion or sense of right and wrong believe that it is ok to drive themselves anywhere when they know that having only five hours sleep has affected their reflexes, perception, etc. and the consequences could be so devastating?
;)
Colin Manson
08-Aug-07, 09:25
I'm having a couple of glasses of wine tonight with my evening meal. When can I safely drive again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content
I'd suggest a built in 'safety factor' i.e. double the amount of time suggested and if you are in a group that has slower alcohol metabolism than quadruple the time.
It seems to me that you are trying to suggest that it's impossible to meet a 'Zero Tolerance' policy, it's not it just requires a change of attitude and lifestyle.
Why would anyone with an ounce of integrity, compassion or sense of right and wrong believe that it is ok to have even 1 pint and then drive yourself anywhere when you know that just that one pint has affected your reflexes, perception etc and the consequences could be so devastating?
Lots of things affect reflexes, perception eg, stress, worry, prescription drugs (even an aspirin), tiredness, drink, old age, kids in the back, smoking tobacco, mobile phones etc
Would it be prudent to have a zero tolerance to them as well?:confused
Colin Manson
08-Aug-07, 09:39
Would it be prudent to have a zero tolerance to them as well?:confused
Would you rather be killed in an accident because the oncoming driver had issues with one of the things that you listed?
Lots of things affect reflexes, perception eg, stress, worry, prescription drugs (even an aspirin), tiredness, drink, old age, kids in the back, smoking tobacco, mobile phones etc
Would it be prudent to have a zero tolerance to them as well?:confused
OK, here goes... my tuppence worth....
I agree with zero tolerance to drink driving. We already have zero tolerance to mobile phones, at least we do in Blackpool. And I get SO mad when I see someone on their phone whilst behind the wheel!
Prescription drugs: Well, most of them do say on the labels that you shouldn't drive whilst taking them - they don't pop that info on just so they can use extra printing ink!
Everyone knows that you shouldn't drive whilst you are tired, we've all seen the consequences at various times on the news,
As you get older, you are asked back for a retest, although personally I agree with the regular retesting, but I think you should be retested at a younger age, say in your 50's, thereafter every 5 or 10 years.
As for transporting kids, well the laws regarding kiddies being strapped into seats at least keeps them in one place & not loose in the car like eggs in a shoebox.
A car on our streets in this day and age is a dangerous weapon - maybe the way forward is education - the car manufacturers could also do a lot to help by restricting the power of these cars - why make & market a car that can do 0 - 60 - in 0.16 seconds (ok that's rubbish, but you know what mean) when our top speed in the UK is 70 mph?
Anyway, that's my opinion - if you drink, don't get behind the wheel of a car until the next day..... again, that phrase pops up.... Common Sense!
Julie
Would you rather be killed on an accident because the oncoming driver had issues with one of the things that you listed?
As far as I am aware no RTA victim has a choice with the modus operandi of their death and I would be dead so your question seems meaningless to me. However, if a driver was above the legal alcohol limit then any deaths would be tragic.
However, as far as memory serves me right the current blood alcohol level is 80mg/100ml of blood. If a zero tolerance approach is to be adopted where is the limit going to be? 0mg/100ml? I don't think analysis equipment is sensitive enough for that. I also know that analysis equipment have an effect called 'carry over' where alcohol from a previous specimen can come over onto the next specimen results. If a zero tolerance approach is to be adopted, how can we be sure that the driver is innocent? Plus, at lower levels, analysis accuracy suffers around the detectable limit. I think it would be unenforceable.
OK, here goes... my tuppence worth....
I agree with zero tolerance to drink driving. We already have zero tolerance to mobile phones, at least we do in Blackpool. And I get SO mad when I see someone on their phone whilst behind the wheel!
Prescription drugs: Well, most of them do say on the labels that you shouldn't drive whilst taking them - they don't pop that info on just so they can use extra printing ink!
Everyone knows that you shouldn't drive whilst you are tired, we've all seen the consequences at various times on the news,
As you get older, you are asked back for a retest, although personally I agree with the regular retesting, but I think you should be retested at a younger age, say in your 50's, thereafter every 5 or 10 years.
As for transporting kids, well the laws regarding kiddies being strapped into seats at least keeps them in one place & not loose in the car like eggs in a shoebox.
A car on our streets in this day and age is a dangerous weapon - maybe the way forward is education - the car manufacturers could also do a lot to help by restricting the power of these cars - why make & market a car that can do 0 - 60 - in 0.16 seconds (ok that's rubbish, but you know what mean) when our top speed in the UK is 70 mph?
Anyway, that's my opinion - if you drink, don't get behind the wheel of a car until the next day..... again, that phrase pops up.... Common Sense!
Julie
Well until someone proves to me that driving below the legal blood/alcohol limit is more dangerous than driving while tired (which is also legal) or while being 17 years of age then I will think a zero tolerance approach has merit..
porshiepoo
08-Aug-07, 09:59
[quote=Rheghead;252436]As far as I am aware no RTA victim has a choice with the modus operandi of their death and I would be dead so your question seems meaningless to me. However, if a driver was above the legal alcohol limit then any deaths would be tragic.
Any death caused by someone having ANY amount of alchohol in their system is tragic. What is even more tragic is the fact that we se fit to decide that an 80mg limit is 'acceptable'. I would hope that my life, the life of my family and in fact every human life will one day be much more priceless!
porshiepoo
08-Aug-07, 10:01
Well until someone proves to me that driving below the legal blood/alcohol limit is more dangerous than driving while tired (which is also legal) or while being 17 years of age then I will think a zero tolerance approach has merit..
No one is suggesting that it is any more or less dangerous than those things but does that make it acceptable? We just roll over and do nothing because there are things far more dangerous that haven't been addressed? Yet!
There has to be a starting point somewhere.
Colin Manson
08-Aug-07, 10:07
Equipment is sensitive enough to allow a 0mg/100ml, accuracy levels at +/- 0.08mg/100ml are achievable.
I've have tested a system on many occasions and I've never had a reading above 0mg/100ml and I've also tested it with a standard spray and afterwards the reading has immediately returned a 0 result.
Maybe your info comes from dealing with older systems.
Equipment is sensitive enough to allow a 0mg/100ml, accuracy levels at +/- 0.08mg/100ml are achievable.
I've have tested a system on many occasions and I've never had a reading above 0mg/100ml and I've also tested it with a standard spray and afterwards the reading has immediately returned a 0 result.
Maybe your info comes from dealing with older systems.
0.08mg isn't zero.
thefugitive1993
08-Aug-07, 10:16
Please, anyone of the 16 in favour of ZERO tolerance, tell me how it can be defined and policed?
Hi Nick, It could easily be defined, zero = zilch. The police use blood alcohol monitors and the are available to buy. They could alos be incorporated in new vehicles. Alcohol in blood = doesn't start.
Now I know there would be ways around this, accomplice starts car etc, but that is another issue. I can always have an accomplice buy drugs for me, it neither affects the definition or policing.
By the way, I don't think much in life is as straightforward as it seems, and human behaviour is always multi-faceted, but we have to have rules and by definition these must be defined. Incidentally 0 is as easy to define and police as any other figure
Colin Manson
08-Aug-07, 10:17
lol,
I thought you were supposed to be a chemist Rheghead, you'll have to try harder if you want me to bite.
NickInTheNorth
08-Aug-07, 10:23
I am afraid that the lawyer in me just keeps coming back to the same old point, which no-one so far seems able or willing to address.
The "zero tolerance" approach is all well and good. I certainly do not believe that it is ok to go out, have a skin full and get behind the wheel of a car and drive. The current legislation is reasonable good at dissuading folks from doing that.
However if we have a zero tolerance approach, I still am not clear to what exactly we are taking a zero tolerance approach.
So make it simple for my tired old brain.
Is it zero tolerance to alcohol in the system when driving?
Is it a zero tolerance to folk going out and having a drink (one drink, lets say one unit of alcohol) and then getting behingd the wheel of a car?
Is it something else?
And no, I'm not just trying to be a wind-up merchant, I really do not understand exactly what the "zero tolerance" is that we are discussing. As so often it is very easy to discuss an issue that at first sight is simple, but a slightly closer look brings out huge and often insurmountable problems.
If we wish to have zero tolerance, meaning no alcohol in the blood then several problems arise:
the measurement of the alcohol
knowing when the alcohol has cleared your own system and thus you are free to drive
other means of ingesting alcohol - often without the individuals knowledge (I'm talking tiny amounts
It is fine people saying it is about a change in attitudes, but if an informal discussion cannot address such issues as these and come to a reasonable consensus of how it may be policed then how is legislation going to be framed so as to deal with these and other problems.
A far simpler solution would be a reduction in the acceptable limit to something representing less than 1 unit of alcohol, thus helping people to avoid the simplistic thinking that it will be ok to just have a pint, or a glass of wine and then drink.
However I strongly suspect that the overall effect of such a measure would be negligible as the hardened drink drivers that cause the problem will carry on regardless. The same as many of them carry on driving despite the bans etc
thefugitive1993
08-Aug-07, 10:33
I am afraid that the lawyer in me just keeps coming back to the same old point, which no-one so far seems able or willing to address.
The "zero tolerance" approach is all well and good. I certainly do not believe that it is ok to go out, have a skin full and get behind the wheel of a car and drive. The current legislation is reasonable good at dissuading folks from doing that.
However if we have a zero tolerance approach, I still am not clear to what exactly we are taking a zero tolerance approach.
So make it simple for my tired old brain.
Is it zero tolerance to alcohol in the system when driving?
Is it a zero tolerance to folk going out and having a drink (one drink, lets say one unit of alcohol) and then getting behingd the wheel of a car?
Is it something else?
And no, I'm not just trying to be a wind-up merchant, I really do not understand exactly what the "zero tolerance" is that we are discussing. As so often it is very easy to discuss an issue that at first sight is simple, but a slightly closer look brings out huge and often insurmountable problems.
If we wish to have zero tolerance, meaning no alcohol in the blood then several problems arise:
the measurement of the alcohol
knowing when the alcohol has cleared your own system and thus you are free to drive
other means of ingesting alcohol - often without the individuals knowledge (I'm talking tiny amounts
It is fine people saying it is about a change in attitudes, but if an informal discussion cannot address such issues as these and come to a reasonable consensus of how it may be policed then how is legislation going to be framed so as to deal with these and other problems.
A far simpler solution would be a reduction in the acceptable limit to something representing less than 1 unit of alcohol, thus helping people to avoid the simplistic thinking that it will be ok to just have a pint, or a glass of wine and then drink.
However I strongly suspect that the overall effect of such a measure would be negligible as the hardened drink drivers that cause the problem will carry on regardless. The same as many of them carry on driving despite the bans etc
Hi Nick, I think I outlined what (I believe) zero tolerance is and how it can be monitored.
Blood alcohol can be measured, other methods are less clear cut. When you go to court at the current or any limit it is through measurement. There is nothing to stop potential drivers with appropriate equipment self-monitoring prior to driving.
Boozeburglar
08-Aug-07, 10:48
No one is suggesting that it is any more or less dangerous than those things but does that make it acceptable? We just roll over and do nothing because there are things far more dangerous that haven't been addressed? Yet!
There has to be a starting point somewhere.
There already is a starting point; a limit that could be reduced.
If we reduce the limit to a point where you cannot have even one drink no one would be drink driving without knowing they are breaking the law. If we make the limit zero, totally innocent people who have taken in a small quantity of alcohol will be penalized unfairly.
It would also be workable.
There are more dangerous things than driving below the current limit. While that does not mean we should take our eyes off the ball, we should be looking at the most effective ways of making the roads safer, not tying the courts up with tens of thousands of trials. Every person who was found with a negligible trace of alcohol in their blood would claim it got their without their knowledge, and would be entitled to their day in court. Unless you suggest we automatically ban everyone regardless of the possibility they had just eaten a pudding at lunch that the chef pepped up with some brandy, or sauce or gravy that had a dash of wine in it?
Are we to have civil litigation against restauranters going on across the country? Class action against Harvester?
How about more speed cameras in effective locations, reducing the power of cars available to under 25s, a probationary license scheme, more driver education more often, a system in new cars which immobilizes the car if the driver has elevated blood alcohol?
lol,
I thought you were supposed to be a chemist Rheghead, you'll have to try harder if you want me to bite.
I was being rather flippant(:)) but my main thrust to this discussion is in terms of 'risk assessment' rather than the analysis, though I do think that samples can be null and void if there is a 0mg/100ml limit in place via contamination for example.
You are also aware of statistical risk analysis in terms of radiation safety. There is a limit for the general public and other personnel. These are derived from observed instances of radiation leaks and the statistical likelyhood of getting cancers etc. A commonsense approach has been adopted where the risk assessment of radiation exposure has been compared with the risk assessment of everyday activities that we find socially acceptable (eg crossing the road). Similiarly, a commonsense approach should be be made in so far as alcohol in blood and the comparison with socially acceptable activities such as driving while stressed and driving whilst being 17 years old etc and then the limit can be derived. It may well be that the present limit could be decreased or even increased.
If people stuck to the existing limit then we wouldn't be having this thread in the first place.
If we go along the road of banning everything that poses even the smallest risk to health then what is left?:confused
There already is a starting point; a limit that could be reduced.
If we reduce the limit to a point where you cannot have even one drink no one would be drink driving without knowing they are breaking the law. If we make the limit zero, totally innocent people who have taken in a small quantity of alcohol will be penalized unfairly.
It would also be workable.
There are more dangerous things than driving below the current limit. While that does not mean we should take our eyes off the ball, we should be looking at the most effective ways of making the roads safer, not tying the courts up with tens of thousands of trials. Every person who was found with a negligible trace of alcohol in their blood would claim it got their without their knowledge, and would be entitled to their day in court. Unless you suggest we automatically ban everyone regardless of the possibility they had just eaten a pudding at lunch that the chef pepped up with some brandy, or sauce or gravy that had a dash of wine in it?At last! :D
Good God people, why did it take so long for someone to state the obvious? All this from a Boozeburglar too. :lol:
Ok, I'm sure this is what Rheghead was thinking and I think Colin is too and they are just arguing over counting angels in samples when they both know there's no need to be accurate to one part in a million, but the viscerali haven't yet twigged.
Colin Manson
08-Aug-07, 11:47
mmm, Risk Assessment another of my preferred topics.
First option in any risk management system is to eliminate the risk = Zero Tolerance.
Of course there are other risks but the thread was started about alcohol and a zero tolerance policy.
IMHO if you allow any amount of alcohol to be present then the system is open to interpretation, remove that issue then the culture changes. Nobody drinks and assumes that they are below the limit, people worry instead about driving the morning after a few beers. That in itself would make it a safer system.
Whether someone is safe to drive at 40mg/100ml isn't really the problem, it's people trying to guess whether they are or aren't legal to drive.
Many other risks could be reduced but you have to take one topic at a time, to do nothing about alcohol because 'drug driving' isn't being correctly policed is akin to burying your head in the sand. :D
Other countries have implemented strict zero limits and it doesn't work because of low natural acohol levels or remnants from a day ago. Just do as Boozeburglar says and have a limit that is far lower than one small drink would give but higher than any natural level. If there isn't a limit that does this then we're in trouble anyway!
Reducing 80 to 1, 2, 5, 10, or maybe even 20 would probably do the technical trick. The political trick would be to call it zero. It would work and keep the viscerali happy at the same time.
Is there anyone out there who knows about these numbers?
Many other risks could be reduced but you have to take one topic at a time, to do nothing about alcohol because 'drug driving' isn't being correctly policed is akin to burying your head in the sand. :D
To make a zero tolerance approach to drug driving negates the benefit that some people need to get about whilst on prescription drugs whilst being in a fit state to drive, similiarly with drink, some people actually enjoy a drink or two and go for a meal in the countryside and be still safe to drive if that can be compared with similiar risk levels of other legal activities.
It is akin to making a zero tolerance to anthropological radiation dose, we would not reap the benefits that come from medicine and nuke power. Everything is a balance and I think we have the right balance, it just needs adhering to.
What are you on Rheghead? Can I have some? Is it legal to drive after consuming it?
Reducing the legal limit from 80 wotsits to 20 wotsits would result in fewer people driving with unsafe levels, whether they be folk with 79 who can't hold their drink or folk with 120 who think they can but can't really.
You're being awkward and you're wrong too. So there. :Razz
What are you on Rheghead? Can I have some? Is it legal to drive after consuming it?
Reducing the legal limit from 80 wotsits to 20 wotsits would result in fewer people driving with unsafe levels, whether they be folk with 79 who can't hold their drink or folk with 120 who think they can but can't really.
You're being awkward and you're wrong too. So there. :Razz
Reducing the limit from 80 wotsits to 20 wotsits will just shift an arbitrary guess me level to another guess me level and will criminalise people who are operating legally and safely. It will still fail to address the fundamental issue that there is a limit in place and will fail to bring the expected benefits that the scared and paranoid are hoping to get. And it will still fail to address the hardcore minority who go drunk driving as a recreational hobby.
We still don't have to drink and drive now, like we didn't have to drink and drive back in 1960 and neither do we have to do it if the limit is reduced to 20 wotsits. The limit is there for a purpose, it is there as a safety net to take those off the road who go out and get sloshed and get behind the wheel of a car, ie. the ones who are the real menaces on our roads.
It is like 'safety at work' I guess. It is a company's responsibility to ensure safety at work and to get zero accidents, everyone wants it. If a company had carte financial blanche to give over money, hand over fist to their safety policies then they will no doubt reduce accidents, but at what cost? The extra cash will not get the same proportional saving in lives/accidents. The net effect will be uncompetitiveness and a hypothetical company would go to the wall and no one will be employed.
The same is with banning things and zero policies, the social cost is that they leave no room for personal responsibility and we all know what that means. There is a social cost to everthing and it is all too easy to say 'ban drink driving!' but it is more smarter to weigh up all factors that are involved.
How about more speed cameras in effective locations, reducing the power of cars available to under 25s, a probationary license scheme, more driver education more often, a system in new cars which immobilizes the car if the driver has elevated blood alcohol?
If I wasn't a new member, I'd press the Rep button for that!!
Julie.
The limit is there for a purpose, it is there as a safety net to take those off the road who go out and get sloshed and get behind the wheel of a car
You do not need to be sloshed to be over the limit. I believe it is as little as two pints in an hour will do it. You can also be over the limit 8 hours later after a heavy night, the night before. It is not about catching people who are incapable of driving but those are are unsafe to do so.
The "sloshed" ones are a problem and so are the ones who, after having a few, are over the limit and think "I'm fine. I've only had a couple. What harm could it do?"
Precisely Tristan. God knows why Rheghead can't or won't see that. It beats me.
Metalattakk
09-Aug-07, 03:45
It beats me why some people are going out of there way to completely misunderstand what Rheghead is saying.
For goodness' sake, read and respond to the whole post instead of merely jumping to a knee-jerk reaction to one little point that you don't agree with.
Read, cogitate, respond. Rocket science it is not.
For goodness' sake, read and respond to the whole thread instead of merely jumping to a knee-jerk reaction to one little point that you don't agree with.
Read, cogitate, respond. Rocket science it is not. (had to be done) [lol]
If you follow the whole thread, there are those who agree with his points on "what is zero tolerance?" and "what limits are?" . I have voiced similar concerns in this thread regarding someone who is on medication.
The point I quoted about being "sloshed" was the one that I wished to bring attention to because I believe it was an issue worth raising - you don't have to be sloshed to be a danger on the road.
They can't have a Zero Tolerance to either drink or drug driving. If they did then it would have to be admitted that by far the vast majority of accidents are caused by nothing more than something suffered from time to time by all drivers- lack of judgement.
Even the most expert and proficient drivers occasionally "get it wrong". If they are lucky the worst they suffer is a damaged ego, if they are unlucky then they have just been involved in a serious accident, it's as simple as that.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.