davieG Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 The legal blood alcohol limit should be cut to zero for drivers aged 17 to 20, England's chief medical officer says. Sir Liam Donaldson said in his annual report that although there was a risk the move would be unpopular among young people, it would improve road safety. Drink-drive laws are under review in the UK with data showing 14 youngsters die each week in car accidents. His report also highlights a range of teenage health issues as well as surgery safety and high cancer rates. The legal limit in the UK is 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, which is much higher than many other European countries. Alcohol bans for young drivers are also in place across the continent, while states in Australia and the US have similar rules. Sir Liam said such a move here would not require a major increase in policing and would represent a "sensible public health measure". Young people have enough difficulty when they first start driving learning the skills on the road, they don't need the complication of drink as well Professor Sir Liam Donaldson Chief Medical Officer for England There were over 1,000 drink-drive accidents involving teenagers last year, while transport accidents are a leading cause of death for that age group. Research shows that alcohol use increases the risk of a crash for young drives 2.5 times more than it does for older drives. Sir Liam told the BBC: "Young people have enough difficulty when they first start driving learning the skills on the road, they don't need the complication of drink as well." There have been several calls in recent years to tighten up the UK's drink driving laws led by the road safety charity Brake and British Medical Association. A Department for Transport spokeswoman said: "Drink-driving ruins lives and we take it extremely seriously. "We know more can be done and are currently considering a range of options." But Lib Dem transport spokesman Norman Baker said: "Young drivers could face legal problems because they have had a couple of drinks the night before or used alcohol in cooking. The answer is a lower limit for all drivers." Habits Sir Liam's report also dealt with wider teenage health issues. He called for a national summit to address high levels of risky behaviour in what he called the big six - smoking, alcohol and drugs, accidents and violence, diet, physical activity and sexual health. He said: "Habits adopted in the teenage years can form behaviour for a life time." It comes as the Department of Health in England launched an internet-training programme for doctors and nurses to help them treat teenagers more effectively.
The People's Hero Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 Thracian will be distraught - outraged even. There'll be more sober drivers on the road than ever - and that's just criminal.
Daggers Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 The more pissed-up young people on the roads the better - it stops people moaning about us cyclists.
AoWW Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 My only concern with such a law relates to how long traces of alcohol can remain in your system. If this were bought into place it's still quite possible that someone who'd had a couple of drinks the night before could still be testing as having some alcohol in their system the next morning. (And I do mean that they'd just had one or two drinks - not been completely bladdered to the extent that the alcohol still has an affect on their ability to drive safely the next day.) Personally, I think that perhaps the limit should be lowered but not necessarily to zero.
Tommy G Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 Age discrimination? I started driving 3 years ago when I was 17 & I have managed not to ever drink or drive. I wouldn't even have one, it's not worth the risk. Shall we apply this rule to anyone over 50 aswell? A lot of people in that age believe it is ok to drink and drive because they have the ''experience'' and used to before the laws on drink driving changed. The stats don't lie but I think if they are going to apply the zero tolerance rule, they should apply it to everyone.
Bryn Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 I'm mixed about this. I have no doubt that this move would definately save lives, because many people my age do reckon they can take a few drinks and still drive. Often without any negative consequences but occasionally something goes wrong. But at the same time, 0 would irritate me - it would mean that if I drove home from a friends house after a night out, even after an appropriate amount of time, some sleep, some food and water, I'd still have some alcohol in my blood and that could see me lose my license or go to prison. It's too much, IMO.
Thracian Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 Age discrimination? I started driving 3 years ago when I was 17 & I have managed not to ever drink or drive. I wouldn't even have one, it's not worth the risk. Shall we apply this rule to anyone over 50 aswell? A lot of people in that age believe it is ok to drink and drive because they have the ''experience'' and used to before the laws on drink driving changed. The stats don't lie but I think if they are going to apply the zero tolerance rule, they should apply it to everyone. Nice and communistic that. Everyone equal. Except they aren't and never have been. For a start people of all ages react differently to alcohol and, while the anti-drink lobby never want to acknowedge it, this idea that a driver who's been drinking (especially at lowish levels) is necessarily the one to have caused an accident, is nonsense. You could say that no-one should be allowed to drive at all after consuming any alcohol. Wonderful. Nice safe roads. Except there would still be people on the roads who: a) Couldn't drive properly. b) Couldn't see properly. c) Couldn't manouevre properly to look into their blind spot. d) Had just had a row with their partner. e) Were otherwise occupied by thoughts of some bad news. f) Had just been made redundant. g) Were answering their mobile phone. h) Had taken some sort of drug or medication. i) Were talking to their friend and not looking at the road. j) Were looking for a parking spot. k) Were lost and driving entirely inappropriately. l) Were with a group of pals who were egging the driver on to see what their flash new car would do. m) Made a genuine error or judgement. n) Became victims of a third party's error of judgement. Etc, etc, etc. In fact I think point (l) represents the biggest danger to young drivers together with their inexperience of bad road conditions. My youngest never drinks when he drives but has either wrecked or contributed to having his car wrecked three times in three months. Most of his mates won't drink and drive but are forever having prangs. There needs to be a better driving test spread over stages which increase the learner's level of experience and kids should be prevented from driving young passengers until they become fully qualified because young kids together do egg driver's on to do things they might not do on their own.. That's not to say drink should not be used as a factor in driving law. Obviously it is wrong for people to be drunk in charge of a car or lethal weapon of any sort. But, in the first place accidents and the blame for them should be considered on their merits. No preconditions. Because anyone who believes that two or three glasses of wine taken with a meal by a grown man is likely to affect their driving more than a blazing ran with their partner or boss before they stepped out of the door or office is just not in touch with reality. I hate to think of how many so-called drink drivers have ended up being punished because some sober but upset or inattentive arsehole caused an accident by not looking in their mirror or by trying to change direction at the last minute. You see the potential incidents every single day. As I've said before. That's not justice. That's making someone accountable for convenience' sake. It's a form of persecution.
Hullfox Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 I hate to think of how many so-called drink drivers have ended up being punished because some sober but upset or inattentive arsehole caused an accident Yet again, you champion the cause for people to be allowed to drive with excess alcohol in their blood. I wish I was suprised.
Guest Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 The stats don't lie but I think if they are going to apply the zero tolerance rule, they should apply it to everyone. I agree. Some people ought to be old enough to know better. Essay The law requires certainty. Introducing subjective elements only creates confusion, and makes it more difficult to police.
Nationwider Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 It should be brought in across the board, not just for young drivers. TBH, I'd ban young drivers. Prov licences at 21. 'Nanas to the lot of 'em.
Thracian Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 I agree. Some people ought to be old enough to know better.The law requires certainty. Introducing subjective elements only creates confusion, and makes it more difficult to police. Don't know where the certainty comes from in using alcohol laws to determine the blame in a crash. But your last sentence only confirms my point that it's a convenient way of allowing the police (and the courts) to blame someone. I rest my case! Yet again, you champion the cause for people to be allowed to drive with excess alcohol in their blood.I wish I was suprised. I champion nothing of the sort. In fact I don't champion anyone going on the road unless they are able to concentrate and control their vehicle properly. I champion genuine rather than contrived justice.
Number 6 Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 How are you supposed to control arguments etc? There is no breathalyser for that. Alcohol in a person's system can be measured and therefore controlled, as it should be. If you drink and drive then you are putting yourself, others in your car, and everyone else out and about on the roads in danger. Don't be a tw*t, just have a soft drink.
Guest Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 Don't know where the certainty comes from in using alcohol laws to determine the blame in a crash.But your last sentence only confirms my point that it's a convenient way of allowing the police (and the courts) to blame someone. I rest my case! How unclear is "the defendant had 85mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in his system"? It's a lot clearer than trying to prove that 85mg has no impairment on your ability to drive. Plus you also said that different people react in different ways. The same people also react in different ways. One day, a driver may be capable of driving at just over the limit, but on another day, the same amount of alcohol may have more of an effect, rendering the driver incapable. The courts would be full of people trying to argue the toss, and say you are convicted of being drunk yet your similar sized mate is allowed off having more alcohol in his system? Are you saying that this is fairer?
davieG Posted 14 July 2008 Author Posted 14 July 2008 I'd be interested to know how countries that have a zero limit take account of things like chocolate liqueurs and medications like these
Thracian Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 How are you supposed to control arguments etc? There is no breathalyser for that. Alcohol in a person's system can be measured and therefore controlled, as it should be. If you drink and drive then you are putting yourself, others in your car, and everyone else out and about on the roads in danger. Don't be a tw*t, just have a soft drink. By your yardstick, while you can't necessarily control the arguments, such people should never go on the road. Nor if the other failings I mentioned apply. But people do and they aren't continually persecuted for it. The Government concentrates on hammering the drink driver because it's easy money. Not the smoker who's eyes water to the detriment of his driving, nor the people with the disturbed home lives or the folk who can't turn to see into their blind spot. How you can so conveniently dismiss those while continuing to have a go at people who might have had a drink or two but be no danger whatsoever I fail to understand. I consider myself quite responsible when driving passengers but am damned sure I'm safer behind a wheel after a couple of drinks and a bit to eat than some of the idiots I see who have never touched a drop and who should never have been given a licence in the first place.
Guest Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 By your yardstick, while you can't necessarily control the arguments, such people should never go on the road. Nor if the other failings I mentioned apply. But people do and they aren't continually persecuted for it. The Government concentrates on hammering the drink driver because it's easy money. Not the smoker who's eyes water to the detriment of his driving, nor the people with the disturbed home lives or the folk who can't turn to see into their blind spot. How you can so conveniently dismiss those while continuing to have a go at people who might have had a drink or two but be no danger whatsoever I fail to understand. I consider myself quite responsible when driving passengers but am damned sure I'm safer behind a wheel after a couple of drinks and a bit to eat than some of the idiots I see who have never touched a drop and who should never have been given a licence in the first place. Well perhaps the answer lies in more stringent licence testing, regular retesting, and health checks for all drivers. At least if we keep these people off of the roads, then we will be helping to cut the nation's carbon footprint.
Thracian Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 How unclear is "the defendant had 85mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in his system"? It's a lot clearer than trying to prove that 85mg has no impairment on your ability to drive. Plus you also said that different people react in different ways. The same people also react in different ways. One day, a driver may be capable of driving at just over the limit, but on another day, the same amount of alcohol may have more of an effect, rendering the driver incapable. The courts would be full of people trying to argue the toss, and say you are convicted of being drunk yet your similar sized mate is allowed off having more alcohol in his system? Are you saying that this is fairer? Very unclear in terms of the effect it had which is what should be important. All court cases are full of people arguing the toss and justice is served by consideration of the facts and the weight of arguments given about and around those facts. Because it is difficult to determine something like the effect of alcohol doesn't mean it is just to take a blanket view. If that were the case why are so many drug addict burglars treated with such apparent leniency? Why not say, if you're convicted of commiting a crime while under the influence of drugs it's a two year minimum sentence plus whatever else the judge decides in view of the particular cirumstances. But no. There's no sincerity or consistency at all. Car drivers usually have jobs and money. They have something to lose too. They're an easy target for persecution.
Daggers Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 Because it is difficult to determine something like the effect of alcohol doesn't mean it is just to take a blanket view. Find me the survey where alcohol has been shown to not slow the response time of the individual or that it raises cognitive awareness? I'll save you the time, there isn't one. It isn't difficult to determine the effects of alcohol, it's pretty much accepted fact everywhere in the Western world aside from your house. I may agree with you that alcohol may not be the cause of all accidents involving drink-drivers...but that doesn't mean you can get away by claiming the effects of alcohol aren't proven fact.
Guest Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 Very unclear in terms of the effect it had which is what should be important.All court cases are full of people arguing the toss and justice is served by consideration of the facts and the weight of arguments given about and around those facts. Because it is difficult to determine something like the effect of alcohol doesn't mean it is just to take a blanket view. If that were the case why are so many drug addict burglars treated with such apparent leniency? Why not say, if you're convicted of commiting a crime while under the influence of drugs it's a two year minimum sentence plus whatever else the judge decides in view of the particular cirumstances. But no. There's no sincerity or consistency at all. Car drivers usually have jobs and money. They have something to lose too. They're an easy target for persecution. WTF??? Typical Daily Mail reader response. Drug addicts are imprisoned. Why are so many trying to get the stuff into our jails? As for burglary, it's a different offence, and the objectives behind the sentencing are therefore different. The aim of the drink/drive laws is to prevent death. Most burglary offences are property related.
Bert Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 Age discrimination? I started driving 3 years ago when I was 17 & I have managed not to ever drink or drive. I wouldn't even have one, it's not worth the risk. Shall we apply this rule to anyone over 50 aswell? A lot of people in that age believe it is ok to drink and drive because they have the ''experience'' and used to before the laws on drink driving changed. The stats don't lie but I think if they are going to apply the zero tolerance rule, they should apply it to everyone. So A: What was the point of passing? and B: If you've managed to never have a drink, how're you still alive? I don't drive, but my view is that, if you've got a driving license you should be equal to every other person who carries a license.
Hullfox Posted 14 July 2008 Posted 14 July 2008 The Government concentrates on hammering the drink driver because it's easy money. Not the smoker who's eyes water to the detriment of his driving.How you can so conveniently dismiss those while continuing to have a go at people who might have had a drink or two but be no danger whatsoever I fail to understand. Read that back Thrach and tell me that you actually think it's a reasonable argument to put forward.
Thracian Posted 15 July 2008 Posted 15 July 2008 Well perhaps the answer lies in more stringent licence testing, regular retesting, and health checks for all drivers. At least if we keep these people off of the roads, then we will be helping to cut the nation's carbon footprint. I've always felt your real aim is to reduce traffic on the roads whatever rather than to genuinely cut the number of accidents/injuries.
ozleicester Posted 15 July 2008 Posted 15 July 2008 Alcohol in the human body, immediately reduces the ability to drive! The only reason that anyone does not support the lowering of the limit (for everybody), is because they want to drink and drive and they assume they are so special that they can do it safely. This is because they are too cheap to get a taxi, too lazy to walk or think they are too important to be put out. Its easy...if you are going to drive...dont drink. ..............if you are going to drink...dont drive. Anyone who's son, daughter wife, husband, mother, father etc etc is killed by a drunk driver will tell you..dont drink and drive. "Ahh alcohol, the cause of, and answer to...all of lifes problems" 'Homer J Simpson'
AyewJoking Posted 15 July 2008 Posted 15 July 2008 Probably been said already but is it only 17-20 year olds who drink and drive?
blue blood Posted 15 July 2008 Posted 15 July 2008 Yet again, you champion the cause for people to be allowed to drive with excess alcohol in their blood.I wish I was suprised. uh huh!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.