Well, it's that time of year when, not content with just hurtling round at high speed in their metal boxes of death, many drivers will be out getting smashed on booze before attempting to steer from side to side across the streets squashing all children and old folk who get in their way. Isn't it time to make it illegal to drink and drive. If you must drive then only drink water you selfish twats.
don't give up booze, give up petro chemicals, they're really bad for you and it's crap sitting in a metal box being vibrated all over
It IS illegal to drive with more than a small amount of alcohol in your system. Lowering the limit would needlessly criminalise the person who has a glass of wine with his meal out, and would do nothing to stop the people who go out and have seven pints and think its OK to drive home. They ignore the current limit, and they will ignore any lower limit as well. If they do this, it will be yet another case of the government "acting tough" by passing new laws, which have little effect on people's behaviour. Giles..
Here the rule is that you shouldn't drink and drive. It is routinely ignored. The length of time you are banned is proprotional to the amount over the limit you are at the time of being stopped. The attitude is that it doesn't hurt anyone to drink and drive, my partially disabled mate and his dead wife would disagree. As would the former dancer I know who has only got half a foot now. PLEASE don't drink and drive!
I think it'd be so much better if the law had a zero tolerance approach on this - ie. no alc in your system allowed at all. There are too many selfish w*nkers out there killing people, and literally getting away with murder, and something needs to be done about it. My dad used to be quite heavily involved in the Campaign Against Drink Driving, and I was horrified by some of the stories he told me. It is tantamount to murder, frankly, if you're going to get pissed and then drive. You might as well go out and shoot someone, that's the amount of respect you're showing for the human race.
No. Most places with "Zero Tolerance" systems end-up being considerably less strict & with weaker sentencing than those places who set their blood alcohol limits in the 50-80 mg/dl range. Very often, all but the most serious offences don't attract anything more severe than a medium-sized civil fine. Adopting that will probably end-up making drunk driving somewhat acceptable again.
It is not possible to have a zero alcohol level as a legal requirement. A significant number of people have a low background level of alcohol due to various illnesses and conditions. There are people who work in places where there is enough alcohol vapour in the air to give them a back ground low level in their blood. The other main factor the vast majority of drivers over the current 80 microgram limit are well over it. Changing the law would have near to insignifant effect on road accident casualties. What is needed as a matter of urgency is far more stringent testing for drugged drivers.
Where is this the case? Just interested.... The most important thing is that sentencing should be harsh. If you're drinking and driving, it IS tantamount to murder. If you kill someone when drunk driving, you should get the same sentence as a murderer. It's not an accident - you've CHOSEN to drink drive. It's like when someone stabs/shoots someone else and says they didn't 'mean' to kill them. Ffs, what the hell are you doing waving a knife around for then?! It's the same with guns and knives. If the sentences were much much stricter (eg. mandatory 10 year sentence for gun or knife possession), people would be far less likely to take the risk. More than a certain amount of alcohol in your body (eg. several units) should result in a sentence that is severe enough to deter people from drinking and driving at all. It's people's lives we're talking about here. The right for someone to have a few more pints is not QUITE as important as a human life , yet the law seems to think it is
There's also the point that if someone is going to drive drunk then it doesn't really matter whether they're allowed one pint or none - they're still going to drink 8 pints and drive. I would like to see proper harsh penalties actually used properly on the 'Golf Club' lot ,if you know what I mean. I see the "21 yr old blah blah' drink driving stuff on the news which is far enough, but never seem to see much of the '62 yr old company director - family man' Bang. 5 years & license for life please, for taking out that couple in the Fiesta with your Range Rover on the blind corner of the country lane after a few swift ones at the pub in the village. That should sort some of the others out too. Go and sit in a well healed country pub on a busy night, with a full car park until closing time & then see how full that car park is 30 mins later.
Almost every country that runs such a system. With the possible exception of Sweden. We have had this one before. Then there are even more places who in theory have strict anti drink driving laws but in practice never bother to enforce them.
Of course it can. Other countries do it http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/drunk%20driving/artcl--drunk-driving-0005--global-BAC-limits.htm There will always be a small margin for error on all equipment that would allow for trace levels (e.g. cough medicine.)
I suppose you could have a limit that was effectively zero (ie would allow for having drunk a little the night before, or for these cases) but not for having a glass of wine and then driving shortly afterwards. I'm not sure whether it would acheive anything though, I think harsher penalties is the way to go.
Confiscate cars off people for a set period of time for the severity of the infringement .e.g first timer slightly over the limit loses their car for a month. That's going to hurt.
No, a very large number of those countries have either no practical enforcement at all or set only a small civil/technical penalty for the lower end of the scale - typically, 50mg/dl & below. Usually a non-criminal fine. Which only serves to get drunk driving seen as similar to a parking ticket here. Is that really the message you want to send? Han, your answer is in that table.
Well, it's closer to manslaughter really. The difference is that with murder courts have to prove you intended to kill. A drunk driver (generally) doesn't intend to kill people, but ends up killing them because they are willfully negligent. I used to be friends with a man whose wife was killed by a drunk driver. He never got over it. It's a fucking disgusting crime and judges should be throwing the book at offenders. Why are there different laws depending on whether you manslaughter people in a factory or on the road?
Er, no. I want a zero limit with enhanced enforcement to allow random stopping by police. I didn't suggest turning it into a civil matter. It's very simple: zero blood alcohol with an allowance for a margin of error. Like with speed cameras and speed limits where a margin is allowed.
The current limits are fine. My dad was caught drink-driving a couple of years ago. He was massively over the limit, got an 18 month ban, a huge fine and had to re-take his test. A zero-tolerance policy would do nothing to deter people like my dad who drive after 8 pints regardless of the limit.
The key to deterring people from risking driving after a few drinks is enforcement. Most people don't set out thinking "oh I'll only get a year or more ban, a big fine and have to do my driving test again, so its OK". They think that they won't get caught. No point in new laws, or ever-harsher penalties, if there isn't much enforcement. Giles..
I think there's something to be said for lowering the limit a bit, but a zero-limit wouldn't work, for the reasons pogofish says.
The reason given-margin for error-would always be taken into account. New Zealand is looking into going to zero limits.
Are people who advocate a zero(ish) limit doing so because they believe that driving within the current limits is dangerous, or because they think that allowing people one or two drinks sends out the wrong message?
That's the one. Down my local last night a one of the old boys had four pints which he thought was the limit before driving. It was backed up to great fanfare by the rest.
Ah - I have reservations about changing the law just because people don't understand the current one. I think that moving to zero(ish) limits would just piss off a load of perfectly responsible drivers, and the people who think it is OK to drive after four pints would probably just find another excuse other than ignorance of the law.
Except that this is the reality of zero-based systems, with Sweden being about the only exception. Countries with limits in the 50-80 range tend to be ones with strict enforcement & penalties. Random stopping by the police is also a bit of a non-starter. In fact the near random trial in the the south of England back in the 80's was quite an eye-opener. It turned-out that the people most likely to drink drive (white men in the 30-50 range) were far less likely (by @100X) to be stopped & breathalised, whilst those least likley to be convicted of any offence (motorcyclists, non-white men & women) were by far the most stopped. Random?
