L drivers are scapegoated in new drink driving law.

E92

Apologies if this has been covered already but why are only learners and those who passed the test recently going to have a limit of 20 mg/l blood alcohol level:mad:? The "more experienced" will have the limit reduced to 50 mg/l.

The government has picked a soft target for maximum political capital yet again. People have to lear to drive at some stage like, you can't just become "experienced" overnight like:(:rolleyes:.(though how some people became "experienced" is beyond me, the standard of driving by and large is shocking in this country)

Why can't EVERYONE be limited to 20 mg/l, given that that's what the safest countries in the world do and if they're as bothered about people drink driving then how can they justify something that is completely unjustifiable?

I think someone should take the Government to court over discriminating one particular bunch of people. Alcohol is either dangerous or it's not, it's not 2.5 times less dangerous for some people:(.

Story here.

ballooba

Does it really make a difference? Do you actually want to drink and drive?

--amadeus--

As you said yourself you don't become experienced overnight. I don't condone drinking and driving under any circumstances but a stricter limit on inexperienced drivers makes sense from a safety perspective. It's a proven fact that provisional licence holders are more likely to be at fault in an accident. By giving them a stricter set of limits you hopefully prevent them from drinking at all as they know that even one drink could potentially put them over the limit.

An older, more experienced, driver will be a safer driver. The (very slightly) higher limit recognizes that they need more alcohol to cause thier driving to degenerate to a dangerous level. Less experienced drivers are closer to being dangerous in the first place and therefore need less alcohol to be a risk to themselves and to others.

And the point of a Learners Permit (or Provisional Licence) is to allow you to learn to drive. You won't be learning much if you've had a couple of pints!

javaboy

The limit matters very little anyway. I read something about one of the Irish coroner's saying that they see very few road deaths with blood alcohol just over the limit or even twice the limit. They said that most of the people who are over are well over. Maybe 4 or 5 times the limit.

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that it's ok to drink up to a much higher limit, I'm saying that it's not lowering the limit that's required, but more enforcment.

They can set a 0mg limit and call it zero tolerance which would get great publicity for a while but if they're not catching people, it doesn't matter what the limit is.

ballooba

There should be a blanket 0.2 limit. Only because nobody should be drinking ANYTHING regardless of their experience levels. The above is rubbish that experienced drivers are less affected by alcohol. Do our bodies change as we become more experienced at driving?

craichoe

javaboy wrote: »

The limit matters very little anyway. I read something about one of the Irish coroner's saying that they see very few road deaths with blood alcohol just over the limit or even twice the limit. They said that most of the people who are over are well over. Maybe 4 or 5 times the limit.

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that it's ok to drink up to a much higher limit, I'm saying that it's not lowering the limit that's required, but more enforcment.

They can set a 0mg limit and call it zero tolerance which would get great publicity for a while but if they're not catching people, it doesn't matter what the limit is.

Can't have no limit, what if you had trace amounts on your breath from mouthwash etc.

javaboy

craichoe wrote: »

Can't have no limit, what if you had trace amounts on your breath from mouthwash etc.

Wee test would get you off the hook I imagine. As long as you don't swallow Listerine. (in which case you are consuming alcohol

I know a 0mg limit is unworkable but I was making the point that if the 80mg/50mg limit was enforced it would probably be enough.

Jar_421

--amadeus-- wrote: »

An older, more experienced, driver will be a safer driver.

That statement is so wrong its not even funny. older more experienced drivers, not all but a few, will tend to take more chances while driving, i.e. shooting through changing lights at the last second, overtaking when amazingly inappropriate to do so etc, as they will have that idea in their head of" well i've been doing this for years if anything happens I can handle it",
couple this with a drink or 2 and they will take even more chances.

Experience counts for nothing when any drink is involved. it should be the same for everyone regardless of how long they have been driving.

bonkey

javaboy wrote: »

The limit matters very little anyway.

With regards to fatalaties, perhaps. With regards to accidents in general, I wouldn't be so certain. I don't know, mind. I just wouldn't be certain.

I'm saying that it's not lowering the limit that's required, but more enforcment.

TBH, this can be said of pretty-much every aspect of Irish driving law. There is no point in changing one unenforced law for another unenforced law as an attempt to fix the underlying problem....but this seems to be quite typical of the Irish approach.

They can set a 0mg limit and call it zero tolerance which would get great publicity for a while but if they're not catching people, it doesn't matter what the limit is.

Agreed.

The Swiss introduced an interesting twist to the whole limits thing a while back.

The legal limit here is .05 and this is reasonably enforced.

But wait (as they on the Shopping Channel), there's more.

If you are involved in an accident, you have a mandatory BAC-check. If you're tested at over 0.03, then your insurance company will seek redress for a percentage of any payout they have to make as a result of your involvement. This is legally enforced, to the point that you are allowed subsistance living costs* until you have paid them back this redress. IIRC, the minimum they will look for is 30% of any payout.

I'm sure someone will no doubt posting about how this is a typical "too much control" Swiss solution, but you know what....I have no sympathy for drunk drivers, particularly those who ruin other people's lives. If they get financially ruined because of their own stupidity...so much the better.

jc


* Subsistance living does *not* include paying off a mortgage, incidentally. If you have a house, you may end up losing it to pay this bill if its high enough.

Guy:Incognito

E92 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been covered already but why are only learners and those who passed the test recently going to have a limit of 20 mg/l blood alcohol level:mad:? The "more experienced" will haved the limit reduced to 50 mg/l.

The government has picked a soft target for maximum politial capital yet again. People have to lear to drive at some stage like, you can't just become "experienced" overnight like:(:rolleyes:.(though how some people

Why can't EVERYONE be limited to 20 mg/l, given that that's what the safest countries in the world do and if they're as bothered about people drink driving then how can they justify something that is completely unjustifiable?

I think someone should take the Governemnt to court over discriminating one particular bunch of people. Alcohol is either dangerous or it's not, it's not 2.5 times less dangerous for some people:(.

Story here.

Why cant everyone in the uk be limited to the speed of "R" drivers?. It's discrimination against learners.

Anan1

E92 wrote: »

Alcohol is either dangerous or it's not, it's not 2.5 times less dangerous for some people:(.

It actually is! An experienced driver will be less unsafe than a learner at an equal level of inebriation.

ballooba

Anan1 wrote: »

It actually is! An experienced driver will be less unsafe than a learner at an equal level of inebriation.

Let's test that one Top Gear style with 16 pints each.

Riskymove

While I agree that the limit for everyone should be 20, I don't see how this is "discrimination" or "scape-goating"

1. The limit for everyone is coming down

2. The law now says if you are only learning to drive you shouldn't really drink at all when driving - I don't think that's unreasonable

3. If you are a full driver then you can have maybe 1 drink or whatever

Vegeta

Anan1 wrote: »

It actually is! An experienced driver will be less unsafe than a learner at an equal level of inebriation.

I strongly disagree with this statement

Wossack

Its not discrimination, its another limitation attached to the learners permit.

Learners are discriminated against because they cant use motorways?

Riskymove

Jar_421 wrote: »

That statement is so wrong its not even funny. older more experienced drivers, not all but a few, will tend to take more chances while driving, i.e. shooting through changing lights at the last second, overtaking when amazingly inappropriate to do so etc, as they will have that idea in their head of" well i've been doing this for years if anything happens I can handle it",
couple this with a drink or 2 and they will take even more chances.

Experience counts for nothing when any drink is involved. it should be the same for everyone regardless of how long they have been driving.

Lol!!

I think really that experience has nothing to do with what you are talking about...I am sure there are plenty of unexperienced or people with little experience who act in this way as well

The real issue there is that there are drivers who...basically..are overconfident idiots who make bad decisions when driving...that will always be the case....with or without alcohol

Riskymove

Edited due to not reading post properly!!!

ninty9er

Riskymove wrote: »

3. If you are a full driver then you can have maybe 1 drink or whatever

It makes it okay because I have a full licence....bullsh1t!:mad::mad:

I'd be interested to see what the elderly rural provisional population think, or if the opinions proferred here change whith the amount of these people on the road highlighted.

Just don't let that idiot Mary White near this proposal.

On the other hand it has come from an expert committee, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in assuming they know what they're on about.

I reckon a compromise of a blanket 30mg would be acceptable.

the message is quite SIMPLE: If you drink, don't drive.

paddy316i

craichoe wrote: »

Can't have no limit, what if you had trace amounts on your breath from mouthwash etc.

Double negative!! tut tut

seaner

ninty9er wrote: »

the message is quite SIMPLE: If you drink, don't drive.

+1

Stephen

I think the reasoning behind it is that if you're driving on L plates you're only supposed to be behind the wheel for the purpose of learning to drive. Clearly anyone who decides to have a pint before a driving lesson is a ****ing moron and should be off the road.

---

That, of course, is in an ideal world.

But then there's the reality in Ireland where we have hundreds of thousands of people driving on L plates because either they're waiting ages for a test or they can't be arsed doing one anyway. Makes me think of that idiot TD a while back that suggested letting the elderly drive around without having to get licences :rolleyes:

roastie

does anyone have any evidence that learner drivers are the ones who are drink driving and causing the majority of accidents ? if so I and am sure others would like to be pointed to the statistics.

I am aware that learner drivers are involved in accidents i would just like to see the statistics of learners in accidents vs full license drivers in accidents. are learners that much more likely to be involved in an accident ? i hear people say this all the time , i juist never see the actual prove.

Cionád

ninty9er wrote: »

I reckon a compromise of a blanket 30mg would be acceptable.

the message is quite SIMPLE: If you drink, don't drive.

+ 2

From my past experience as a bar man in an "old man's pub", I can tell you at 9pm the car park was full, by 2am it was empty. We weren't serving many cranberry juices, and not an L plate between them. I think very few L drivers do drink and drive and would be fairly sure that the percentage among full-licence holders would be higher, so I think this proposal is another "we're tough on drink driving" approach that completely misses the point.

As javaboy says, we need enforcement, and proper enforcement where old man Seamus does not get away scott free cause he's in with the local guards. :mad:

Riskymove

paddy316i wrote: »

Double negative!! tut tut

not double negative just bad english:)

should be "Can't have 0 limit"

MCMLXXXIII

I still never really understood the limitations on any L drivers. I understand they are new and need to "Learn," but how is anyone supposed to learn if they don't get the experience.

When I say experience, I am talking about motorway restrictions, etc.

Besides that, there are way too many other factors with alcohol. What if a 49 year old man does not drink. On his 50th birthday he decides that he needs to "live a little" and start to drink. He then gets in the car and drives. He has the same anount of "experience" driving after drinking as an 18 year old, but it's okay? It doesn't make sense.

As for alcohol, it should be the same for everyone, no matter what.

I have posted in many other forums about speeding, etc., and there are plenty of people on boards.ie that think 40mph on the M-50 is great...but meanwhile on this thread people think it's okay for older people to drink more and drive?! Maybe if everyone wasn't so busy drinking, it would be safer to go more than 40mph on the motorway!

andrewh5

Wossack wrote: »

Its not discrimination, its another limitation attached to the learners permit.

Learners are discriminated against because they cant use motorways?

Learners shouldn't be driving unaccompanied anyway and they are bloody dangerous on motorways!

stepbar

--amadeus-- wrote: »

It's a proven fact that provisional licence holders are more likely to be at fault in an accident.

I have an issue with that. Please post some statistics.

ninty9er

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I still never really understood the limitations on any L drivers. I understand they are new and need to "Learn," but how is anyone supposed to learn if they don't get the experience.

When I say experience, I am talking about motorway restrictions, etc.

Driving much like life is a continuous learning experience (i.e the first time you encounter ice, the first time you drive on a motorway, the first time you get a flat tyre). The learning doesn't stop just because you pass a test, if it did we'd have people all over the country leaving school with A1s in Leaving Cert Accounting telling us they should be allowed to audit Dell's accounts

Riskymove

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

What if a 49 year old man does not drink. On his 50th birthday he decides that he needs to "live a little" and start to drink. He then gets in the car and drives. He has the same amount of "experience" driving after drinking as an 18 year old, but it's okay? It doesn't make sense.

Its your post that does not make sense...or maybe its just been a long day!!

What are you on about???

In the scenario above the 50 year old man has I presume a full licence and has experience driving...therefore under the new rules he is allowed a "slightly" higher amount of alcohol in system

thats the only difference between him and a learner

and...

"experience" driving after drinking ??? are you suggesting this is about how much experience you have at driving after drinking???

ninty9er

roastie wrote: »

does anyone have any evidence that learner drivers are the ones who are drink driving and causing the majority of accidents ? if so I and am sure others would like to be pointed to the statistics.

Could we also have a fatal accident breakdown, and while we're at it (and I'm not joking) see how many young males who caused fatal accidents bought/were paying for the car they were driving:mad::mad:

Learners cause accidents, but how many people died last year as a result of accidents caused by learner drivers. I'm blindly guessing, but I'm good at blindly guessing and I reckon it's less than 1/3. I wouldn't put money on it, but given the cars involved in a lot of these accidents, even Quinn would have reservations insuring learners on them:rolleyes:

MCMLXXXIII

Riskymove wrote: »

Its your post that does not make sense...or maybe its just been a long day!!

What are you on about???

In the scenario above the 50 year old man has I presume a full licence and has experience driving...therefore under the new rules he is allowed a "slightly" higher amount of alcohol in system

thats the only difference between him and a learner

and...

"experience" driving after drinking ??? are you suggesting this is about how much experience you have at driving after drinking???

...it might have been a long day for both of us...

Here is what I meant:

L drivers can't drink as much because they don't want new drivers drinking.
But what about old drivers drinking?
Won't it have the same effect? Both drivers would be new to driving with alcohol in their system, and might not know how to react.
Get it?

Niall1234

Its not as much scapegoating Learners as it is telling people with full licences that drinking right up to the limit is perfectably acceptable as they have been driving longer.

In my book, anyone who drinks anything and drives is a fool.


On the flip side, this might bring down insurance for learners as they should technically be less risky.

maidhc

Riskymove wrote: »

In the scenario above the 50 year old man has I presume a full licence and has experience driving...therefore under the new rules he is allowed a "slightly" higher amount of alcohol in system

thats the only difference between him and a learner

and...

"experience" driving after drinking ??? are you suggesting this is about how much experience you have at driving after drinking???

Well he should definately be able to hold his drink better than a 17yo... I know I will be flamed for this, but I don't think a couple of pints knocks any more out of people than being a bit fatigued!

The Muppet

ninty9er wrote: »

Learners cause accidents, but how many people died last year as a result of accidents caused by learner drivers. I'm blindly guessing, but I'm good at blindly guessing and I reckon it's less than 1/3. I wouldn't put money on it, but given the cars involved in a lot of these accidents, even Quinn would have reservations insuring learners on them:rolleyes:

I read a report recently that gave the information you requested and it found that Learner drivers were far less likely to be involved in an accident that fully licensed drivers. It was published in an newspaper but I wouldn't know where to get it on the net, maybe somone else here would be able to help.

IMO there is no doubt that Learner Drivers are recieving far more than their share of the blame for the poor standard of driving on our roads and therfor the focus is not on teh real problem.

Typical Irish reaction to the problem is to Lower the limits rather than to be regularly seen to fully enforce the limits that are in existance.

If we all knew that we had an above average chance of being caught if we drive dangerously the majority would obey the limits and the points system would take care of those that continued their poor driving.

javaboy

The Muppet wrote: »

Typical Irish reaction to the problem is to Lower the limits rather than to be regularly seen to fully enforce the limits that are in existance.

If we all knew that we had an above average chance of being caught if we drive dangerously the majority would obey the limits and the points system would take care of those that continued their poor driving.

+1

I could drink drive 7 days a week if I wanted and drive the usual 30 miles a day that I do and be almost certain that I wouldn't get caught. If they lower the limit to 0.000001, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. I almost never see Garda cars on my commute and I have never been stopped on this journey day or night. If laws aren't enforced it doesn't matter what they are.

MCMLXXXIII

maidhc wrote: »

Well he should definately be able to hold his drink better than a 17yo... I know I will be flamed for this, but I don't think a couple of pints knocks any more out of people than being a bit fatigued!

^+1

Canadian Study

If you're driving tired… you're driving impaired.

Drowsy drivers put themselves and other road users at risk. Fatigue affects our ability to drive by slowing reaction time, decreasing awareness and impairing judgment.

Most of us have driven tired or sleepy. Many think that just because we haven't been drinking, we are OK to drive.

But the evidence shows that an over-tired driver can be as dangerous as a drunk.
Many who would never drink and drive think nothing of hitting the road exhausted. An alarming 20% of Canadians admit to falling asleep at the wheel at least once over the previous year (TIRF 2005).

This poll result is in line with the most recent Canadian statistical study (CCMTA NCDB May 2006) which suggests fatigue is a factor in 19% of all fatal collisions and 23% of collisions.

javaboy

maidhc wrote: »

Well he should definately be able to hold his drink better than a 17yo... I know I will be flamed for this, but I don't think a couple of pints knocks any more out of people than being a bit fatigued!

In the situation Riskymove posted the 50 year old is having his first drink. 17yo has probably been drinking years.:D Every person is different. I know regular drinkers in their 30's who get drunk very quickly and I know skinny occasional drinkers who could binge til 3am and barely show it.

So there is no guarantee that the 50 year old would hold his drink better than a 17yo.

About the fatigue thing, I think fatigue has a very similar effect to drink driving. Mobile phone usage also has a similar effect. I know how Gardai can enforce drink driving and I know how they can enforce mobile phone usage, but how are they supposed to enforce fatigue legislation? It's practically impossible.

--amadeus--

stepbar wrote: »

I have an issue with that. Please post some statistics.

Fair enough:

YOUNG DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 55% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 45% FOR YOUNG DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES. OLDER DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 36% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 43% FOR OLDER DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES.
link

and

According to the NRA report of the road accidents in 1997 where licence information was provided, 38% of young car drivers aged 17 to 24 years injured were reported as holding a provisional licence, compared to 9% of older car drivers. The corresponding figures for young and older motorcyclists were 69% and 36%, respectively. Changes have subsequently been made to the licensing regime for novice motorcyclists.
Within the statistical limitations involved, the NRA report also estimates that drivers with provisional licences are considered to be to a large extent responsible for road accidents in which they are involved to a higher degree than drivers of corresponding age and gender who have full licences. The extent of this greater responsibility ranges from +5% to +11%, depending on age and or gender

from here

Why is it controversial to suggest that inexperienced drivers are more at risk of an accident? You fell off your bike when you were learning to ride it didn't you?

Back OT - think of driving skill on a scale from 0 - 100. The likes of Lewis Hamilton or Michael Schumacher are up in the high 90s and Biddy who doesn't know what a steering wheel is for is down at 4 or 5. We're all somewhere on that scale and going below a certain point makes you a danger to yourself and to others. My point is that as you gain experience you move up the scale. There is a limit - after a certain age poor visiona nd slowed reactions pull you back down again.

But ANY amount of alcohol pulls you down that scale. Inexperienced drivers just have less room to fall before they cross the threshold into danger.

BostonB

There should be zero tolerance end of. Pubs should lay on a bus around the local area.

Breezer

BostonB wrote: »

There should be zero tolerance end of. Pubs should lay on a bus around the local area.

+1 (or if you want to account for the mouthwash thing, have a ridiculously low limit that 1 pint would put you well over).

Interestingly enough, I'm 21, been driving since I was 17 as have many people I know, and I've never known one of them to drink and drive. They do lots of other mad, dangerous things, but no drink driving. No statistics to back this up, but in my own personal experience it seems to be more of a problem among middle aged people. Given that most learners are young people, I find this attitude interesting.

My main issue is with the limit for fully licenced drivers remaining so high though, not with the limit for learners being low.

eringobragh

In fairness (Not condoning drink driving), I'd take a guess and say the amount of fatalities are well over the 80mg limit.

Padraig Mor

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Fair enough:

YOUNG DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 55% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 45% FOR YOUNG DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES. OLDER DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 36% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 43% FOR OLDER DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES.
link

and

According to the NRA report of the road accidents in 1997 where licence information was provided, 38% of young car drivers aged 17 to 24 years injured were reported as holding a provisional licence, compared to 9% of older car drivers. The corresponding figures for young and older motorcyclists were 69% and 36%, respectively. Changes have subsequently been made to the licensing regime for novice motorcyclists.
Within the statistical limitations involved, the NRA report also estimates that drivers with provisional licences are considered to be to a large extent responsible for road accidents in which they are involved to a higher degree than drivers of corresponding age and gender who have full licences. The extent of this greater responsibility ranges from +5% to +11%, depending on age and or gender.

Just to clarify: that report is from 2000, prior to the introduction of the Theory Test - which I think led to a huge improvement in provisional driving standards.

colsers22

I'm 26 years old, have been driving full time for 2 years now. I have yet to be pulled over for random breath testing. I have passed by one check point on the opposite side of the road. I do quite a bit of driving on all types of roads. The point is, if they are not enforcing the laws, the legal limit is irrelevent.
I could drive home blotto every single weekend in my home time and not meet one gaurd, ever.. It's totally ridiculous!

hugejeans

they do enforce the drink driving laws, its just they normally do it between 7am and 9am to catch people picking their cars up after the night before.

ninty9er

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Fair enough:

YOUNG DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 55% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 45% FOR YOUNG DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES. OLDER DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 36% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 43% FOR OLDER DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES.
link

As you noted yourself, those figures are 11 years old....give us some proper ones:rolleyes::rolleyes:

ninty9er

hugejeans wrote: »

they do enforce the drink driving laws, its just they normally do it between 7am and 9am to catch people picking their cars up after the night before.

And why should those drunks be treated any differently to those who drove home twisted too??

I've never seen that happen though, as I've said; I've been brethaysed twice this year, both times after 12am

JimmyCrackCorn!

Get a full licence.:rolleyes:

Your learning to drive drinking a pint wont make it any easier to learn.

Stark

E92 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been covered already but why are only learners and those who passed the test recently going to have a limit of 20 mg/l blood alcohol level:mad:? The "more experienced" will haved the limit reduced to 50 mg/l.

The government has picked a soft target for maximum politial capital yet again. People have to lear to drive at some stage like, you can't just become "experienced" overnight like:(:rolleyes:.(though how some people

You need alcohol in order to learn how to drive?

And it would seem pretty obvious that an inexperienced driver will be more at risk with impaired reactions than an experienced driver, hence the lower limit. Also, driving with 50mg/l isn't exactly "driving twisted". I've seen a lot of reports that say it's an optimum trade off point from a safety perspective, any lower and you don't get significant safety gains.

--amadeus--

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Just to clarify: that report is from 2000, prior to the introduction of the Theory Test - which I think led to a huge improvement in provisional driving standards.

A little bit like the practical test only proving that you can follow a proscribed set of driving rules for the time the tester is with you the theory test just proves that you can answer theoretical questions, it's not the real thing and it's not applied (otherwise why have a practical test at all?). That said I don't know about a huge improvement but I'd agree that it has probably made some difference.

ninty9er wrote: »

As you noted yourself, those figures are 11 years old....give us some proper ones:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The nature of statistics is that you can only use what is measured. Our government in it's wisdom has decided - despite the clear evidence of the two studies cited above - not to follow through with any further statistical analysis or data collection in the area of provisional vs full licence holders in accidents. In other words these are the most up to date figures available - or at least that I was able to find.

I'll put it the other way - I have found government sourced data proving that provisional drivers are more likely to be at fault in an accident. Can you produce statistics, links or data to say that they are as safe or safer than fully qualified drivers?

And I agree 100% that the limit is broadly irrelevant - it's enforcement that counts.

Stark

--amadeus-- wrote:

And I agree 100% that the limit is broadly irrelevant - it's enforcement that counts.

Lowering the limit does away with the various notions people have of "one or two pints and I'll be fine" or "I'll be fine with a bit of soakage". Once people have one, they think they can handle two. However, people see the new limits as being more draconian and think "now I can't even get away with one" so the result is a lot more people driving clean and sober.

Lowering the limit has no effect on those who blatantly flout the law to begin with, but it does improve the situation with people who think they're obeying the law but are skirting close to the edge.

--amadeus--

We're moving into the theory of crime and punishment now but it is generally accepted that a punishment only has a significant deterrent effect if the potential criminal feels that there is a likelihood of capture and conviction.

Research clearly shows that people are less likely to offend when they believe they will be caught. Most chronic offenders — the ones who cause the most harm— do not believe they will be caught. Penalties, regardless of severity, have little preventive effect unless they are seen to be enforced. Visible enforcement has a greater impact on safety than simply having tough penalties on the books. from here

Place the limit where you want but unless people have a fairly high certainty that they will be caught the limits will have no effect. The reason I don't drink and drive isn't because I am worried about getting caught I don't drink and drive because I don't want to hurt myself, others or damage my car. Check your own motivation - I'd be surprised if fear of punishment ranks higher than safety.