New Drink Drive Law in Scotland

AlanS181824

If you're drinking, don't drive.

It's that simple really.

Don't worry about how many is too much, just don't do it!

Jawgap

Heckler wrote: »

I don't drink and drive but its the morning after that worries me. If i'm after say 7 pints and stop drinking at 12 when am I ok to drive ? If the pint is equal to two units and it takes an hour to clear one unit then it seems I'm not good to go till 2pm the next day.

However I've been told that you calculate the time from when you started drinking as you start processing alcohol the minute you start drinking so if I started drinking at 7pm, had 7 pints, finished at 12 midnight I'd be good to drive at 9am.

Advised this from a medical professional i.e. calculate from the time you started not from the time you finished.

Sounds like good advice...........

............are you willing to risk your licence on it? (And the possibility of injuring someone or yourself?)

Anyway, it's bad advice. 7 pints is 14 units - and your body 'processes' 1 UNIT per hour not 1 pint. Plus the rate is highly variable. That's why I never drive the next day after a skinful.

EDIT: Apologies - just re- read and saw you were calculating in units. Can't read after the session last night !!!!

Snickers Man

Deleted User wrote: »

Problem is that you can't set a limit on the volume consumed! it's the volume consumed relative to body mass and hydration (+ contents of stomach) at the time of consumption that matters.

For example an anorexic would be plastered after two pints or one and a bit litres, while the rugby (or just built like one) prop forward would go about six pints before reaching the old 80 limit.

All good points but forcing the average person to limit themselves to the limit at which an anorexic would become intoxicated is overkill. It is unfair, undemocratic and counter productive.

The improvement in our road accident statistics is a mighty achievement, none of which can be attributed to the stringently low new drink drive limits. Indeed, the death figures have gone UP since these limits came into force. I am not saying that they went up BECAUSE of the lower limits (there are other factors) but I AM saying that they have had a miniscule effect.

I have seen some figures that I can't lay my hands on about the likelihood of having an accident after consuming alcohol and the probability increases greatly when one's blood alcohol limit is significantly above what the current limit is.

So it's a piety, nothing more, to say that our ultra low limits contribute to road safety. They don't. Proper enforcement of traffic laws in general has had a much more significant effect.

Which of course I welcome.

Never EVER get drunk and drive.

Beano

Snickers Man wrote: »

All good points but forcing the average person to limit themselves to the limit at which an anorexic would become intoxicated is overkill. It is unfair, undemocratic and counter productive.

That isnt what he said at all. Its the opposite of what he said.

Snickers Man wrote: »

I have seen some figures that I can't lay my hands on about the likelihood of having an accident after consuming alcohol and the probability increases greatly when one's blood alcohol limit is significantly above what the current limit is.

So what do you think the limit should be then? scientifically speaking.

Snickers Man wrote: »

So it's a piety, nothing more, to say that our ultra low limits contribute to road safety. They don't. Proper enforcement of traffic laws in general has had a much more significant effect.

Which of course I welcome.

Never EVER get drunk and drive.

If you never EVER drink and drive you can never EVER get drunk and drive. problem solved.

Snickers Man

Beano wrote: »

That isnt what he said at all. Its the opposite of what he said.

It's a pretty clear inference from what he, if it is a he, said. The limit must be kept low because some people might suffer impaired driving even at that limit.

Beano wrote: »

So what do you think the limit should be then? scientifically speaking.

I can't talk in scientific terms in milligrams per millilitre or whatever, but I think the law should reflect the fact that a sensible mature adult can enjoy a pint (or two) of beer or a few glasses of wine with a meal and not be breaking the law when they drive home.

For decades (I'm probably older than you) I limited myself to two pints, with or without a meal, if I was driving home after a visit to the pub. Frequently, this would be after a hard day at the office. I NEVER failed a breath test. I was once breathalysed late at night after I had had more than my usual limit. IE two pints plus a bottle of beer with a meal. Granted, it was a few hours since my last alcoholic drink but it didn't even register on the breathalyser.

A reasonable law that allows a responsible person to enjoy a drink without being drunk and to behave responsibly thereafter is to be recommended.

Beano wrote: »

If you never EVER drink and drive you can never EVER get drunk and drive. problem solved.

Now you're just being stupid. That's analagous to the Magdalene Laundries' attitude that "if these sluts had never had sex they wouldn't have become pregnant so they've nobody to blame but themselves."

That line of reasoning has been utterly discredited. As too, in time, will be the attitude of the zealots who try to curtail drunkenness by criminalising moderate drinking.

Tiocfaidh do lá!

Beano

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's a pretty clear inference from what he, if it is a he, said. The limit must be kept low because some people might suffer impaired driving even at that limit.


I can't talk in scientific terms in milligrams per millilitre or whatever, but I think the law should reflect the fact that a sensible mature adult can enjoy a pint (or two) of beer or a few glasses of wine with a meal and not be breaking the law when they drive home.

For decades (I'm probably older than you) I limited myself to two pints, with or without a meal, if I was driving home after a visit to the pub. Frequently, this would be after a hard day at the office. I NEVER failed a breath test. I was once breathalysed late at night after I had had more than my usual limit. IE two pints plus a bottle of beer with a meal. Granted, it was a few hours since my last alcoholic drink but it didn't even register on the breathalyser.

A reasonable law that allows a responsible person to enjoy a drink without being drunk and to behave responsibly thereafter is to be recommended.

did you not think that perhaps the time since your last drink was significant?

(I'm probably older than you)

dont presume how old i am. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Now you're just being stupid. That's analagous to the Magdalene Laundries' attitude that "if these sluts had never had sex they wouldn't have become pregnant so they've nobody to blame but themselves."

That line of reasoning has been utterly discredited. As too, in time, will be the attitude of the zealots who try to curtail drunkenness by criminalising moderate drinking.

Tiocfaidh do lá!

I have no idea how your analogy is in any way relevant or correct. Nobody is criminalising moderate drinking. What is being criminalised is drinking followed by driving. After a few pints we all think we are nigel mansell and that our driving is faultless. The fact is that it isnt. How many people die late at night on our roads? How man of those do you think had a few pints and thought they were grand until they ended up in a ditch?

Menas

Way back when I used to have a few pints after work on a friday night and vroom vroom home in the car- did not see any issue with it as I felt fine.

Then I got a motor bike and I remember having a single pint and trying to ride it....a few seconds on the bike and I realised the effect that 1 pint had on me. It was a lot more obvious to me on the bike than in the car where more of your senses and skills come in to play.

Have not driven anything after a snifted of booze since.

biko

I only drink and drive if I'm in France. At least then if I hit someone they're French.

Beano

biko wrote: »

I only drink and drive if I'm in France. At least then if I hit someone they're French.

They should have given you one of those people of the year awards.

MadsL

It is interesting to compare penalties in Ireland with those in the US.

The lowest penalty in Ireland is a 200 euro fine and 3 penalty points for a first offence.

The penalty in New Mexico is:

Up to 90 days in jail or up to one year of probation
Up to a $500.00 fine
Mandatory Jail Time

• If convicted of Aggravated DWI, Not less than 48 hours in jail
• Any violation of conditions of probation, or failure to complete classes, programs or treatment, requires a jail sentence of not less than 48 hours.

*All DWI first offenders in Albuquerque Metro Court are now sentenced to SUPERVISED Probation
Mandatory Penalties

• Obtain an Interlock License for one year ($63.00)
• Have an Interlock Device installed on all vehicles driven by the offender for one year ($960.00 a year or more)
• Not less than 24 hours Community Service
• Alcohol Screening ($100.00-$200.00)
• DWI School (Up up $150.00)
• Victim's Impact Panel

Mandatory Fines & Fees

• Mandatory Crime Lab Fee: $65.00
• Mandatory Community Fee: $75.00
• Mandatory Corrections Fee: $10.00-$20.00
• Mandatory Court Automation Fee: $10.00
• Mandatory Traffic Safety Fee: $3.00
• Mandatory Judicial Education Fee: $3.00
• Mandatory Jury/Witness Fee: $5.00
• Mandatory Brain Injury Fee: $5.00
• Mandatory Court Facilities Fee: $10-$24.00

Supervised Probation means you will be tested for alcohol use. You will not be able to drink or possess alcohol during this time. You may also be drug tested. You report to your Probation Officer every two weeks.

In addition the court may require you to attend 30 sessions of group substance abuse counselling .

Ireland seems to take drunk driving lightly by contrast - I think the most striking difference is that in the US DWI is treated as a criminal matter, within the criminal justice system. In Ireland it is treated as a traffic offence.

bear1

MadsL wrote: »

It is interesting to compare penalties in Ireland with those in the US.

The lowest penalty in Ireland is a 200 euro fine and 3 penalty points for a first offence.

The penalty in New Mexico is:

Up to 90 days in jail or up to one year of probation
Up to a $500.00 fine
Mandatory Jail Time

• If convicted of Aggravated DWI, Not less than 48 hours in jail
• Any violation of conditions of probation, or failure to complete classes, programs or treatment, requires a jail sentence of not less than 48 hours.

*All DWI first offenders in Albuquerque Metro Court are now sentenced to SUPERVISED Probation
Mandatory Penalties

• Obtain an Interlock License for one year ($63.00)
• Have an Interlock Device installed on all vehicles driven by the offender for one year ($960.00 a year or more)
• Not less than 24 hours Community Service
• Alcohol Screening ($100.00-$200.00)
• DWI School (Up up $150.00)
• Victim's Impact Panel

Mandatory Fines & Fees

• Mandatory Crime Lab Fee: $65.00
• Mandatory Community Fee: $75.00
• Mandatory Corrections Fee: $10.00-$20.00
• Mandatory Court Automation Fee: $10.00
• Mandatory Traffic Safety Fee: $3.00
• Mandatory Judicial Education Fee: $3.00
• Mandatory Jury/Witness Fee: $5.00
• Mandatory Brain Injury Fee: $5.00
• Mandatory Court Facilities Fee: $10-$24.00

Supervised Probation means you will be tested for alcohol use. You will not be able to drink or possess alcohol during this time. You may also be drug tested. You report to your Probation Officer every two weeks.

In addition the court may require you to attend 30 sessions of group substance abuse counselling .

Ireland seems to take drunk driving lightly by contrast - I think the most striking difference is that in the US DWI is treated as a criminal matter, within the criminal justice system. In Ireland it is treated as a traffic offence.

But you see you can't compare this in a like for like scenario.
You are comparing Ireland to a state within a country.
If Ireland was like the US then you could make the comparison but IMO it is not a valid one.

efb

gk5000 wrote: »

At the risk of getting shot - there should be allowance for a bit extra when only driving a few miles over rural roads at night

Why? They are more dangerous

mfceiling

"Sir i'm going to have to ask you to step out of the vehicle"

"I'm too drunk, you may get in"

exgp

Straylight wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how little regard some people have for their personal safety when they're walking on dark roads. It's a miracle there aren't more pedestrians killed each year because of them not being visible to traffic. Add the possibility that drivers could legally have a couple of drinks on board and the numbers would definitely go up.

We lowered our limit, as have the Scots, last year. Our fatality rate has risen since.

ardmacha

bear1 wrote: »

But you see you can't compare this in a like for like scenario.
You are comparing Ireland to a state within a country.
If Ireland was like the US then you could make the comparison but IMO it is not a valid one.

it is a perfectly valid comparison, the thread is talking about Scotland which has a status analogous to a US state. The only point in the US is that some places may have much harsher penalties than others.

However the penalty points in Ireland relate to the lowest level of offence, in New Mexico this would not be an offence at all. That said, in Ireland people are rarely jailed for drunk driving.

For Forks Sake

gk5000 wrote: »

At the risk of getting shot - there should be allowance for a bit extra when only driving a few miles over rural roads at night

duckcfc wrote: »

Everyone should be aloud 3pints and drive. These stupid laws have killed the rural pubs in this country and its a crying shame!!!

Jaysus lads, ye must be still locked after the funeral yesterday.

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's a pretty clear inference from what he, if it is a he, said. The limit must be kept low because some people might suffer impaired driving even at that limit.

The original point that I was making is that it is impossible to say one drink is all you can have! The reason is than an anorexic may be pushed over the limit while the big brick outhouse of a man, wouldn't even register on the scale and could easily drink a few more pints before becoming "drunk" on the breathalyser.

exgp

exgp wrote: »

We lowered our limit, as have the Scots, last year. Our fatality rate has risen since.

Are they drink related?
More likely down to more traffic!

bear1

ardmacha wrote: »

it is a perfectly valid comparison, the thread is talking about Scotland which has a status analogous to a US state. The only point in the US is that some places may have much harsher penalties than others.

However the penalty points in Ireland relate to the lowest level of offence, in New Mexico this would not be an offence at all. That said, in Ireland people are rarely jailed for drunk driving.

Fair and valid point.

exgp

Deleted User wrote: »

Are they drink related?
More likely down to more traffic!

Who knows? However had the accident rate DROPPED after the legal blood alcohol level was lowered, you can be sure that those who advocated it be lowered would be claiming that it was down to their campaigning.

efb

exgp wrote: »

Who knows? However had the accident rate DROPPED after the legal blood alcohol level was lowered, you can be sure that those who advocated it be lowered would be claiming that it was down to their campaigning.

It dropped last year after it was introduced. Went back up this year.

exgp

efb wrote: »

It dropped last year after it was introduced. Went back up this year.

Which shows it has made little or no difference.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

The original point that I was making is that it is impossible to say one drink is all you can have! The reason is than an anorexic may be pushed over the limit while the big brick outhouse of a man, wouldn't even register on the scale and could easily drink a few more pints before becoming "drunk" on the breathalyser.

I was under the impression the reason we allow any amount rather than nothing was to allow a little bit of leeway. So if you'd had a drink earlier or even the night before, trace amounts wouldn't put you over the limit. The law isn't supposed to enable anyone to drink and then drive immediately after

Degag

Beano wrote: »

After a few pints we all think we are nigel mansell and that our driving is faultless.

Really? I'd be quite the opposite and I think most people would be. They know they've had a drink or two and would be even more careful.

exgp

Deleted User wrote: »

The original point that I was making is that it is impossible to say one drink is all you can have! The reason is than an anorexic may be pushed over the limit while the big brick outhouse of a man, wouldn't even register on the scale and could easily drink a few more pints before becoming "drunk" on the breathalyser.

The drink driving laws don't claim to differentiate between drunken and safe driving; they can't. They simply say that it is illegal to drive with a blood alcohol above a certain limit. There was an article in The Sunday Times some years ago when the English were talking about reducing their limit to 50mgs%. The police were against it saying it would be a waste of their time to be prosecuting drivers between 50 and 80mgs% when they should be chasing motorists who drive with blood alcohols of 150-200mgs% as happens regularly in this jurisdiction.

Degag

Degag wrote: »

Really? I'd be quite the opposite and I think most people would be. They know they've had a drink or two and would be even more careful.

Drivers who "work to rule" when they drive stick out like a sore thumb!
Doing exactly 50 on an empty suburban road at 04:00 just looks wrong and they'll get pulled. Drive normally at 65 and you'll be ignored.

Andy From Sligo

can you ever see a time/day when they would lower it to zero? - in other words if your driving no drink is permitted?

Andy From Sligo

biko wrote: »

I only drink and drive if I'm in France. At least then if I hit someone they're French.

a lot of tourists in france tho - you might hit someone irish :eek:

Beano

exgp wrote: »

Which shows it has made little or no difference.

Do you expect the effect to be immediate?

exgp

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

can you ever see a time/day when they would lower it to zero? - in other words if your driving no drink is permitted?

That would be as logical as having a permitted level of 2, ie not logical.