Drink driving stuff.

[Regulator]

You can have a zero blood alcohol limit - other countries do and there doesn't appear to be a problem.

And as for pilots having a blood alcohol of 0.02 - I'd much rather they had nothing (plus on most passenger flights there's more than one pilot who is able to fly the damn thing)..

[Diver300]

Assuming you are trying to keep to the speed limit, you might speed inadvertently due to faulty speedometer. For alcohol we don't usually have such meters at home or in our vehicles. Therefore it's just as hard to judge whether you're under a limit of .08 as a zero limit.

However, if you think you might be over the 0.08 limit, wait a few hours. You will also notice a change in your coordination etc. which will confirm that you had been far from your best.

But what about a zero limit? A few hours will make no difference. You will still be driving on the limit. There is no safety margin.

[Diver300]

You can have a zero blood alcohol limit - other countries do and there doesn't appear to be a problem.

And as for pilots having a blood alcohol of 0.02 - I'd much rather they had nothing (plus on most passenger flights there's more than one pilot who is able to fly the damn thing)..

It would be interesting to know what other countries do. There may well be legally defined margins of error.

I would far rather pilots had had nothing to drink, but as the limit is only around 1 drink, it is really only there to give a margin of error. I am sure that the vast majority of pilots are never anywhere near the 0.02% point.

[Butterfly]

Same goes for the communion wine theory. If you are getting stopped and breathalysed on your way back from church, then you really ought to find another way of getting there.

Go to a church that has either ribena or proper (alcohol-free) communion wine (it's pretty horrible). If there was a demand more churches would have those anyway.

[Regulator]

This is how it is dealt with in Australia and New Zealand.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/alcoholdrugs/bac/drinkinfoabout0_00.html

http://www.transport.govt.nz/news/newsevents/ZeroBACdriversunder20/

There's also some interesting data on reducing BAC levels from NICE: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/3FE/1A/BloodAlcoholContentEffectivenessReview.pdf

[nicknack]

Ta.

Though any reduction is a waste of time unless it's enforced properly.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think in terms of the level at which a driver will be caught/prosecuted, zero and 0.02 are going to be the same in effect. But zero does say "nothing is acceptable" whereas the 0.02 says "just a teensy one". It's then a question of how far people push the envelope, iyswim.

[Diver300]

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/zero_brochure0509.pdf

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/alcoholdrugs/bac/drinkgetbackto0_00.html

Each has one male and one female example. Exactly the same text is used to describe the events, but different names and pictures are used.

So one is obviously fiction. It just shows that it is propaganda.

[Diver300]

I think in terms of the level at which a driver will be caught/prosecuted, zero and 0.02 are going to be the same in effect. But zero does say "nothing is acceptable" whereas the 0.02 says "just a teensy one". It's then a question of how far people push the envelope, iyswim.

Of course people will push the limits. However, drivers pushing an 0.02 limit are far safer than those pushing a 0.08 limit.

If no-one ever drove with more than 0.02, there would be no problem. The impairment would be too small to measure.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Exactly! If you have a 0.02 limit, people will push it to, say, 0.05. If it's zero, they'll push it to 0.02 or thereabouts.

[Regulator]

I find it bizarre that people are trying to find reasons (or perhaps one should say red herrings) to defend drink driving.

The evidence is clear that any alcohol can impair your ability to drive safely.  With so many risks attendant in driving, surely the logical thing is to remove those risks that can be controlled, such as alcohol impairment.

[Diver300]

I'm not trying to defend drink-driving.

I wouldn't argue against a four-fold reduction in the present alcohol limit.

Alcohol is something that is consumed a lot in this country. Most drivers are also drinkers, to some extent, at some time.

I just think that it is exaggerating to suggest that any amount of alcohol will have an effect. A zero limit would allow anyone to be prosecuted if sufficiently sensitive detection equipment is employed, or could simply lead to the situation where you could be prosecuted for driving on Friday for a drink on the previous Saturday. That alone would lead to an increase of drivers who would think that they might at well hung for a sheep as a lamb.

[Regulator]

Alcohol is something that is consumed a lot in this country. Most drivers are also drinkers, to some extent, at some time.

So?  How is this relevant?

I just think that it is exaggerating to suggest that any amount of alcohol will have an effect.

The scientific studies have shown just that. 

A zero limit would allow anyone to be prosecuted if sufficiently sensitive detection equipment is employed, or could simply lead to the situation where you could be prosecuted for driving on Friday for a drink on the previous Saturday.

What utter tosh!  You've got examples of where a zero limit is used elsewhere and this doesn't appear to happen.

That alone would lead to an increase of drivers who would think that they might at well hung for a sheep as a lamb.

Again, the sort of Daily Wailesque/ABD/SafeSpeed tosh that is a complete red herring.

[mattc]

That alone would lead to an increase of drivers who would think that they might at well hung for a sheep as a lamb.

Again, the sort of Daily Wailesque/ABD/SafeSpeed tosh that is a complete red herring.

Why is it a red herring? If people are already driving drunk - which we know they are, especially with a zero-tolerance-definition -  why would they not "have another" if there is no deterrent?

Driving after 3 pints in an hour* has to be worse than after a swift half.

(*or a quick hair-of-the-dog when you wake up with a hangover but 'need' to drive to work!)

[Diver300]

From:- http://www.transport.govt.nz/news/newsevents/ZeroBACdriversunder20/

Young drivers would not get banned for a single instance of driving at 0.03 or less.

The detection equipment is calibrated so that it won't detect vanishingly small levels.

(my paraphrasing)

So even where the abstinence fascists safety campaigners have got a "zero" limit, it is graduated and some pragmatism rules.

Also there are a lot of people in this country who rarely go a week without drinking. If detection were to be capable of distinguishing and therefore prosecuting those people at any time, there would be no incentive for them not to get drunk and then drive. Obviously a graduated system would give them some incentive not to drive when drunk, and any tiny limit would give them a big incentive.

[Regulator]

That alone would lead to an increase of drivers who would think that they might at well hung for a sheep as a lamb.

Again, the sort of Daily Wailesque/ABD/SafeSpeed tosh that is a complete red herring.

Why is it a red herring? If people are already driving drunk - which we know they are, especially with a zero-tolerance-definition -  why would they not "have another" if there is no deterrent?

Driving after 3 pints in an hour* has to be worse than after a swift half.

(*or a quick hair-of-the-dog when you wake up with a hangover but 'need' to drive to work!)

Because there is no real evidence that this happens.  As the evidence I linked to above shows, reducing drink drive limits would appear to reduce drink driving over all - and lead to reduced BACs who do drink and drive (see p. 165 for a summary conclusion).

[Regulator]

From:- http://www.transport.govt.nz/news/newsevents/ZeroBACdriversunder20/

Young drivers would not get banned for a single instance of driving at 0.03 or less.

The detection equipment is calibrated so that it won't detect vanishingly small levels.

(my paraphrasing)

So even where the abstinence fascists safety campaigners have got a "zero" limit, it is graduated and some pragmatism rules.

Also there are a lot of people in this country who rarely go a week without drinking. If detection were to be capable of distinguishing and therefore prosecuting those people at any time, there would be no incentive for them not to get drunk and then drive. Obviously a graduated system would give them some incentive not to drive when drunk, and any tiny limit would give them a big incentive.

If you're going to wave this rather bizarre and ludicrous suggestion around that a week after having a drink someone is going to have a measurable BAC then how about producing some evidence that this could actually happen?

You're resorting to even more desparate conjecture to try and bolster an indefensible position.

[TimC]

You can have a zero blood alcohol limit - other countries do and there doesn't appear to be a problem.

And as for pilots having a blood alcohol of 0.02 - I'd much rather they had nothing (plus on most passenger flights there's more than one pilot who is able to fly the damn thing)..

You appear to be suggesting that it's ok for one of the two pilots to be over the limit - and that the aeroplane can depart with only one fit pilot available. Obviously, neither is true!

The 0.2 limit was set to be very significantly more restrictive than the majority of countries' driving limits, which effectively permit driving immediately after consuming alcohol. That's not acceptable for public transport flying, but it was not intended to prevent a pilot having, say, a glass of wine with dinner 12 or more hours before reporting for duty.

It also reflects advice as to the lowest level of alcohol in the blood at which a performance degradation may be detected. If there is no performance degradation, what is the point of any sanction? Fatigue and stress are far more significant degraders of performance than alcohol at these tiny levels - which is why there is very considerable emphasis on monitoring pilots' fatigue levels (much to the disappointment of airline accountants, who resent the productivity hit this implies!).

[ian]

From:- http://www.transport.govt.nz/news/newsevents/ZeroBACdriversunder20/

Young drivers would not get banned for a single instance of driving at 0.03 or less.

The detection equipment is calibrated so that it won't detect vanishingly small levels.

(my paraphrasing)

So even where the abstinence fascists safety campaigners have got a "zero" limit, it is graduated and some pragmatism rules.

Also there are a lot of people in this country who rarely go a week without drinking. If detection were to be capable of distinguishing and therefore prosecuting those people at any time, there would be no incentive for them not to get drunk and then drive. Obviously a graduated system would give them some incentive not to drive when drunk, and any tiny limit would give them a big incentive.

There is no possible test with sufficient accuracy and precision to detect absolutely zero blood alcohol. Zero is semantic in context of enforcement: vehicular sherry trifle munchers, liquor chocolate indulgers, and secret Listerine drinkers need not fear. The limit isn't really zero. But saying so reduces the ambiguity and makes it clear that you shouldn't drink anything and then drive. Which is, I think, the point.

[Regulator]

You can have a zero blood alcohol limit - other countries do and there doesn't appear to be a problem.

And as for pilots having a blood alcohol of 0.02 - I'd much rather they had nothing (plus on most passenger flights there's more than one pilot who is able to fly the damn thing)..

You appear to be suggesting that it's ok for one of the two pilots to be over the limit - and that the aeroplane can depart with only one fit pilot available. Obviously, neither is true!

I'm not suggesting that (which is why elsewhere I;ve said I'd rather they did't drink anything).

[TimC]

I think the zeal for a zero BAC level may be misplaced. The law of diminishing returns suggests that pressing for a general limit below 0.02 would produce little or no safety result, while reducing from 0.08 to 0.02 may well have a significant effect. I would advocate and support a reduction to 0.02, but I would look for other road safety measures to be employed before i looked for a reduction below 0.02. And, as someone else said, we need to get a whole lot better at catching those who break the current law!

[Regulator]

The 0.2 limit was set to be very significantly more restrictive than the majority of countries' driving limits, which effectively permit driving immediately after consuming alcohol. That's not acceptable for public transport flying, but it was not intended to prevent a pilot having, say, a glass of wine with dinner 12 or more hours before reporting for duty.

Unless there is something seriously wrong with you, then a glass of wine would give you a BAC of 0.00 12 hours later.  In fact, most people could process a bottle of 13%ABV wine within 12 hours and have a BAC of 0.00.

[Regulator]

I think the zeal for a zero BAC level may be misplaced. The law of diminishing returns suggests that pressing for a general limit below 0.02 would produce little or no safety result, while reducing from 0.08 to 0.02 may well have a significant effect. I would advocate and support a reduction to 0.02, but I would look for other road safety measures to be employed before i looked for a reduction below 0.02. And, as someone else said, we need to get a whole lot better at catching those who break the current law!

Try reading the evidence that's out there about reduced and zero levels (including the NICE stuff I linked to).  Lots of evidence is available to support zero levels.

That said, I'd welcome greater enforcement of the existing DD laws - including no discretion on bans, the introduction of widespread random breathtesting and greater enforement of the laws relating to those who drive whilst banned.

There is absolutely no excuse for drink-driving and it's about time we stopped pandering to drivers' selfishness.

[TimC]

The 0.2 limit was set to be very significantly more restrictive than the majority of countries' driving limits, which effectively permit driving immediately after consuming alcohol. That's not acceptable for public transport flying, but it was not intended to prevent a pilot having, say, a glass of wine with dinner 12 or more hours before reporting for duty.

Unless there is something seriously wrong with you, then a glass of wine would give you a BAC of 0.00 12 hours later.  In fact, most people could process a bottle of 13%ABV wine within 12 hours and have a BAC of 0.00.

I am neither a medic nor a chemist, so I have to rely on what I'm told. That is, the spread of alcohol assimilation across the population requires the limits (and the advice given to achieve those limits) to reflect that range. So, yes, most of us could drink acouple of glasses and be fine 12 hours later. Some could not. I would challenge your assertion that you could drink a bottle of normal-strength wine and be completely free of performance degradation 12 hours later, unless you are a very overweight hardened drinker.

[Redlight]

I don't have the scientific knowledge to comment on what is a pragmatic limit, although the present one seems to work well enough when enforced.  Picking up Regulator's comment, I would welcome seeing more random testing, especially in the mornings. Some days I'm convinced that half the drivers on the ride to work are pissed from the night before!

(same goes for some of the cyclists  )