digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at guardian.co.uk —

Drink-drive limit should be under a pint, says study

guardian.co.uk — The drink-driving limit should be lowered to less than a pint of beer and brought into line with the rest of Europe, according to a motorists' poll. The findings in a survey of Automobile Association (AA) members increase the pressure on the government to reduce the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • alllo, on 04/22/2008, -21/+7Drunk driving must be banned!
  • chrystie69, on 04/22/2008, -21/+9Wish the U.S. would get on board with this as well. the legal limit here allows for people to have way too much to drink and still be able to drive. Having 2 family members permanently disabled by drunk drivers this is a huge issue! ZERO tolerance needs to be the norm!
    • aeveritt, on 04/22/2008, -9/+9Lowering things might not be a bad idea.

      But come on, zero tolerance is absolutely retarded. There is no reason someone shouldn't be able to go to a restaurant and have a beer or a glass of wine with their meal. The influence of 1 beer is less dangerous than talking on a cell phone or just being old, risks most of us are willing to accept on the road. The vast majority of drunk driving accidents are by people who aren't just above the legal limit, but WAY over the legal limit.

      But all of this is almost irrelevant, because drunk driving is a social problem, not a legal problem.
      • CravenTwain, on 04/22/2008, -4/+3"But all of this is almost irrelevant, because drunk driving is a social problem, not a legal problem."

        Until a drunk driver kills someone else.
        • AlbinoRaven, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2More sober people kill others on the road than drunks.
          • CravenTwain, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1The number of sober people compared to those who are drunk on the roads is so much higher that your point is rendered moot. And, also, stupid.
      • DuffyDirect, on 04/22/2008, -4/+4I know a guy -- Master's degree in psychology too -- who got busted twice on drinking and driving. The second time, he blazed through stop signs and lights bragging to the guy in the car with him that he was breaking every law he could. He lost his licence and had to do weekend community crap. So last night I talk with him and another mutual friend who was drunk at like 5:00... He convinces the guy to come and pick him up in Buffalo to go to a Casino in Niagra (from Rochester). These people never learn. He's my friend and all, but seriously... They need to put them in institutions or something.
    • warriorscot, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Zero tolerance is not a good idea as there is many circumstances where you could test positive but never have had a drink, the effects of alcohol also vary, the current limits in most countries is a maximum amount to impair someone who is more susceptible to alcohol effects even at the limit you would not find many people sufficiently impaired to be unable to drive safely. Like all laws they should be taken with a grain of common sense, almost all accidents attributable to drink driving beyond a doubt of anything else are cases where people are well beyond even the more generous drink driving limits.
    • beoir, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Hands free cell phone use is more dangerous that a .08 BAC, the average BAC from fatal crashes involving alcohol is .18. .08 is already so out of whack with science that its unbelievable. Should someone who is less dangerous than a person on a cell phone have their license suspended and subjected to thousands of dollars of fines? These laws are just prohibitionist
      http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews/Drinkin ...
  • christait, on 04/22/2008, -34/+22To be honest it shouldn't be a pint it should be zero. No drink if you are driving. Simple as that.
    • Scroogl, on 04/22/2008, -13/+2I agree, it's almost like having a low limit tempts people to drink because they might "get away with it", forgetting the reason it's a law in the first place: because you are endangering the road.

      It's the kind of human reasoning like that which makes 4 beers more dangerous than 14.
      • Spuy767, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3I don't think that the road gets hurt when I wrap my car around a telephone pole.
        • Scroogl, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Ok, because the only damage you can do on the road is to yourself? Not another car, or pedestrian.

          I don't think a zero tolerance policy would be fair, but I also think small amounts of alcohol affect how well you drive. The point I made really is about how people tend to focus on what will happen when they get caught, or how much they are allowed to drink and get away with driving. It's this mindset that makes people forget the rules are there for a reason.
    • dark_helmet, on 04/22/2008, -3/+17Zero tolerance its getting a little extreme. You have no idea when the alcohol has completely cleared your system, everyone can feel it at different levels.
    • Spuy767, on 04/22/2008, -2/+14Except the legal limit is less than half the amount it takes to truly impair the average adult mail. In college, we did a study on drunk driving, judging reaction times, memory, and coordination while .01 over the legal limit of .08 in GA, and we pretty much surmised that your ability to function was decreased by about 3%.
      • drlha, on 04/22/2008, -6/+2Everyone is affected differently though, so conservative values are a good idea.... unless you're getting busted of course.
    • thesteef000, on 04/22/2008, -4/+14No it shouldn't. First of all your body tends to produce alcohol naturally. Eating the wrong types of foods would make it illegal to drive even though you didn't drink anything. Second of all Just lowering it is also problematic. Drinking 2 beers at night would prevent you from driving the next morning.
      • JAFFA, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1In the UK most drink related convictions ARE from arrests the following morning.
        • nattybohman, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Wow! That is really interesting if true. I never thought of that and I'm guessing that most of the people arrested didn't think about it either. They probably thought, 'oh yeah, I had a few last night, but didn't drive home from the bar, so I'm ok.'
    • snea, on 04/22/2008, -0/+6I wasn't aware Digg had such a large prohibitionist user base.
    • Elliuotatar, on 04/22/2008, -2/+5Are you kidding me? I don't even feel any effects from a single beer. Also, if that was the law here in the US, the bars would be empty.
    • sinurgy, on 04/22/2008, -0/+9Why should it be zero? Why should it even be a under a pint? This whole fixation on drunk driving is ridiculous! Here in the states 13,470 died (http://www.alcoholstats.com/mm/docs/4540.pdf) as a result of drunk driving. Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of people drove above the legal limit several times throughout that same year. Being very conservative, we could say that resulted in at least 5 millions trips made by drivers above the legal limit within one year. The chance of them causing a fatality, .003 percent.

      This obsession with all the "dangers" of drinking and driving are ***** ridiculous. I'd rather drive on the road with people who have had a few than people texting!
    • warriorscot, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Zero tolerance fails because you don't need to drink to get alcohol into your blood stream or breath and small quantities have little to no effect so zero tolerance is just stupid, there are very few things that justify a zero tolerance law.
    • Anonchrist, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3That would mean that you could not drive home from a dinner after a glass of wine. Idiot, stop posting your thoughts before thinking.
    • bemenaker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2It's sad enough where it is now. You can't have two glasses of wine and drive? Give me a ***** break. (right now, legally you can't, it's ridiculous)
  • stanishjohnd, on 04/22/2008, -17/+6The world should adopt the Middle Eastern punishment for drunk driving: beheading. No repeat offenses.
  • nborisov11, on 04/22/2008, -17/+12If you ask me drunk driving laws should be dropped altogether, as well as speed limits and a bunch of other traffic laws.
    • pands, on 04/22/2008, -7/+11no one asked you, inconsiderate *****
      • WildTurkey101, on 04/22/2008, -6/+0Which sleeve do you wear your heart, *****?
    • and303, on 04/22/2008, -7/+5I'd love to introduce you to the family of a dead car accident victim.
    • jamesdew, on 04/22/2008, -6/+2ye everyone should be able to do whatever they like no matter who they kill or hurt
    • AuburnTigers, on 04/22/2008, -7/+2Are you ***** kidding me? I'm surprised your screenname isn't ANARCHYRULEZ!
    • Servebot, on 04/22/2008, -0/+5I think you should be able to go to the dmv and get ***** and take a special driving test to get a drunk drivers liscense...
  • whoreable, on 04/22/2008, -1/+15The .08 to .05 is a tangible quantity. The whole pint thing is meaningless. It makes no mention of time, and people of different size/metabolism. I know it is just a rule of thumb but people are under educated and take these statements too literally. For instance here in Florida the legal limit is .08. Having above the limit guarantees a conviction, but what people don't know is that they can still be convicted if they are under the limit.
    • AgentGulo, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3not only is the whole pint meaningless but breathalyzers can produce faulty results after only a sip of an alcoholic beverage resulting in many people who aren't truely drinking and driving recieving DUI's which is of course followed by mandatory attendance of AA or substance abuse meetings in most cases
    • wedgemartin, on 04/22/2008, -0/+8You can get convicted if you're drunk, in a park, and have your car keys in your pocket, but not be anywhere near your car. It's called 'intent to drive'. Wtf, cops... You've got a minority report going on now? Another guy fell asleep in his car outside of a party because he didn't want to drive home drunk. A cop saw him sleeping in his car and gave him a DUI anyway. Also, if you have a DUI on your record, and you're riding in the car with a drunk driver, you also get a DUI.
      • edebolt, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2yeah but thats really really really rare situation
        • nattybohman, on 04/22/2008, -0/+8Even if it is a rare situation. It's still screwed up. Someone who's trying to do the right thing by sleeping it off in the car should not be arrested.
      • Elliuotatar, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3So wait... if I walk to a bar, I have to take my car key off my key ring just so I can have my house keys with me so I can get back into my apartment, so that if i get stopped by a cop they can't charge me with intent to drive when I had no such intent?

        This country is *****.
  • theholyraptor, on 04/22/2008, -0/+10regardless of the law, what makes you think this will curb drunk driving? Is a .05 versus a .08 gonna matter? I think most of the issues with drunk driving come from people who ignore the law and drive anyways and end up killing others. I could be wrong as I don't have stats on drunk driving related deaths.
    • alvinrod, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3People drive drunk because when they're drunk they're not thinking clearly. They know that the bar's closed, they need to get home, and that they have keys. This isn't going to solve any problems, probably just come down harder on people who've had a few drinks and aren't completely wasted out of their minds.
  • fungke, on 04/22/2008, -12/+1The limit should be nothing, period. You wouldn't use a power tool while being drunk so what's the difference? None.
    • DrunkenSavior, on 04/22/2008, -0/+8Don't remind me of that time I got sooo wasted and ran around town trying to screw everything....with my power tool.....
    • rabidbob, on 04/22/2008, -0/+6You'd be amazed what I do with my power tools when I'm drunk! I am. Until I'm sober again! What's more of an issue is the stuff I make when I've had a spliff. I woke up one Sunday morning and found I'd attached the new bird house to the kitchen ceiling.
  • and303, on 04/22/2008, -2/+42This is just another way to turn everyone into a potential criminal.
    I'm a drunk driver if I have a glass of wine with dinner? Beyond that, some people are completely sober at .08 while others are WAY beyond safe driving. They need a whole new system to regulate it.
    • wedgemartin, on 04/22/2008, -1/+13Christ. The only sensible comment I've read thus far.
    • SillyRabbits, on 04/22/2008, -0/+11I'm a little concerned when it's gotten to the point that being slightly over the limit puts you in a worse legal position than if you had just grabbed a baseball bat and almost beat somebody to death.
    • citydragon, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4Don't forget the millions in fines the UK Government will cash in when they introduce this pathetic law
  • sat0shi, on 04/22/2008, -4/+6In Japan the legal limit is ZERO. If you drink, you don't drive. Period.
    • sonycam, on 04/22/2008, -0/+9They also have an age restriction of 22 for alcohol in Japan, but they sell it in vending machines so kids can even buy it? Doesn't seem that they're too strict to be honest.
      • sat0shi, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2It's 20, and alcohol vending machines are basically non-existent in the cities these days. You might find one somewhere, but it's pretty rare. And on the vending machine note, Japan is now requiring special IC cards to buy from the cigarette vending machines pretty soon. And, despite what people believe if you are clearly a high school student or younger they will NOT sell you alcohol. Of course, they won't ask for ID either so if you don't clearly look 12 you'll be fine, but still.

        Again, you have to remember that Japan is not as culturally sensitive about drinking alcohol as you Puritans over there in America.
        • sonycam, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Who said I live in the US? I live in Europe.
          Point is, no western country which seriously enforces alcohol laws would allow unrestricted vending machines. Even if they're not found in major cities, kids here would travel for an hour to be able to buy alcohol.
    • wonkifier, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2If I have one beer, how long to I have to wait in order to be at 0%? (What's the +/- on the reading?)
      Are naturally produced alkenes somehow ruled out, or do you get tagged for those too?
    • bemenaker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2They have public transportation there too.
      • fokov, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1That is one of the things that makes me pissed off. Cops following someone on Public Transportation or Walking home and then giving them a ticket for being drunk in public. They should have just drove home because the chances of getting caught were lower, while their chances of doing bad things is 1000x higher. Drunk in public, so much BS. I can understand if you are physically doing something wrong like touching strangers or barfing everywhere that isn't a trash can, but the way it is enforced is BS.
    • Radar3D, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1No one drives in Japan, the roads are too crowded.
  • Zecchetti, on 04/22/2008, -20/+3When will the world realise that alcohol is more harmful than all Class A drugs combined. It should be banned, like it is in Islam.
    • Fat404, on 04/22/2008, -11/+5I agree but i don't think Islam should be used as a reference.
    • AuburnTigers, on 04/22/2008, -3/+11Um, I disagree...
    • lucasmaximus, on 04/22/2008, -2/+6Absolutely anything not practiced in moderation is bad for you and loved ones around you. Be it Gambling, Drinking, Exercise, Working, Caffeine etc.

      But you will have to pry my bottle cider out of my cold dead hands, before someone takes away my right to have a pint with my evening dinner.

      P.S. I don't drive if I have had anything to drink.
    • Spamcan, on 04/22/2008, -2/+9Yeah, because that worked so well last time didn't it?
      • Zecchetti, on 04/22/2008, -2/+1seems to be working for the muslims...
    • wedgemartin, on 04/22/2008, -2/+4Let's ban stupidity, while we're at it.
      • Zecchetti, on 04/22/2008, -6/+1Don't ban the effects, just ban the causes. The cause of most crime, drink driving is alcohol
    • KeepSwinging, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2Why don't you shoot up heroin a few times, smoke a little crack. Meanwhile, I'll have 2 beers and shot of Maker's and we'll see who's doing better.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/22/2008, -17/+2***** Nazis. There's never been ANY proof that drunk-driving kills people... ever.
  • juliustan, on 04/22/2008, -1/+6go ahead, lower the limit. It's no problem for those drunk drivers who drive fine when drunk.

    Honestly, it doesn't matter, most drunk driver accidents have the offender 3-8 times the legal amount, and usually thats a state of being wasted.
  • DrunkenSavior, on 04/22/2008, -1/+15What about pulling over and arresting people who drive sleepy? Certainly we look down on drunk driving because intoxication lowers your reaction time and impairs judgment and can thus cause your ability to operate a motor vehicle to become questionable at the risk of yourself and others on the road. Can the same thing be said about driving sleepy?
    • lucasmaximus, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4In the UK, it is illegal to drive while "Fatigued". Though I have no idea how it is measured.
    • rabidbob, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4Yes. I believe that in the UK this would come under careless driving or driving without due care and attention. If in the opinion of a police officer it was particularly bad it would then fall into dangerous driving, which is a more serious charge. As far as I know it's all pretty subjective however.
    • degron, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Or driving while talking on a cell phone or texting or driving while being really old.
    • DarkStar3333, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0In Canada the crimes are called impaired driving, this applies to sleep, distraction, alcohol or drug use while in operation of a motor vehicle. Drinking & Driving laws are widely accepted by the public, even rejecting a breathalyser immediatly suspends your license.
  • DuffyDirect, on 04/22/2008, -7/+2If rural England is anything like rural Ireland, drinking any amount before driving should be banned. Driving off the few and far between "dual carriageways" is suicide even if you're sober :-(
    • theHM, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3I think you need to learn how to use the steering wheel.
  • poidh, on 04/22/2008, -3/+26Let's just regulate absolutely everything so that the peons live in constant fear of arrest. It's the only way we can create a socialist utopia.
    • wedgemartin, on 04/22/2008, -0/+10Exactly. An earlier comment stated that it would be no problem to lower the limit for drivers who drive well drunk, but the truth of it is, there are cops out there waiting to pull anyone over for any purpose, just to fill their DUI quota. Broken tail light? 2 glasses of wine at dinner? You're gonna go downtown. Even though you did nothing wrong, and gave no indication that you were intoxicated. That's total BS. This town has what seems like about 1 cop car patrolling for every 20 people. A friend visiting from the UK recently was amazed at how much we worry about the cops, and not just for drinking and driving.
  • arcooke, on 04/22/2008, -11/+10My best friend just finished going through all the legal ***** from a drunk driving charge (cost him over $8000 after lawyer fees). I never really stopped to think about it until he got arrested. The Breathalyzer is ***** (where are you when we need you Penn & Teller?). So are blood tests. They do NOT take into account that some people have a higher tolerance to alcohol than other people.. the same goes for drugs as well. Him and I drink like fish... an 18-24 pack each is an average night of binge drinking for us, and we don't feel any real effects until 8 to 10 or so (yeah, I know.. nothing to be proud of). I guarantee, if you stand two people of the same height/weight side by side, one person who drinks excessively and one who has never touched alcohol in his/her life.. the one who has never had alcohol will be significantly more intoxicated than the one who drinks often. I'm tired of hearing about people's lives getting ruined because of drinking and driving even if they weren't physically disabled in any way. Yes, I know some people drive while knowingly plastered.. and I'm not defending that one bit, nor do they deserve any sympathy. I used to be that guy, and my friend's DUI woke me the ***** up. I just think could-be-drunk-drivers should be judged based on their physical and visual intoxication, like standard street sobriety tests are currently carried out.. only more strict and with more tests. I'm probably going to be buried into oblivion for even remotely defending drinking in driving.. but whatever. That's something I expect out of this site.

    For the record, my friend blew a .09 out of a maximum legal limit of .08. He won, but he'll be paying for it for the next few years.

    Meanwhile, I'll continue to go to my favorite local bar, having 5 or 6 drinks and driving home. Hoping I don't get pulled over and blow a .0800001.. even though it doesn't affect me in the slightest.
    • badjohnbad, on 04/22/2008, -2/+024 cans of beer in one night? I'm surprised you can even fit in a car!
    • whoreman, on 04/22/2008, -1/+4sounds like he is talking about root beer
      • arcooke, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Thanks for that incredibly insightful reply.
    • wedgemartin, on 04/22/2008, -1/+6Why are so many people digging you down without supporting counter arguments? I thought your comment was well said. I know someone who got a DUI because of a tail light being out. She had given no indication of being drunk, but made the mistake of being honest when the cop asked her if she had been drinking. She had just had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. He gave her all of the street tests which she passed with flying colors, then demanded she do a breathalyzer test. Her being from out of the country, didn't realize that she could've refused the test, and he wasn't about to let her know that she had that option. She wound up with a DUI anyway... Part of the problem is the gargantuan loophole cops have in the whole 'probable cause' thing. There was no probable cause in her case, but the cop asked her anyway just so he could see if he could fill his DUI quota.
      • arcooke, on 04/22/2008, -0/+7My friend also passed the street test with flying colors. I even got to watch the police dash cam video of it. As for why people are burying my comment, I don't know. It seems like once a comment is in the negatives, everyone else starts burying it as well.. as if it's some sort of obligation. I see so many good posts go down this way. I'd definitely like to hear WHY someone disagrees for once.
        • DarkStar3333, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2Its the simple matter that if your drinking at all then you shouldnt be driving. Its not about your ability to drink a case of beer and "be fine" because the same thing happened to my friend, only he was killed.

          Basically the driver was on his way home and got on the highway off-ramp despite the signs and obviously being on the wrong side. He saw my friend (on the correct side of the road) freaked out and ended up plowing into him going over 80KM/h each. Unfortunately he was killed instantly and the driver survived.

          Its called being a responsible adult. Let someone be DD or take a cab. I'm happy that Drinking and Driving charges in Canada start at $14,500 + jail time. Far too much stupidity happens on our roads because of people who can't have a good time without being blitzed.
          • wedgemartin, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I dug your comment because you said what you had to say to counter arcooke's initial comment. I don't completely agree with you, but at least you weren't an anonymous ding, and you have a reason for feeling the way you do. These days I cab it if I know I'm going to have more than a couple of drinks over the course of a good meal. However, if I do have a couple of glasses of wine, and I'm driving two blocks home, showing no signs at all of being intoxicated and could easily pass a sobriety test, I shouldn't have to pay 8 grand and spend the next 2 months doing community service and DMV courses with every tiny bit of my free time. Sad to hear about your friend. I'm sure the guy had more to drink than a .08 limit though, which is roughly equivalent to a couple of glasses of wine over the course of an hour.
          • loup, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3I disagree, I think most people will be OK driving after having had a small amount of alcohol. There will always be some people who will be stupid and drive after having drunk far too much, but I don't think it's the norm. I think most people can actually exercise enough self control to not drink so much that they will be unable to drive when they know they need to, or failing that, not drive.

            I don't think the majority of us should be subject to asinine rules because of the stupidity of a few people that are going to break those rules anyway.

            If your story about your friend is true, that truly is terribly, but I think you're lying. I think you're using your story to tug at the hearts of the people reading your comment, believing that they will be swayed to your side of the argument without thinking about it rationally.
    • bemenaker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I just went through this *****. I had four drinks at a wedding reception, three glasses of wine and my last was a Gin and Tonic. When I got stopped on the way home, by a cop checking for speeders on the interstate, when the highest crime neighborhood in Cincinnati was right behind him, I was just screwed. Being that Gin smells so strong, the cop just knew I was trashed. No, it is Gin, it has a strong odor. I was barely over the limit, and any of the surrounding towns would have dropped this to a lesser charge. Not cincy, we can't bother to patrol the neighborhoods were there are weekly shootings, you can see crack dealers out in the open, but ***** yeah we can watch for people going over the speed limit on I-75.

      Gee, which one is more important to the health and vitality of your city. Especially, when people with jobs are leaving downtown in droves.
  • digghasnoethics, on 04/22/2008, -1/+18The drink drive laws are an example of a poor law. The supposition is made that any amount of drink over a limit corresponds to a dangerous driver. However it becomes clear to most people, as the limit is lowered, that this just isn't true. Thus they end up ignoring it entirely.

    Little attention is paid to those who drive whilst tired, emotionally upset, distracted, without much skill, etc. - yet these are all significant causes of accidents (probably more than those that have had one pint to drink).

    Get rid of the drink drive, speeding, etc. laws and have only one - dangerous driving. Its the only one that matters and the only one that has any effect. Focus on bringing those who's driving doesn't come up to standard up to stuff and forget about points etc. Make tests a ten yearly event to keep your licence, with dangerous driving meaning you have to take the test earlier.

    Road laws manifestly fail in their aims at the moment, that's no excuse to make them even worse.
    • SillyRabbits, on 04/22/2008, -0/+6You can blame it on MADD in the US. The organization started out with very honorable intentions and did much good early on. However it's been hijacked by people with ulterior motives and has become a modern day temperance movement. Instead of focusing on responsible driving habits and trying to reduce alcohol related accidents, they now try to control how people drink in any setting. They push for more and more strict laws, regardless of whether they actually achieve any reduction in accidents. Some of their members don't seem like they will be happy until a single sip of alcohol results in a life sentence on the first offense.

      I can't remember the last time I saw someone driving poorly that I thought might be drunk. But at least a couple times a week, I almost get in an accident with some idiot on a cellphone.
  • PwnisherX, on 04/22/2008, -5/+2Bitches don't know bout my tolerance.
  • groovechamp30, on 04/22/2008, -1/+7The UK is statistically the safest place to drive in Europe.
    • whoreman, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2cite?
    • lukeyd2006, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2I disagree....up here in the Highlands of Scotland we have far too many accidents. And no clear indication as to why there are so many!
    • JAFFA, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4I've just returned from a speed awareness course after being stopped for speeding. The course (by Drivetech) claimed that the UK 'is' the safest place in Europe to drive per head of pop and km driven. We DO have the safest motorways in Europe by far - as they are the most well maintained.
  • Anjow, on 04/22/2008, -10/+3I agree with lowering it - I am not a beer drinker (prefer spirits) and if I'd had a pint I would certainly be feeling it. I wouldn't be comfortable driving.
    • sikosmurf, on 04/22/2008, -0/+8Good for you. How about you regulate yourself as a responsible adult? Why do you require the government to tell you when and when you would feel comfortable driving. I often have 2 pints with dinner and have no problems driving home. I don't have the third one, not because of any limit, but because I would not feel comfortable driving. It's called responsibility.
  • rabidbob, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2Well drink driving is far less of a problem now than it was 10 years ago; it seems to me that there's a lot more public awareness about the dangers and it's a lot less socially acceptable. I'm far more concerned about idiots talking on mobile phones while they are driving, which is illegal in the UK, but I see people on a regular basis using their phones while driving, and most of the time it's pretty clear they're not in full control of the vehicle.
    People seem to forget that when they're in a car they are in control of what is essentially a deadly weapon. They become ten times faster and a hundred times stronger, which means that they can (and do!) kill or maim with a moment's inattention. Anything that distracts or impairs their ability to pay attention and react is a danger to themselves and the people around them. In the US, on average, around 40,000 people die every year on the roads, which is roughly 13 times WTC ... every ... year. But still you get ***** treating cars like toys.
    • warkwark, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4Dugg for using WTC as a unit of measurement.
  • Cthalupa, on 04/22/2008, -0/+9Dumb. I'm certainly not a fan of drunk driving - but the accidents involved with drunk driving come from people being way over the legal limit - very rarely is it someone who is driving at 0.8 or slightly under.

    And assuming that a pint of beer effects people equally is ridiculous. I'm not especially tall - about 6 foot, a bit less - and I am incredibly skinny, but it takes two pints or more for the alcohol to have a noticeable effect on me. I have a beer with dinner daily, and if I happen to have gone out to eat, I have to drive back - but I'm certainly not driving drunk.

    My best friend is also an extremely capable driver even way past the limit. His reaction time is extremely fast while sober, and while drunk it's still faster than the average person. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a better driver drunk than I am sober - but he's close, and certainly not a risk to anyone.

    But I dated a girl that could have a can of bud light and be tripping over herself. I wouldn't trust her to drive, even under 0.5

    Alcohol does not effect everyone the same, and attempting to put a blanket limit is very poor legislation.
  • sonycam, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2The whole system is a shambles. I have a really skinny mate who can get quite drunk off just 1 pint (I'm serious here), he would certainly be in no condition to drive after 1 pint, 3 pints and he can't walk. Then we also all know of those guys (who tend to be of a heavier build) who can drink 10+ pints and be generally fine with it. I'm just wondering, if my skinny mate gets pulled over, will he come up positive or negative if he had just 1 pint?
    • doublejay1973, on 04/22/2008, -2/+3there is no drinking 10 pints and being "fine," unless it's 10 pints of milk.
  • edebolt, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2its more fun to drive after a few pops. whats the fuss? Is there any research to show that people who have .5 .to .8 cause more accidents? I just wants the reptiles who are driving around with 1.5 ++ to do some serious time. If they enact lower limits then it should not be the same penalty as the really drunk people.
  • masamunecyrus, on 04/22/2008, -1/+9What the heck is with all of the obscenely strict drinking-and-driving posts on here? Is digg patrolled by MADD?
  • wideawakewesley, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2I'm a lightweight, but really a pint is nothing. I am in no way impaired after having one pint. If they change the law, so be it, but it really is unnecessary to do so.
    • JAFFA, on 04/22/2008, -5/+2Unfortunately you ARE impaired. You just dont perceive it as the impairment is so small. The problem is that when traveling at speed the microseconds involved translate into yard/metres traveled on the road.
      • videomad, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Lightweight my arse lol that's what all the big drinkers say. Lol (No Offense)
      • bemenaker, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1Ok, put me at .08% BAC, do a reflex test on me, and then compare me to the statistical average of the general population. I GUARANTEE, I will be within that range. If that's the case, then how can I be unsafe to drive, if my reflexes still match that of societal norm? My reflexes totally sober, are much faster than the norm.
  • pinchduck, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2Best option is to not drink and drive at all. Rotate designated driver duties amongst your friends, and get as hammered as you want when it isn't your turn. When you get home, have a few drinks then if you like. Or walk to your local, or take public transportation. That said, the cost/benefit ratio of enjoying a drink versus getting arrested for drunk driving is so far out of whack already that lowering the limit doesn't really make any difference.
    • snea, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2That is the best option, however lowering the legal limit, and certainly putting it "under a pint", doesn't make much sense. A "pint" can be 12oz, 16oz, 20oz, or even 22oz depending on where you are drinking and the ABV of your beverage can be anywhere between 3% to over 12% depending on what you are drinking.
  • doublejay1973, on 04/22/2008, -1/+5Funny. The car has been aroud for 100 years. Drink driving has only been illegal in the UK for about 35.
    • videomad, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2there was not many cars 100 years ago. The in-cress in traffic is the cause of regulations.
  • rancidpony, on 04/22/2008, -2/+7The prohibitionist movement is still alive and well. Brought to you by the same very fine folks who brought you the smoking ban.
    Enjoy.
    • jster89, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3These two are hardly comparable. If I get drunk sitting beside you I'm not giving you cancer unlike if you smoke like a chimney beside me. Studies show Passive Smoking is much more deadly than Passive Drinking.
      • rancidpony, on 04/22/2008, -0/+5'Passive Drinking' LOL. Thanks for helping to make might point. Everyone be very very afraid of everything that someone else does! Ban it! Regulate it! Lower the bar over time so no one sees the elimination of their freedoms.
        Karma's a bitch.
        Enjoy your nanny state because everyone likes do to something the major either doesn't like or can be convinced they should be scared of with a well targeted ad campaign mixed with seemingly viral marketing ala Digg & truth.org
      • krautkamel, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Your comment is funny, let me guess your source is truth.org? Well, there are just as many other studies to suggest the exact opposite of what your claiming, "second-hand smoke" is not nearly as dangerous as the general public has been led to believe by mass-media. I know you won't read the sources becuase then you can't complain, but here are the sources anyway. Have fun with your misinformation.
        http://www.data-yard.net/39/cabin.pdf
        http://www.data-yard.net/35/krager.htm
        http://www.data-yard.net/10h/ets.htm
        http://www.data-yard.net/14/1666.htm
    • bemenaker, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2You're damn right, the DUI movement is a backdoor attempt at prohibition. The levels are just ridiculously low now.
  • dicee, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Random Breathalyzers? Big Brother is Watching!
  • Anonchrist, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2There are laws in America? I thought that was just meaningless paperwork designed to keep foreigners in check.
  • davewashere, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Would anyone care to translate these alcohol measurements into something a little more... scientific? Also, shortening drinking and driving to drink-driving seems a little silly. It makes me glad we had that whole revolution thing to gain independence from the Brits.
  • mousky, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Is anyone surprised by this proposal? This has nothing to do with safety. DUIs and alcohol-related traffic fatalities continue to fall. In terms of fines, that means there is little to no potential for revenue growth. So how do you change that? Lower the limit, so more people can be fined.
  • Jackson0909, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0This is actually kind of irrelevant. The law has been changed from DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) to DUI (Driving Under the Influence). The way it is positioned now, a driver can be arrested for having a BAC of .02. No questions asked. If an officer feels for any reason whatsoever that you have become impaired, even being below the "legal" limit of .08, you can be taken to jail, tried, and convicted of DUI. In other words, legal limit can be a bit ambiguous.
    • EwigRomanze, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Some states say DUI, and some states say DWI. It doesn't really make a difference. Most states have laws that say, if you have consumed any alcohol, you can't legally operate a vehicle.
  • EwigRomanze, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Lowering the limit is obviously pointless. What we need is a law to put major abusers in prison. The problem is that we already have over-crowded jails that need to keep vacancies open for bigger criminals. So, what is there to do. It is a sticky situation.
  • absurdist, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1What about the thousands of people every day who drive drunk, DON'T drive irresponsibly, DON'T get into accidents, DON'T kill anyone, etc... but are still at a risk of having their lives turned upside down because they're pulled over for something as minor as having a taillight out? Punishing people for what they might do is dangerously close to thoughtcrime.
  • cosmo7, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2The real problem here isn't this stupid neo-prohibitionist idea, but dangerous driving itself.

    If police pull you over for driving badly they should breathalyse you. If you have alcohol in your blood then you have an excuse. It's the people who drive badly sober who should lose their licenses; they don't have an excuse.
  • krautkamel, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0I love how the "squares" have turned this into a zero tolerance debate. Which may i remind you has nothing to do with this article. Point is this, by lower the limit you are punishing casual drinkers that do practice moderation and safety. People that drink a beer with a meal or have a beer then drive home, not drunk drivers. If you are "drunk" at .05 then you don't drink and probably shouldn't. This law will not stop people with little regard to drinking laws and choose to get plastered and drive home; this punishes anyone that drinks away from home, ever, That is just silly. The people that crash their cars and kills someone or several people are not the people that drink a single beer or a glass of wine with their meal and to use that argument on someone with a .05 alcohol level is silly.
  • alankf, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0The problem is the morning after, i never drink and drive and i can drink so much you wouldn't believe but now i think on i bet i have been over the limit many a time going to work in the morning.
  • oldcyborg, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1This is just another instance of where changing the law will not affect the outcome. It is just more *****... But, we get a lifeload of that, don't we????

    Cyborg
  • galleryfront, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1This may interest some of you... it's a really interesting speech given by a dui attorney. For those too lazy to even read the first page or two, he pretty much paints MADD as an unintended evil entity with some very well thought-out examples:
    http://www.duicenter.com/lectures/exception01.html
  • Damo69, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0In Australia the legal limit is .05. You cannot be convicted if any test that the police do shows you under that limit, (and they usually do 2 breath tests, one at the road and one at the station and you can request a blood test as well I believe). The general rule for education of the public is two standard drinks in the first hour of drinking and then one hour for each subsequent drink to maintain approx .05.

    From my own personal experience I can definitely say that you can be significantly impaired at 0.05 and significantly more impaired at 0.08 than 0.05.

    If you are a social and occasional drinker and you can't keep you BAC under 0.05 then you're doing it wrong.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.