Drinking and driving:

i was watching "road wars" late last night, and i came to thinking, if for example the amount of drink you can have is, 2 units before you are over the limit, then those 2 units affect differant people in differant ways, for example men can drink more than women (not being sexist its true),

so what i am asking is, isn't it about time that they changed the law, so that you can't drink ANYTHING before getting into a car? wouldn't that be easier than drinking those 2 units?

and i don't care what people say, you cannot drive better if you have had a few drinks.

Lucifers angel you got to understand...in future a point will arise...were people will have to follow such strict rules they set for themselves, that unless they do it exactly right they are safe from being arrested. I am just saying that the more of these so called small laws of freedom oppression there are...the more people will be enclosed inside yet more cages. Let those drinks be there, let that maximum alcohol content exist there...because we are not robots and do not wish to become like robots.

Lucifers angel you got to understand...in future a point will arise...were people will have to follow such strict rules they set for themselves, that unless they do it exactly right they are safe from being arrested. I am just saying that the more of these so called small laws of freedom oppression there are...the more people will be enclosed inside yet more cages. Let those drinks be there, let that maximum alcohol content exist there...because we are not robots and do not wish to become like robots.

no i know that, but however hundreds of people are injured or killed on the roads each year, and if they didn't drink anything at all then thye wouldn't injured or killed! better safe than sorry

In truth, I've never heard of that standard. In the U.S. we go by blood alcohol content. I can't find a state-by-state listing, but the "legal limit" is generally 0.08%. In Washington state, that means you effectively lose the right to argue that you weren't impaired.

See also:

• Blood Alcohol Content Calculator (http://www.1800duilaws.com/forms/bac.asp)

• Blood Alcohol Estimation Chart (http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/CFDAE/bachart.shtml)

• Former cop registers 0.47% in Seattle area (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003672880_webalcohol19m.html)

• Repeat offender registers 0.55% in Oregon (http://bdhilling.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/be-the-best-at-what-you-do-a-dubious-honor/)

and i don't care what people say, you cannot drive better if you have had a few drinks

What, seriously? People still say that?

Would it not be logical to not drink at all before driving as even drinking a bit could still impair driving. Setting a legal limit to say don't drink over this much is fair enough, but surely it does make sense to not drink anything knowing that you will get behind the wheel.

What about smoking weed then? I've seen reports that suggest being stonned a little bit makes you a much more cautious driver. I don't agree myself, I think if you're driving you should be completely clear-headed.

Yeah. Really you need a clear head in order to be ok to drive. At least thats what I think. Even when you have a clear head you need to be focused and still accidents happen.

Would it not be logical to not drink at all before driving as even drinking a bit could still impair driving. Setting a legal limit to say don't drink over this much is fair enough, but surely it does make sense to not drink anything knowing that you will get behind the wheel.

that is what i was saying!

shouldn't they just ban drinking and driving alltogether, even a little tipple of wine?>

I say yes.

Drink all you want but take a taxi home or just stay at home and drink yourself to death. Just don't drive if you drink. :(

Drinking and driving:

i was watching "road wars" late last night, and i came to thinking, if for example the amount of drink you can have is, 2 units before you are over the limit, then those 2 units affect differant people in differant ways, for example men can drink more than women (not being sexist its true),

so what i am asking is, isn't it about time that they changed the law, so that you can't drink ANYTHING before getting into a car? wouldn't that be easier than drinking those 2 units?

and i don't care what people say, you cannot drive better if you have had a few drinks.
Well your example is out of date, it used to be 2 units, but as you say that affects different people to different degrees. Also what consists of a 'unit' has changed, it used to be a glass of wine is 1, now it's nearly 2. It also depends how long it's been since your last drink and how long you were drinking it for. Alcohol stays in your blood for 24 hours and I believe this is the reason there is a blood alcohol level that you should not exceed when behind the wheel, it's not there so people can drink a bit and then drive it's there so if you have to drive the following day/night you shouldn't be over the limit.
As far as things go the only way to be sure you aren't driving drunk is not to drive for 24 hours after having any alcohol.
Whilst we're on the subject however studies have shown driving tired to be just as impairing to one's judgement as being over the limit, or indeed being hopped up on drugs, but if every tired driver stayed at home the roads would be virtually empty.
To be entirely honest with you from what I've seen of people's normal driving alcohol is the least of our worries.

Alcohol stays in your blood for 24 hours and
I'm pretty sure that you metabolize about one drink per hour. So if you only drink one drink per hour, you'll never get drunk.

As far as zero % BAC as the limit, that would pretty much put most bars out of business and kill the sales of wine/mixed drinks at restaurants which is a huge cash cow for them. It'll never happen.

Well, perhaps in a big city where public transportation is available, but in most of the country it's drive or stay home. So Zero BAC as the limit would mean zero business at bars and no alcohol sold at restaurants.

Here's a BAC calculator.
http://www.rupissed.com/
According to it I could chug 5 beers and still be way under the limit!:D

I'm pretty sure that you metabolize about one drink per hour. So if you only drink one drink per hour, you'll never get drunk.

Here's a BAC calculator.
http://www.rupissed.com/
According to it I could chug 5 beers and still be way under the limit!:D
I think it depends how you're defining a single drink.
Some reading material.
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleid=853

I have never had an accident in the many years both riding and driving. A few near misses caused by others but otherwise lucky.

Then recently when doing some cross country dirt bike riding we decided to swig a few mouth full’s of bourbon that a friend had brought along. I did not feel pissed but my confidence level went up. I was riding hard jumping higher and generally thinking I was on top of the world until coming around a corner I came off after hitting a rut in the track and broke 3 ribs, punchered a lung and dislocated my shoulder. I was not over the limit, nether was my ability to handle the bike impaired. What was impaired was my judgement, my ability to assess the danger and respond appropriately, to ride within my limits.

Any amount of alcohol is dangerous when driving or handling machinery. Don’t be fooled to think that there is a limit that is safe. The rules should be changed to zero tolerance.

Any amount of alcohol is dangerous when driving or handling machinery. Don’t be fooled to think that there is a limit that is safe. The rules shoulbe changed to zero tolerance.
Should the speed limit also be set to 25 mph? It would be safer.

I've driven plenty of times after having a beer or two or perhaps a glass of wine with dinner. Hell, damn near every business meeting I go to involves us all drinking wine and then driving home. We're not a bunch of idiots chugging beers , no one is anywhere near the legal limit. And no one goes out and drives like an idiot afterwards.

Your proposal would put bars across the country out of business and seriously hurt the restaurant business as well for a very small (if any) gain in safety. Next time you hear of some drunk causing a wreck, you'll likely notice the BAC was a .2 or higher. Way above the present standard of .08.

Should the speed limit also be set to 25 mph? It would be safer.

That would be a good start.

It only takes a small error in judgment to caused death and injury. Personally I would prefer to have much greater control over who can drive in the first place. I suggest that the majority of drivers don’t have the concentration skills or correct attitude to have the right to drive.

Public transport and taxies should be the preferred mode of transport.

Your proposal would put bars across the country out of business and seriously hurt the restaurant business as well for a very small (if any) gain in safety.

You think people are going to stop drinking because they can’t drive. I use a cab, or have a designated driver, or simply walk.

38% of road death are alcohol related BAC over 0.01. Zero tolerance will save 16000 lives each year in the US alone

LA there are a couple of reasons why there is a legal limit.

The first problem with a zero BAC is that a lot of medications and chocolates have some level of achole in them which would stop you driving when your safe (which is why in WA i belive the BAC for a P-plater is 0.01 rather than 0.00 like it is in the rest of the states).

The second problem is that if you sit down and have a glass of wine with dinner you are statistically safe to drive. What if your kid needed you to come and get them or some other unexpected "emergency" came up that needed dealing with.

By having a 0.05 (australian limit across all jusristictions) limit the goverment alows you to have some level of achole and while your still statisically safe deal with these situations that may arise.

They still encorage zero BAC by encoraging designated drivers and use of public transport (well everywhere except SA where they have really stupid laws relating to PT and achole) as do restraunts and pubs (by giving free soft drinks ect to DD) but legislativly they accept that there are going to be times people need to drive after having a small amount of achole (or after a long time period) and so statistically they say this is a resonably safe limit

I will try to find some statistics relating to car acidents above and below 0.05 because i actually found the difference in crashs between those who had zero and low levels of achole to those who were at 0.05 and above amazing

I got the stats wrong and edited my last post. Didn’t read the reference correctly.

A total of 15,829 alcohol-related fatalities were recorded in in the US in 2006. Of those, 13,470 were drunk drivers (Blood Alcohol Concentration above .08). That's one death nearly every ½ hour in this country as a result of drinking and driving.
Approximately 275,000 persons are injured or disfigured yearly by alcohol-impaired drivers. One third of these are children.

Blindman im sorry but there is a problem with the way your figures are expresed. They ignore the levels of achole in the person compleatly and treat it as a yes\no question. For this debate we would need the percentage of drives involved in crashs with a zero (or 0.01) BAC, the percentage with a 0.01 to 0.05 (or 0.08 if you prefer the US method) and then those involved ABOVE 0.05

This is the only way you can prove that the gap between zero and the current legal limit is dangorious. As i said i do have those figures but i will have to go back through EM&J to my drink driving thread to find them

That would be a good start.Wow. You've really got to be careful about suggesting something in jest, there's always someone who'll take it seriously.
Public transport and taxies should be the preferred mode of transport.Where do you live? Those things really aren't available where I live.
You think people are going to stop drinking because they can’t drive. I use a cab, or have a designated driver, or simply walk. Walk? Let's see. The nearest bar is about 15 miles away. What's that? A three or four hour walk each way? Very practical. I'm sure that would have no effect on business.
38% of road death are alcohol related BAC over 0.01. Zero tolerance will save 16000 lives each year in the US alone
Your math doesn't add up. If 38% of road deaths involve a BAC over .01, many of those are most likely over .08. The only ones your zero tolerance policy would effect are those deaths caused by people whose BAC was between .01 and .07.

thats exactly what i just said Mad:p

How would you feel if you lost someone close to you from a senseless accident caused by someone on the way home from the pub. Not over the legal limit but still with alcohol in them to make them drive to fast for the road conditions. My friend lost his girlfriend and his young daughter to such an idiot on the way home from the pub. The punk only spent 5 years in jail but could have got a lot worse if he had been over the limit. Fortunately this punk was also brain damaged in the accident and will never drive again.

I have lost a few friends to drunk driving. And as I posted before I also have injured myself due to alcohol.

Cars are deadly weapons.

has anyone ever researched the crash records of people who drive drunk? how many cars have they crashed while sober? and also, we need to see statistics on what percentage of drunk drivers crash.

thats exactly what i just said Mad:p
I guess we posted that at the same time.

Ok i found this on the TAC website, under there statics section.

18% of all drivers and motorcyclists killed on Victoria's roads over the last year were 0.05 g/100ml or over. The majority of drivers are really drunk, registering more than three times over the legal limit.

Viewed 08/05/08 at 18:06 (http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do;jsessionid=LMLNPMMEBOCH?ar eaID=12&tierID=1&navID=A9348A54&navLink=null&pageID=164)


There is also this graph but it doesnt show how the acidents where people were under 0.05

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/upload/drink-drive-1.jpg

Then there is this one

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/upload/drink-drive-2.jpg

The problem is that there are other factors involved in road crashes like speed which these statistics arnt ajusted for. What it doesnt have is how the risk of a crash increases as BAC increases

Ok i found this on the TAC website, under there statics section.
“
18% of all drivers and motorcyclists killed on Victoria's roads over the last year were 0.05 g/100ml or over. The majority of drivers are really drunk, registering more than three times over the legal limit.
Exactly. Whenever you hear about some drunk causing a wreck, he's always 2 or 3 times over the legal limit. I doubt setting the limit at zero would save any lives.

A lack of concentration and judgment are very real contributors to road death. It seams that most of us are prepared to put a price on human life, and for a substantial minority that price is simple convenience.

If 40000 people where killed, and quarter of a million injured, via natural disaster it would be a national tragedy beyond comprehension, but it seems that we accept that this is a price we must pay for the convenience of personal transport.

Human life is not a commodity to be traded. Road trauma is an indiscriminate killer a savage plague that should be seen as a disgrace. Even small amounts of alcohol does cause death and mutilation. Once we get over the need for freedom and accept our responsibility to treasure human life the carnage will continue.

Wow. You've really got to be careful about suggesting something in jest, there's always someone who'll take it seriously.
In Western Australia where I live this is a reality. School Zones have a speed limit of 40KPH (25MPH) all residential roads are set at 50KPH (31MPH). Since these new limits have been set many lives have been saved and the disfigurement and injury has been greatly reduced.

I will personal concede to a limit of .01 but beyond that responsibility is diminished, judgment and concentration are notably reduced. For the small inconvenience of reliance on another form of transport other then personal many lives will be saved and countless more lives will be free of the suffering of permanent injury.

Blindman your australian. Good

You will never hear me arguing against random breath testing, since i moved to SA i have only been breath tested once and thats just ridiculas (especially as i got picked up for unregisted due to the fact i forgot to pay the bill and wasnt even breath tested).

Im traing to work for the ambo's and have already seen to many road crashs (i refuse just like the police to call them acidents) so i understand where your comming from. I was also friends with the head of the major crash squad in victoria and so i know a fair amount about motor crashes.

The yearly road toll is a 747 crashing every year and thats unaceptable but to blame it all on people who have ONE beer before leaving work is to ignore the real killers.

Fatige kills more than achole below 0.05 does every year (mostly on country roads but not always) and speeding kills hundreds. This is not to mention shear stupidity from car drivers like those who que across railway tracks (you have no idea how much seeing these people pisses me off)

There will always be a risk in getting into a car no matter what the police do, unfortunatly this is just a fact. The risks need to be managed and the police (and achademics) have decided that the risks of a Zero blood achole limit are actually higher than the risks involved in having a 0.05 limit. This is because not everyone obays the law (as you will see if you go to the link i posted). By having a 0.05 limit the politions have said "ok we know people will drink and its dangorious so lets look at where the risks increase and set a limit there". If you make it zero people will pay no atention to what they drink at all because they will know that first beer puts them over the limit so what difference if they have a few more.

What we really need to do is increase the policing around drink driving, dangorous driving and speeding so that the chances of being caught are much higher. By this i mean REAL police out pulling drivers over rather than just a letter in the mail because that has little impact on imidiate actions.

As for speed limits we could make the lawful speed limit 20 on ALL roads and that wouldnt stop speeding drivers. So the goverment gets engerers out to look at what is an aceptable limit for a specific road taking into acount the risks involved in that road. This wont stop speeding drivers though its only enforcement that will stop people willing to take that risk. We had a lecture in ethics at uni that said he was going to be late for a plane trip so he chose to risk the fine that was less than the cost of resheduling the flight. As long as people are able to make those value judgements speeding will continue.

As i said im not sure a zero limit will lower the road toll much (and may actually increase it) so im not sure your on the right track. Actually in my driving history i have had 3 crashes. One was because a medication had effected my concentration more than i thought it had, the other two were simply because i had worked 14 hour shifts and was tired on my way home from work. During all three i had a zero BAC. There are alot more factors involved than achole.

There will always be a risk in getting into a car no matter what the police do, unfortunately this is just a fact. The risks need to be managed and the police (and academics) have decided that the risks of a Zero blood alcohol limit are actually higher than the risks involved in having a 0.05 limit. This is because not everyone obeys the law. If you make it zero people will pay no atention to what they drink at all because they will know that first beer puts them over the limit so what difference if they have a few more.

As i said im not sure a zero limit will lower the road toll much (and may actually increase it) so im not sure your on the right track.
Good point. Unreasonable laws breed a lack of respect for the law.

that is what i was saying!

shouldn't they just ban drinking and driving alltogether, even a little tipple of wine?>

Exactly, I was agreeing with you whole heartedly.