New Drink Drive Law in Scotland

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

so a new Drink drive law came into force today in Scotland of 50mg per 100ml of Blood and couldnt remember what it is for Ireland so I went on RSA Ireland site to see it is 50mg per 100ml of blood here too, then i was surprised to scroll down and see that professional, learner and novice drivers are 20mg per 100ml blood that was surprising to me I didnt know it was different for them. So the UK still remains 80mg per 100ml, surely they cannot be far off coming into line now. -

So they reckon 50mg per 100ml is just a pint of beer, any more and you can be over the limit. is it safe to say now these days that the best way to make absolutely sure your not over the limit is that if you going to drive then not have any alcoholic drink at all or is that too draconian?

Yes indeed. If you're only learning you can only be mildly drunk behind the wheel, but if you're a more seasoned driver you can be a little more tipsy.

Enforcement and punishment levels can be as important as the actually limit. Ireland would be middling on both accounts.

Punishments in the USA can be very low - 30 day driving ban, whereas in The Netherlands or Finland, the punishment can be steep - long bans and very steep fines respectively.

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

So they reckon 50mg per 100ml is just a pint of beer,

This will vary by a lot of factors, including body mass, metabolism, what you've recently eaten or drank and other factors. As a rule, if you are going driving, don't drink.

gk5000 wrote: »

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

Seriously - the problem is not people with > 50 and < 100 mg, but people with > 300mg, so they should up the limit at least back to 100

Schwiiing wrote: »

No, there shouldn't.

You're damn right there shouldn't. It should be the same for everyone everywhere. You should be able to have two pints and drive home legally.

Don't worry, when I organise by benign dictatorship that will the be first executive decree.

Mind you, if you get caught drinking over that limit, you're off the road for a year. At least.

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

Define a bit extra. Or a few miles, for that matter. And of course nobody ever walks on rural roads at night, so it's not like there'd be anyone to run over.

All I see is, get sick on yer car door and you'll be OK

Personally I don't think you should have had a single drink and then take to the wheel. That's from a massive reformed substance abuser, far too dangerous for everyone concerned - including ones self!

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 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!

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.

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

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

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.

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.