17. Jun. 2010. – 11:54:24
According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, Sir Peter North has recommended cutting the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. Drink driving and all that surrounds the subject has been a hot topic since 1967 when the breathalyser was introduced to Britain`s drivers.
The effects of alcohol on the human body are widely known. I remember as a student being asked by a lecturer to drink with others two pints of strong beer in the name of science. Our reactions to various stimuli were measured before and at various times after that morning`s unexpected imbibing. The results were very clear even if our brains were not......our confidence was increased owing to inhibitions being lowered and our reaction times to aural and visual stimuli were similarly markedly reduced. These events stay with you.
In 1966 there were 9,590 convictions in England and Wales for drink/driving offences and 5,035 in Scotland. The peak year for convictions England and Wales was 1988 at 105,027 with the peak number of 11,871 in Scotland being seen in 1980. 2006 saw 83,975 convictions in England and Wales and in Scotland 6,998 in 2007. There is an interesting paper by Richard Allsop Centre for Transport Studies University College London. Drink driving causes around 6% of road casualties in the U.K. and 17% of deaths and over a lifetime almost everybody will have a friend or relative killed or injured by this scourge. I personally have had two people close to me in these statistics.
Drink driving and related offences where no injury has been caused are matters for Magistrates` Courts. There is rarely a valid defence and it is well known that disqualification from driving for at least one year plus fine and costs is the likely punishment for a first offence and increases to imprisonment for repeat offenders. So the potential consequences of drinking and driving are also well known. My personal experience is that many who come before us when providing their mitigation say that they did not consider what they drank would have taken them over the limit. And this in my opinion is the nub of the argument regarding the new proposed level of 50mg alcohol/100 ml blood.
The current level tempts drinkers to judge their “allowed” alcohol intake which of course has variable effects on individuals depending on eg health, weight, sex, metabolic rate etc etc. Reduction to 50mg/100ml will not remove that temptation to have literally “one and only one for the road”. And that one could take him/her over the limit.
If the permitted limit were only 10mg/100ml the message and science would be as clear as crystal; one glass of wine or half a pint is too much and the result is arrest and disqualification. But, and it is a BIG but, having a level which is not zero would allow for any residual alcohol from the night before to have been eliminated except in the most serious cases, usually alcoholics, and those who had a genuine belief they were legal to drive would usually escape penalty unlike the circumstances of a zero level.
Whether the level will be reduced and by how much is a matter for the Coalition. North believes a zero level would be unacceptable to public opinion. The banning of smoking in planes, trains, pubs and restaurants was also thought unacceptable notwithstanding some of the extreme opinions regarding company vehicles and individuals` own homes. There will always be road casualties. Those where alcohol plays a part are inexcusable. Change when and if it comes should be sooner rather than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment