Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think that if the legal alcholol limit is 80 milligrams for driving...

53 replies

bbcessex · 29/07/2016 14:12

if a man or woman caused a fatal accident and was found to have, eg, 79 milligrams in their blood, you wouldn't say "it was just a tragic accident" then?

There has been a few threads about drinking and driving recently (predominantly about driving DC). I never, ever have a drink if I'm going to drive, and I do now monitor what I drink the night before driving too.

I'm really surprised and quite horrified by those of you who think having a drink and then driving is ok.

I know I'd judge the driver to hell and back if they were (otherwise not negligent) but found to have significant alcohol in their blood, even if they are under the limit. Would I be unreasonable?

OP posts:
museumum · 29/07/2016 14:15

The limit is 50 in Scotland which basically means you can't safely drive after one drink.
It gives you a buffer to allow for small amounts hours later or from food or medicines which wouldn't impair you but it's essentially a "no drinks" limit which I think is sensible.

AprilSkies44 · 29/07/2016 14:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

IcedVanillaLatte · 29/07/2016 14:21

limit should be 0. avoid confusion.

Don't be ridiculous. For one thing, we have a tiny amount of naturally occurring alcohol in the blood. And there's alcohol in vanilla essence.

splendide · 29/07/2016 14:24

I never understand when people say you can't drive after one drink - it depends how long after obviously. So just saying you can't drive after one drink at all is silly.

Original poster
bbcessex · 29/07/2016 14:25

I can see that there needs to be some margin, hence I think the Scotland limit is a good one.

I'd like to understand how those who drink and drive would feel in the event of an accident, even if they weren't over the limit.

OP posts:
Original poster
bbcessex · 29/07/2016 14:26

splendide - for my example, I would not have a glass of wine at say, 7pm, and drive home at 11:30pm.

OP posts:
IcedVanillaLatte · 29/07/2016 14:28

*naturally occurring alcohol in the body

(typed without thinking)

Lunde · 29/07/2016 14:29

Some countries have 0.2

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 29/07/2016 14:35

That's why I think the Scottish limit is sensible, it takes the element of doubt out of the equation. In England the higher limit creates uncertainty: the whole 'well I'll be okay with one. Its been a couple of hours, I should be okay with another half - go on make it a pint' which leads to bad decisions being taken. At least in Scotland you know you can't drink and drive and expect to be 'just under'.

Wolfiefan · 29/07/2016 14:42

I have no idea how much alcohol would put me over the legal limit. If I drink then I don't drive. It does me no harm to drink something non alcoholic but could do a lot of harm if I drank. I would rather be careful.

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 29/07/2016 14:44

No me neither Wolfie but the higher English liimits does seem to send out mixed messages.

Original poster
bbcessex · 29/07/2016 14:53

I agree.

Are there any posters who would think that the driver was not at fault if they caused an accident at *just under the limit?

*if English?

OP posts:
PersianCatLady · 29/07/2016 14:59

limit should be 0. avoid confusion.
That wouldn't work as a PP noted due to foods like vanilla extract and human bodies actually produce their own alcohol internally and it varies according to things like diet.

Apparently yeast and bananas produce a lot of this "natural alcohol".

Oblomov16 · 29/07/2016 15:00

If you are under the limit, then you are under the limit, and haven't actually broken the law.

IcedVanillaLatte · 29/07/2016 15:06

TBH I always struggle to understand parts of the alcohol thing. Part of me thinks it's unfair that a driver who's over the limit is always assumed to be the one at fault no matter what (so even if they were driving sensibly along a main road below the speed limit and someone unexpectedly slammed into the side of their car from a side road, everyone would assume it was their fault), but I think the punishments for driving while over the limit should be much harsher, as you're taking such a massive risk with people lives. But if you cause an accident because you're careless and arrogant, I don't think you should necessarily be punished less than someone who caused the same accident by being drunk. What would make sense for me is a punishment for causing the accident, that's the same as the careless and arrogant driver gets, and a separate punishment for being drunk, that's the same as someone would get if they were found to be drunk through random testing. I don't really know, but the thing I'm sure about is that drunk driving penalties aren't nearly harsh enough.

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 29/07/2016 15:06

True oblomov, but I would find it very difficult to live with myself if I'd run someone over and killed them and then blown 79 at the road side. I would spend the rest of my life torturing myself thinking 'if i'd been able to react a fraction faster'

PersianCatLady · 29/07/2016 15:07

Actually you don't have to be over the limit to commit an offence as it is also possible to be charged with driving or attempting to drive under the influence of drink or drugs even with a BAC level is below 80 mg. Such cases are rare but not unknown and prosecution is more likely after an accident.

Scarydinosaurs · 29/07/2016 15:12

I've never even thought about drinking and then driving within the same 'meal time slot' it just seems so stupid- I know my own body and how alcohol affects me, so I just absolutely wouldn't risk it. If I had a wine and lemonade for lunch, and then ate lunch, and then had dinner without alcohol, I would drive, as from say, one pm to 7 or 8 pm, I would no longer feel the effect of alcohol. However, I would never drink something alcoholic and then get straight into a car. It definitely impairs my judgement albeit just slightly.

I have seen others drink beer and then drive an hour or so later, but different people surely process the alcohol differently? I am five foot three and about 8-9 stone. It just takes one wine for me to feel light headed, whereas other people I am sure feel no different at all.

PersianCatLady · 29/07/2016 15:14

If you are under the limit, then you are under the limit, and haven't actually broken the law.
That is not strictly true.

Under Section 4 Road Traffic Act 1988 you can be charged with driving, or being in charge, when under influence of drink or drugs even when you are under the limit.

Whereas under Section 5 you can be charged with driving a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit.

Section 4 prosecutions are rare but they do happen.

purplevase4 · 29/07/2016 15:16

I'd like to understand how those who drink and drive would feel in the event of an accident, even if they weren't over the limit

If it was the other person's fault why would it be relevant?

If it was your fault, then I guess it would depend if the accident had been caused because you had had a drink, or for some other reason eg being tired. I'd say that would be difficult to determine.

thisisafakename · 29/07/2016 15:18

Don't be ridiculous. For one thing, we have a tiny amount of naturally occurring alcohol in the blood. And there's alcohol in vanilla essence

Well, when I took a breathalyser, it was zero, so either my body does not produce naturally occurring alcohols or they would never be sufficient to give a reading. Loads of EU countries have a 0.0 limit for novice drivers so it is definitely not an impossibility. Definitely in favour of lowering it to 0.2. Ours is the highest limit in Europe and to does encourage people to think moderate drinking and driving is fine, because people never really know how much puts them over and therefore guess.

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 29/07/2016 15:25

If it was the other person's fault why would it be relevant?

So, if you'd belted down a few pints, drove home and ran down a child that had wandered into the road (as children are apt to do) and killed them as you weren't able to stop in time, but blew fractionally under the limit, you'd just shrug your shoulders and say ' their fault, nowt to do with me.'

I can't believe that any thinking feeling wouldn't be absolutely wracked with guilt, remorse or at the very least wondering 'what if I hadn't had those drinks would I have been able to stop in time?'

AprilSkies44 · 29/07/2016 15:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mathsmum314 · 29/07/2016 15:35

I would try and understand the circumstances of an accident before jumping to the conclusion of, they had a drink. There are circumstances where drink won't have been a factor. And there will be times when they are below the limit and and it was a factor. Either way in small amounts it would only be a factor and not the sole cause.

MrsHathaway · 29/07/2016 15:41

Whenever it is suggested that the limit should be changed, the papers are full of people who were bereaved by a drink driver. But the headline cases were always vastly over the limit already (say 80 for breath when the limit is 35) so reducing the limit wouldn't have made a difference to the legality of their behaviour.

However, it is likely that if we reduced the English limit in line with the Scottish limit, people who nudge the limit ("ooh, well two pints with food is probably ok so long as I leave it a bit") will stop taking chances. Which doesn't affect those who will drive off their faces regardless, but might improve the average concentration of drivers in general.

Like reducing the speed limit from 60 to 40 does at least stop most people from doing 70.