Alcohol and driving?

Question

Why is it that after years of goverment campaining they haven't made it illegal.Why is it there's still a legal limit and people are still getting killed, injured,etc
They've banned smoking in public places pubs,clubs etc and even as far as banning it on things like NHS grounds or Council car parks (in the open air)etc which is fine,why should someone who dosen't smoke have to breath in someone elses smoke.
If they can go this far then why is alchohol not totally banned behind the wheel.
Why is it I can drive my car out on the road and potentially get hit by somebody who has been drinking, thinking they are OK to drive,surely it should be zero tolerance,and anyone with alcohol or drugs for that matter in their system should be banned and have thier vehicle impounded and sold or crushed.

My Q is related to alcohol behind the wheel which is consumed and not RTA's in general.
A lot of different points made especially those relating to natural alcohol in the system which is something I have never heared of before.

Answer 1

I agree. I don't want to sound lke an old misery, but i just do not think that the two mix, a car is a dangerous machine travelling at potentially dangerous speeds, alcohol has no place behind the wheel. I speak as someone who likes a drink but who has also known the loss of a loved one who has been hit by a car driven by an unfortunate guy who had not had a drink at all. No-one should have to go through that trauma, the parents or the driver.
I am sorry that your question is bringing back too many memories for me. If people experienced what my husband and I went through, they would never drink and drive.
Sorry to digress from my usual cheerful self, you have stirred memories that I have kept to the back of my mind.

Answer 2

Frankly, my answer may not be what you're looking for or politically correct but I don't care. You asked and I'll going to tell you.

The problem is these mad mothers. They contribute a lot of money to campaigns and changing the laws. Over the last 50 years, roads have improved greatly, the quality and safety of automobiles have improved greated, but the legal limit keeps getting lower and lower.

You don't go into a public house to smoke a cigeratte, you go into a public house to drink beer or whatever. There would be no reason for a public house, if alcohol were banned. And, if I'm correct, the remaining public houses in Britain are owned by the breweries.

Now, I've heard they're trying to crack down on you going from a pub to your house on foot.

The problem is, many people who may be impaired may be so on drugs that can't be registered. So, what do you do then?

Britian never has had to go through a complete alcohol ban. The U.S. did. During that time period, murders, domestic violence and other crimes sky rockeded. When it was legal to buy alcohol afther FDR, whom it's said drank upto 14 martinis a day, the crime rate dropped in the U.S.

Churchill. What would you have done without him? It's said he never drank before noon, except for Champagne. It's also said he drank a bottle of whiskey a day. Hitler. Didn't drink, was a vegitarian and maybe only had a beer or two. Compare them as look what happenec?

Does this help you with today's problems? No. It also doesn't guide you into whether the Western world should ban outright alcohol.

Answer 3

Of course I agree, in principle. But only in around 25% of crashes is alcohol involved, and that includes drunk pedestrians staggering into the road and being knocked down.
I'm not against a zero tolerance towards drink-driving because A) I don't do it, and B) it's a criminal offence already, but since most crashes happen due to drivers' carelessness and inattention, why not hand out 12 month bans for the following.
1, using a mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, INCLUDING hands-free, as it still distracts the driver.
2, using any form of in-car media, i.e. sat-nav, stereo etc.
3, talking to passengers, especially rowdy children in the back
4, being lost, being late, needing a pee....the list goes on.
All of these things are regularly cited as the cause, or major contributing factor in a crash, & we just KNOW that every person who piously advocates a zero limit for alcohol is guilty of one or more of the above on a regular basis.
But hey, we wouldn't be human if we weren't hypocrires, would we?

Answer 4

Speaking as a driving instructor, you might be surprised that I don't entirely agree with you. You may have heard the phrase, 'there are lies, damn lies, and statistics'! Here we are in the realm of statistics. Firstly, those people who cause death by drink/driving are usually way over the limit so a zero tolerance would make no difference to people like this.

Also, it cannot be assumed that a person who has caused, or been involved in a serious accident, and has subsequently been found to be drinking, is guilty as a result of alcohol. The person could be trying to change a CD or using a mobile phone. It could even be the other persons fault.

Having said that, I confess that I personally adopt a zero tolerance. I am also pleased to see that so many people agree with you! I imagine most people who have answered this question are young (unlike myself!) and as such, it is gratifying to see that so many have adopted a responsible attitude to this subject.

Answer 5

The human body naturally produces a variable amount of alcohol in the bloodstream. In most people this is a very small amount, a few micrograms at most. If a zero alcohol tolerance policy was enforced then strictly speaking no human being could legally drive a car as everyone alive has at least a very small amount of blood alcohol.
In fact in some people with certain genetic conditions this level of natural blood alcohol is pretty close to the legal limit already. These people may never have touched a single alcoholic drink in their entire lives, have never been drunk and yet technically are not legally allowed to drive because they are over the limit.
Unless each person was to carry a medical record and was tested often enough to keep this up to date it would be impossible to fairly administer a zero tolerance policy on blood alcohol.
Although this ambient level of blood alcohol is not usually found in people with Downes Syndrome, and certain other chromosomal disorders. So some people would still be fine to drive even if literally a zero blood alcohol rule was enforced.

Actually the more I think about it the more it appeals to me to campaign for a zero blood alcohol rule. Although this would stop pretty much all transport it would also be great for the environment and would encourage exercise as there would be almost no cars on the road. Also I would not have to pay as much tax for the upkeep of roads. I walk to work anyway so it would not affect me much at all. Yes! Lets go for it!

Answer 6

Because the government makes huges amounts of money not only on alcohol, tobacco taxes, but even more on making stupid laws about a low alcohol driving limit and entrapping people on it. FYI, there are responsible people that can drive, have a few drinks, talk on a phone, or all of the above safely. Why aren't guns illegal? There's no reason for that one. Blame the individual that's stupid and not make the entire population have to pay for some idiots. I see sober people everyday that I wonder how they are legally able to drive. Stop making excuses for things other than BAD DRIVERS, STUPID PEOPLE!

Answer 7

they need to do away with all plea bargins when it comes to any and all dwi offenses. 1 of the things that really pi-ss me off is, they'll 'bargin' it down to reckless op just cause it was .01 under the required amount to be at the required threshold for dwi.
another thing that pis-ses me off is, how in the hell can someone with 15 or more dwi convictions even be able to title or register a car in their name?

i say that dwi is an offense that u willingly do. so, 1st offense, 1 year suspension of license + license plate/registration seizure, $1000 fine, 1 week in jail, manditory alcohol diversion program, 3 year probation in which the dmv puts ur license plate on the cop's list to be especially watchful for, and that u'd have to have a manditory alcohol screening whenever the dmv wants it done while on probation. if they cause a wreck with injury, they get banned for life + prison for first offense.

2nd offense should be banned from driving for life, vehicle forfeited.
3rd offense should be 5 years in prison.

some peeps are so retarded that they cant comprehend that a drunk in a car turns it into a lethal weapon....or for a better term, a weapon of mass destruction.

btw, they tried to totally ban alcohol in the states back in the 1920's....and it didnt work. crime was rampant, and the mob got rich.

Answer 8

I see your point, and am not in total disagreement.

In practical terms, impairment is not limited to a certain amount of alcohol in the system, or, even limited to alcohol or drugs. In the US, a state of intoxication beyond safe limits is assumed when a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) reaches a certain point. (.08% in most states.) It is presumed that anyone reaching that point or beyond is drunk, and no legal defense can be advanced. Law enforcement officers need not wait to see that level in order to make an arrest for impaired driving. If a driver is seen behaving in a way that seems dodgey, the officer can make the determination that the driver is impaired merely on his behavior.

A person can be impaired with VERY low BAC levels.

A person can be impaired due to poor health, lack of sleep or even for other, medical reasons.

Answer 9

I quite agree with you. The legal drinking limit is so low that you might as well not drink anyway. The thing is having had one drink (safe) people push it by thinking well I'll just have one more and hopefully be all right etc. A car is a lethal weapon if not driven correctly and people under the influence of drink, drugs or who have not passed a driving test should be given much stiffer sentences than are handed out these days.

Answer 10

Because the body always contains some alcohol even if you never drink, it is very small but more than zero. Then there are things like mouth wash, breath freshener some cough medicines that contain alcohol, yes it is again a small amount but more than zero.