Although it's a late warning for car drivers going for a drink before or after the Rangers game. There's a zero limit/ tolerance for drink driving in force in Scotland..

I guess that's why the roads up there are damn near empty.

The limit in Scotland is not zero.

The limit is 22 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.
OR
50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

There is as stated zero tolerance of drink driving.

Bfc wrote:Although it's a late warning for car drivers going for a drink before or after the Rangers game. There's a zero limit/ tolerance for drink driving in force in Scotland..

So far as I'm aware that's not true.
It's lower than in the rest of the UK though. (I think it's just over half).
Edit:Post above confirms this.

They are all too smacked up to be able to locate their mouths with a glass of alcohol.

The limite u can drink is more less than in the uk

One or 2 and people will b fine

cutsy123 wrote:The limite u can drink is more less than in the uk

One or 2 and people will b fine

Wots the point in shortenin sum words if yor gunna put xtra letters on others?

Gud pointeroo maj

BFCmaj wrote:Wots the point in shortenin sum words if yor gunna put xtra letters on others?

Oh no the grammer police

cutsy123 wrote:Oh no the grammer police

grammar*

Sorry cutsy Couldn't resist mate

It might seem admirable that Scots keep to the zero tolerance limit but if they weren't too p1ssed to remember where they'd left their cars it'd be a different story....

cutsy123 wrote:The limite u can drink is more less than in the uk

One or 2 and people will b fine

Nope. 1 will put you over the limit here. It is lower than the rest of the UK. Don't be a Charlie Uniform November Tango, don't drink and drive!!!

cutsy123 wrote:Oh no the grammer police

Spelling constable actually.

Zero drinking on the streets too.

Got surrounded on exit from station because of a few cans.

Beware, it's not worth the risk.

But to add some balance the locals are very accomodating and helpful.

We have met and made some friends already!!

Bfc wrote:Although it's a late warning for car drivers going for a drink before or after the Rangers game. There's a zero limit/ tolerance for Maryland dui classes in force in Scotland..

Hello Bfc,
I have a question, What happen now if someone caught in drunk driving in Scotland

At the time I wrote the OP, I was about to drive to the Rangers game, when someone advised me of the strict guidelines re drink driving in Scotland being different to England. I quickly put the post out without checking the exact accuracy of the drink limits, to make other driving in Scotland aware and save them from possibly receiving a driving ban, which is also effective in England.
Other posters were quick to give accurate information, re the maximum levels.
I had a quick look at the Maryland topic you asked me to give an opinion on and found it of no interest to me. Others may reply re the subject and give you the answers I can't give.

cutsy123 wrote: One or 2 and people will b fine

Oh no you won't. 2 of any drink is definitely over the limit in Scotland. Even 1 might get you close.

Its had a major effect on the post-golf pint, for example, and resulted in a reduction in bar takings in many places.

There should be a zero limit/tolerance for drink driving everywhere. My sister's daughter was killed at 19 by a drunk driver in 2001.

Shall we ban cars too?

Sorry for your loss and all but that's clearly a ridiculous statement.

It's not a ridiculous statement but more like a sensible statement.. At least it will make it clear to everybody that you don't drink and drive..
Sorry to hear of your sisters loss Quicknick.

Was that odd statement really about the limit in the EU? (Rather than an incorrect ' limite u')

How has banning cars got anything to do with driving one drunk? It's not hard to avoid, if you're driving dont have a beer.

There is a difference between a drunk driver and a had one pint driver though.

It's the same old approach, ban everyone from everything because of the mindless few.

We had a similar topic a while ago with the same sort of views on drinking whilst on a plane. In both circumstances, if it wasn't for a minority of bell ends there would never be an issue.

There are plenty of idiotic unsafe drivers on the road who don't need a drink to be unsafe behind a wheel. In fact I'd probably say there are more of them than there are drunk drivers (no evidence to back that up of course) but there seems to be very little done about these idiots.

I'm sorry for any loss that people suffer but I don't think banning drinking is the answer. The drunken idiots who are the problem will carry on regardless.

No-one should drive if they have had just ONE drink! Everyone who has ever had a drink should know that it does make a difference to your behaviour. I would vote for zero tolerance.

DCWat wrote:There is a difference between a drunk driver and a had one pint driver though.

It's the same old approach, ban everyone from everything because of the mindless few.

We had a similar topic a while ago with the same sort of views on drinking whilst on a plane. In both circumstances, if it wasn't for a minority of bell ends there would never be an issue.

There are plenty of idiotic unsafe drivers on the road who don't need a drink to be unsafe behind a wheel. In fact I'd probably say there are more of them than there are drunk drivers (no evidence to back that up of course) but there seems to be very little done about these idiots.

I'm sorry for any loss that people suffer but I don't think banning drinking is the answer. The drunken idiots who are the problem will carry on regardless.

There is a huge difference between having a drink on a plane and having even ONE drink sat behind the wheel. They have done countless experiments of the effects of alcohol and impaired driving. One pint makes a big difference in terms of judgement etc.

I just can't understand why people should risk even one drink for the sake of putting others at risk. What's the point?

Don't drink and drive is said many, many times for a reason.

Trying to ban what millions of people do (legally) every day over the sake of one or two idiots who will be doing it regardless, is just silly.

A quote from the following article:

'We know from evidence that the drink driving limit here is incredibly dangerous - it sends out the message that one or two drinks is completely safe, when we know that even small amounts of alcohol can dramatically increase the chance of a crash or death.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... crash.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Millions might do but I don't .If I'm driving I don't drink it's not a problem Zero tolerance.

Then take solace in knowing that you are doing the "right thing", as for everyone else, stay legal - no problem!

I'd also vote in favor of zero tolerance. Half of my family is Scottish and I have to knock it on the head when I'm up there over a weekend. Can feel the difference in the morning, and I'm not a heavy drinker.

Also agree there are more dangerous things than driving after a pint, but how do you police those?

It's an easy risk to negate, and I just don't see why you wouldn't be able to forgo that one precious drink. What's the positive? If you're that desperate for half a lager, get a taxi and have as many pints as you like.

Zero tolerance is a bad idea. How are you supposed to gauge when exactly the last trace of alcohol has left your body?

Everyone knows that drunk driving is bad, but are there any statistics showing the amount of accidents caused by drivers with alcohol in their system but under the legal limit?

1 unit takes 1hr for the liver to process no?

Maybe don't make it zero but adopt the Scottish system?

Far more accidents are caused by sober drivers than drunk drivers.....

I'd never have more than one and consider driving and that would be with a meal.

Aside from those driving whilst bladdered, I suspect the biggest issue may come the morning after. I'm certainly in no fit state to drive the morning after a night out, and don't.

Tests may prove otherwise but I personally don't see an issue with one apart from the fact i might need a **** stop.

It seems all those who think drinking just one pint is OK are quite willing to completely ignore medical advice that says the exact opposite in terms of reaction times etc.

As for zero tolerance, they could easily make it at a level that would allow people to have a dessert, for example, that had a small amount of alcohol in it.

Perhaps the equivalent of a 1/4 pint, for example. Something you can't purchase, but enough to allow for alcohol that's found in a meal.

Spijed wrote:It seems all those who think drinking just one pint is OK are quite willing to completely ignore medical advice that says the exact opposite in terms of reaction times etc.

As for zero tolerance, they could easily make it at a level that would allow people to have a dessert, for example, that had a small amount of alcohol in it.

Perhaps the equivalent of a 1/4 pint, for example. Something you can't purchase, but enough to allow for alcohol that's found in a meal.

What about the morning after you've had a few beers?

I don't ignore medical advice, I abide by the law. If that was zero, that's what I would do.

yorkyclaret wrote:Far more accidents are caused by sober drivers than drunk drivers.....

Are you talking about quantity or percentage? I assume the former in which case it makes no sense.

Rileybobs wrote:What about the morning after you've had a few beers?

If you're driving in the morning don't drink as much.

1 pint contains 2.4 units of alcohol.

5 pints is therefore 12 units, so assuming you're in bed for 1am, you can't safely drive until 1pm the following day.

Get a taxi if you're that bothered, or don't drink as much.

The issue I have with the Scottish government changing the limit is that if you were caught over the Scottish limit, but under the limit for the rest of the UK, you should only receive a ban from driving in Scotland.

This could easily be dealt with via a restriction code on your driving licence.

Rileybobs wrote:What about the morning after you've had a few beers?

That's a good point/question, as I think a lot of people (myself included) often forget to take that into account. As ClaretMatt says, it's roughly 2 hours per pint of medium lager (such as Carling) and nearer 3 hours for something such as Stella. So if you went on a night out and had 10 pints of Stella, in theory, that's 30 hours to get it out of your system. So you could still fail a breath test even at night the following day.

The two hours starts from your last drink, and food will extend the absorption rate.

"The 2 hours starts from your last drink"

What a load of old c0ck.The liver will start to metabolise the alcohol within minutes of drinking.A general rule of thumb is an absorption of between 12-16 mcg per hour dependent on weight and assorted factors .An average pint contains about 23/24 .

The factors are myriad though.A pint might be sipped over 25mins ,it might be gulped in 5 and so on, food intake and so forth.

A pint is fine but crazy to even consider driving after more than 1. Drug driving is the thing involved surprised the govt don't really hammer the msg home for drugs as they do for booze.

Claretmatt4 wrote:If you're driving in the morning don't drink as much.

1 pint contains 2.4 units of alcohol.

5 pints is therefore 12 units, so assuming you're in bed for 1am, you can't safely drive until 1pm the following day.

Get a taxi if you're that bothered, or don't drink as much.

That seems like guess work, surely that will vary according to the size of the person and other factors like perhaps their hydration and metabolic rate.

As for 'get a taxi if I'm that bothered' - don't take that tone! I questioned how, if there was a completely zero tolerance approach - i.e. any acolohol in your system is an offence, would people know when they're safe to drive?

I also asked if there were any statistics proving that people who have had a drink, but are below the legal limit, are more likely to be involved in an accident. Has anyone got any statistics?

Someone mentioned that reaction times are longer after a drink, I'm sure that's correct. But would I not also be correct in thinking that reaction times are longer for older people? Therefore, a 25 year old driver who's had a pint might well have quicker reaction speeds than a teetotal 65 year old. Should we ban drivers over 50?

FWIW, I'm not particularly affected by our drink driving laws - I just think a zero tolerance approach is a bad idea and would be very difficult to implement.

How long will it be before employers start asking staff to take a breath test at their workplace, like they do with some bus drivers, airline pilots, to safeguard others. Especially if someone following an incident/accident, is found to be over the drink. limit. They then would have some form of legal argument against an employee making an insurance claim against the company.

Bfc wrote:How long will it be before employers start asking staff to take a breath test at their workplace, like they do with some bus drivers, airline pilots, to safeguard others. Especially if someone following an incident/accident, is found to be over the drink. limit. They then would have some form of legal argument against an employee making an insurance claim against the company.

Most big companies in the construction trade have alcohol and drugs test.
They show up on site and (supposedly) conduct random tests.
Some of the companies if you refuse you are gone.

Just come back home from a council meet where the police stated it was Christmas and they will be out on their usual Drink/Drive initiative.....where they have a zero tolerance approach. Same all over.

A copper pulled me over the other day.

He said... *Can you blow into this bag please sir?"

I said.. "Why officer?"

He replied... "Because my chips are hot"

Tommy Cooper, sometime in the 70's.

Bin Ont Turf wrote:A copper pulled me over the other day.

He said... *Can you blow into this bag please sir?"

I said.. "Why officer?"

He replied... "Because my chips are hot"

Tommy Cooper, sometime in the 70's.

Just like that.

Rileybobs wrote:That seems like guess work, surely that will vary according to the size of the person and other factors like perhaps their hydration and metabolic rate.

As for 'get a taxi if I'm that bothered' - don't take that tone! I questioned how, if there was a completely zero tolerance approach - i.e. any acolohol in your system is an offence, would people know when they're safe to drive?

I also asked if there were any statistics proving that people who have had a drink, but are below the legal limit, are more likely to be involved in an accident. Has anyone got any statistics?

Someone mentioned that reaction times are longer after a drink, I'm sure that's correct. But would I not also be correct in thinking that reaction times are longer for older people? Therefore, a 25 year old driver who's had a pint might well have quicker reaction speeds than a teetotal 65 year old. Should we ban drivers over 50?

FWIW, I'm not particularly affected by our drink driving laws - I just think a zero tolerance approach is a bad idea and would be very difficult to implement.

Sorry Rileybobs I wasn't meaning you personally when I said get a taxi, more the people who can't go out and have no drink if they know they are driving!

Agree with most of your points, older drivers (over 80 say) will probably be worse on average than younger drivers with one beer, difficult to police that though unfortunately.