Drink Driving deaths up - Why?
Discussion
Drink driving deaths up yet again. 32% since 2021!
Why is this? It's less and less socially acceptable.
The only thing I can think of that's recently changed is the drug driving laws being set at such low levels that young men are figuring they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. But I doubt it is that.
Or could this be statistical noise?
More info: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-...
Why is this? It's less and less socially acceptable.
The only thing I can think of that's recently changed is the drug driving laws being set at such low levels that young men are figuring they may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. But I doubt it is that.
Or could this be statistical noise?
More info: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-...
Somewhatfoolish said:
Or could this be statistical noise?
As the article you quoted says - "Between 2021 and 2022, there was an increase in the overall number of collisions reported with numbers broadly showing a return to levels seen before the COVID-19 pandemic."And looking at the report on all casualties from all road accidents that is the case - https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-...
Therefore it looks like drink driving casualties are just part of an overall increase in casualties from an increasing number of road accidents.
Although the table showing where casualties happened is interesting -
IMD decile of casualty home postcode 2022 road casualties (%)
Most deprived 10% 12.3
More deprived 10% to 20% 12.6
More deprived 20% to 30% 12.2
More deprived 30% to 40% 11.4
More deprived 40% to 50% 10.4
Less deprived 40% to 50% 9.7
Less deprived 30% to 40% 8.7
Less deprived 20% to 30% 8.3
Less deprived 10% to 20% 7.7
Least deprived 10% 6.8
And there could be a whole bunch of reasons for that.
The punitive levels set for drug driving definitely do play a part in drink driving as if a driver has been stopped for a roadside check and fails then it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law if it's for smoking a spliff four days back or if they have just downed 10 pints that same night.
Looking at the data it's surprising there's only 180 fatalities in the last year, thought it would be far higher.
Looks like under 35's are the main age group affected.
Edit: Also interesting that the rates are higher in Scotland than England despite the lower drink drive limit.
Looking at the data it's surprising there's only 180 fatalities in the last year, thought it would be far higher.
Looks like under 35's are the main age group affected.
Edit: Also interesting that the rates are higher in Scotland than England despite the lower drink drive limit.
untakenname said:
Also interesting that the rates are higher in Scotland than England despite the lower drink drive limit.
Probably because similar to Wales, which also has a significantly higher rate than England, it is easier to kill yourself or your passengers on a fast open country road rather than a 30mph shunt in a urban area.They really need to do something about the drug driving limits. A regular weed smoker will know that they can be done for consuming cannabis days ago so might as well just drive stoned.
If it was lined up with the drink driving limits - i.e. only penalised if intoxicated it would stop people smoking before / during a drive. As it currently stands if you're a regular smoker you will be convicted even if not under the influence.
If it was lined up with the drink driving limits - i.e. only penalised if intoxicated it would stop people smoking before / during a drive. As it currently stands if you're a regular smoker you will be convicted even if not under the influence.
Getragdogleg said:
Id love to see a breakdown of the demographics for the drink drivers.
www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/report...SpidersWeb said:
Getragdogleg said:
Id love to see a breakdown of the demographics for the drink drivers.
www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/report...untakenname said:
The punitive levels set for drug driving definitely do play a part in drink driving as if a driver has been stopped for a roadside check and fails then it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law if it's for smoking a spliff four days back or if they have just downed 10 pints that same night.
It most certainly will matter when it comes to sentencing.kiethton said:
The thing that annoys me with this is the groups like IAM calling for ever lower limits!
If people aren't taking heed of the current one, whats the benefit in lowering it?
Only a minority of drivers flout the DD limit. If it was lowered the majority who comply with it are likely to comply with the lower limit. The current limit in E&W (in breath) is 35?g. If that was reduced (say) to align with that in Scotland (22?g) it would mean those who currently drive with between 23?g and 35?g may either reduce their intake or not drive. I agree it's not scientific to claim that entirely. A proportion of those who drive in that band of intoxication may still carry on as before. But many of them won't.If people aren't taking heed of the current one, whats the benefit in lowering it?
JagLad said:
Only a minority of drivers flout the DD limit. If it was lowered the majority who comply with it are likely to comply with the lower limit. The current limit in E&W (in breath) is 35μg. If that was reduced (say) to align with that in Scotland (22μg) it would mean those who currently drive with between 23μg and 35μg may either reduce their intake or not drive. I agree it's not scientific to claim that entirely. A proportion of those who drive in that band of intoxication may still carry on as before. But many of them won't.
There's little to no evidence it's made scottish roads any safer; so far it appears to be another triumph of virtue signalling over evidence based policy, the leitmotif of the scottish government.bad company said:
I know several people who regularly risk driving a little over the limit. Trouble is with hardly any police patrols if you’re not involved in an accident the chances of getting caught are close to zero.
This is exactly the problem.I challenged a bloke a while ago, village shop, he was wearing slippers & bought 4 bottles of wine.
Clearly steaming drunk & walked out to his car.
I went over & politely suggested he may want a lift as he was drunk.
I even offer him a lift if it wasn’t far.
He said no & then had 3 goes at closing his door as the seatbelt was in the door jamb.
I called the Police who said they couldn’t do anything about it as there had been no incident.
Also tend to think it is down to a lack of deterrent. Back yonder you knew if you drove home from a party after one too many, there was a decent chance a cop car was out there and checking out your driving. This helped a lot in making you decide to call a cab.
Now there is a feeling that if you are drunk but can drive fairly well (as most drunks tend to believe) the journey home is practically risk free.
Indeed, you could get zapped for speeding while drunk by a camera, yet still 'only' pay the standard fine and points when 'policed'. No drunk driving charge for you.
Now there is a feeling that if you are drunk but can drive fairly well (as most drunks tend to believe) the journey home is practically risk free.
Indeed, you could get zapped for speeding while drunk by a camera, yet still 'only' pay the standard fine and points when 'policed'. No drunk driving charge for you.
Stick Legs said:
I called the Police who said they couldn’t do anything about it as there had been no incident.
Bulls
t.That's a "we've zero resource and that's not a violent crime" response brought on by decades of under-funding.
..and THAT is the problem. Same as people driving around using their phone. Same as petty crime like burglary and car theft. Those doing it KNOW their chances of detection (let alone prosecution) are slim-to-none, so why worry.
kiethton said:
The thing that annoys me with this is the groups like IAM calling for ever lower limits!
If people aren't taking heed of the current one, whats the benefit in lowering it?
Scotland conducted an experiment with a lower drink drive limit. Made no difference. Why? My guess is that it isn't one or two pint drivers that tend to crash. IME drunk drivers who crash their car are usually well over the limit. So detering people from having one pint after a round of golf won't reduce crashes. As Scotland showed.If people aren't taking heed of the current one, whats the benefit in lowering it?
More police action catching the drunk drivers is the answer but that costs money.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-pointlessness-of-pintl...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff