# How attitudes to drink driving changed



## Jezston (4 Feb 2013)

I'm _relatively_ young, in that I don't remember a time when drink driving was considered acceptable, but my understanding is there was a time where it was considered more so, and there was substantive campaigning involved to have it taken more seriously, resulting in the attitudinal shift we have today where most people would never even consider driving over the limit - or even drinking at all when needing to drive.

I'm interested in hearing from those who would have lived through such change, and consider how the campaigns were fought and their effect, as I feel that pushing for attitude changes would be more effective towards making cycling safer and more popular than things like cycle lanes and the like.


----------



## david k (4 Feb 2013)

it used to be called drunk driving as opposed to drink driving, nobody had a problem with people drinking and driving but it was looked down on if you were drunk, but of course drunk was subjective, ive had 6 pints but im not drunk so i can drive was often seemed okay!


----------



## Bodhbh (4 Feb 2013)

It must be the single most successful government campaign that I can think of. I was not old enought to drive before that attitude shift, but I can remember very well how some in the family and and friends of family used to carry on - e.g. all day drinking on Christmas Day and driving home without much being said - and it would be absolutely unacceptable now.

I think not all countries in Europe have the same stigma attached to drink driving. I remember my boss in Belgium invited me around to his house for a few beers after starting the job. He was a fairly well to do chap, university lecturer. He didn't know me from adam really, or what my attitude to drink driving would be, but he drove me home 30 odd miles away after polishing off 5-6 beers, just assumed I'd be okay with it. Had a few experiences like that.


----------



## Linford (4 Feb 2013)

Drug driving is a much bigger problem now than it was back then. The amount of cars I walk or ride past now where I can smell the ganja coming from it is quite scary.
There should be as much emphasis on this as Drink Driving IMO


----------



## Sara_H (4 Feb 2013)

I'm 40 and I remember my Dads friend claiming that most people drove better when they'd been drinking!
I also remember my Dad refusing to wear a seat belt claiming it would cause more injuries than it would prevent.
my feeling is that we'll t to a stage en speeding and general road hog behaviour is considered antisocial but it wont be for a long time.


----------



## Linford (4 Feb 2013)

Sara_H said:


> I'm 40 and I remember my Dads friend claiming that most people drove better when they'd been drinking!
> I also remember my Dad refusing to wear a seat belt claiming it would cause more injuries than it would prevent.
> my feeling is that we'll t to a stage en speeding and general road hog behaviour is considered antisocial but it wont be for a long time.


 
Speeding is subjective though because it isn't as black and white as drink or drug driving


----------



## Haitch (4 Feb 2013)

I know better than anyone else what I can do. Introducing a law will make people break it as a matter of principle. This is the way we've always done it. It's my right as a freeborn Englishman. We didn't win the war to get bossed about by little Hitlers. 

It wasn't so much the drink/driving campaign but the attitude to it, and it's been repeated ad nauseum over the years: gay rights, women's rights, seat belts, the EU, immigrants, speeding, racial equality, health and safety...


----------



## GBC (4 Feb 2013)

The acceptance of drunk driving was only ever a social acceptance; it never went any further than that. I was in the Police during the early to late 70s and it was pretty much a zero tolerance approach by us and the courts. I don't recall any specific campaigns, apart from those traditional at the Festive period, it was really just a very gradual shift in public attitude from acceptance and sympathy for those caught, to outright condemnation. Road deaths were more common at that time, and the number of them attributed to drunk drivers was undoubtedly a factor in that swing.


----------



## snorri (4 Feb 2013)

It was a different world in the days when drinking and driving was acceptable.
The vast majority of cars were less powerful and incapable of the speeds modern cars achieve with ease.
There was less traffic on the roads, fewer cars, and those tended to be driven by older people who felt no need to impress their friends regarding their vehicle or driving prowess. The younger people, who feature prominently in crash staistics today, could not afford to buy cars in these days. Fewer people drank to excess due to the cost of alcohol putting excessive consumption out of reach to people on the average wage and alcohol was not promoted as it is today by supermarkets etc. 
From memory, those who drank and drove were older, generally drove quite carefully and slowly and any crashes they had tended to be of the bump and scrape variety rather than high speed collisions with other vehicles or roadside furniture.
Just as the world has changed so attitudes have changed, the latter perhaps not as fast as some would wish.


----------



## Linford (4 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2293258, member: 45"]That's your urban perspective.[/quote]

Do you agree or disagree with what I said ?


----------



## byegad (4 Feb 2013)

I started driving in 1969 and have owned either a Motorcycle or a car ever since, sometimes both at the same time.

Drink driving was rife, I knew lots of people who drank heavily and drove home, and I have to say I also probably drank enough to fail a breath test and then drove on occasion. The thing that changed driver behaviour was a simple thing. They took away your driving licence and as time went by I got to know several people who'd been caught and banned. Their return to driving was damn expensive as Insurers were reluctant to cover a convicted driver. So the simple ban also involving a fine at sentencing led to increased costs for the returning driver for many years after the ban expired.

Fining a driver £45 and adding 3 points to his licence for hitting a cyclist is not going to change driver behaviour.


----------



## MacB (4 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2293258, member: 45"]That's your urban perspective.[/quote]

yep, you try to go out for a nice quiet bit of dogging and all the cars you approach are full of druggies rather than swingers....


----------



## Linford (4 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2293328, member: 45"]I agree that it's an issue. With the caveat that you, not being a rural dweller and having a tendency to only see what's in front of you, don't have the bigger picture in terms of proportions.[/quote]

I have certainly see drug use amongst the people I have mixed who live out of the towns with over the years to be very prolific. You justnotivce it more in the towns because they are sat on traffic lights and you get a waft of it as you go past them.


----------



## Dave Davenport (4 Feb 2013)

At two places I worked, one in the late 70's and one mid 80's someone who drove as part of their job were banned for drink driving. They both kept their jobs and were given different roles until they could drive again. Can't see that happening these days, thank goodness.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (4 Feb 2013)

[QUOTE 2292872, member: 45"]There are pockets, some rural areas for example, where it's not considered as unacceptable as we'd like it to be.[/quote]
Some countries abroad are not so strict about it either


----------



## Pat "5mph" (4 Feb 2013)

Sara_H said:


> I'm 40 and I remember my Dads friend claiming that most people drove better when they'd been drinking!
> I also remember my Dad refusing to wear a seat belt claiming it would cause more injuries than it would prevent.
> my feeling is that we'll t to a stage en speeding and general road hog behaviour is considered antisocial but it wont be for a long time.


Yes, I remember those things too.
Hope the day will come (in my lifetime) that shouting abuse at cyclists will become antisocial


----------



## david k (4 Feb 2013)

User said:


> It's never been called 'drunk driving' in English and Welsh law - it's always been 'driving under the influence'.


sorry yes, im not entirely sure what the legal terms are/were, i do know people used to say you shouldnt drunk drive as opposed to drink and drive, certainly round here they did anyway


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Feb 2013)

Jezston said:


> I'm _relatively_ young, in that I don't remember a time when drink driving was considered acceptable, but my understanding is there was a time where it was considered more so, and there was substantive campaigning involved to have it taken more seriously, resulting in the attitudinal shift we have today where most people would never even consider driving over the limit - or even drinking at all when needing to drive.
> 
> I'm interested in hearing from those who would have lived through such change, and consider how the campaigns were fought and their effect, as I feel that pushing for attitude changes would be more effective towards making cycling safer and more popular than things like cycle lanes and the like.


I lived in the sticks back in the early 80s, and I well remember an abrupt change for the better. It came about when publicans were told that the police would oppose the renewal of their licenses if they caught somebody coming out of the pub with too much booze in them. I can almost date it - a year either side of 1981


----------



## ColinJ (4 Feb 2013)

Alan H said:


> I know better than anyone else what I can do. Introducing a law will make people break it as a matter of principle. This is the way we've always done it. It's my right as a freeborn Englishman. We didn't win the war to get bossed about by little Hitlers.


*Too right!*





So, when homosexuality was illegal in the UK, you went out and got yourself a hunky boyfriend just to show 'em who's boss!


----------



## Haitch (5 Feb 2013)

ColinJ said:


> *Too right!*
> So, when homosexuality was illegal in the UK, you went out and got yourself a hunky boyfriend just to show 'em who's boss!



Oh come on, Colin, cut me a bit of slack here. Can you honestly claim that the pulp reaction to any progressive change in the UK isn't the one described in the first paragraph?


----------



## Haitch (5 Feb 2013)

User said:


> What a knob!



Abusive and thick or thick and abusive. There doesn't seem to be a third option. Please clarify. Knob.


----------



## ColinJ (5 Feb 2013)

Alan H said:


> Oh come on, Colin, cut me a bit of slack here. Can you honestly claim that the pulp reaction to any progressive change in the UK isn't the one described in the first paragraph?


I admit that I do not like being told what I can and cannot do but there are cases when governments are right to do that.

I do not think that they should try and force cyclists to wear helmets - that should be a personal choice since nobody else is endangered by an unhelmeted cyclist.

Drink driving is clearly a different case though. When I was young and foolish I'd happily get into cars driven by drunken mates and I can recall at least 5 or 6 incidents which might easily have produced multiple fatalities. A teenage friend of my stepdaughter died when her drunken boyfriend crashed his car on the way back from the pub. We need laws to protect the public from selfish stupidity like that. When people were allowed to choose, far too many chose to drive dangerously.

As for the second paragraph ...


----------



## Beebo (5 Feb 2013)

Have a read of this BBC report from Ireland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21143199
_"Councillors in south-west Ireland have backed a plan to relax the drink-drive limits for some isolated constituents._

_The motion backed by Kerry county councillors would allow police to issue permits overriding the legal limit. _

_Councillor Danny Healy-Rae, who proposed the motion, said it would apply to "older people" who "are being isolated now at home, and a lot of them falling into depression"._


----------



## tyred (5 Feb 2013)

Beebo said:


> Have a read of this BBC report from Ireland.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21143199
> _"Councillors in south-west Ireland have backed a plan to relax the drink-drive limits for some isolated constituents._
> 
> ...


 
That will never happen. County Councils have no power to do anything very much and Healy-Rae is just like his Dad, someone who likes the sound of his own voice and believes that any publicity is good publicity.


----------



## bianchi1 (5 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> Speeding is subjective though because it isn't as black and white as drink or drug driving




How is speeding subjective? Surely you are or you are not, while drink driving is more open to confusion..for example different country limits.


----------



## EltonFrog (5 Feb 2013)

Alan H said:


> I know better than anyone else what I can do. Introducing a law will make people break it as a matter of principle. This is the way we've always done it. It's my right as a freeborn Englishman. We didn't win the war to get bossed about by little Hitlers.
> 
> It wasn't so much the drink/driving campaign but the attitude to it, and it's been repeated ad nauseum over the years: gay rights, women's rights, seat belts, the EU, immigrants, speeding, racial equality, health and safety...



What's your point?


----------



## Dave Davenport (5 Feb 2013)

CarlP said:


> What's your point?


 
I honestly read that post as a joke, I'm still not sure???


----------



## Haitch (5 Feb 2013)

Dave Davenport said:


> I honestly read that post as a joke, I'm still not sure???


 
Partly. But also that people are viscerally opposed to change enforced from without. And although the law might progress, the attitude remains the same at root. I hope that clears things up a bit.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Feb 2013)

Speeding was implicated in over a thousand deaths on the roads last year, cannabis in none.

Drink driving casualties have declined dramatically, I look forward to when speeding drivers are viewed with the same disgust as drunk drivers. And those Kerry councillors are publicans, funnily enough.


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Feb 2013)

At 33, I'm perhaps too young to recall a time when it was socially acceptable to drink and drive, but a friend of my father's - a quite well known public figure incidentally - tells a story of how he work up the morning after his work Christmas party, having driven. 

He couldn't remember a thing about getting home, but had managed to vomit copiously over his steering wheel and dash.


----------



## Boris Bajic (6 Feb 2013)

Attitudes have changed, certainly. That is a good thing.

In saying this, I differentiate (on the basis of observation within a fairly narrow social grouping) between attitudes to conviction and those towards people who seem casual about their own consumption.

*Conviction: * Thirty years ago I had a friend who was a twice-convicted drink-driver. The word was that if caught again after his lengthy second ban, he'd be incarcerated. He attracted a good deal of sympathy that I'm sure would be absent today. Nobody told him off and he was known to like a drink.

There are other tales with a similar tenor, the response to which would be less approving today.

That is a very good thing.

*Casual attitude to consumption:* Twenty years ago, if a guest who'd come by car was seen to be drinking with an enthusiasm above that which would make driving sensible, others at the gathering might wring their hands and say "He is awful, he does that all the time". I've seen it and heard it. Many of us have.

I recall instances of a couple both giggling at 'home time', saying _"I thought you were driving_". One no longer sees that. People seem pretty strict about consumption.

These days, hosts or other guests square up and remind a guest that he or she is driving. We've offered people a bed for the night and they've stayed. It can be awkward socially, but it is done regularly and many years ago it was not. It is common now for a host to say "I think a juice might be better".

There is also a greater awareness these days that one can still be over the limit in the morning. That is a good thing.

Also, the generation who'd driven before current laws were passed are getting older, no longer driving or simply dead.

I remember my late father offering me a lift to the station thirty or so years ago and being offended when I told him he was over the limit. The reply was classic: "My dear boy, all I've had is a pint before lunch, a couple of glasses of wine with the meal and one or two whiskies in the afternoon". It was about 4 on a Sunday. The whiskies were (by pub standards) very generous triples. When I did the maths for him, he was shocked. He simply had no idea. He later said_ "If what you tell me about the legal limit is accurate, I probably drove home illegally every evening for the last twenty years I worked". _ I should add that he never crashed and had only one conviction (double white line) in 45+ years. That generation are either driving less or not driving.

I worry that people still cycle while tired and emotional on their way home from a legless pub session, but they are unlikely to cause distress or injury to others. Like the drunk pedestrian who staggers off a pavement under a bus, they may kill themselves but will not cause other road users inconvenience, peril or loss of sleep. I know many who (like drunk drivers of old) swear that they cycle better when drunk and shoot statistics about how few accidents are caused by cyclists, but I still find it slightly silly and have had to swerve round mash-up riders in the past. I've always found it hilarious as soon as the event passes, but it would be sad if one of them were to be walloped by a truck.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Speeding was implicated in over a thousand deaths on the roads last year, cannabis in none.
> 
> Drink driving casualties have declined dramatically, I look forward to when speeding drivers are viewed with the same disgust as drunk drivers. And those Kerry councillors are publicans, funnily enough.


 

You are confusing the terminology here.

There is a distinct difference between 'speeding' - travelling at a velocity which is 'above' the posted speed limit, and 'Innapropriate speed' which is travelling at a speed which they cannot stop within the distance to they see to be safe.

All accidents which are categorised in the latter desciption are included in the stats for 'speeding' as you read it, and that 'innapropriate speed' can be the causation factor in anything from 20mph to 200mph.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Feb 2013)

I'm not confusing anything, the faster you drive a car the more likely you will kill or injure someone.

Cannabis wasn't implicated in a single death last year. Drivers who tested positive for cannabis may have had a joint in the last 30 days, it doesn't mean it caused the accident any more than if they had a cup of tea that morning.


----------



## theclaud (7 Feb 2013)

glenn forger said:


> I'm not confusing anything, the faster you drive a car the more likely you will kill or injure someone.


 
I'm afraid Linford suffers from the Safespeed mentality, and will tie himself in knots to deny this...


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2013)

glenn forger said:


> I'm not confusing anything, the faster you drive a car the more likely you will kill or injure someone.
> 
> Cannabis wasn't implicated in a single death last year. Drivers who tested positive for cannabis may have had a joint in the last 30 days, it doesn't mean it caused the accident any more than if they had a cup of tea that morning.


 
Speed related deaths can easily be attributed to not making a corner on a twisty road, There are many instances of single vehicle accidents where loss of control happens because the driver/rider is within the limits, but too fast for the road. How many roadside memorials are pinned to a telergaph pole or tree where there is only one vehicle involved....many around this way.

This is anecdotal, but my story so bear with me.
Back int eh early 80's when I was 16, I had a Yamaha FS1E, and whilst around my mates he asked me if I could run him around to a local dealer to buy some cannabis resin. We were invited in, and the dealer offered us a go on his bong.
I'd only smoked joints up until that point, and you get a good idea how stron they are when you roll your own, and by the amount they burn on inhalation.
Anyway, The dealer fills the bong with a bit of tobacco and some fairly high grade pakistan black, has a go and passes it to me.
I start puffing away on it thinking this is good (no burn), and he then accuses me of hogging it.
I pass it on to my mate, and the room starts to swim.I got up making my excuses as I was desperate for fresh air, he asked me for the time and I greyed out. woke up 15 minutes later, and staggered outside Sat there for about 10 minutes, and then because my judgment was gone, decided to ride the 3/4 mile back home. Thankfully basically along a quiet single road with little traffic, but I would have been screwed if it was any further or on busy roads.
I managed to get the bike into the garage, and then flaked out again for about an hour on an old sofay in there.
I really was out of control, and very unaware of what was going on around me.
I smoked resin and grass regularly for another 3 or 4 years, but never mixed it and control of a road vehicle again. I was lucky I didn't hurt myself or anyone around me. It took away my ability to make rational judgments.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Feb 2013)

Light weight.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Light weight.


 
So you are happy to see drink and drug compromised people on the road in charge of heavy machinery, but you aren't happy that someone does 75mph on an empty motorway.

If this is the limit of your reasoning, there is little point in continuing with this.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Feb 2013)

So you agree you punch kittens?


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2013)

No finesse at all in your trolling buddy.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Feb 2013)

Saying you flaked out on a girl after a resin joint (It's spelled "Sophie" by the way) isn't the same as saying I want pissed lorry drivers banging up and down the roads. Tell you what, find a single RTC attributed to cannabis last year.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2013)

By the sounds of your tone, I doubt you were even born when I was smoking it. It was my first go on a bong which caught me out (try reading the post )
wised up and realised that I preferred riding my bikes to the stupifying effects of ganja

Stupify is a description for a state of stupidity. It sounds like you are you smoking some now.

You need to provide evidence of your ridiculous asserrtion about the 0% death rates from driving under the influence as User stated.as there is a lot of evidence from both clinical and case studies from people coming a cropper under its influence.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Feb 2013)

Can you find a single RTC attributed to cannabis? One? Anywhere?


----------



## ColinJ (7 Feb 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Can you find a single RTC attributed to cannabis? One? Anywhere?


I'll do it for him ... here's one! 

I've seen people incapable of even speaking after smoking the strong stuff. I have also seen people keel over and lie drooling in a gurgling heap which led me to suspect that they might not be capable of driving safely at the time.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (7 Feb 2013)

Is anyone else starting to like Linford now they know he's an old stoner?


----------



## glenn forger (7 Feb 2013)

"Under the influence" means there was a trace in his blood from a joint smoked up to a month before, I'd suggest that the vehicle being flipped over suggests speed was more of a factor there, the sort of speeding that Linford defends as he wordlessly ruts away on poor old Sophie.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Can you find a single RTC attributed to cannabis? One? Anywhere?


 
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121012/news/710129687/


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2013)

glenn forger said:


> "Under the influence" means there was a trace in his blood from a joint smoked up to a month before, I'd suggest that the vehicle being flipped over suggests speed was more of a factor there, the sort of speeding that Linford defends as he wordlessly ruts away on poor old Sophie.


 


> A MOTORCYCLIST who was killed instantly when he hit a car had been smoking cannabis, a court heard.
> Mark Nicholson, 40, had enough cannabis in his bloodstream to impair his reactions and judgement, according to evidence heard during the inquest into his death.
> Mr Nicholson, who lived in Sandmoor Close, east Hull, was killed when he lost control of his Ducati motorbike and smashed head-on into a Ford Puma on the B12399, near Bilton, on Saturday, July 30.
> Pathologist Dr Shahran Sanni told Hull Coroner's Court blood tests found Mr Nicholson had enough cannabis in his bloodstream to have had a "detrimental effect on his cognitive ability".


 

http://www.thisishullandeastriding....tory-14164489-detail/story.html#axzz2KE0lHGkt


----------



## glenn forger (7 Feb 2013)

Once again, having blood traces of cannabis is nowhere near proof it caused the crash.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Once again, having blood traces of cannabis is nowhere near proof it caused the crash.


 

He didn't just have 'blood traces'...stop cherry picking


----------



## glenn forger (7 Feb 2013)

Also, that was America, where they are nuts about drugs.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Also, that was America, where they are nuts about drugs.


 

A clue is in the link I povided....it was from the Hull local rag (that was in the north of England last time I looked)

Is the Ganja magically twice as powerful in the states as it is here ?


----------



## glenn forger (7 Feb 2013)

One time I woke up with an air stewardess, had a line of charlie and a screw driver, got a cab to the airport and took off and the plane suffered a critical infrastructure failure, so I flipped the plane, clipped a church steeple and only three people died and they were minor characters anyway so, no, wait, hang on, that was a denzel washington film.


----------



## Linford (7 Feb 2013)

User said:


> Oh dear - you're spinning as badly as Linford.
> 
> You two are so well suited to each other - we hope you'll be very happy together.


 
Show me where I have agreed with anything he has said on this issue Reg. You really are a plum sometimes


----------



## Bodhbh (8 Feb 2013)

Does anyone remember a piece of early reality tv from about 15years ago? - they invited groups of 4 different nationalities - Brits, Germans, Americans, and Japanese - on a free holiday in Marmaris, Turkey, on the condition they would be filmed as part of a TV documentary. What they didn't know, is that there would be various staged situations sprung on them to test how the different nationalities would respond, and that there was at least one undercover stooge acting on orders from the TV makers and precipitation various situations.

I can't remember the name of the show, and a quick google doesn't bring up much but the following:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-110760800.html

Anyhow, back to the point. They recorded how much booze was consumed on the holiday by each of the nationalities, and the Brits were ahead on that front by a long shot - so not shy about drinking. However, they staged an incident where the driver of a tour coach that was obviously hammered, and film the reaction of the passangers. The Brits were by far and away the most shocked and refused to get on the coach, other nationalities noticed, but rather than outraged were bemused and the Germans were almost sympathetic (he must have problems at home etc).

At least in those days reality tv shows had to go through the motions of having a serious point, like being some kind of social study, but despite it being rather tenious the program was actually quite interesting (situations staged on how much it would take for the various nationalities to complain, their reactions to stealing and dishonesty, vandalism, etc).


----------



## glenn forger (8 Feb 2013)

I remember that, they defaced the Stars and Stripes and the septics went mental.


----------



## Bodhbh (8 Feb 2013)

glenn forger said:


> I remember that, they defaced the Stars and Stripes and the septics went mental.


 
That was it, think now it was called 'The Tourist Trap'.


----------



## mrandmrspoves (8 Feb 2013)

I was stopped for speeding in my Vauxhall Viva in 1982. I was on my way home ......from the Norwich beer festival! The policeman that stopped me (he was a policeman back then .....not a police officer) commented on my excessive speed saying he was amazed that I could get a Viva to go so fast. I can't remember how many pints of beer I had drunk....but it was at least 4. He did give me a speeding ticket - but no mention was made of my beery breath. I don't condone drink driving but back then it really wasn't considered a problem and was extremely common place. I still think I would have avoided the speeding ticket if I had been sober!


----------



## Ern1e (8 Mar 2013)

Linford said:


> Do you agree or disagree with what I said ?


 I for one agree with you 100% drug driving is now a far bigger problem.


----------

