News Forum - Blood alcohol content limit for drivers in Thailand should be set at 0%

[Thaiger]

The Centre for Alcohol Studies (CAS) urged relevant departments to consider setting the blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for drivers in Thailand at 0%, instead of 0.05%, because drivers with 0.05% of BAC in their system still cause fatal road accidents. The legal BAC is set at 0.05% in Thailand. This means that motorists in the country can drive if their BAC is less than 0.05%, or 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. This is the equivalent of two glasses of wine or beer. The vice president of the CAS, Ponthep Wijitkunakorn, used a recent fatal road […]

The story Blood alcohol content limit for drivers in Thailand should be set at 0% as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Richard1944]

I can agree with that, to many innocent people or bystanders are killed by drunk or speeding  vehicles , the police should clamp down big time on speeding drivers they are as much to blame as the drunks.

Rathadapisek Road from Tesco Lotus up past Sutisan has often very loud speeding big bikes, pickups and tuk tuks blasting down the road like missiles. It's an every day event, accidents waiting to happen

 

[Soidog]

Set the limit to whatever you like, won’t change the attitudes of Thais to drink driving. Only education backed up by hefty, life changing punishment will work. 

[JohninDublin]

The current .05 limit is already relatively low. Throughout the EU, .08 was more or less the accepted limit and was likely to earn you a 12 month ban if you were less than double that. In recent years, several of these countries introduced .05 but many had also reduced the mandatory ban to 4 months if you were caught in .05-.08 band.

[Pinetree]

Having been a pilot for many years, both Military and civilian, plus a car driver and motorbike rider, 0% absolutely makes sense when you are driving, riding or flying what is potentially a lethal weapon of destruction.  Nobody under the sun can properly and accurately evaluate their own degraded performance with even low levels of drink, medicines, or drugs in their blood stream.  They may think that they know and are unaffected, but they are just deluding themselves. 

[Chatogaster]

2 hours ago, Thaiger said:

The Centre for Alcohol Studies (CAS) urged relevant departments to consider setting the blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for drivers in Thailand at 0%, instead of 0.05%, because drivers with 0.05% of BAC in their system still cause fatal road accidents.

 

Drivers with 0% BAC also still cause fatal road accidents, so without quantifying the argument above it's completely unconvincing. 

If a driver with a very high BAC (e.g. >0.2) is involved in an accident, I'm willing to accept that almost any such accident can be attributed to the BAC as a main cause.

For a very low BAC (e.g. <0.03), I'm willing to accept that almost any such accident can not be attributed to the BAC, i.e. that there are other, much more significant factors like driver competence, vehicle/road quality, tiredness, emotional state and even plain bad-luck.

Tackling such factors is a benefit to all (including accidents caused by the 0% BAC'ers), but even then there are limits. A law against getting in the driving seat because the probability of an accident isn't precisely zero would be extremely silly. 

Proposing a 0% BAC limit (supported by non-sequiturs and anecdotes) is silly for the same reason.

 

[Pinetree]

4 minutes ago, Chatogaster said:

Drivers with 0% BAC also still cause fatal road accidents, so without quantifying the argument above it's completely unconvincing. 

If a driver with a very high BAC (e.g. >0.2) is involved in an accident, I'm willing to accept that almost any such accident can be attributed to the BAC as a main cause.

For a very low BAC (e.g. <0.03), I'm willing to accept that almost any such accident can not be attributed to the BAC, i.e. that there are other, much more significant factors like driver competence, vehicle/road quality, tiredness, emotional state and even plain bad-luck.

Tackling such factors is a benefit to all (including accidents caused by the 0% BAC'ers), but even then there are limits. A law against getting in the driving seat because the probability of an accident isn't precisely zero would be extremely silly. 

Proposing a 0% BAC limit (supported by non-sequiturs and anecdotes) is silly for the same reason.

That is dancing on the head of a pin.  Stats by themselves reveals very little, its how each individual's physiology is impacted by whatever is their blood stream. As a personal example, I know that I metabolise alcohol very slowly, so I dont drink anything when I know I'm driving.  It should not be a choice of 0% or some other percentage, it  should be zero, as indeed it is for aircrew, Firefighters, Dock and airport operational staff and a myriad of other workers and industries. There is a very good reason for that.    

[Chatogaster]

1 hour ago, Pinetree said:

That is dancing on the head of a pin.  Stats by themselves reveals very little, its how each individual's physiology is impacted by whatever is their blood stream. As a personal example, I know that I metabolise alcohol very slowly, so I dont drink anything when I know I'm driving.  It should not be a choice of 0% or some other percentage, it  should be zero, as indeed it is for aircrew, Firefighters, Dock and airport operational staff and a myriad of other workers and industries. There is a very good reason for that.    

 

True, it's certainly a case of dancing on the head of a pin, but I consider that much better than to go for extremes, i.e. either 0% or 100% and nothing inbetween. Nothing in nature is binary so why should laws be? The realistic answer is that they have to be for practical reasons: laws can't take into account e.g. the effect of alcohol on a first-time consumer vs. an adept, so they can do no more than set a measurable threshold that's on the conservative side.

At the risk of explaining something abstract by means of a concrete example: take abortion as an example. Does the immediate effect of cell mitosis due to conception qualify as life, or is the first cluster of 1E9 cells, or the first functioning organ, or perhaps a brain in which some neurons have started firing, or even birth? There's no clear answer and it's a matter of dancing on the head of a pin to determine some kind of threshold/compromise. In my opinion, anyone who goes for extremes (i.e., either conception or birth) is wrong, but that doesn't mean I claim to know the "right" threshold.

 

[robytoby]

Sorry, the reason is a complete missing knowledge of traffic rules and the absence of knowledge how accident happens and how much often deadly impacts they produce in case of a hit. People are still thinking they can get hold on in  their cars if just grabing thight their steering wheel instead of wearing a seat belt so they want fly of their windshields

[Soidog]

13 hours ago, Chatogaster said:

Drivers with 0% BAC also still cause fatal road accidents, so without quantifying the argument above it's completely unconvincing. 

If a driver with a very high BAC (e.g. >0.2) is involved in an accident, I'm willing to accept that almost any such accident can be attributed to the BAC as a main cause.

For a very low BAC (e.g. <0.03), I'm willing to accept that almost any such accident can not be attributed to the BAC, i.e. that there are other, much more significant factors like driver competence, vehicle/road quality, tiredness, emotional state and even plain bad-luck.

Tackling such factors is a benefit to all (including accidents caused by the 0% BAC'ers), but even then there are limits. A law against getting in the driving seat because the probability of an accident isn't precisely zero would be extremely silly. 

Proposing a 0% BAC limit (supported by non-sequiturs and anecdotes) is silly for the same reason.

So what’s the point of having 1 beer or half a beer. Alcohol and driving a machine simply don’t mix. It’s more than obvious. People just need to stop being selfish idiots. If you want to drink then get a taxi. It’s not difficult at all, unless you have some retarded mental issue 

[socal]

This is nonsense. Wait till they discover that there will still be accidents when everyone's alcohol content is 0%. 

What a stupid study. 

[Ray]

The problem stems from lack of driver education and of road safety marketing due to lack of care by the Government.

Most of the fatalities involve poor people on motorcycles rather than the families of hisos and politicians, who can get away with bad or drunk driving anyway.

Until people demand improvement in driver education, behaviour and enforcement, nothing will change.

Road design also contributes to collisions, stop calling them accidents as that implies it’s no one’s fault, there is always fault.

[socal]

21 minutes ago, Soidog said:

So what’s the point of having 1 beer or half a beer. Alcohol and driving a machine simply don’t mix. It’s more than obvious. People just need to stop being selfish idiots. If you want to drink then get a taxi. It’s not difficult at all, unless you have some retarded mental issue 

For the social enjoyment of it ? 

Humans driving machines simply doesn't mix either. But we still do it. Because there isn't yet a better way. 

[HolyCowCm]

I find this just another BS propostition by some egocentrical self absorbed clown.

 

Reminds me of an old USA sitcom WKRP Cincinnati, and DJ Dr. Johnny Fever taking a drinking reflex test given by a state trooper on air and he actually got faster.

 

[longwood50]

I find this post hillarious in light of the governments push to legalize canibus.  So on the one hand they are worried about DUI but on the other hand encouraging by legalization the use of a mind altering drug.  So is it legal for the person to drive high on marijuana but it would be illegal to be .02% in blood alcohol content? 

Now is it preferable to have zero tolerance with driving.  Yes however one only has to look around to see the commerce done by restaurants, bars, and hotels serving alcohol.  I know in Ireland they have become so strict that it has caused the closure of 21% of the pubs since 2005.  

The fact is that Thailand passes many laws but is not very good when it comes to enforcement.  Again just drive down any street to see passengers hanging out of the back of a baht bus, or crammed in the bed of a truck.  Motorcycles racing often with many passengers even small infants all without helmets.  So it is wishful thinking to think that a 0% alcohol limit will actually do much more than be window dressing. 

 

[stapoz]

Very funny.  I've been driving 12 years in Thailand and I've never seen a police alcohol level check.  What difference does it make whether there will be a limit of 0.0%, 0.5% or 1% ?

[HolyCowCm]

46 minutes ago, stapoz said:

Very funny.  I've been driving 12 years in Thailand and I've never seen a police alcohol level check.  What difference does it make whether there will be a limit of 0.0%, 0.5% or 1% ?

I have and the pull you over and take you to a table. I eve nhad to blow one time but I was let go.

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, stapoz said:

Very funny.  I've been driving 12 years in Thailand and I've never seen a police alcohol level check.  What difference does it make whether there will be a limit of 0.0%, 0.5% or 1% ?

Wow! I see them once or twice a month in most major towns I visit in Thailand.  
 

I agree the limit is fairly pointless in Thailand. It’s like the traffic laws. Lots of them but very few enforced. 
 

It’s yet another example of Thailand saying one thing and doing the opposite. When some international UN funded research report comes out, Thailand will get some international brownie points for having “strict alcohol limits”. It’s utter garbage but keeps the facade of a developing, progressive country going. Those of us who know the place see it for what it really is. 

[Ivo_Shandor]

2 hours ago, stapoz said:

Very funny.  I've been driving 12 years in Thailand and I've never seen a police alcohol level check.  What difference does it make whether there will be a limit of 0.0%, 0.5% or 1% ?

I passed thru a checkpoint on the Prasert-Manukitch road a couple of months ago around 1 AM, they filtered out all three lanes and randomly breathalyzed drivers. I just left a work dinner where beer was flowing like the Niagara Falls, and where a colleague recounted an episode in which was caught with a high level and his Thai wife was negotiating with the police officer for not having him put in jail (ended up paying 10k baht). I was very lucky they didn't test me. Never drink anymore since then. 100% agreeing with the zero tolerance

[palooka]

On 1/6/2023 at 7:32 PM, Pinetree said:

Having been a pilot for many years, both Military and civilian, plus a car driver and motorbike rider, 0% absolutely makes sense when you are driving, riding or flying what is potentially a lethal weapon of destruction.  Nobody under the sun can properly and accurately evaluate their own degraded performance with even low levels of drink, medicines, or drugs in their blood stream.  They may think that they know and are unaffected, but they are just deluding themselves. 

100% agree. 

Self-analysing your own ability (alcohol, drug etc affected) to command any form of transport in public is way off the charts of sanity.

I have driven after one beer and thought I'm a stupid old fool - over seventy and doing stupid things.

Reactions, judgement, vision etc aren't that of a 20-year-old.

Yeah, I know some 20-year-olds don't have it either.

[cowslip]

the limit is lower than in England but Sweden has a zero limit - one needs a police force trained to cope with this - checkpoints are not the solution.