And yet ...
... in studies that actually correlate intoxication with road accidents, there is a statistically significant dip in accident likelihood at low consumption (< about 0.04%). The original study that found this dip is called the "Grand Rapids study" (if you want to look it up) and it has been repeatedly reproduced since, much to the annoyance of the zero-tolerance proponents. The study showed the accident rate only really starts to increase above the 0 BAC baseline somewhere between 0.06% and 0.08%, and this heavily influenced the limits set by drink driving laws across the world (back in the days when laws were based on evidence rather than hysteria).

The purported dangers of the effect on components of driving ability (coordination, decision-making, hazard perception) at low BAC simply don't show up in any real accident statistics. Lab studies are not a good measure of driving ability.
(Mr T, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 10:16, 1 reply)

.
Blood alcohol limits are pretty much in line with that though. We don't have zero limits. The limits we have are pretty much where the lowest denominator meets your statistics.

A pint of lager probably won't put you over the limit, and probably has little effect on your driving. A couple of pints may well put you over the limit. They will also effect most peoples driving. I know it would affect mine, and I'm a fairly hefty 6 footer.

There are probably a few people who it wouldn't affect, but then there are probably a lot of 13 year olds who could drive cars without problems. The limits aren't designed for averages, they're designed to cover the minimums. In real life nobody needs to drink and drive, they just do it because they're either too lazy to make safe arrangments, or they simply don't care. Either one of those makes them a bit of a tool.
( Not Pineapple anymore, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 13:28, closed)