Lowering Of Legal Drink-Drive Limit 'to Save Lives' Urged

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39155282

Seems like a good idea to me....what do we all think about this ?

[waterboatman]

I don't think it will make any difference.

[Old_Geezer]

The limit is just fine as it is. Excessive restrictions simply tries to make lawbreakers out of decent people.

[aelmpvw]

a lot of people who didn't drink and drive the previous evening will be committing a criminal offence by driving the following morning ...

[mikey4444]

All good points guys....keep 'em coming !

[douglas9401]

Busy work, that's all. Takes our minds off what our leaders aren't doing.
When the new limit was introduced in Scotland we were warned that it would take less than one pint of ordinary beer to put a driver over the limit. Worked wonders for the hospitality trade.
Even our local Wetherspoons has closed.

I just wonder how many involved in accidents are borderline, and it is an absolute line, and how many are off their faces and don't care anyway.

[EDDIE51]

I don't think it will make a difference either. The people who cause the problems are those who are way over the limit not just one or two points over. This cut would mean you could be over the limit on just one pint or a single glass of wine.

[Zacs-Master]

How would that work ael?

Anyway....I think it's a pointless move and don't believe that it will cut down deaths by more than half. There will always be people who risk it.

I have to be very careful as alcohol seems to stay in my system longer than a lot of people.

[OldBather]

I have always said that they should go further,and make it ZERO alcohol in your blood when driving.

[EDDIE51]

Zacs the 'Morning After' effect is well known. Someone goes out for a night at a pub but is sensible and leaves the car at home. They still have enough alcohol in their system the next morning to be over the limit on the way to work. They may have been drinking till midnight or later and are still over the limit 7 or 8 hours later when it's time for work.

[Zacs-Master]

I read ael's posts as the person not drinking at all. After re reading it, I now understand what they meant. Coffee has kicked in.

[Islay]

If you are the type of person who would drink and drive it would not make a jot of difference what the levels were. There are people out there that will always push the limits.

[EDDIE51]

I also agree with the link where it says 'stricter enforcement of the current limit is a better option'
I can't remember the last time I saw a police car stopped beside the road and the officers pulling over cars at random for a breath test , it used to be common. Police also used to go round pubs taking note of reg numbers of cars in the car park and then looking out for them to stop them for a breath test. Is that illegal now? it used to happen.

[Zacs-Master]

Some smart ass lawyer has probably argued that car park surveillance is an infringement of civil liberties or entrapment.

[EDDIE51]

I imagine the reason will be 'lack of resources' meaning too few police.

[Gromit]

I was doubtful before reading the link, but now I have done, the figure quoted are misleading.

// Between 2010 and 2015 the number of people killed in reported drink-drive accidents has remained between 220 and 240 a year.

The LGA said it was estimated that lowering the limit in England and Wales could save up to more than 300 lives in the sixth year. //

So 240 die now, and lowering the limit will save 300 lives? How the hell can ALL deaths be eliminated, and a further 60 lives saved?

[Zacs-Master]

Agreed Gromit. If they want their proposals to be taken seriously then some credible estimates would be a start.

[jno]

perhaps they're all out stopping people texting while driving.

[EDDIE51]

Stopping mobile phone use while driving would save more lives.
I wonder how many of the reported accidents due to 'drink driving' would have happened anyway? I can't see how you can prove a particular incident was due to drink or just general careless driving.

[New Judge]

“I read ael's posts as the person not drinking at all. After re reading it, I now understand what they meant.”

I’m with you on the misunderstanding, Zacs. I interpreted “a lot of people who didn't drink and drive the previous evening” as people who did not drink the previous evening (so where’s the problem?). But I realise what ael meant was “people who had a drink the previous evening but did not drive (until the following morning)”. Glad we sorted that between us.

“Some smart ass lawyer has probably argued that car park surveillance is an infringement of civil liberties or entrapment.”

I think it’s more the case that there are simply not enough officers to do that, Zacs. Many of them are too busy looking into allegations against people who are dead. It’s certainly not entrapment. That’s encouraging somebody to commit a criminal offence.

I tend to agree that putting resources into preventing mobile phone abuse whilst driving would certainly be a greater contribution to road safety. Lowering the limit by a few points (or pints) will not prevent the hard core of miscreants who regularly drive well over the current limit and they are by far and away the worse problem. All it will do is apprehend those who currently do so within the limit (i.e. those who provide readings of 50 to 79 in blood, 22-34 in breath or 67-107 in urine). Having said that, I’m quite sure most people in that category have no real idea whether they are legal or not and just believe (and/or hope) that they are.

[aelmpvw]

apologies for the clumsily written post, on reading it back i agree it appears a little ambiguous :-(