andrea81
Our posts crossed there, so I was agreeing with your last entry but one.
What you say about the addition of any drug (inc. alcohol) is right, but you have to balance off a lot wish list. Eg.
(1) I wish to go to a charming country pub and have one enjoyable pint, then several Cokes (oh god, I hope Ice.Maiden doesn't read this!).
(2) Our local landlord wishes to serve drinks to a safe, responsible clientele, and not go out of business.
(3) I wish my children to be safe from ratar*ed maniacs.
(4) If you had a sick child, or breast cancer, you would wish for all possible funds to be channelled into good treatment.
And so on.
The fact is, you can't have everything, and you can't achieve perfection. So target your efforts and funds where they are most needed, not towards a margin where it will make no difference.
Here's the thing. If the limit was zero, a person who drinks one pint gets prosecuted. But he was never going to kill anyone. However, Mr Five Pint Man doesn't care about the limit. He never did, and never will. So the child on the bike will still be injured by that driver. The roads are no safer. So are we all happy? Yeah sure, as long as it wasn't our child on that bike!
Reducing the limit would be tokenism, and would not make the roads any safer. In the meantime, if you were unlucky enough to be that child on that bike, there is no money available for your treatment because Parliament spent it on passing some new law - not to catch the driver who hit you, but to catch a few drivers who would not have hit you in the first place.