There is a proposed change to lower the drink drive limit in England and Wales as part of the new Road Safety Strategy https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-be-saved-under-bold-new-road-safety-strategy. There is also a proposal to give the police mandatory breath testing powers and the reduction that has occurred in enforcement levels to be reversed. Currently the limit is 35mcgs / 100ml of breath which is the highest in Europe and the proposed reduction is to 22mcgs /100ml of breath (current Scottish limit). What are peoples' thoughts on this? I like the zero - tolerance approach of a fair few countries, or a much much lower limit. Lots of novice or professional drivers' limits are set at 0 even in European countries with a low allowed limit.
I've had three friends killed by drink driving - admittedly one was the drunk driver and 1 his girlfriend - but the other was an innocent party hit while walking on the pavement. While a zero limit isn't actually realistic for a variety of reasons, a very low limit is (and I'd support it for sure). Bottom line - there's no excuse for drinking and driving, especially with pretty decent non alcoholic drink alternatives available...
Many years ago one of my neighbours was banned for drink driving so resorted to riding a bicycle. One day he was knocked off and killed, by a drunk driver! I would support a total ban but this is not feasible as many could be caught the morning after the night before with perhaps only a trace of alcohol left in their system. A reduction in the limit however would be a good thing. Personally I never touch a drop of alcohol if I am driving.
I don't D & D so if it's going to save lives then I'd support the lower drink drive limit. Strangely I can't see anything about doing the same for drugs, which is an ever increasing problem. As with everything it'll make little difference unless more effort is put in to reinforce it. Currently the selfish people that do D&D face little or no deterrent as the chances of being caught are low. Until that improves they won't change their habits. You only need to look at average speed cameras, how many motorists do you see driving over the limit there compared with other unpoliced sections of road.
Agree completely. But I do think a lower limit would be better for the times the Rozzers are able to get out there and do some enforcement.
The person that wrote my 1200 speed twin off and left me with life long physical damage had been drinking. The police arrived 20 minutes after they’d driven off. Seems a good idea on paper….
It would also lead to all those drivers breathalysed and / or arrested who currently blow under the limit despite being impaired to a degree facing prosecution.
I'm not entirely sure whether lowering the level from 35 to 22 would have any effect on those that do D&D as most of those that are apprehended on the various TV Police programs are never just a fraz over the limit, they are multiple times over the limit. So these scrotes have no regard for the level of the limit whatsoever. For reasons already outlined by others, zero would be unrealistic, but there must be a level very close to it that the medical profession would find as a reasonable compromise. With the introduction of zero alcohol beverages over the recent years there is now no need to feel as though you are the oddity in the pub.
I know it's crazy talk, but getting more actual traffic coppers on the road might reduce casualties - a camera won't nick you for driving like a bellend or spot when you're shipfaced but a copper will explain why speeding where you were doing so is a bad idea and maybe you'll learn something and not get a ticket... I've never learned anything from a camera issued ticket. Never been able to negotiate my way out of it either.
Most probably, but I have seen those as well, But the point I was trying to make was that those who do D&D have no regard for wherever the threshold is set, they will do it until they are put away. One of the other Youtube channels I watch is about a couple who have relocated to the UK from the US. The husband was a highway patrol officer in the US and one of their main observations about driving in the UK was the distinct lack of highway patrol vehicles. Which, as @Junglie25 suggests may be the solution to reducing this crime, but then you have others berating you for denying them precious resources for some other direly needed purpose.
No regard certainly, but there would be many more charged as it stands; all those driving impaired who blow just under the limit currently of which there are many and that can only be a good thing. I suspect that they will not change their habits readily as you say but it will be a wider net to catch them, far more difficult to "get away with it". Being caught just once is enough to deter some people and nothing will deter others! Possibly those caught at the lower limits are those who have some regard and have believed that they may "just" be OK. If a lower limit makes people think that no alcohol before driving is a good thing then that is also positive. (I have edited this loads as I am struggling a bit to articulate what it is I want to get across!!).
If you go back to my initial response you will see that I was advocating a near but not zero threshold that would mean even the smallest intake of alcohol would render you vulnerable to the possibility of exceeding the threshold.
I remember having a business lunch back in the 80's with a beer or two, and the local radio station asked to interview my mate. I sniggered as they asked him if he thought having those two beers would affect his driving....... Then they asked me how I'd feel being driven by him. That shut me up! I don't drink now, but I think the effects at such low levels of intake are sometimes exaggerated by media and pressure groups. As has been said before, it's the hard drinkers that do the damage, and further minor reductions will be ignored by them anyway. Drink, drugs, knives, shoplifting... we need cops on the street.
Speaking as someone who barely drinks and never drinks & drives, I’m all for the lower limit. I do agree withe many of the comments above in that it needs enforcing properly and doesn’t address the issue of drug use whilst driving. It’s still a step in the right direction, though, and my vote was for a zero tolerance approach.
@ajc400 I am not a drinker yet i still have witnessed two of my fellow biking mates being hit by a over the limit driver. One who has never ridden a bike again. So i voted no. It probably won't save us but if it makes the roads a little safer then it has to be a good thing. One of my friends was sat at a roundabout waiting to move of when a driver three time over the limit smashed into the back of him and pushed him right over the roundabout luckily it was clear at that instance or he could have been another statistic
@Mrs Visor Great topic. Obviously my personal view is ban drink driving totally. Not sure how it works as many medicines and even foods contain alcohol. Not really up on this topic but if it helps to save one life then i am for it.
A reduced limit seems a sensible and likely approach. However, the eternal cynic/realist in me thinks it’ll make little difference to the true offenders. Yes, you’re more likely to catch out the usually law abiding citizen the morning after an out of the ordinary drink to celebrate whatever the night before. However, the hard core don’t give a toss - be they double, treble or quadruple the limit. They go drinking, climb behind the wheel, hopefully get caught without harming anyone else (I don’t care if they take themselves out permanently arguing with a solid inanimate object), have a financial slap on the wrist, more points added to a licence they often don’t have (and have no hope of getting) and promptly do the same again. Without a real deterrent punishment wise for such people there’s little point in playing with the limits allowed.
I only said I wouldn't vote because our limit in Scotland is already lower, I'd certainly say yes to a lower limit in England too.
