‘This doesn’t magically make roads safer’: Readers clash over plans to lower drink-drive limit

Iindependent Readers are divided over Britain’s new road safety strategy, sparking debate over whether lowering the drink-driving limit will actually save lives.

In a recent survey of our community, 60 percent of readers said they opposed a zero alcohol limit for drivers, while 40 percent supported it.

Many have argued that reducing the limit could be beneficial, but that the government should focus on larger risks such as speeding, distraction, fatigue and poor road conditions.

Some have noted that the current 35 microgram limit already marks the point at which disability begins, and that lowering this limit further could criminalize responsible adults rather than prevent serious accidents.

Many readers highlighted enforcement as a major problem and pointed out that irresponsible drivers often escape consequences due to the lack of police on the roads.

Others welcomed the move to bring England and Wales into line with Scotland’s lower limit, arguing it would not harm rural pubs or social life and constituted a reasonable public safety measure.

Here’s what you need to say:

Road safety is more than drink driving

If authorities are really serious about road safety, there are other measures of equal importance, such as maintaining roads, potholes, avoiding cat eyes and controlling excessive headlight brightness.

Another shortcoming is that there are no police on our highways; if you’ve lived in another country this is a distinct issue that seems to only affect the UK.

Yes, drunk driving may be a problem, but as usual, the full picture is ignored in favor of a newsworthy attempt to glorify good governance, when there is no such thing.

oakman77

This doesn’t magically make the roads safer

I understand the idea behind reducing drink driving limits but I feel the government is focusing on the wrong thing. Approximately 270 people die every year due to drunk driving and this is tragic; However, this rate is very small compared to deaths caused by excessive speed, distraction, fatigue or poor road conditions. If the goal is to save lives, why not prioritize the biggest risks first?

Scientifically, the current limit (35 micrograms) is set at a point where reaction time and coordination begin to show measurable deterioration. Dropping it even lower doesn’t magically make the roads safer; It means that people who just had a drink with dinner and are not actually disabled suddenly become criminals. Research consistently shows that the real danger comes not from people slightly over the limit, but from drivers with high blood alcohol concentrations.

So instead of tightening the rules on responsible adults who don’t even feel drunk, perhaps the government should focus on the real big causes of road deaths.

John

Major gains have already been made

I have no problem with these measures, but the idea that they can reduce serious injuries by 65 percent is absurd. They will make a very marginal difference.

Major gains have already been made. There is probably little we can do now simply by changing the laws. Additionally, there probably won’t be any further major gains in terms of crash protection or improved braking.

The most likely path to major safety gains is driverless cars or the use of this technology to act as a guardrail for human drivers.

chrisw27

nanny status

How many drunk driving deaths would occur if no one drank over the current limit? I have never gone above the current limit, and I deeply resent this shift, where law-abiding, responsible adults are being stifled by the nanny state, and irresponsible idiots continue to largely get away with terrible behavior due to lack of enforcement.

robber

Libertarians are losing the plot

The opposition to this is very strange. Drivers should not be behind the wheel if they have been drinking (or taking drugs). This puts England in line with Scotland, where the lower limit has been in place for some time and the sky is not falling. People still wander around and rural pubs still exist.

Libertarians lose the point whenever there are even the slightest restrictions on drivers (whether it be drink limits, speed limits, eye tests, or (in the past) seat belts), but these are fundamental safety issues that affect not just the individual driver but the broader society.

Tanaquil2

Regular application is very important

Enforcement of existing law would be a better place to start. The police run a “High Profile” campaign every Christmas and do nothing for the rest of the year. I drive almost every day, but I haven’t taken a roadside breath test in over 30 years. It should be a common sight and there should be an expectation of regular testing.

I’m not surprised at all

Think about the people you could hurt

Ultimately, the fault lies with drunk drivers, and even if you enjoy having a few beers with your friends, you have no excuse. Surely chatting with friends should be the focus, not the ABV percentage of your drink?

Drivers need to think about the people they may harm, rather than drinking alcohol and then allegedly restricting their right to drive.

Someone else said we have a lot of rights in this country and I had to agree.

rosa

Chances of being stopped are almost zero

Unless you get into an accident or are noticed and reported for reckless driving, your chances of being stopped are almost zero.

Here in Scotland, after the initial positive response from pub-goers, it seems to me it’s back to old habits; pub car parks are as full as before. As an older guy who likes to drink beer and have a few beers with friends, I can confirm that drivers do not use Guinness “0” or Diet Coke.

The police do not have the capacity to have an impact.

Twenty years ago, police here ran highly effective annual “drunk driving” campaigns and regularly publicized the number of people prosecuted. The public took it seriously, but where we live we don’t see any police anymore, so no one seems to give the low Scottish limit a second thought.

The same will happen south of Hadrian’s Wall. Waste of time. Can you win a few votes for a struggling government, maybe that’s what they’re all about?

ScoobytheDog

Complete ban

I support this and in fact there should be a complete ban on driving with any alcohol in your system.

A pint of beer is approximately two to three units of alcohol, and if you haven’t eaten all day it will hit your brain faster and shorten your reaction time.

Approximately 6,800 people were killed or seriously injured in drunk driving incidents.

Behind every victim there is a family and every drunk driver’s freedom is restricted.

Is it really worth spending time in jail when you can take a taxi to the bar instead?

Amy

We live in a selfish age

My local police force recently did business as usual this time of year and published the number of drivers arrested over the Christmas period. What struck me was that twice as many people were arrested for drug use as drunk driving; Which made me wonder how much of this is due to the perception that the chances of getting caught are so low that people believe they can get away with it.

This is perhaps no surprise given how lax speed enforcement is in the UK, which is responsible for a far greater proportion of serious accidents.

We live in a very selfish age where many people, like spoiled children, put the freedom to do as they wish before their responsibilities.

So it should come as no surprise that the law sometimes treats us like children.

RickC

Some of the comments in this article have been edited for brevity and clarity.

I want to share your opinions? Just register your information below. Once you sign up, you can comment on the most important stories of the day for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘sign in’ or ‘sign up’ in the top right corner to log in or register

Be sure to follow our community guidelines, which you can find at. Here. For a complete guide on how to comment, Click here