Government set to get tough on drink-drive levels

The blood alcohol level should be set at zore.

By mdbiss77 on 17 March, 2010, 6:31pm

Brian Deller

The 50g level is the standard for Europe and so is being encouraged from Brussels. Mnay drivershave a problemm where they cannot help but drink alcohol and drive so any level is just a guide for if it was 50g there would still be thsoe with more. D&D here in Spain is the second biggest killer on the roads according to Trafico (speedoing is No 1 and 80% of these accidents have only one vehicle involved). What is needed is the threat that being over the limit means the loss of the driving licence FOR LIFE. Then the roads will be made safer.
i

By bjdeller1 on 18 March, 2010, 7:51am

Leave it as it is. Stop fiddling around with everything to make yourselves look busy. These Ministers are a waste of tax payers money.Funny how reports by the Government alwaysagree with their proposed plans.Gerrge Orwell?

By adrianmariagale on 18 March, 2010, 7:57am

Richard

Yet again we see the small pleasures cut away. Instead of devising and implementing a proper drugs test for drivers, instead the Government go for the easy option. The problem with deaths on roads is not due to a single pint. That has less of an effect that changing the CD whilst driving (and I don't see them banning that yet). The problems come from uninsured cars driven by people with no stake in society to flout the law. IN Bristol we just had someone convicted for their 16 d&d offence. He still gets in the car and drives. Stop him, then come and say we should reduce the limit.

By rsjm2002 on 18 March, 2010, 7:58am

mdbiss clearly has no life as having a zero level would mean that you could not drive the next day after having a couple of pints the night before. The level is fine; the driving test and adverts need to advise people that by having more than one pint you will be over the limit; which most sensible people are happy with as having the one drink is a calming influence and so you are more likely to be less stressed; thereby not making rash decisions.

By MCFCDaytona on 18 March, 2010, 8:06am

Big D

I agree with Richard up to a point. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that rather than tinkering with the legislation we should be looking at better enfforcement of the laws we have. Why do people persist in drinking & driving: answer is that there is a perception that they will not be caught. there will always be a hard core who do not conform to any rules but for the majority the risk of being caught & receiving a ban is the biggest deterent. It all comes down to the short sighted way that our politicians make decisions. If there is a problem ,perceived or otherwise, pass a law & the problem will go away. effective law requires good enforcement therefore we will not see any improvement either in drink driving levels, speeding or any other anti-social driving habits until the crazy policy of reducing traffic officers on the road is reversed & relying on cameras that only detect speeding, insurance & tax misdemenors is not the way forwards.

By Tigger on 18 March, 2010, 8:09am

The difference between say, France, and the UK is that in the UK one is confronted by a wine glass size of either 175ml or 250ml which will immediately put you over the 50mg limit. If the Government also introduced a mandatory maximum glass size of 125ml then a) this wouldn't be a problem and b) it might slow down drinking generally.

By allangsk on 18 March, 2010, 8:10am

I agree with Richard & Tigger, petty new laws & tinkering aren't the answer. Like most things, we already have the laws, we just need the will & to enforce them. It's our acceptance of bad driving that's the real problem.

& come on allangsk - if you know the facts & the rules, why do you need a new law to stop you choosing the big glass. I can drink 2 x 125ml glasses of wine or 2 x half pints, just as quickly as 1 x 250ml glass or 1 x pint. In fact.....probably quicker!

By AlecPJD on 18 March, 2010, 8:27am

Smick

I'm ambiguous on this - I can see that there is an advantage to having a clear "No Drink" policy, in that then, if tested positive in any way then there is a clear position on successful prosecution. However, it will impact on many people's social lives. One drink seems a reasonable alternative.

The real issue is enforcement. It's already clear that police cannot enforce the current policy successfully, any more than they can enforce the mobile phone ban. I see more trades people driving with a phone stuck in their face than ever before, and no level of fine seems to have any effect. Potentially those drivers are just as dangerous as a driver with two drinks inside him.

By definition, laws that do not have the support of the populace, and those that can't be enforced, are bad legislation. So if Govt wants it to work, they have to provide the tools to enforce it., such as random testing. In Norway, it's not unusual for the police to blanket test all drivers on a road - would anyone have a problem with that ?

I'd like to see anyone using a handheld phone at the wheel to have their phone confiscated and destroyed. Think of the disruption that would cause to their lives - replace phone, enter all contacts, notify everyone of your new number, etc. You wouldn't want to have to do it that often, would you ?

Rant over.

By mickguy on 18 March, 2010, 8:38am

I think its well overdue. over the past years I have seen the upsets caused to familys who have lost loved ones through drink drive,and sometimes had to break the news to them. It is rare that the drink driver is seriously hurt or killed because of the relaxed state at point of collision where the alcohol has kicked in. A lot of them just get up and walk away from the scene leaving victims pinned under debris or even the car. For the victim thats hit its a totaly diferent price to pay if they are alive to pay the price. There is no excuse to drink and drive.

By volvodude on 18 March, 2010, 8:40am

Come on, we all know that the people that really drink & drive, won't care if it's 0, 50, 80 or 100mg per 100ml of blood. All this tinkering will do is squeeze all those responsible people that go for a country pub lunch/tea and have a single pint, or glass of wine with their meal before going home or going onto none-alchoholic drinks, or those that go go out on a Thursday night (without car) and then get caught going to work the following morning, because they had a couple of glasses extra and miscalculated the time needed for it to clear their system. We seem, as a nation intent on catching and punishing people that make a genuine mistake, whilst ignoring the serial offenders who drive while banned, without insurance & probably over the limit too. I believe that lowering the level might actually get more people to ignore it completely, particularly in rural areas where it's difficult ton get buses or taxes and a tube is what you get Smarties in. Another good reason to vote Conservative?

By Garykd1 on 18 March, 2010, 8:50am

As has been already said, proper enforcement of the current limit would reduce the number of drink drivers on the road. If the police don't catch any more people who are driving whilst drunk then what is the point of lowering the limit?
It would be interesting to see some proper figures on this before jumping to conclusions. How many people have been breathalised at random and been found over the limit, compared to those who have either had a drink but not failed the test, or been tested clear? This would give a true representation of the size of the problem, not just testing people who have already had an accident.
Volvodude seems to be referring to the people who persistently drive around plastered, with total disregard to the existing law. How will this law help their victims?

By mcurran24 on 18 March, 2010, 8:57am

simon

I live in Spain where DD accidents are constantly evident.I have always believed that the answer is that it should be Zero and then people wouldnt have to juggle with "am I over or not"? I believe that one or more of the Scandanivian Countries has a Zero tolerence on drink and drive and the results are hugely sucessful.

By Ronda5 on 18 March, 2010, 9:02am

About time too

Cut it to zero. And ban all use of mobile phones in cars while they're at it.

By DaveH on 18 March, 2010, 9:12am

More Big Brother

Very simple really. It is people who abuse the current limit that cause problems on the roads. Reducing the limit will make no difference to them, it will simply penalise normal law abiding citizens, taking away yet another traditional British pleasure of a lunchtime bite & pint. It will also deal yet another blow to our pubs.

By SteveG on 18 March, 2010, 9:16am

Tony

Isn't about time there was some serious research to establish what ought to be the limit, instead of selecting an arbitrary figure.
I think you'll find that being over the EU 50mg limit carries a somewhat lower penalty than being over our 80mg.
Zero makes no sense - you'd be unable to take a spoonful of cough medicine!
whatever the limit there will still be tohse who ignore it - they probably don't bother with insurance or taxing their cars either.

By ageen on 18 March, 2010, 9:20am

Graham

Whenever I see a report of a drunken driver causing the deaths of one or more innocent bystanders, e.g. mowing down a bus queue, the analysis of their blood is always the same; they are at least twice the current limit, more likey three times upwards. What is the point of targeting people who are obeying the current law and not causing a problem? I am going to be denied the simple harmless pleasure of a glass of wine with my steak whilst the real problem drivers will continue to ignore any limit. Why can't the authorities analylise the data and target the real problem?

By grroach on 18 March, 2010, 9:28am

Without carping, this really is just another tax, to enable police to rope in anyone seen close to a pub or restaurant. Once in a while can we have some solid data. In how many cases was the 50-80 mgm range the cause of an accident and not just an anciliary to a person or a dog running out?. In Spain you can smoke to your hearts content in bars and restaurants as the owners have a trade deal with the Police. The'll do the same over drink, but we numpty Brits fall for these new taxes every time. Statistically, you are probably more likely to get hit by a bullet than due to a car driven by a man with 50-80 mgm alcholhol. This governments attempts to crimilase everyone with bin taxes, kerb taxes (not close enough) etc etc is a very sad reflection of our times and the mess they've got us into. Richard D

By dalziel10 on 18 March, 2010, 9:31am

leave my country alone

the limit is fine as it is.It has worked for years. I do propose that the members of parliment are breath tested before being allowed to vote in the house of comons on any matter. To the people who want the limit to zero read a bit about alchol content in food e.g bread etc I do however think that if a person causes death by drink driving the penilty must be a life driving ban after a long costodial sentance taking drugs and driving is much more prevelent than assumed, sort that out along with the baned and uninsured driving first

By georgealderslade on 18 March, 2010, 9:37am

In reply too mdbiss77

Just stop and think!, Zero tolerance means ZERO, that means NO alcohol the day before you drive and nothing that contains it.
No Xmas pudding and NO sherry trifles to name but two. Also consider the publicans and licensees that need business and provide entertainment for many of use that ONLY have a half with their meals.
Lets get real shall we, this government looks for "easy money", speeders pay for many things alone, in Norfolk one of the courts (Swaffham) is "solely" run on Speeding tickets, yes I was told this whist their. How discussing is that.
Spend time catching "Real Criminals" the uninsured and unlicensed drivers, and give the people who venture 3 MPH over the speed limit a break.

By johnbmwx6 on 18 March, 2010, 9:39am

revs

Long overdue. No responsible driver would ever consume any alcohol and then drive. Time the motoring public got real on this one. It is a myth to suggest that driving with 80mg alcohol content in your body is a 'simple pleasure.' It is regrettably an accident waiting to happen.

By vwpolo6 on 18 March, 2010, 9:43am

Facts Please

Where is the evidence to show that drivers WITHIN the current limit are causing accidents. Given that the police routinely test drivers involved in accidents for alcohol levels there will be a wealth of statistical information held on this question to either prove or disprove the case for lowering the currenty limit.
My guess is that the vast majority of drivers involved in crashes show zero readings.
But without this evidence we are faced with just another knee-jerk proposal from civil servants that are currently running around like headless chickens trying to prove that they are busy.
If this country is really serious about drink driving then let's see drunk and I mean DRUNK drivers dealt with. We all know people who regularly drink well over the limit yet they get away with it and will continue to do so while there are so few police patrols to carry out checks. Let's see more roadside checks at all times of the day and catch these drivers who have no respect for the current law. That way the vast majority of us can continue to enjoy a social evening knowing that we can still enjoy a pint - but no more.

By orkneyorror on 18 March, 2010, 9:45am

where's the need

Again where is the evidence that people driving with 80 mg in their blood are causing accidents? It is those way above that limit that are the problem. I have had 2 accidents in my life where I could say that I could have avoided them, and both were when I was free of alcohol! I do however regulary drive with some alcohol in my blood - mostly after going out the night before. I think this proposal is unjustified and should be buried.

By stevegwoods on 18 March, 2010, 9:58am

Its that weasel Adonis trying to make a name for himself again. We should just have a Downing Street petition to sack him. And why do these Spanish folk (above) think they have a right to comment on our driving laws?

By paulrouse1 on 18 March, 2010, 10:22am

Driving & Booze

The simple truth is that no matter how low including zero levels of alchohol one consumes it is not a good idea to combine a lethal weapon (car) with booze the two simply do not go together !! and anybody who thinks they do is a deluded moron.Drink drivers along with the cretins that use mobile phones whilst driving should be banned for life and fined an amount of money that would make their eyes water,not just a few quid.Don't these selfish half wits realise the devastation they can cause to families that have their loved ones taken from them by their couldn't give a - - - k attitude ? the truth is they probably couldn't give a rat's arse! If I had my way I'd bring back the stocks,flogging and any other form of public humiliation that I could get away with.

By Nicholas on 18 March, 2010, 10:26am

`Nanny State`

The current drink-drive laws are adequate as they stand!

Any further reduction in the permitted blood/alcohol level will completely wreck normal people`s social lives and completely destroy what is left of the Licensed Trade.....once the number-one tourist attraction the U.K. had to offer.

By valkyrie70 on 18 March, 2010, 10:30am

Drink driving is it ever safe?

A few people have mentioned that a pint relaxes them and I assume this makes them better drivers. But does it ? Do I want to be relaxed and in charge of a potential weapon,or should I be fully alert at all times when behind the wheel? Enforcement is always a problem so do we need something like the Highway Patrol for enforcement?
There will never be a perfect solution so until then I believe that we shouldn't drink alcohol and drive so the limit needs to be zero.
Oh and by the way alcohol used in cooking is neutralised by the cooking process and has no effect.

By mac3536 on 18 March, 2010, 10:30am

Some very Valid points

There are some very valid points raised in this discussion.
I agree with those above who say drink drivers will always be drink drivers not matter if it is 50mg or 80mg level.
what difference will it make lowering the limit? How many drivers have caused accidents with a level of over 50mg and under 80mg?
Zero is such a dangerous number, there is no leeway at all, if you have a party on Saturday some people may still have residual alcohol in the blood on Monday Morning. So a drinks on Saturday night means you can't drive to work on Monday - legally.

I'd quite like to see some of these options in place before lowering the limit without evidence it will help.
1. Community service in ADDITION to the current penalties. commit and anti social offence like D&D and have to give back to the community, cleaning rubbish/litter, Graffiti, Dog mess - In bright Orange Overalls too - The Embarrassment will be there for all to see and I think it could be a great deterrent.
This may also save on Council tax as local councils will not have to pay for clearing the mess left by others.

2. More Non alcoholic beer options. I had a choice of several whilst in Prague the other week, some weren't bad either. Brewing has come a long way since Kaliber and White swan, we must be able to have a good beer which happens to also be alcohol free. - This would allow drivers to enjoy a beer, keep their social life, support the pub trade, save jobs and help the economy all in one go. But Landlords/Breweries need to play their part too. I have seen some Very low/non alcoholic beer in cans in the supermarket, but lets get them on draft in the pubs and make them cost effective.

thanks for reading my ramblings.

By gadget on 18 March, 2010, 11:08am

50mg is sober

Another bad change to the law - 80mg is a safe level - driving doesn't start to become impaired until 100mg upwards - 50mg will mean drivers being prosecuted for being sober. We don't want any more of the EU's bad laws.

http://www.abd.org.uk/abd-bac.htm

By biggsy24 on 18 March, 2010, 11:29am

Tony

This is bit like the speed limit; the safest speed is 20mph. No it isn't 0mph is the safest.
So I guess it's 'tomato juice and go easy on the Worcester sauce'.

By tonyf on 18 March, 2010, 11:48am

The problem of drink driving is a very well advertised and publicly noted concern. It is apparent in everyday life and almost everyone knows of someone affected by it, be they victim or perpetrator.

The Government is proposing the most tangible method - a method that suggests the most harsh approach. Compare how this sounds to, we will be increasing our efforts to catch drink drivers, and you can see how much more meaty lowering the driving limit sounds.

Thus like virtually all things, Gordon Brown is trying to take the political approach, the one that will make him popular, and will ultimately secure him more votes.

The real issue is those that have a blatant disregard for drink driving, those are the ones who cause the accidents. Much like speeding and dangerous driving, Brown takes the option that has the most visible effect (cameras), regardless of the overall effect on the problem.

Little wonder why this country is in such a state.

By Mew10666 on 18 March, 2010, 12:10pm

N Robertson

I think they should leave the limit as is. Why not stop people smoking in cars ? People drive while unwell also, or on medication. These are more of a threat than dropping the limit.

By NormanHWR on 18 March, 2010, 12:19pm

Nanny State crushes the British way of life

Another nail in the coffin of the british way of life, more pubs to shut especially the rural ones......thats it encourage people to stay in & drink cheap supermarket booze. If people were'nt losing their social skills through lack of intergrating with strangers we would have less road rage........therefor contributing to safer roads

By daveburnett on 18 March, 2010, 12:29pm

Enforcement is what matters

Any level of blood alcohol set down will only be as effective as the amount of enforcement behind it.
The actual levle is a medical consideration and it can be sghown that at 50mg many drivers abilties will be impaired so it cannot be argued that a move to this level will give no benefits - it will. A zero level is impracicable (some peole record low levels evn when stone cold sober) so let's take advice and if 50mg is where the balance of advice lays go for it.
That being said it will be the level of enforcement that determines if the move will have much benefit. People currently don't feel they will be caught at present. They majority involved in accidents aren't as 85-90mg they are more likely to be at 150-200mg or higher. That is not just 2 drinks or even 3 or 4 but 6, 7, 8 and more.
I'll bet a siginificant proportion don't have a licence or insurance or MoT for that matter so don't think taking their licences from them is any deterrant. The only cure is to get the police out onto the highways (cameras don't detect drunk drivers) get the drink drivers arrested fined very heavily or given other significant punishment.
If you don't do this you can set the level whereever you want it won't make much difference to the significant number of irresponcible drink drivers out there.

By Chris_Lee on 18 March, 2010, 12:40pm

The problem of drink driving is a very well advertised and publicly noted concern. It is apparent in everyday life and almost everyone knows of someone affected by it, be they victim or perpetrator.

The Government is proposing the most tangible method - a method that suggests the most harsh approach. Compare how this sounds to, we will be increasing our efforts to catch drink drivers, and you can see how much more meaty lowering the driving limit sounds.

Thus like virtually all things, Gordon Brown is trying to take the political approach, the one that will make him popular, and will ultimately secure him more votes.

The real issue is those that have a blatant disregard for drink driving, those are the ones who cause the accidents. Much like speeding and dangerous driving, Brown takes the option that has the most visible effect (cameras), regardless of the overall effect on the problem.

Little wonder why this country is in such a state.

By Mew10666 on 18 March, 2010, 1:28pm

ColinS

I agree with Richard & Tigger. Also blood alcohol levels cannot be set at zero, because it is possible for the body to manufacture alcohol by itself; not in large amounts, but nevertheless it is possible.

By semplar001 on 18 March, 2010, 1:31pm

What a surprise

Gordon Brown doesn't drink..methodist
Gordon Brown doesn't drive..petrol prices
Gordon Brown is Prime minister ...go figure, forget an adult balanced discussion he doesn't like either. My bat my game.

By async128 on 18 March, 2010, 2:18pm

ZERO TOLERENCE

Alcohol limit should be zero. We now have enough evidence alcohol affect ability in even small amounts. Anyone arguing for anything else is trying to ignore that fact, probally selfishly. Is a pint really worth a life!
ZERO and fit cars with driver only breathlysers that imobilise engine at 1mg. Interfere with driver breathalyser £5,000 fine and life ban!
Or are we condoning murder by drink driving?.

By daibach1 on 18 March, 2010, 3:09pm

GET PRIORITIES RIGHT

Catch ALL those who exceeed the current limit and impose a significant ban - 5 years. Then re-assess accident statistics before jumping to conclusions

By Roger192 on 18 March, 2010, 4:23pm

BAN DRINK / PHONES.

I agree with Dave Cut it to zero.Then you won't have to say I'll have one more It won't hurt. And ban all use of mobile phones in cars while they're at it.

By coachman8 on 18 March, 2010, 4:37pm

ZERO part two

Do we not need to change attitudes totally and accept that ANY deliberate consumption of alcohol before driving is not tolerated. Encouraging any consumption of any recreational drug, alcohol included is irresponsible and only total abstainence is tolerable. Have a drink by all means, I enjoy one too, but not if you intend to drive within 24 hours. We do not value being able to drive enough. It is not a right it is a priviledge.
Make the driving test tougher, make bans longer with compulsory retesting, and two strike and it a life ban. The police do well it's the courts that let the law and society down. No excuses, drink and drive = ban from the moment you are caught.

By daibach1 on 18 March, 2010, 7:02pm

Legislation based on evidence

I agree with many of the arguments for opposing this. Personally I don't have anything to drink if I'm going to drive and understand the dangers of being affected by alcohol, but legislation should be about real people not saints.
What I don't understand is legislation introduced without considering the evidence: knee-jerk politics. I understand from studies that dropping from 80 to 50mg will make no difference to accident levels, so why do it? It's like dropping a speed limit from 40 to 30 because someone did 100mph tthrough town. Are you going to stop people who break the current law by changing it - no. Are you going to make the roads safer - I don't think so. Can we have the proper statistics ("lies, damned lies and statistics" of course) that show this is necessary, then consider it - I have seen no mention of actual facts calling for this drop.

By dave523SE on 18 March, 2010, 8:07pm

Legislation based on evidence

I agree with many of the arguments for opposing this. Personally I don't have anything to drink if I'm going to drive and understand the dangers of being affected by alcohol, but legislation should be about real people not saints.
What I don't understand is legislation introduced without considering the evidence: knee-jerk politics. I understand from studies that dropping from 80 to 50mg will make no difference to accident levels, so why do it? It's like dropping a speed limit from 40 to 30 because someone did 100mph tthrough town. Are you going to stop people who break the current law by changing it - no. Are you going to make the roads safer - I don't think so. Can we have the proper statistics ("lies, damned lies and statistics" of course) that show this is necessary, then consider it - I have seen no mention of actual facts calling for this drop.

By dave523SE on 18 March, 2010, 8:09pm

Election Kneejerk

It matters not want we the public think, the government will change it as they believe it is what we want. As for the Brake poll I am very cautious of these so called polls, I did one some years ago (in fun) and got over 95% wanting something, want I didnt tell was I only did 20 people and all were relatives, but I got the result I wanted, so come on Brake lets see exactly how many people you polled and the actual result, and maybe Auto Express can audit the result then let us know.

By shad25 on 18 March, 2010, 9:17pm

Colin

I think the present level should remain. Has any research been done, tthat of all uk accidents how many if any is some one who has drunk one pint of beer for example been found to be at fault because of said beer consumtion. This proposed change in limit will not stop the driver who consumes many drinks but still drives knowing they are over the limit.

By colinbb on 19 March, 2010, 11:50am

Revue the evidence first.

If the stats show those levels between 50 and 80 mgs of alcohol in blood make a real life difference in accident rates then fine, you can justify it and have it in. If they don’t throw it out.
But, to allow the population of this Country to enjoy a drink please let us know with realistic, medically backed figures, just what is allowable before driving. Anecdotally this was 3 pints, then 2.5 now 2, with no difference in what the law says. Give us a line to go to.
Finally, speed cameras don’t catch drunk drivers. Catching them after an accident is too late so get that aspect sorted first.

By AustinH on 19 March, 2010, 12:41pm

First of all, it's best not to drink alcohol at all before driving. If more of us followed the simple rule of never getting in a car with a driver who's had a drink, it would help.
However, as regards the limit, how many drivers who are involved in accidents are demonstrated to have between 50 and 80 mg? And what is the breakdown of severity of accident vs fatals.
I'm used to the 50 mg limit here in Spain (where driving whilst using a mobile phone is apparently compulsory - even though the Guardia Civil are reputed to have detectors), so it doesn't bother me whether the law is changed in Britain, but it's always nice to know the facts. Surely they're available through FOI.
In the meantime, I don't drink any alcoholic beverage before driving and I won't travel with someone else who has.

By PedroConejo on 19 March, 2010, 5:11pm

Just increase the penalty

The problem doesn't seem to be setting a limit so much as having a penalty that is effective. I have experience of various cases of drink driving and many consistent offenders do it , and keep doing it, simply because they don't mind being disqualified as they'll just carry on driving anyway, irrespective of their legal status to do so.

I think the penalties should be much higher with jail being mandatory for a second offence. That would stop many people in their tracks and might make the roads a bit safer for the rest of us.

By slkmainac on 20 March, 2010, 12:31pm

Leave us alone

More interference from our dictators. Just get on with sorting out the mess this country is in. Sensible drinkers will be penalised, those who drink and drive will carry on as normal. Let's ban fishing next, then smoking in your home, how about compulsory organ donation, reduce the speed limits, force people to lose weight, thats bad for you. Fine you if you put some cardboard in the wrong bin, make you drive around in daylight with your lights on, any more suggestions?

By justintime on 21 March, 2010, 8:10pm

Its Ok where it is

I would suggest that most convicted drink drivers would have been well above the present 80 mg limit when caught.
If the limit were reduced to 50 mg, it would probably criminalise anyone who has one or two pints of shandy with his sunday pub lunch. Most people have a fair idea of the present law and changing it will jsut cause more people to be caught out.
It would effectively mean that no drink could be consumed before driving a car to ensure that one does not fall foul of the law. This would totally eliminate having a drink with lunch or evening meal not to mention the devastating affect on the pub & restaurant trades, but more importantly, it would not have any effect whatsoever on the stupid minority who will still continue to drink as much as they want before blithely getting into a car.

As others have commented, there are many other car crimes- no insurance, no tax, no driving licenses, unroadworthy vehicles etc which seem to be encouraged by the pathetic penalties applied to these car crimes. Leave the drink drive penalties where they are.

By bruxxie1 on 24 March, 2010, 1:43pm