Northern Ireland cuts drink driving limit

Rearranging the deck chairs.....

....on the Titanic, is the most apt phrase.
If the figures mentioned (15 deaths and 95 serious injuries), then what's the point?
They'd have a better impact if they sorted the deaths and injuries that occur each year in the home, freeing up more hospital resources than those relating to drink driving.
Absolute nonsense, which is typical of career politicians with no actual grasp of the real world outside their cosseted office and chauffeured car - and will have no effect whatsoever unless the police stop practically every vehicle on the road each evening.
Those who've consumed more than the current legal limit, yet manage to avoid killing or injuring anyone (or damaging vehicles) will continue on as before.

So, is the only point of this announcement to draw attention to the minister, in an effort to show he's being seen to be doing something?
Frankly, I'd rather the idiot done something much more worthwhile to justify his position and salary - the chimps in Belvieue Zoo could've came up with this idea, for the reward of of a few bananas and apples, and some nuts as a special treat!

By pjskelti on 27 September, 2011, 3:04pm

Drivers around 80mg or below aren't the problem - those 2 or 3 times over the 80mg limit are - this law will do nothing to tackle them - it will just criminalise sober drivers.

I defy anyone to provide a detailed accident analysis of crashes involving drivers under the current 80mg limit. Checking drivers to see if they had drunk coffee or tea before a crash would yield similar results!

By biggsy24 on 27 September, 2011, 3:48pm

I agree with the previous comment, about those near the limit are not the problem. It is those that are well over the limit. This a is where there needs to be changes. For example for twice over the limit it should be a prison sentence and, or confiscate their car.
There appears to be only only two motoring offences speeding and drink driving. Nothing else seems to matter.

By Dieselman on 27 September, 2011, 10:01pm

Sorting out the legally medicated drivers would be better and not this picking on diabetics either. I'm talking about the tranquillizers and the like. But it's expensive so not worth doing.

By PedroConejo on 28 September, 2011, 12:29am

I raise 3 points:

First, these proposals are not the only difference between driving in Northern Ireland (NI) and the mainland. For example: for one year after passing a driving test, a NI driver is defined as a "restricted driver" who must not exceed 45 mph and is required to display an "R-plate" and MOTs are conducted at central government testing centres rather than local garages.

Two, the majority of previous comments imply that drivers who have been drinking but are below the current UK limit of 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood are unimpaired and that this is acceptable. Whilst widely accepted, this is incorrect.

Three, the proposed changes are also directed at drivers who are using drugs be that prescribed or recreational.

Overall, (in common with NI's other motoring 'differences') this would appear to be a sensible, well thought-out piece of legislation which is in keeping with the standards currently thought to be acceptable throughout the majority of mainland Europe. NI's politicians are simply saying that driving whilst impaired is not acceptable.

By willy_john on 28 September, 2011, 10:59am

Check the stats

If the Government simply made public the accident statistics (showing what level of alcohol was found in the blood of drivers who had caused accidents) then we would all know whether there was a case for reducing the limit. Looking at UK stats some years ago it was apparent that such drivers were in fact well over the legal limit. Ergo, reducing the limit would have no material effect on accident rates but would simply increase the number of (pointless) prosecutions. We need to address the people who are driving when above the safe limit.

By Chrisandrea on 28 September, 2011, 11:37am

Having read the article and the comments made afterwards and also having watched loads of Road Wars/ Cops With Cameras type programmes two things stand out:
1. The punishments for the more serious road offences do not fit the crimes. I agree it is not the people who are just over the limit who are the major problem, although they will still suffer impaired driving, it is the ones way over. This will have no effect on them.
2. It is not just drink-driving they need to target but drug-driving as well. That rarely gets mentioned.
This is a 'pretty' idea but, when you look at it in more detail, is more headline-grabbing than substance.

By dastardly01 on 28 September, 2011, 3:38pm

Where's the sound evidence that drivers under 80mg/100ml are impaired? Studies have shown that these drivers are not over-represented in crashes. I ask again, let's see the detailed accident analysis evidence that shows this.

The John Radcliffe Hospital study showed that 2.1 per cent of drivers treated had a BAC in the 50 to 80 mg range. These figures suggest that the proportion of drivers involved in accidents with a BAC level between 50 and 80 mg is much the same as that of the driving population as a whole, indicating that there is no perceptible increase in risk at this BAC level.

Whether the BAC level is rising, constant, or falling is also important - the 'Mellanby Effect' - the physiological phenomenon named after the FRS who discovered it - for a given blood alcohol level, there is more impairment if the blood alcohol level is rising than is found with the same BAC when the level of alcohol in the blood is falling.

It's important that we don't criminalise unimpaired, sober drivers - particularly 'the morning after.'

By biggsy24 on 28 September, 2011, 5:06pm

It'll criminalise those who have swigged mouthwash, eaten a brandy dessert, or had a morning after.

Even orange juice has a small amount of alcohol in!

By SirWiggum2 on 28 September, 2011, 9:12pm

statistical trick

The death and injury figures used to justify a lower BAC limit aren't real - they are obtained by dubious statistical 'reverse extrapolation' of studies on drivers with moderate to high BAC.

By biggsy24 on 28 September, 2011, 9:42pm

Don't knock the statistics

I wonder why so many of the comments are against this law. Whether you like it or not, a driver with more than a drop of alcohol in his bloodstream endangers himself and others. Is defending your right to drink more important than defending others' right to live?

By Yonnyk on 29 September, 2011, 6:22am

Oho Jungo

What are these poor people going to do now? This like a National Right. You can't just do things like this!

By Caribbean on 29 September, 2011, 7:41am

Is this the most important issue to consider

I wonder what the stats are now for people drinking and driving in the UK, Ireland, France etc.. I feel sure that we would find there are more urgent issues connected with tiredness, drugs being taken..prescribed or otherwise. Then there are the issues caused with people who have the lack of ability to concentrate whilst driving etc., etc..

Is the drink driving a real issue or is it just one of those things which is being pushed as a personal crusade because it has touched the lives of the person spearheading change. I suspect its very marginal in reality and equally the effect by any law change.

There would be fewer accidents in the UK if the roads were repaired properly so perhaps we ought to be locking up highway engineers.

As with all changes imposed to effect improvements, there will always be the laws of diminishing returns to take into account.

By TrevorCoates on 29 September, 2011, 8:51am

Is this the most important issue to consider

I wonder what the stats are now for people drinking and driving in the UK, Ireland, France etc.. I feel sure that we would find there are more urgent issues connected with tiredness, drugs being taken..prescribed or otherwise. Then there are the issues caused with people who have the lack of ability to concentrate whilst driving etc., etc..

Is the drink driving a real issue or is it just one of those things which is being pushed as a personal crusade because it has touched the lives of the person spearheading change. I suspect its very marginal in reality and equally the effect by any law change.

There would be fewer accidents in the UK if the roads were repaired properly so perhaps we ought to be locking up highway engineers.

As with all changes imposed to effect improvements, there will always be the laws of diminishing returns to take into account.

By TrevorCoates on 29 September, 2011, 8:55am

Zero Tolerance

The easy option really. It makes most sense to me to say, NO booze AT ALL if you are going to drive within a certain period of time. As in, not getting mullered the night before you go back to work, if you have to drive or operate any machinery, as well as not smelling like a beer rat in the office. The biggest problem of course is the 'drink like it's going out of fashion' culture we have today. Anyone who drinks does not drive for at least 12 hours, somethng like that.

By bob809 on 29 September, 2011, 12:45pm

Rog07

Few government's would consider an outright ban. However, we are soon going to find ourselves in a confusing situation where Northern Ireland and Scotland share the drink drive limit with Ireland and the majority of the EU, while England and Wales share a limit with only Luxembourg and Malta. The difference between England/Wales and Scotland/NI is only going to cause confusion for motorists especially on the Scottish-English border where a driver could leave a pub in England safely under the limit only to be driving illegally when they cross the border. Last year the Coalition Government ignored the recommendations of the North report which called for a lower drink-drive limit flying in the face of medical, scientific opinion and the advice of motoring and road safety organisations. It should reconsider that decision.

By Rog07 on 29 September, 2011, 3:40pm

rawdeal

The changes in the drink-drive limit is likely to lead to confusion on two counts. First, drivers crossing the border (between Northern and Southern Ireland or Scotland and England) may be confused about whether they are safe to drive or not. Secondly, the lower limit will lead to more general confusion. Studies have shown that most people simply don't know how much they can safely drink or how long alcohol takes to wear off. The lower limit will only add to this confusion. One solution is to buy a personal breathalyser and test yourself before you get in the car. I bought one I saw advertised in your publication - the Alcosense - and very reliable it is too.

By rawdeal on 29 September, 2011, 3:56pm

No matter what the limit.....some people ignore it!

As someone who, on turning 50, decided that having a drink and driving just wasn't worth the risk, I feel that some people will do it irrespective of what the limit is. Their attitude is that they know exactly how much they can have while staying within the law. When reducing the limit in the UK was mooted last, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond kicked it into the long grass by stating that it " would have a detrimental effect on country pubs that require a car journey to visit." This, of course, presumes that drivers will drink responsibly and not exceed the limit, whatever it is. It also puts the onus on the publican to stop selling the driver alcohol after consuming a certain amount. As an ex-publican myself I feel that the driver should take responsibilty for their own actions. Plus, a determined drink-driver will just visit another pub if refused in one.

By n50pap on 2 October, 2011, 10:55am