Social acceptance or anti-social behaviour plays a big part in how the world changes and evolves over time; there are many things that were once deemed acceptable, or at the very least, excusable, and drink driving was just something that many people did, despite it being illegal, but the law only came into force in January 1966.
Today, drink driving is about as heinous a crime as you can get when it comes to motoring, and rightly so. Despite the shift in social acceptance, there are still a number of drivers who believe that they make for better drivers when under the influence – over 70,000 motorists are convicted each year of drink driving related offences.
Statistical rise
The road safety charity Brake is calling for a significant cut to the blood alcohol limit for motorists after figures released by the Department for Transport (DfT) have shown an increase in the number of road traffic collisions in the last year, as a result from driving whilst drunk.
Comparing figures for the 1970s opposed to 2018, it’s clear that things have changed – in 1979, there were 1,640 deaths attributable to drink driving, in 2016, that figure was just 240, but that’s a 7 percent increase from 2015.
It could be argued that the rise is a statistical anomaly – figures have remained fairly static since 2010, but the bigger picture is that there were approximately 9,040 serious injuries or deaths due to drink driving, and whatever the figure, is there really any excuse for it?
Reduced blood alcohol
Currently, the law states that the ‘acceptable’ limit is 80mg of alcohol to 100ml of blood, and due to other factors such as weight, sex, metabolism, stress levels and even the amount of food eaten, there are no hard and fast rules as to what that constitutes in terms of actual drinks consumed.
It has been shown that drivers with a blood alcohol level of between 50 – 80mg are at least twice as likely to be involved in an accident as those with no alcohol, and up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatality. It’s for this reason that Brake are calling for the limit to be reduced to just 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood.
Joshua Harris, Director of Campaigns for Brake said: “Current regulations give a false impression that it’s safe to drink and drive, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The current laws lack clarity, are badly understood, and give the green light that mixing alcohol with driving is acceptable, it isn’t”.
Penalties
There are two separate charges relating to drink driving – being in charge of a vehicle while above the legal limit or unfit through drink, and driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit or unfit through drink.
Being in charge of a vehicle while drunk could see you landed with up to three months imprisonment, a £2,500 fine and a potential ban, whereas actually driving (or attempting to) could get you up to six months imprisonment, a minimum one-year driving ban, and an unlimited fine. If you’re caught twice within a ten-year period, the driving ban will be for three years.
In 2010, Sir Peter North was commissioned by the Government to conduct a review of the drink and drug driving laws, and amongst many recommendations, one, in particular, stands out:
The North Review made the recommendation to lower the drink driving limit to 50mg of alcohol, believing that it could save ‘a significant number of lives’ – at least 43 per year. But the then Government concluded that “improving enforcement is likely to have more impact on the most dangerous drink-drivers than lowering the drink-drive limit”, and they didn’t believe that it would be cost-effective.
They did, however, make some minor changes to help stop drivers ‘getting away with it’ – removing the right for a blood test when the evidential breath test was lower than 40% over the legal limit. It was believed that the delay in getting the blood test could allow for time for the alcohol to leave the body.
No exceptions
There really is no acceptable excuse for drink driving, if you’re on a night out with friends, make sure there is a designated driver, or use alternative forms of transport. Equally, if you find yourself in an emergency situation, you should try and find someone else to drive, or again, find an alternative method of transportation.
The penalties for driving while drunk are harsh, but they aren’t just legal – along with the inconvenience and large fine, there is a social stigma, increased insurance cost, perhaps even a threat to your livelihood – is it really worth it?
What do you think about reducing the limit? Should the penalties be harsher? Is it practical and fair to reduce the limit? How will it impact the pub trade? Let us know in the comments.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have more police on the roads as, it does not matter at all what the limit is, if there is nobody to catch the drink drivers. I cannot remember the last time I saw a police patrol car actually on patrol as opposed to racing to an emergency under blues and twos.
My thoughts exactly Richard Pugsley
Although I am firmly opposed to getting drunk and then driving, the 7% increase in deaths reported between 2015 and 2016 amounts to a total of 16. Not a huge number, but significant to those involved. Also, was alcohol a causal factor, or were the accidents caused by other failings, and incidentally alcohol use was detected?
It is well known that the fundamental cause of most accidents (probably in excess of 90%) is human error, not speed, alcohol, or indeed drugs. If we are serious about reducing accidents and resulting deaths and injuries, we should be campaigning to improve the standard of driving to reduce the number of accidents caused by human errors.
Good point, Rick.glaring lack of decent research around these issues although we do know that reaction times do increase sharply after even small amounts of alcohol. I also wonder how many are using cannabis which takes a much longer time to leave the body.
The issue of reaction times could also be cited in the case of elderly drivers, regardless of alcohol consumption. Not making excuses for drink-driving, but people often know if they are not as sharp as possible and drive accordingly (hence elderly drivers being slower). Also, the consumption of drugs is not universally detrimental to driving – cannabis and opiods are certainly bad, but cocaine has been shown to improve reaction times. Just putting that out there (and I do not take drugs). Police do now have roadside tests for drugs, so if any are suspected, it can be found out.
I’m with you on this one Rick. Have better trained drivers on the roads and keep up that training. I see some very alarming and disturbing driving habits on my travels and I thoroughly believe people are taught to pass a test not taught to drive. There needs to be much more focus on a persons mental ability to drive safely especially with new, younger drivers. It seems unless they are transfixed on their smartphones and social media their attention easily wanders. I have been followed by several like this who fidget about and clearly do not concentrate on their driving. They unnerve me.
I agree absolutely. People have no manners these days, that’s all it needs, treat others as you’d want to be treated. Like leaving a gap at a junction or roundabout when your exit isn’t clear or giving way to people as a common courtesy, just like you would entering or leaving a shop. People seem to become maniacs when they get behind a wheel.
When I was driver training in the Army in 1971, I and my co-learner were constantly reminded that passing the test was merely an indication of minimum competence and that because driving conditions are constantly changing, we needed to always check we were driving as we had been taught. To this day, I constantly check I am indicating correctly, observing the road as far ahead as possible, maintaining safe stopping distances etc.
Well said Gary. With cars almost able to drive themselves, fewer older cars on the roads and reliability of cars vastly improved it is time that the emphasis shifted from the car to the driver. I suggest that the driver has to sit a new test every 3 years and have a 12 month disqualification if he fails his “resit”. This new law of £100 for passing cyclists too closely is simply backing up the highway code suggesting motorists give the same overtaking space to a cyclist or another car. Dave
Well, not sure what you mean by drunk!
But I observe that driving instructors are terrible teacher’s, and the result of this is dangerous drivers, that it is hoped will learn as they get older.
All the comments about road deaths, whilst shocking, appears to not take into account the increasing number of vehicles, or the number of new drivers.
I would be all in favour of greatly increasing the proficiency of driving instructors, it would be a good starting point, start at the beginning before putting in more laws that are uninforceable.
Another point, I don’t hear how many accidents, deaths, are caused by the appalling state of our roads!
I regularly see driving instructors speeding, proabably trying to get to the next appointment.. I’ve seen some very bad behaviour from them other than speeding too. They have gone into orange boxes, or allowed their charge to do so, taken corners way to early etc. and jumped lights. Is it any wonder that new drivers turn out to be arrogant and impatient. I was recently stopped before a yellow box to allow access to and from a side road. The idiot behind me decided that he would pass me and turn into the road, but the lights were changing so I was pulling away and he was stuck on the wrong side of the road.. Of course when these sort of drivers do something stupid it’s never their fault of course and they are the first ones to honk their horns because someone has dared to get in their way!
Rick. The point is that alcohol or drugs are likely to be factors in the human error.
This article doesn’t comment on how drunk those that crash are e.g. what if none of the awful 240 deaths were caused by people driving ‘just over’ the limit but by people who were very drunk indeed. Lowering the limit would not address this – increasing the number of breathalyser tests and traffic policing would. This needs more clarification please before we start changing the law. After all, it’s reducing the crashes that counts.
Those that cause a problem are always over the current limit, lowering the limit would unjustly penalise other drivers.
I don’t drink and i feel that the price of soft drinks or alcohol free is scandalous compared to the offers on alcoholic beverages, until this is sorted out and a sensible level of blood alcohol limit is set then we can be safer in the roads.
My pint of beer costs less than a pint of orange juice & lemonade
I think the limit should be 0mg of alcohol to 100ml of blood. The price of soft drink’s mus be reduced in the help to encourage a safe driver.
Richard
This is really a silly suggestion. Firstly a person would not go to the pub if they could only drink soft drinks. Anyone who thinks they would should do a straw poll of those that do. Also most people who will have a drink, within the limit, then drive will keep below the recommended level. So a single pint and this could be over a long period with a meal.
A limit of 20mg would mean somebody having just 1 large glass of wine at lunchtime would likely still be over the limit on the way home from work at 5:30. A great opportunity for road traffic officers to fine motorists.
One law does not fit all situations. As you said people vary in stature, age, health, sex, metabolism,. Rather than lower the alcohol rate so that one could not even have one glass of wine with dinner, go for the driving while on drugs and/ or be harsher on the young, who seem to drive as though they are in an amusement arcade rather than in reality (day or night).
Alcohol impairs a person judgement and co-ordination whilst increasing a person confidence, leading them into a false sense of security and that is why drink driving is illegal.If you then take into consideration that drink effects different people in different ways depending on age, gender, etc, there should not be any compromise when it comes to road safety and therefore the drink drive limit should be lowered to 0, giving motorised a clear choice, you either drink or you drive. Having said that more needs to be done such as a campaign to raise awareness that after a heavy night of drinking you can still be over the limit the following morning, more investment in night time public transport outside big cities such as London and of course more police on the roads to enforce it
I am not sure how )0mg works for someone who has had drinks at home the previous evening and then gets stopped the following morning with say 20mg in alcohol in their blood driving to work. Basically don’t drink and drive for 48 hours ?
So I guess that the cities carry on as they are with yobs spilling out onto the streets drunk night after night but taking public transport to go home – or an ambulance to hospital – whereas those in the countryside lead a quiet virtuous life !!
The people that drink drive WILL CARRY ON DRINK DRIVING REGARDLESS of the law…SO WHY CHANGE IT?…If it changes to a new lower level as your article suggest, the only people it will effect is the morning after drinkers.As the ones who do drink drive will carry on drink driving as I already stated they are not going to be bothered about any new laws that may come into play…drinks in wits out..Then again it would be easy money for the government to make more money from drivers and to take vehicles off the road..Also people who take medicine alcohol based would also be at risk …..
This is very simple and straight forward.
1) Any loss of life, even one, or even injury is one too many.
2) Any limit, even as small as 20mg per 100ml, gives the wrong impression that there is something called “safe” limit, which doesn’t exist. And, more importantly, causes confusion as how can one measure it? is it a can of beer, half a can or a “sip”, for example. And then the industry will come after you as it may lead to new can sizes for, what they may argue, the silly minority! And, the debate will continue for years before a resolution is found!Therefore, the solution is simple and straightforward. “No mixing of drink/drug and driving”. Zero limit and zero tolerance to be implemented by enforcement authorities. PERIOD.
There is ONE HARD AND FAST RULE that could be applied. Make the level ZERO ALCOHOL and MAKE THE BAN LIFE.
Even that probably would NOT WORK, but it would make the position clearer and deter all but the psycopaths who would keep up their anti-social behaviour.
Few countries in the world have higher limits than England and Wales. In today’s society, where drink driving is anti social and the evidence shows that drivers just below the legal limit are six times more likely to be involved in a fatal collision, why is it therefore acceptable to allow this?
The penalties for a first offence are just about right – they are justifiably harsh. For persistent offenders, a jail sentence should be mandatory with provision for the court to suspend that sentence for a period that ends after the mandatory ban.
No limit is safe and clearly there is an increased risk of a drink driver being involved in a collision – so drop the limit to below the equivalent of one pint.
Ok, so there are two separate statements here, neither linked by the article.
1: there has been a rise in the number of accidents caused through driving whilst drunk
2: BRAKE has called for lower alcohol limits.
The article fails to link the two i.e. how many of the accidents, and the increased accidents, were caused by people within or under the current limit? If the answer is none then reducing the limit is pointless and the actual solution is increasing enforcement powers. It’s like councils reducing speed limits because people exceed the current limit.
Pointless and ineffective
Exactly: we need to know the number of deaths caused by people who are not legally drunk, but have a blood alcohol level of between 20 (or 50 mg) and 80mg. If that’s increasing, Brake might have a point. Still, issuing a press statement keeps them in the public eye, which is probably the main purpose.
Bravo, if drivers are exceeding existing drink or speed limits, the issue is one of enforcement, it is not evidence that the limits need to be reduced!
Penalties can be as harsh as you want them to be but if there is a reduced risk of detection they are useless. The reduction in the number of police officers nationally and more especially the drastic cut in traffic policing because senior police officers and police commissioners have stopped seeing this as a police task is the more likely cause of increased deaths. Reducing police services as drastically as we have seen over the past 10 years has been short-sighted and we are now paying the price of both this and bleeding-heart liberalism. We all see instances of bad driving every time we go out but driving from one end of the UK to the other I bet we never see any police presence, especially on motorways, to combat centre-lane hogging, tailgating or HGVs overtaking other lorries at 1mph faster than the one on the inside lane. I despair.
The limit in Scotland has already been reduced and it has not made much of a difference as most of those caught are over the old limit. I think I read that it was 17 of 549 were caught over the new limit. There are those who will drink and drive anyway no matter what the limit is.
It didn’t make a difference to the author either – no mention that drivers from England are liable when stopped in Scotland!
Quite, I suspect that the majority of individuals caught driving significantly over the limit are alcoholics and therefore unable to control their drinking so it is irrelevant what the limit is. Alcohol also appears to be a major factor in the number of foreign/european drivers invovled in crashes after driving in the wrong direction along dual carriageways and motorways.
By definition the number of people exceeding the current limit means that enforcement should be improved before even discussing raising a limit which is not being adhered to.
Some countries have no alcohol allowed in your blood if you are driving. However you could be over the limit if you have to take certain medicines. We should be looking at how taking medicines affect your blood/alcohol, adding 10% to this and that should be the maximum you are allowed, At the moment it is confusing what you can drink and not be over the limit. No drinking should be allowed at all.
The limit in Scotland is 50mg, basically covers morning after, most people I know now take taxis or drink at home.
Although, as mentioned previously, I very rarely see any police patrols, so who therefore enforces the law.
I would first like to see a breakdown of the figures showing what proportion of a) fatalities and b) RTI’s in general are from drivers above the 80mg limit and from drivers below it. It would also be useful to know how many of these cases also involved drug use – legal and illegal. I suspect that the most serious problem is those who ignore it or have a combination of other factors. On a pepersonal note I would also like to see it paired with a requirement for pubs to stock a reasonable range of sugar-free soft drinks. I get fed up with having to drink tap water all night!as for the pub trade, it is already in severe decline and in many places only survives by including a good restaurant. If people can’t have a small (125 ml) glass of wine with a meal it will make a takeaway or cooking at home a better option and further damage pubs and restaurants. Many of us live in areas with no or inadequate public transport and not everyone eats out in large groups! I would want to see clear evidence that this scenario needs to be banned.i am lucky – we have a very good pub/restaurant in our village but it is likely to close next year.Cheap evening transport would be a great help here but I don’t see that ever happening
There’s a simple solution to all the “I only had the one, I should be ok” scenario. Zero tolerance. All alcohol affects the body. Other European countries take a zero tolerance approach and this takes the guesswork out of how much is safe. Some truck and bus companies even install devices that take a breath sample before you can even turn the key and lock out the vehicle if any alcohol trace is detected. Until people are less selfish, stupid and inconsiderate then that may be the only way forward.
Why not follow the advice of the records who enforce the law? The police say more measures to catch those who are over the current limit is the approach to take. After all the beat majority of the deaths involve those over the existing limit. Changing the limit won’t affect them if they ignore the present limit.
The idea of losing a limit because too many people ignore the current limit is misdirection. It will lead to a large increase in “drink driving” convictions, which will look like the government is doing something, but won’t touch the current problem.
Furthermore, and this is what the police are most worried about, it could change the current perceptions of the law. At the moment it’s sicky unacceptable to be done for drink driving. You had a dangerous amount in your bloodstream, a danger to others. The social attitude is you deserve the ban
If the net is widened to include those in the lower risk group, the risk is the perfection turns to what it was for years when the limit was introduced or you were unlucky.
Table the actual problem, the number of drives ignoring the current limit and driving drunk!!
The statistics wired show how many of this group were involved in accidents. But how many we caught before they had an accident? That is what the police want to target and what they should be targeting, not a lower risk group just to up the number of convictions and look good
Scotland is ahead of the curve on having a loweracceptable limit. Any evidence to back up the hypothesis that the number of deaths caused by DD has fallen?
I totally agree that the blood alcohol limit be significantly reduced, but are there other conditions that may increase that level unbeknown to the driver, such as a combination of certain drugs/foods?
I’m all against drunk driving but how can you call anyone that’s had a pint of beer drunk? This is just criminalising most decent people. If you’re drunk and your senses are impaired then fair enough, but you could eat some fruits to excess and be over the limit if this nonsense carries on.
I once went on a speed awareness course and one of the instructors admitted to driving in the fast lane of the motorway a time 65mph and wondered why people were undertaking him.
The worlds gone mad
I think it will further damage what is already a struggling pub sector.
It is irrelevant in cities where public transport and taxis are readily available.
The problem is in the countryside where people have no option than to drive and would like a glass of wine with their dinner. 20mg is a stupid level, it would be better to be zero.
I think a level set at 1 glass of wine or one pint of beer would be acceptable.
If people are Willing to drive whilst over the limit, surely they will be willing to drive over a lower limit, so it would make no positive difference. In fact lowering the limit would probably have a negative impact on the statistics as more people would be over the limit.
And people might take the limit less seriously: “in for a penny, in for a pound”.
Please define drunk and is it not a bit unfair to penalise the motorist the morning after when they have used alternative travel the night before, I do agree about the drunk driving but using a radio or any dash control is as bad and causes more fatal accidents and in fact driver error when nothing else has distracted the driver why not just ban the car, I’m afraid too many restrictions on motoring offences will deflect the police away from their main duties of retaining law and order when their are more heinous crimes to detect and police
If someone has drunk so much that they are still over the limit the following morning, then it is not at all unfair to penalise them – they are still unfit to drive!
Peter I was referring to the minimal limit not still being drunk in the morning, back a few years ago I went to a new year party and when I left at 1am just merry and able to walk home, the next morning I was stopped at 9.30 going to visit my mum feeling very sober when I was pulled over for a routine check and to my surprise I was arrested for drink driving, lucky for me I was just under the blood limit but what a waste of police resources to pry on the unsuspected.
mike: In your own opinion you felt very sober but if you were only just below the limit set for blood alcohol concentration then you were not as sober as you thought and you were an irresponsible driver who due to legal leniency avoided a penalty.
The problem is how do you know when you have reached a safe level to drive the next day. The only solution is to never drink if you drive. Other countries in Europe have a zero limit yet we have the safest roads.
Make the limit the same as the EU or Scotland but only way is to have zero tolerance, nick anyone that comes out of a pub carpark
I think we should close all the pubs in the countryside. They cannot survive much longer anyway and then people who have to drive to get anywhere won’t be tempted.
Unbelievable statement – clearly you’ll be advocating that we all stay in our houses in the country whilst city dwellers continue to benefit from even more government subsidies for transport….
When I go out for a drink I go to a country pub a better atmosphere and normally no brawling in the street unlike in town or city and yes some forces do wait and nick people coming out of pub car parks if they are not busy dong others
No I used to live in a village with no buses and had to walk to the next village to catch a bus but city dwellers are not getting your smells and veiws of the countryside just carbon and other c**p coming out of buses
Pubs are closing in town as well, In my town out of my nearest 6 pubs 4 have closed, unfortunately the nearest 1 hasn’t which has fights and police and what ever here nearly every Friday and Saturday nights
Even if they have not been drinking???
1 pensioner to another but I don’t see the difference , why would you go into a pub and not drink, to use the toilets I suppose which is a bit mean isn’t it.
Drugged and driving is more of a problem these days and takes longer to go through you system.
As with any crime the biggest deterrent is the chance of getting caught – increase that chance and thereby increase that risk. The politician’s answer is to decrease the permitted level of alcohol and/or increase the penalty but what is needed is an increase in the chance of getting caught which means more police.
In many other countries worldwide driving with any alcohol in the blood would bring a ban or fine or both, some countries a ban for life. I have been in such countries and people generally accept the law and live within it, the fear of a life ban being very real.
I would like to see the limit cut to 40 mg, with this limit most people would be safe after one pint without having much of an affect on there driving abilities.
No point having limits if there is no one enforcing the rules.
The lack of effective roads policing I believe is a contributing factor to increases in people taking the unacceptable risk and the number of incidents.
The government NEED to subsidize the alcohol free drinks! The alcohol free drinks are more expensive than the alcoholic drinks! Now that is just stupid! Let’s pay MORE to sit there light lemons, pretending we are having a great time while the government don’t give a shot, eh???
Not really a good idea. Soft drinks are only so expensive because they are seen as a cash cow by licensed outlets. A law stopping them doing this would be more appropriate. Subsidising anything always fails to achieve the desired result.
There should be a zero alohol limit for drivers of any wheeled vehicle, that way there would be no excuse when stopped or checked by the police, it would be a simple case of having had a drink or not, endof problem.
Did you forget Scotland has already lowered the limit?
The limit should be to lowered with the drink driving limit to 0 mg of alcohol that way there is no excuse for drink and drive
Would be interesting to see the breakdown of numbers,, British drivers caught over the limit against Eastern European drivers caught over the limit, as we have seen news reports of them well over the D/D limit
derek noon
As mentioned numerous times already, such a move would actually criminalise the wrong people, though it might make the statistics look better, which seems to be all that matters nowadays.
I can’t comment on alcohol levels and accidents, but I have noticed that since 20mph signs have been introduced, I have seen far more drivers speeding excessively (i.e. 40mph+) in these zones than I ever saw before they were introduced. In the end you have to ask the question of who is more likely to kill somebody; nine drivers doing 30mph or one driver doing 50mph?
This can easily be measured whereas alcohol/ability cabnnot, but surely the same principles apply to lower alcohol limits as does to lower speed limits. Add to this the small but significant minority who will deliberately drive faster on being told they must go slower. Again, apply this same principle to alcohol.
It is enforcement , I don’t have the statistics but I would wager use of mobile phones currently kill more people and that’s not being dealt with properly
Why are we testing how much alcohol is in a drivers blood, when what we are trying to establish is the capability of the operator to safely drive a vehicle? Plenty of other factors come into play, not least of which are IQ, reaction times and aptitude. If we criminalised the many accident-causing human traits that we all have, none of us would be driving. We have to tackle those problems that we can and sober driving is the one simple option currently enforcable.. Zero alcohol is as good a starting point as technology can currently give us. We shall have to wait for evolution to take care of the rest.
Can’t say I’ve had many close shaves with anybody I’ve thought “ under the influence “.
But I’ve had more than enough with drivers on phones . Crash the cars , no escape , I say .
I believe the limit should be zero, anything that inhibits your ability to control a vehicle, with our road getting busier, you need to be in absolute control.
it’s a no brainer and easy solution – reduce the drink driving limit to zero then no one can misunderstand or get confused. Why is it so difficult to drink soft drinks if you are driving??????????
I wouldn’t suggest the limit is an issue, the lack of enforcement is the primary issue.
Due to late night driving habits, due to work, I was pulled over 7 times win under two years.
The last 5 not once.
I’ve only been driving 7.
No where in any evidence does it quote people with low alcohol levels being involved in these serious accidents.
So I personally feel it is the dwindling police numbers, also the dramatic increase in unmarked police cars they now effectively have it entirely on themselves whether they pull people over.
Back to marked police cars, they essentially had a duty to be seen to act, I think this is another major reason for the increase, but as noted that increase was only 16 drivers, so small, to attribute this to a very small level of alcohol is quite frankly absurd considering the other factors at play
There should be a zero tolerance but maybe the 20mg alchol per 100ml of blood is a step in the right direction. Also I feel that every driver charged and convicted should lose their licence and re take another test and confiscate their car. Penalties should be an infinite fine no less than £1000.
Banned 3 years and iif injuries sustained due to a drink driving occurence, then pay those injured not via their insurance company, but via their own finance. A custodial sentence shoul be longer than 6 months or so and in every event 18 months should be the norm. If causing death then it is vehicular manslaughter and should reflect on the term, I say 10 years.
If they break the law by driving a vehicle whilst having no licence, tax and insurance then up the custodial sentence to 15 years and jf they kill or injure then20/25 years. Some may think I am not the ticket. I have witnessed what these “LAWBREAKERS ” have done to my family and ose friends especially depriving a mothe, father, brother or sister, wife, husband and children they have a sentence of never again seeing their loved ones or are forced to watch their lives havi g no future due to horrific injuries sustained due to a drink driving “LAWBREAKER”.
Don’t drink and drive, you’ll spill it.
The harsher the better, there should be zero tolerance
One of the problems here is that all drivers ‘involved’ in an accident get breathlysed so a person can find themselves completely innocent of the accident but just fail a breath test. At the end of last year I had been to a funeral and had food and a drink afterwards. On the way home I stopped at a red light and a few seconds later some idiot smashed into the back of my car without even attempting to brake. Because of his speed both vehicles were written off as a result. Police attended and both of us were breath tested, luckily I was under the limit as was the other driver and the police took no action on him, not even a charge of careless driving or driving without due care.
I don’t think that the people who are just slightly over the limit are the biggest problem. I think it’s the ones who drive whilst absolutely plastered who are the danger, and they don’t take any notice of limits