Minister rejects demands to cut drink-drive limit

A sort of follow-up to my previous post:

I've always said 'give credit where it's due', which explains why I am reporting the surprising news that a Tory minister has actually been heard to talk sense.

Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, has ruled out lowering the drink-driving limit because government policy is not about "people who had a glass of wine at the pub", but is about "people who systematically flout the law". I've made the point here several times before that, while I don't approve of driving while over the limit, merely reducing the limit is a cheap and easy way of appearing to be strict while doing nothing whatsoever: the idiots who have a skinful before driving will take no more notice of a lower limit than they do of the present one.

With the reductions in police numbers and traffic patrols increasingly being replaced by speeding cameras and CCTV, there is a real possibility that we are making it easier for drunks behind the wheel to get away with flouting the law, and putting the rest of us at risk in the process. Grayling makes a similar point: "We have a fairly thinly stretched police force and we should concentrate on catching the serious offenders."

The Institute of Alcohol Studies, which is lobbying for a cut in the limit, says that the minister is "out of touch", but I have yet to read proposals by any alcohol campaigners that make positive and realistic suggestions as to how we tackle those who blatantly ignore the drink-drive limit. So who's out of touch?

Passing a law relating to drink-driving is easy, whereas implementing it is not. Lowering the limit will do nothing to stop persistent drunk drivers, who'd just as happily ignore a limit of zero. It would simply penalise drivers who carefully stay within the current limit, i.e. the very people who are not the problem.

"None for the road" - the annual campaign

A subtly nuanced Australian sign

"None for the road" is the slogan Merseyside Police are using this year in the annual drink-driving campaign. My initial thought was that they seem to be ignoring that fact that drink-driving within the limit is still legal. I rarely drink while using the car, preferring to walk or use public transport. Virtually the only occasions are when I'm delivering Ale & Hearty, the local CAMRA magazine, when I might have a couple of ordinary strength halves while going around half a dozen pubs. But the campaign isn't really aimed at the likes of me.

There are drivers who have become so wedded to their cars that going anywhere without them is inconceivable. In the same paper that the drink-drive campaign was announced, a woman seen driving erratically was found to be nearly three times over the limit. Her excuse was she had fallen out with her friend after drinking and drove home because she felt that both she and her car were vulnerable. The question is: why did she drive to meet her friend for a drink in the first place?

Some simply don't care less about the law, and others actually believe they drive as well, if not better, when they've had a few drinks. In a way, I can see why they think that, insofar as I have sometimes walked out of a pub and thought to myself that I feel okay to drive. The difference is that I never do because - even after a few drinks - I know for a fact that such a feeling is deceptive. Another reason is that my car is at home anyway, where it should be when you go drinking.

In some ways you could look at this issue as a part of your lifestyle choices. Many years ago, I visited my friend Jim who had moved to Solihull. He enjoyed a drink as much as me, and suggested we go for a pint. After a quarter of an hour walk, we reached a pub, but we didn't go in because he said it was rubbish. It was half an hour's walk before we reached a reasonable boozer. I asked why he had chosen to live so far from a pub. He replied that you don't take such considerations into account when looking for somewhere to live, but I disagreed.

If you like golf, you'd probably choose to live near a golf course, and the same obviously applies to any kind of interest or social activity you may enjoy. If you like going to the pub, it makes perfect sense to live within reasonable distance of one, but suggest that and people treat it as a joke. I doubt most pubgoers seriously consider where the pubs are when choosing a new home, but they ought to. If I needed to move, there are whole swathes of Southport I wouldn't consider looking at for this very reason. It seems to me that if you don't 'need' the car to go to the pub, you probably won't be tempted to use it.

These thoughts were prompted by an article in the Morning Advertiser, which is mainly about how drink-driving deaths, injuries and convictions are in decline, and how pubs can help. 

Dreaming of drink

At this time of year, we are being bombarded with messages, not only to buy-buy-buy, but also to take it easy on the drink over the holiday, and next year to go on the wagon in "Dry January". Paul Bailey has covered this barrage of propaganda pretty thoroughly here, thus saving me the bother.

A bit of personal history: I last took my car to the pub without any regard to the limit on Friday 13 February 1981, when I was stopped by a foot bobby who gave me a stern warning and let me off, providing I left the car where it was until next morning. So much for Friday the Thirteenth being unlucky. I wrote more about drink-driving, including my own, in May 2013.

Considering how long ago that was, it was strange to have a dream last night about me drinking and driving. I got into the car and remember nothing more until I came to, finding the car had moved. I arrived at the gathering I was going to, and afterwards everyone began cracking jokes about all the things I couldn't remember doing.

I do wonder whether this dream had been provoked by the anti-drink messages that gladden the hearts of alcohol campaigners at this time of year. While the rest of us are proposing toasts and wishing each other a happy and peaceful new year, they are tut-tutting that there's no reason why you can't have perfectly a good time on a half of shandy.

Fortunately no one was injured in my dream, just as - through sheer luck rather than skill - they weren't in my real life drink-driving days. But seeing that for nearly 35 years, I have walked or travelled by bus, train or taxi when drink is involved, I sometimes just wish the killjoys would put a sock in it. But I suppose that for some people, this is the season to be Scrooge.

Scottish pubs hit by change in the law

The reduced drink-drive limit in Scotland has hit pubs hard, according to the Scottish Licensed Trade Association. They report that more than half of pubs reported a drop in trade over the summer months; the worst affected were rural pubs with more than a third stating that their sales had fallen by more than 10%. In England and Wales, the alcohol limit for drivers is 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, but in Scotland the limit was reduced from 80mg to 50 last year. The effect on pubs was entirely predictable, and indeed it was predicted by wise sages such as Curmudgeon and me.

Quick easy fixes that show you've "done something" are popular with many politicians, and the nanny state meddlers of the SNP are no exception. The real problem with drink-driving is that some drinkers will drink whatever they want and then climb into their car and drive, without ever giving a second thought to the limit. The driver who carefully drinks within the limit is not the problem, but he or she will be hit by a reduced limit, not the lunatics who are the real danger on our roads.

At the time the Scots adopted the lower limit, the UK government said it had no plans to reduce the drink-driving limit in England and Wales as it said this would have no impact on "high risk offenders". Despite that sensible approach, I can't help wondering whether, with the ongoing cuts in police numbers, it may at some point become tempting to cut the limit in the rest of the UK. Okay, the result is that you spoil the pleasure of careful drivers, and you close some pubs in the process - but you can claim you're "doing something" and being tough on the causes of crime. And not only that, it's a nice, cheap option - much cheaper than tackling the hardened offenders.

MPs take the soft option

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Misuse has come out with a document calling on all political parties to commit themselves to 10 measures to minimise alcohol-related harm in the UK. Such documents have no formal standing and merely represent the views of the members of the group, which itself has no formal status, but is simply a collection of politicians who have an interest in the topic. Alcohol Concern, the fake, publicly-funded charity, also has its name prominently displayed on the cover. This publication is intended to influence the content of party manifestos for next year's general election.

I've reproduced the exact wording of the recommendations below but there is nothing new here, particularly the calls for minimum pricing, strengthening regulation of alcohol marketing, health warnings on labels, and lowering the drink-driving limit (the links are to older posts on the subject concerned).

As I've previously written on some of the individual recommendations, I won't cover old ground again, but it is worth noting that it has just been announced that drink-drive deaths are at their lowest since records began, under-age drinking is also at its lowest since records began and alcohol consumption in general is at its lowest level for decades. So how do those facts, based on government statements, sit with the report's assertion that "alcohol abuse has become a national pandemic and needs to be treated as such"? It's sounding more like a bunch of busybodies with an agenda rather than a sober assessment of the situation. Further evidence of this is in the introduction which cheerily says: "We want to be clear that this manifesto is not designed to end or curtail people’s enjoyment of alcohol". When they have to make that point clear, I tend to assume that that is precisely what they have in mind.

With MPs paid £66,000 per year, and ministers more than £100,000, I do wonder why our legislators are wasting time doing no more than rehashing familiar recommendations that have previously been published many times over the years. Although, to be fair, it often seems that repeating themselves is the stock-in-trade of our MPs.

In contrast, just 11 MPs (1.7% of the total) bothered to turn up on 17 July for a debate about the provision of education for children with autism. Such a debate would require concentration, knowledge and thought, whereas cobbling together a report consisting of ideas that have frequently been regurgitated in the past is probably a fairly effortless way of passing time while apparently doing something worthy. I wonder whether the legislative busybodies adjourned to one of the many subsidised Palace of Westminster bars when their onerous task was complete?

The recommendations are:

1. Make reducing alcohol harms the responsibility of a single government minister with clear accountability. 
2. Introduce a minimum unit price for alcoholic drinks. 
3. Introduce public health as a fifth licensing objective, enabling local authorities to make licensing decisions based on local population health need and the density of existing outlets. 
4. Strengthen regulation of alcohol marketing to protect children and young people. 
5. Increase funding for treatment and raise access levels from 6% to 15% of problem drinkers. 
6. Commissioners should prioritise the delivery of identification and brief advice identification and brief advice should be delivered in a wide range of different settings including health care, involving GPs routinely asking questions, and in-workplace programmes. 
7. Include a health warning on all alcohol labels and deliver a government-funded national public awareness campaign on alcohol-related health issues. 
8. For all social workers, midwives and healthcare professionals, introduce mandatory training on parental substance misuse, foetal alcohol syndrome disorder and alcohol-related domestic violence. 
9. Reduce the blood alcohol limit for driving in England and Wales to 50mg/100ml, starting with drivers under the age of 21. 
10. Introduce the widespread use of sobriety orders to break the cycle of alcohol and crime, antisocial behaviour and domestic violence.

Drink driving - a genuinely tough approach

A seasonal topic

There has been some discussion on Curmudgeon's blog about the thorny subject of drink driving. It's a topic I have written about before several times (including  here), and I tried to comment on his blog, but it wouldn't let me for some reason, so this is an expanded version of what I was going to write there. One comment below his post drags out that old chestnut about reducing the limit to zero.

As a drinker and a driver, I don't approve of driving over the limit, but reducing the limit to zero is a cheap and easy way of appearing to be strict while doing nothing whatsoever. The idiots who have a skinful will take no more notice of a zero limit than they do of the present law. The only people who will be affected will be those who carefully stay within the limit. But the desire to be seen to be doing "something - anything" about the problem would have been satisfied, until it eventually becomes clear the nothing much of value has been achieved.

So what would I do? I'd keep the law as it is for first offenders, because most of them never do it again; they learn their lesson, and the ban, fine and hefty insurance premiums are punishment enough. In terms of modifying unacceptable behaviour, in most cases the present law does the job.

The problem lies with those who haven't learnt from being caught and who never will. I'd propose three strikes and you're out. A lifetime ban for any driver found driving over the limit on 3 separate occasions (or perhaps even 2; I'm not fixated on 3). If found driving during a lifetime ban, prison. If found driving during an ordinary ban, automatic lifetime ban. The fact that you would be able to progress quite easily from the present law for a first offence to prison would certainly have a greater deterrent effect than making the limit zero. Drivers have a licence to drive on the road, and the word 'licence' means permission, not entitlement. A lifetime withdrawal of permission for those who repeatedly put other people's lives at risk by taking a dangerous piece of machinery onto the roads while unfit is in my opinion quite reasonable. It's no good being sorry after you've killed someone.

All we need now is enough traffic police to apply whichever law we have, as there clearly aren't enough now.

Drink driving hotspots

According to a recent survey, drivers who live in the countryside are twice as likely to be charged with driving under the influence of drink and drugs than town dwellers. The survey was conducted by price comparison website, MoneySuperMarket, based on an analysis of almost 12 million insurance quotes on the site in a 12-month period. The worst areas are the north of Scotland and mid-Wales which both have a conviction rate double that of Greater London. Breaking down the stats further by postcodes shows that Scotland and Wales still dominate the top 10 with Aberdeen, Inverness, Dundee, Kirkcaldy, Cardiff and Swansea all featured, whereas at the bottom end of the table you'll see central London, Bradford, Liverpool and Manchester.

It's not not surprising that rural areas are likely to feature in such lists with pubs generally much further apart, poor or non-existent public transport and a police presence that is much thinner on the ground. All this, however, doesn't fully explain why parts of Scotland and Wales are so prominent, seeing that England too has remote, rural areas, as well as 88% of the UK's population: on the basis of sheer numbers alone, I'd have expected a greater English presence in the top 10.

Can we accept as an explanation that in those areas of Wales or Scotland, you can be even more remote than in England? I don't think so because if you fancy wandering out for a pint, a pub 10 miles away in North Yorkshire is as inaccessible on foot as a pub 30 miles away in the Scottish Highlands, but it could be argued that if you're prepared to drive while over the limit, you may have a longer journey with a greater chance of being breathalysed. Perhaps, but in my view it's more likely that the police being thinner on the ground through trying to cover a larger area might encourage more people to take the chance.

The loss of many village pubs certainly won't have helped. Curmudgeon has blamed such closures, at least in part, on the denormalisation of alcohol by campaigners, which has led to a decline in people being prepared to drive after drinking within the legal limit, thus reducing trade in rural pubs. Fewer rural pubs will mean that many of those prepared to drive after drinking over the limit will have longer journeys.

I'm not making excuses for drink-driving, as my previous posts will make clear (click here if you wish to see them): attempting to understand why something happens doesn't constitute approval. I do wonder, however, whether people who like a drink take the proximity of a decent pub sufficiently into account when choosing where to live, whether in the town or the country, bearing in mind an increasing number of country homes are occupied by incomers. I once visited a college friend who enjoyed his beer and who had moved with his girlfriend to Solihull (admittedly not very rural); he soon made the welcome suggestion that we go for a pint. After 10 or 15 minutes' walk, we reached a pub, but he said that it was no good. After more than half an hour's walk, we reached somewhere reasonable. I asked him why they hadn't chosen a house closer to a pub. He looked at me incredulously and said that you don't take that kind of thing into account when finding somewhere to live. I pointed out that if he'd played golf, he'd have chosen a house near a golf course.

Back to the survey: although it makes interesting reading, bald statistics can't come up with any explanations, and my own attempts are little more than informed guess work. Contacted for a response, the Institute of Advanced Motorists, a self-appointed driving club, began by stating the obvious: "Lack of public transport is no excuse for any (rural) driver to risk a journey under the influence. Offenders may think they stand more chance of getting away with it in quiet rural areas but these roads are actually the most dangerous, with more fatalities than on city streets."

Okay so far, but then the nanny state tendency came out with: "A hard day's work may seem a good justification for a quick pint on the way home but responsibility for your and others [sic] safety comes with every driving licence." In other words, a quick pint on the way home is going to endanger yourself and others, which misses the point that the survey was about people being over the limit. Having a go at legal drink-driving does not address the real problem of those who will get behind the wheel no matter how much they've knocked back.

Don't drink and drive ~ you might spill some!

Better than a ban - or a crash

New rules have been introduced for the worst drink-drivers, especially those caught driving while more than 2.5 times over the limit, or done for drink-driving twice in the last ten years. The measures include requiring high risk offenders to have a medical examination to prove they don't have a problem with alcohol misuse before they can get their licence back. More details can be found here.

This is all to the good. These measures will do more about drunken driving than reducing the legal limit, which I have written about several times previously, e.g. here. Personally, I'd go even further: anyone who is convicted of drink-driving for a third time should be banned for life - three strikes and you're out. If you haven't learnt by then, you clearly never will.

In the 1970s, when I learnt to drive, the attitude towards someone who'd been banned for drink-driving was "Bad luck!", but this changed during the 1980s to become "Serves you right!" as people increasingly understood how alcohol impairs your abilities. I recall one evening about 25 years ago a friend of mine who was well over the limit and about to drive home being harangued by drunks around the bar to leave his car keys behind and collect his car the next day.

In the 1970s, I often heard drivers claim that they could drive better after a few drinks. I had thought that such a dinosaur view had died out, but not a thing of it. After a fatal accident in Southport a year or two ago, a young woman who'd been injured in the crash said that the driver, a young male, used to claim that he drove better after few drinks, and I heard exactly the same nonsense a couple of weeks ago in a TV documentary about young drivers. Seeing that road accidents are the biggest killer of people under 25, it is worrying to hear some of them express such an attitude. I've heard a lot of suggestions about how to tackle this, such as prohibiting new drivers from driving late at night, limiting the number of passengers they can carry, maximum car engine size, maximum speed and even a zero alcohol limit, but it's no use making yet more new rules if there aren't the resources to enforce them. In the long run, education as part of the driving test is probably the best way forward, including shocking pictures of real accidents and people describing the devastating impact drink-driving can cause.

Like many people at the time, I occasionally used to drink-drive in the late 70s. I'm not proud of that, and I never thought I was a better driver after drinking. Fortunately nothing ever went wrong, although I had one near miss which didn't result in an accident mainly because the other driver was more on the ball than I was; I was lucky. Shortly after that, I reflected that I knew lots of people who had perfectly good social lives without using cars, that there were trains, buses and taxis, and also that I actually had a lot of pubs within walking distance. As one near miss taught me a lesson, I can't understand the mentality of people who, despite having been caught, sometimes even after accidents caused by drink, offend again and again; such people would ignore any limit, even a zero one. If the new rules help stop some of these high risk offenders, they'll be worthwhile.

Scottish bans will apply on English roads

I wrote on 21 June about my enquiry to the Department for Transport (you'll find it here) asking whether a driving ban in Scotland because of (say) 65mg (illegal in Scotland, but not in the rest of the UK) would apply in England, even though you had not broken any drink-drive laws that apply in England.  I've just been sent this reply:

"Thank you for your email dated 02 June enquiring about Scottish drink driving ban. You are correct in your assumption. If a driver gets banned in Scotland owing to lower drink drive limit than [sic] that ban will also be applicable in rest of the UK.

"This is because the drink drive limit have been devolved to Scotland but power to change penalties cannot be devolved. It is not unusual or unconstitutional, for example it will be the same if Northern Ireland lowers its drink drive limit."

I don't regard that as satisfactory but at least we know the definitive answer, so best take extra care if you're driving in Scotland once this new limit comes into force.

Will Scottish drink-drive bans apply in England?

Click to enlarge chart.

On 1 June I wrote: "The Pub Curmudgeon has recently made an interesting point. If you lose your licence on a visit to Scotland because you have, say 65mg (illegal in Scotland, but not in the rest of the UK), you would not be able to drive on English roads even though you had not broken any drink-drive laws that apply in England. Logically, a ban imposed in Scotland for any level below 80mg should apply to Scottish roads only."

I put this question to the Department for Transport, and yesterday, after 23 days, sent them another e-mail stating that they had failed to meet their 20-day target for answers. To be fair, I've received a reply today:

"It is not a matter that the Department for Transport can answer so we have contacted the Scottish Government to see if they can provide the answer. They are not able to respond but have suggested that it is a matter that the Crown Prosecution Service can respond to and so it was sent to CPS on the 20 June. We have not received confirmation from them that they can provide an answer but hope to hear from them in the next couple of days."

I replied that I didn't see how the Scottish Government could adjudicate whether their ban for 50-80mg drink-driving would apply in the rest of the UK, seeing that their jurisdiction is confined to Scotland. I had thought they'd have had an answer ready to send to me - after all, we've had devolution now for 13 years - so I'm quite surprised it has caused this amount of confusion and activity. Still, I'll keep plugging at it and keep you posted.

"Toasting England could ruin your life"

Under this headline in one of our free papers, our local Inspector Knacker says, "We appreciate that people may like to enjoy a drink on an evening, especially with the Euros [i.e. football] on, but if they are going to do that they shouldn't then get behind the wheel of a vehicle." I was expecting "if they think they may be over the limit" at the end of that sentence, but it wasn't there. The report also states that "In the last four years, June has seen ... 889 collisions where alcohol or drugs have been a contributory factor", which is clearly information supplied by the police. Hang on a moment there - drugs? I thought we were talking about people slipping over the limit during the enthusiasm of watching a match? I've never seen anyone shoot up, smoke dope or pop pills during a match in a pub. So now we've dragged in an illegal activity too, in the hope that the hostility many people have towards illegal drug use will rub off on alcohol: a form of guilt by association (it also handily bumps up the numbers too). Not only that, I'm suspicious of the phrase "contributory factor": obviously this means that some of the drivers had been drinking, but if so, how many were over the limit? Also, how many of these accidents were caused by the alcohol? It is possible to have a drink and be involved in an accident which was entirely someone else's fault. Do these stats take such factors into account; I really doubt it, and if I'm right, then they are seriously misleading, and I don't think that's an accident either.

I do not approve of driving when drunk (or for that matter under the influence of drugs, but that is beyond the remit I have set this blog), but you'll never see it written anywhere nowadays that drinking and driving is a perfectly legal activity. I rarely do it - usually when I am touring pubs to collect adverts for our local CAMRA magazine - but on the rare occasion I do, I take care to stay within the legal limit. I'm lucky in that I have more than 20 real ale pubs within half an hour's walk of where I live, but some people in more remote locations may have none within reasonable walking distance. Driving to the pub for a couple of slow pints over the course of an evening may the only way they can drink cask real ale (or any pub drink, for that matter), but if such people are made to feel that what they are doing, although completely lawful, is unacceptable, then that opportunity to socialise is removed. An evening of J20s or coffees is not a suitable replacement, as I know from my own recent medically-enforced abstinence. Rural pubs would suffer too, as a lot of their trade is from people in cars. Bus services are often inadequate or non-existent in evenings, and taxis can become prohibitive if used all the time, and certainly not worth the outlay if all you want is a couple of pints anyway.

The problems with drunken killers on the road are not caused by people who carefully make a couple of drinks last all night; they are caused by idiots who will drink copiously irrespective of the drink-drive limit: they'd still drive drunk even if it were zero. These are the people who need targeting, not a football fan who has taken it easy all evening while watching the match (I cover this in more detail here). No sign of any such awareness in Inspector Knacker's preaching to the public, but it would cost the police a lot more to tackle the real morons, who won't take the slightest bit of notice of the article in the paper. So, all in all, a bit of a wasted effort which will only discourage the sensible driver who keeps his drinking within the limit, and does nothing to deal with the real problem. Must do better, Knacker!

From Braveheart to Nanny

The ruling Scottish Nanny-Statist Party has announced that it will lower the drink-drive limit in Scotland from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg. Sorry to repeat myself, but this is a very effective way of appearing to address a problem without actually doing much at all, and at very little cost too - in other words it's spin, the politician's favourite policy. The real problem with drink-driving is not the person who carefully drinks within the 80mg limit; it is the person who drinks as much as he or she likes, completely ignoring any limits, even a zero one should that be introduced. After a recent accident locally, a young woman who'd survived with injuries described how the young, male, drunk driver, who had killed both himself and someone else, regularly boasted that he could drive better after drinking. I remember certain drivers spouting such nonsense in the 1970s and thought it had gone out with the Bay City Rollers - obviously I was wrong.

The only way such drivers will mend their ways would be if the chances of getting caught were increased significantly because, at present, if you're over the limit and don't cause an accident, it's highly unlikely you'll be stopped. Tackling such drivers would be costly and labour intensive because you'd need many more police officers to identify, apprehend and prosecute them, mostly at night time which entails paying overtime. The cheaper option is to lower the limit, which will only affect those people who are being careful anyway - but you can claim you have done something about drink driving. In the meanwhile, the real damage caused by drivers who are actually drunk, as in the tragic instance above, remains untouched.

The Pub Curmudgeon has recently made an interesting point. If you lose your licence on a visit to Scotland because you have, say 65mg (illegal in Scotland, but not in the rest of the UK), you would not be able to drive on English roads even though you had not broken any drink-drive laws that apply in England. Logically, a ban imposed in Scotland for any level below 80mg should apply to Scottish roads only. But will it? I seriously doubt it myself, but I'll try to find out for certain; I'll let you know how I get on.

Drink-drive laws "kill jobs"?

Congressman Alan Hale from Montana, USA, has opposed laws on drink-driving (or DUI - driving under the influence) on the basis that they kill jobs in taverns and bars although, oddly enough, he doesn't mention funeral directors.  What does a little collateral damage matter as long as the good ol' boys can have their booze?  You can read the article here and see him in action in a 40-second video.  He is, unsurprisingly, a Republican.  As the article says, this isn't an April Fool joke!  Good comment underneath:  Someone needs to tell him his village called ... their idiot is missing.

P.S. Just to prove that not all American politicians are barking, here's an interesting article I've just come across about presidential home brewers.  I'd like to try the White House Honey Ale.

No change to drink-drive limit

Common sense has prevailed in the discussion about lowering the drink-driving limits from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg, which would have brought us in line with much of Europe; the government has announced they will enforce the current law more rigorously rather than following Sir Peter North's recommendation to lower the limit.  Safety campaigners assert that such a measure would save around 160 lives per year, basing their assumptions on computer models, but these are quite logically only as good as the computer programming that creates them.  The full story is here. 

The argument "if it saves only one life" isn't easy to argue against, especially when it comes from a bereaved relative, but most of the drink-drive casualties on the road are not caused by someone who drinks within the current limit - they are caused by people who habitually booze well over the limit before driving; such people would carry on drink-driving even if we introduced zero tolerance.  These are the ones that need stopping, not someone who carefully drinks within the legal limit.  To ignore such people, who are - it seems to me - only found out after they've had an accident, is to ignore the suffering and damage they cause and instead go after the easy targets.

I've no doubt that this will not be the end of the subject, as there are some people who won't be satisfied until there is a complete ban.  And then, while drunken drivers would continue cause mayhem by ignoring the ban completely as they do now, the campaigners would congratulate themselves on a job well done.

With police cutbacks on the way, let's hope the intention to enforce the existing limit more strictly isn't just politician's rhetoric, seeing that it is by far the more expensive option. 

Drink driving at record low

I see in today's paper that deaths and injuries in road accidents involving drink driving are at a record low:

• deaths are down 5% from 400 in 2008 to 380 in 2009;
• serious injuries are also down by 9% to 1,480; and
• slight injuries down by 8% to 10,130.

I wrote about this issue at length in March, so I won't cover all the same ground. It seems clear to me that the drink-drive messages are slowly getting through, but that won't stop further calls to reduce the current drink drive limit, as recommended recently in the report by Sir Peter North. The cry that "one death is one too many" is a hard one to argue against, especially when it comes from a bereaved relative, but before a further reduction is contemplated, we need evidence that lowering the limit will make any difference. As I said in my previous posting, I don't believe it will, since the really dangerous drivers are those who couldn't care less about the limit and drive when they're several times over it, and who would carry on drinking and driving even if the limit was zero. I'd want evidence that someone making 3 or 4 halves of beer or a glass of wine last all evening is a real danger on the road; I have never seen any such evidence.

Like everyone else, I want to see that figure of 380 reduced further, and - unusually for me - I agree with a Tory. Just before the general election, Tory transport spokesperson Theresa Villiers said her party wouldn't cut the limit: “We do not believe the case has been made to justify such a change. We would focus on enforcement of the current rules.” I hope there's no U-turn now that her party is in government.

Cutting the limit would be the easy, virtually cost-free and largely ineffective option. Catching the genuinely drunk drivers would cost rather more. So, do we want an easy quick fix or an approach that will make a difference?

Driving the limit down

Sir Peter North's review has now been published, recommending a cut in the drink-driving level from 80 to 50 mg. I've written on this previously.

All I can add is that there's nothing in these proposals to deal with the idiots who frankly don't care about any limit, who will continue to drive if banned, who killed a young woman whom I once knew and who nearly killed me twice when I was walking home from the pub one night. Two cars driven at high speeds at midnight in a residential area coming from opposite directions both nearly mowed me down within the space of 10 seconds as I crossed a side street.  Good job that, despite drinking all evening, I was alert enough to jump out of the way of each car in turn.

But lowering the limit is a quick, cheap fix, and like most quick fixes, it won't deal with the real problem, which is that, although drink driving is a very serious offence, the chances of being caught are very slim. As I said in my previous posting on this subject, we should enforce the current law far more rigorously and chase the real drunk drivers who will ignore any limit, rather than penalise the careful driver who conscientiously drinks within the present one. But enforcing the law in this way would be labour intensive and cost a lot of money ~ it's much easier and cheaper to make a law that sounds tough but at best simply nibbles at the edges of the problem.

How to do absolutely nothing about drunk-driving

You've no doubt heard that the Government has proposed reducing the drink-driving limit from 80mg to 50mg following a review by Sir Peter North. Many years ago, a young woman whom I was acquainted with was killed when a drunk driver ploughed into her car. This was a terrible and unnecessary tragedy, but the point here is that the driver was drunk; he was well over the limit. He had not been carefully nursing a couple of pints all night.

Fatal alcohol-related accidents almost always involve drivers who have completely ignored the current limit, so they're hardly going to care about a lower one, especially as they know they are unlikely to be caught anyway. This measure is just an example of appearing to do something about a problem, but in reality doing absolutely nothing at all.

The way to deal with drunk driving is to increase the chances of being caught, which are extremely low, especially now that traffic police have largely been replaced by speed cameras.  I would propose large-scale random breath tests carried out without warning, perhaps occasionally blocking off the entire town centre at night and breathalysing every driver. Yes, this may cause hold-ups, but it would greatly increase the chances of being caught drunk behind the wheel, thus creating the real deterrent that we don't have now. We should enforce the current law far more rigorously and not introduce one that drunk drivers will still ignore, but which penalises the careful driver who conscientiously drinks within the present limit.

P.S. (added 17 March): there's a saying that what's seldom is wonderful. In this case, it's me agreeing with a Tory. I've just read that Tory transport spokesperson Theresa Villiers said her party wouldn't cut the limit: “We do not believe the case has been made to justify such a change. We would focus on enforcement of the current rules.” The problem here is that if this issue becomes a party political battle, "New" Labour will never back down on principle - can't be seen to be yielding to the enemy, even if they're right (at least on this one point).