Safe Speed Forums

Legal Drink Drive Limit Will Not Be Lowered

Radical plans to lower Britain's drink-drive limit have been rejected by the Government with the current level set to stay the same.

Police checking drivers

Police will enforce the drink-drive limit more robustly

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said greater enforcement would be a more effective approach than lowering the limit.

Sir Peter North, in a government-commissioned report, had suggested it fall from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg.

This is the equivalent of one pint of beer and would have put Britain in line with many other European countries.

Safety campaigners claimed it would save more than 160 lives a year but figures in the pub industry were angry about the proposal.

Mr Hammond did give the green light for a package of measures to tackle drug-driving as well as drink-driving.

Improved testing equipment to detect those over the limit has been given the go-ahead and enforcement will be streamlined.

Mr Hammond: "The number of drink-driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979.

"But drink-driving still kills hundreds of people so we need to take tough action against the small minority of drivers who flagrantly ignore the limit.

"Their behaviour is entrenched and after careful consideration we have concluded that improving enforcement is likely to have more impact on these dangerous people than lowering the limit.

"We are therefore taking forward a package of measures which will streamline enforcement, helping the police to target these most dangerous offenders and protect law-abiding road users."

The changes will also see people denied the right to opt for a blood test if their breath test is less than 40%.

Drivers well over the limit could be forced to take remedial training and a linked driving assessment before getting back their licences.

High-risk offenders will no longer be able to delay their medical examinations and police will have portable evidential testing kits.

The Government is also examining the case for a specific drug-driving offence, to go alongside the existing one.

This would remove the need for police to prove impairment on a case-by-case basis where a specified drug has been detected.

The AA said the coalition had "missed an opportunity" to lower the limit but welcomed the changes to the testing set-up.

President Edmund King said: "Although an opportunity to cut the limit has been missed, drink-drivers need to understand that new procedures will make them more likely to be caught."

The British Medical Association also said it was "extremely disappointed" that the Government had rejected the recommendation.

A spokesman said: "We have lobbied for a reduction for over 20 years. We believe that such a move will help prevent deaths and reduce the number of lives ruined by drink-driving."

However, I would like to highlight the utterly sensible sentiment: "But drink-driving still kills hundreds of people so we need to take tough action against the small minority of drivers who flagrantly ignore the limit." thus properly targeting those who do the damage, instead of lowing a limit that they're already completely ignoring!

But, since there are no statistics of the number of KSIs for drivers whose blood alcohol level is below the existing limit but above the proposed limit, how can the BMC spokesman be taken seriously when he quotes how many lives would be saved were the limit to be lowered.

In my opinion speed or speeding is not a problem,its the people who cant handle in the right place that is the problem
Stephen

Yes, nice to see a bit of sense spoken by a Government Minister. But, since there are no statistics of the number of KSIs for drivers whose blood alcohol level is below the existing limit but above the proposed limit, how can the BMC spokesman be taken seriously when he quotes how many lives would be saved were the limit to be lowered.

Of the total reported road accident fatalities in Great Britain in 2008, where a BAC was recorded, 78% of fatalities were below 80 mg/100ml (the legal alcohol limit). Within the total, 76% of fatalities had a BAC below 51mg/100ml; while 2% were between 51 and 80 mg/100ml. Over a fifth of fatalities (22%) were over the prescribed limit and 21% were over 100mg /100ml.

Yes, nice to see a bit of sense spoken by a Government Minister. But, since there are no statistics of the number of KSIs for drivers whose blood alcohol level is below the existing limit but above the proposed limit, how can the BMC spokesman be taken seriously when he quotes how many lives would be saved were the limit to be lowered.

So only 3% of fatalities involve a driver with a BAC between 50 and 100mg. Even if reducing the limit totally eliminated driving between 50 and 80, which is not a remotely credible scenario, it would only reduce annual fatalities by about 40.

Also it's likely that many of those accidents would have happened anyway even if the driver had a BAC under 50mg, just as many accidents involving a driver exceeding the speed limit are not actually caused by "speeding".