Lowering the Drink Drive Limit
At the moment, I’m not allowed to drink because of the stroke, but I’m not sure that lowering the limit is the best way to improve road safety.
I’m always very careful when I drive and do most of my drinking at home anyway. I did once drive to an emergency on the stud in my Discovery on the tracks after drinking a couple of pints and it frightened me. Nowhere did I break the law, as I went nowhere near a public road. In the end, I more or less abandoned the car at the problem and walked home.
I think most people are sensible and do things to stay legal anyway. Ask any policeman and they will tell you that many of those who drink and drive are serial offenders and have been caught at least once. The lowering of the limit would not affect these people, as they are well over the existing limit.
But are we after the wrong cause of accidents. About a year ago, I was nearly involved in a very serious accident. Luckily, I was in the Jaguar and was able to steer out of the way andbrake safely. A guy about twenty had overtaken dangerously and driven straight into the car in front of me. It was just plain bad and reckless driving. He should have been prosecuted, but the police refused to turn up. We need more proper traffic police on the road, whereas they are being cut drastically.
On another point, if I want to go to the pub now, as I can’t drive and it’ three miles, it’s either walk or get a taxi. But there are no local taxis round here and I would have to pay for them to come from the nearest town. We need the rules on taxis to be relaxed, so that we get more affordable taxis in rural areas. This in itself would probably discourage people from drinking and driving.
We also have the most serious penalties for drinking and driving in Europe, although our limits are higher. Many people have lost their jobs because they have been convicted and have no way to get to work. In a big city, this would not be a problem, but here in rural Suffolk it is.
So perhaps, we should exanmine everything to make sure that we end up with less accidents on the roads and also provide sensible alteratives for those who can’t or shouldn’t drive.
The Anonymous Widower 
On the whole I agree with there being a sensibloe drink/drive limit, but I do question with the way in which statistics are presented. We are told that it will save 150 lives if the limit is lowered, but nowhere do we ever hear how these numbers are obtained. Is this number simply the number of people killed in an accident involving someone who was under the current limit and over the new one, or are they applying some more sensible method of estimating? If it is the simple method, then they are assuming that all of the people concerned would have obeyed the new law and that the sole cause of the accident resulted from the alocohol.
We had htis with speed cameras. We were continually told how many lives had been saved on a road as a result of the cameras, but when comparisons with similar raods was done over the same period, a similar reduction was seen. In fact, I understand that some roads with cameras had a statistically significant higher level of accidents than similar roads without cameras. Clearly, there are other changes in time; better testing, newer cars, different drivers (many very old drivers had never passed a test).
To really make a difference, the police need to look at driving habits and prosecute those who drive dangerously. Driving too close is a classic cause of problems, and dangerous overtaking. I have done a lot of driving in the UK, in mainland Europe, and in the States, and I have seen a lot of accidents and near misses. Most could have been avoided by leaving a bit more space between vehicles. The distance between vehicles should relate to the speed of travel to provide a constant time; thus at twice the speed, twice the distance.
In probably sound like a grumpy old man!
John
Comment by John Wright | June 16, 2010 |
In New Zealand they have a system where drink-drive offenders are allowed to continue driving if their livlihood depends on it but at no other time. This makes sense where distances are so big and there is no public transport outside the cities.
Lesley
Comment by Lesley Maciver | June 16, 2010 |
That sounds a good idea.
Comment by AnonW | June 16, 2010 |