Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 16th November 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Ministers back move to slash drink-drive limit



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 March 2008
DEMANDS for the drink-drive limit to be dramatically lowered in a bid to cut the carnage on Britain's roads have taken a major step forward.
A small glass of wine or a single pint of beer could be enough to put motorists over the limit under new Government proposals.

Road safety experts say slashing the drink-drive limit will save up to 65 lives a year.

The crackdown, which has won
support from ministers, could see up to 200,000 drivers a year losing their licences – double the present number.

The move comes after the SNP administration put pressure on Westminster to reduce the limit – as only MPs have to the power to change the law on this issue.

Last year Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny McAskill met Westminster Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in a bid to convince her that change was needed.

Ministers in London are now said to be "minded" to cut the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg – the legal maximum found in most of the rest of Europe – and such a move could come in within 18 months.

Lowering the limit would be accompanied by increased enforcement with police likely to be given wider powers to introduce random breath-testing

Ministers are considering three options for penalising drivers who are caught between the proposed 50mg limit and the existing 80mg.

These are to: keep the existing penalty of a ban, a maximum six months imprisonment and £5,000 fine; introduce automatic participation in a drink-driver rehabilitation programme; or imposing six penalty points for a five-year period on first time offenders, followed by automatic disqualification for a second offence. This has been dubbed a "two strikes and you're out" option.

Ministers believe growing concern about binge drinking means the climate is now right to lower the limit.

They have been stung by criticism that they are failing to get to grips with the drink-drive problem because there are too few traffic police to enforce the law – and an over-reliance on technology such as speed cameras which cannot catch such offenders.

Rob Gifford, of the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety, said: "There was a move a decade ago in 1998 to lower the limit but it foundered because of pressure from rural pubs and motorists who wanted a pint or two.

"But the climate has changed because of growing concern over binge drinking and its health impact.

"The mood is now more conducive to lowering the limit, which has widespread support.

"Lowering the limit may not affect those who are two or three times over the limit, but it will have a sobering effect on those at or just over the current limit."

Adrian Tink, of the RAC, said: "The RAC absolutely backs moving the drink-drive limit in the UK from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood.

"When 14,350 casualties, and over 500 deaths, were caused by drink driving in 2006 alone, there is no reason why the Government won't bring the limit in line with the rest of Europe."

He added: "There also needs to be stronger penalties for convicted drink-drivers to act as a deterrent. Motorists want the roads to be safer and they want to feel like the Government is taking drink-driving seriously."

Cathy Keeler, of road safety charity Brake, said: "Current traffic policing levels are still disgracefully low. Improved enforcement can only be truly effective in tandem with a lower drink-drive limit."

Ministers will consult on the measures after the May local government elections in England.

Whitehall sources said that the limit could be lowered within 18 months because it does not require primary legislation, but could be done by means of a simple Government regulation.





The full article contains 636 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 March 2008 9:42 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

subrosa,

30/03/2008 10:47:04
This story shows exactly why we should be independent. A nation decides to reduce the drink driving limit. Then they have to go and ask for permission to do so from the landlord. The landlord will only consider it if they get more/equal benefit from their proposal. How absurd.
2

Dileas,

30/03/2008 11:18:28
If it makes it easier for the police to perform their duties "effectively" why not just let them prosecute any driver they caome across on the grounds that he/she has probably had too much to drink at some time in the past?

That way they would get prosecutions up, banning lots of drivers, reducing the number of vehicles on the road and, therefore, saving lots of lives!

A win for everyone but the people who elect our politicians - but what's new about that?

This is the kind of approach that we expect from power-crazed Labour, not our hopeful SNP leadership.
3

Padraig,

30/03/2008 11:41:35
"Ministers ... have been stung by criticism that they are failing to get to grips with the drink-drive problem because there are too few traffic police to enforce the law – and an over-reliance on technology such as speed cameras which cannot catch such offenders."

Yeah, so they don't think the way to answer that criticism is to increase the number of police on the roads - it is to make sure that the police who "trip over" a driver and breathalyse him have a better chance of a conviction. Just how does this make our roads safer?

And EXACTLY what evidence is there that ANY road deaths are primarily caused because a driver had less than 80mg alcohol in his blood? And not because he was not paying enough attention, the main cause of about 35% of road accidents, or because a pedestrian walked out into the road without looking, or because a cyclist rode in the dark without lights.

Let's have some commonsense back in politics - enough of this posturing, please.

Let's have lots more traffic police on the roads, increasing the chance that people who drive over the present limit will be stopped. That is why so many alcoholics and binge drinkers drive - they reckon that the chances of being stopped are minimal - and they are right!

Criminalising people who have low levels of alcohol in the blood, particularly on the day after having a few drinks, has nothing to do with binge drinkers and will simply alienate people - just as the present policy of excessive reliance on speed cameras has.

Pity, I thought that the SNP government was bringing a new level of commonsense to politics. But it seems that Kenny MacAskill just wants to share with us all his experience of being banged up for drinking.

I frankly expected better.
4

Guga II,

Rockall 30/03/2008 11:53:26
The Stalinist, totalitarian control freaks want to keep us all in line by criminalising everyone. They can have us all on their database then, without having to introduce ID cards.

The 80mg works fine at the moment. It was introduced at that level for a reason, and lowering it to 50mg will, as pointed out above, end up alienating many, many motorists.

This, however, is par for the course for Maggie Broon and his New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party. Ban, ban and ban, then tax, tax and tax.

As for that waste of space Kenny MacAskill, he obviously thinks he's on the road to Damascus, after being banged up for being drunk. Remember though, this is the same man who doesn't want to gaol anyone under the age of 18, even if they are violent thugs, murderers or rapists. It's time wee Eck gave him the heave.
5

Hmm ...,

30/03/2008 12:00:31
... "Last year Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny McAskill met Westminster Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in a bid to convince her that change was needed."

So just why is he so obsessed with reducing the limit?

What evidence is there that people driving legally at present have caused accidents because their ability to drive was impaired?

If there is good evidence that the limit needs to be lowered, let's look at it, not to fall into line with Europe and not because a member of some "parliamentary committee" claims that "the climate has changed because of growing concern over binge drinking and its health impact". Just how does he think that reducing the limit has any bearing at all on drunks who drive after binge drinking?

He claims that "the mood is now more conducive to lowering the limit, which has widespread support."

What climate? Support from whom? What Westminster politician has any concept of public opinion?

This all smacks of Labour "spin" so why is the SNP getting its hands dirty with it? It is letting itself down.
6

Charles MN,

30/03/2008 12:31:51
This is just gesture politics. All the evidence tells us that drivers with between 50 and 80 mg/100ml BAC are no more likely to have an accident than those that have no measurable BAC. The limit was set at 80mg because that was where the scientific evidence said that accident rate started to increase.

Kenny McAskill doesn't have the powet to change the drink driving limit but he does have the ability to increase the number of police on the street. Why isn't he doing his job rather than worrying about someone elses.
7

Boy Wonder,

30/03/2008 12:43:25
No Drink, No Drive. That's all we need. What's so hard to musunderstand about that?
8

nell from falkirk,

30/03/2008 13:03:46
Can we take it most of you above persistently drink and drive?
Who is this new limit going to "alienate"? - only anybody who drinks and drives - and since drink drivers don't give too hoots about anybody else, don't care if they cause accidents, don't care who they maim or kill, does anybody care if they don't much like a law which will stop them?

Introduce the new limit, the sooner the better, ad increase policing in order to enforce it.
And while you're at it, why doesn't the UK allow random road blocks and breathalysers as do other countries?

9

Bruce Young,

30/03/2008 13:08:30
This article mirrors one in yesterday's (English version) Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=548749&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

except that that doesn't "credit" our Kenny with the initiative!

I wonder, are we all wrongly blaming Kenny for something that he didn't actually do?
10

Bruce Young,

30/03/2008 13:17:12
Charles MN (6) said "Kenny McAskill doesn't have the powet to change the drink driving limit but he does have the ability to increase the number of police on the street. Why isn't he doing his job rather than worrying about someone elses."

Absolutely! Why can't we have more specialist traffic police to enforce the existing level of the law? That would weed out the bnge drinkers who reckon now that thay won't be stopped.

And it would reduce the use of vehicles without tax, insurance and MOT certificated, as well as the growing practice of "cloning" registration plates to avoid speed camera fines!

As well as attacking the growing practice of reckless driving and road rage, both by drivers who should not be on the road, anywhere, any time.
11

Charles MN,

30/03/2008 13:47:29
#8 No you can't. You can assume that some of the people who comment here have bothered to do some basic research before posting.

The reasons I object to this proposal are:
1) scientific research shows that people with this BAC are no more likely to have an accident than those who have no alcohol in their blood. If they don't pose a risk why prosecute them?

2) It will distract the police from targeting those who pose a real danger that is those who are well over the current limit.

3) It is likely to increase the numbers of false positives. Breathalyzers are crude instruments and can't distinguish between alcohol and other similar chemicals. In a recent case a Virgin 747 pilot failed a breath test, was hauled off his plane and locked up. A blood test showed no alcohol in his blood. A low-carb diet was blamed for him failing the breath test.

For road blocks to be useful they have to happen when drink drivers are on the road e.g. Friday and Saturday night. A shortage of Police Officers means that there isn't the resources at these times. Also most drink driving occurs in rural areas where road blocks are less useful.
12

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 30/03/2008 18:08:53
What a control freak and puritan Kenny McAskill has turned out to be!
13

Rozz Fyffe,

Scotland 30/03/2008 22:51:10
I agree with lowering the limit. It will make my pin money easier to get,

I report drink drivers to Crimestoppers, get my ref number abnd on conviction I take away a nice wee cheque.

OK so its taxed but pays for onr nice holiday each six months.

14

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 31/03/2008 00:10:23
#8 Nell

a policy Adolf Hitler would be proud of!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.