- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Beer and a helmet - image via Judge dreadful on roadcc170 lives a year could be saved with Scotland-style drink drive laws
Drivers should not be able to drink a whole pint of beer or glass of wine before getting behind the wheel of a car, council leaders have said.
As drink driving rates remain high, and collisions deadly, the Local Government Association said that the limit of 80mg per 100ml of blood should be reduced to 50mg, in line with Scotland.
It believes that the measure will counter the popularly held view that drinking a glass or two of an alcoholic drink before driving is acceptable.
The drink driving alcohol limit in England and Wales is now the highest in Europe, and since 2010 around 240 people a year have been killed by drunk drivers.
The numbers have not come down, despite campaigns for education and awareness.
Experts believe the number of deaths could be reduced by 170 in the first year alone.
The number of accidents in Scotland fell by a fifth in the first year that the new limit was imposed.
Simon Blackburn, chairman of the LGA’s communities board, told the Times: “The government should be toughening up drink-drive laws in line with other European countries which will make roads safer and save lives.” Ministers have repeatedly refused to lower the limit, insisting that a change would penalise sensible motorists.
Last year we reported how the family of a hit and run victim killed following a collision with a drink driver launched a petition calling for a review of sentences for driving offences.
Graham Ruecroft was cycling near Wallingford, Oxfordshire, on June 4 last year when he was hit by a dark coloured Kia, driven by Maria Sutton, who was over the legal limit for alcohol.
The family of Ruecroft have expressed dismay at the maximum penalty for dangerous driving, which currently stands at 14 years, and are hoping for justice when Sutton is sentenced next month.
Sutton failed to stop after the collision and Dr Ruecroft died of his injuries in hospital five days later.
Dr Ruecroft’s brother, Malcolm, said he believes the maximum sentence of 14 years for the offence should be higher.
He said: “What Sutton did after the incident – she left him in the road to die – that is what has destroyed us the most. Now we need justice."
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 0 sec ago
In a TT with poor bike handlers/inexperienced bottle handers, would it not be possible to have the bottle placed on an appropriate-height structure...
- ktache 8 min 56 sec ago
She has a doctorate in crystallography...
- lycralout 21 min 10 sec ago
An alternative statement is. Terrorism and alleged genocide are not the same thing
- IanMSpencer 1 hour 11 min ago
I don't think you need have any concern about cycling safety improving with #toxicadi Ashley Neal advocating for us on protected cycle lanes....
- andystow 1 hour 14 min ago
Court case thrown out after attorney can't find parking near courthouse. https://abovethelaw.com/2024/04/case-tossed-when-lawyer-cant-find-any-pa...
- mark1a 1 hour 17 min ago
Surely it's the sensor that is 8K, not the lens?
- Nagai74 1 hour 40 min ago
No proof of this, but wouldn't you imagine that the majority of drivers have ridden pushbikes at some point in their lives, even if only as kids?
- chrisonabike 1 hour 47 min ago
Indeed... though to be fair the Dutch have some contraflow cycling in narrow streets. Although I think increasingly they would try to avoid this ...
- NPlus1Bikelights 2 hours 4 min ago
The inventor of the wall mounted triangles needs to be shamed. They only take a standard bike and damage the rims. Also the wheel is secure but the...
- Secret_squirrel 2 hours 6 min ago
The Triban 520 still seems to be available in 11x 105! guise for 899 and Microshift 749.
Add new comment
19 comments
I don't drink if driving, simple factor of knowing that even after half a beer I feel different.
But I do then get annoyed at having to pay silly money for a lime and soda when out for a Sunday lunch.
I also notice that in the market town where I live it's mainly the older, well to do people who will have say three pints in one of the pubs on an afternoon and then drive home a short distance.
The number of people caught who are well over the limit perhaps shows that some people just don't give a stuff whatever the law.
If I'm I go out with my wife for lunch, I have a beer with my meal. Just one. I drive because she isn't a driver. Two things would stop me having that one beer. (1) Making it illegal, and (2) making soft drinks in pubs and resturants far far cheaper. Soft drinks in pubs are extorsionate. Sell me a pint of lemonade for £1 and I would be far less likely to choose the pint of beer in the first place.
In fact if we are in town with our daughter we actually tend to choose places that have bottomless soft drinks so we can have as much as we like without paying the rediculous price for a small glass of lemonade in some other places. It doesn't even occure to me to have a beer then (and ironically we would have used the train to get into town so not driving anyway).
Give people a carrot rather than or as well as a stick.
Maybe I'm a simple soul, but to me this simply means.
If you intend to drive on the evening then no alcohol. End of.
But with enough leeway not to inadvertantly trawl those who had a drink the night before and still have a very small amount in their system the next morning, or those with a ketosis causing medical condition.
Actually makes it all easier to understand.
At the moment with different limits in England and Scotland why should a Scottish court have the right to ban me from driving in England if I am caught in Scotland between 50 & 80 when I would not have commited an offence in England where I may do 99.999% of my driving. Doesn't really seem fair.
Don't drink and drive, mate
I'd like to know where the statistics come from as I've no trust whatsover in statistics quoted by the organisation that instigated the change and therefore has a vested interest in a favourable outcome.
Two things would make this work to save lives. Firstly reduce the limit not from 80 to 50, but to almost nil. To give an example, the comparative levels for being prosecuted in the UK and in Norway are 0.8mg/ml blood in the UK and 0.1 in Norway.
On top of that, remove the requirement to have tojustify a breath check. Just today I came through a random checkpoint whereby as many cars as they manage to pull in get to blow in a tube, at the time I came past (10:45am) they were stopping around 1/3 of cars. "Morning after" and "after lunch" checkpoints are common here, and people know if they drank last night, let the wife drive to the shopping centre this morning.
Getting rid of the stupid idea of accepting a plea of "careless" driving rather than try for "dangerous" is stupid. If you're over the limit (drink or speed) and kill someone that's dangerous. If you fail to observe basic road rules like slowing down before a roundabout, dangerous. If you misjudge a corner and drift into the ditch, that's careless, but some of the things people get away with "careless" for is ridiculous.
If lowering the limit saves one life or many - it is worth it. No argument.
I'd like to see the numbers for accidents caused by people who are between the 50 and 80 mg limits, ie people who would pass the current test but fail at a lower limit. My bet is that this is a very small number and those who drink drive now will continue to do so.
Also, more people will get done drink driving because they will still think they can slip under the limit after a single drink whereas before they wouldn't have drank more than one anyway.
exactly, the people who end up involved in these accidents are generally quoted as being 2-4 times in excess of the existing limit, they arent people whove only had one drink, theyve had lots of drinks and still ignored the law, what difference will lowering the limit have on them, none.
all whilst drug driving which seems to be getting completely ignored seems to be rapidly on the increase.
but there you go these things get decided by a bunch of people who drink in bars subsidised by the taxpayer, and get to call taxis to get home that they can just put on their expenses.
Pointless exercise unless enforced.
I disagree. We lowered the limit in Scotland several years ago, and most people now just accept that if you're driving, you don't drink. There is no longer any ambiguity around whether you will fail a breath test after 1 pint or 2.
"The number of accidents in Scotland fell by a fifth in the first year that the new limit was imposed"
Doesn't entirely undermine the point - the Scots might, in fact, be enforcing it.
And it's possible other police authorities might not.
Also, if enforcement is key, then the first year isn't conclusive - if it isn't enforced it might take motorists a while to notice that is the case, whereupon behaviour will creep back to where it was.
But it might also be that rules on drink driving are sufficiently well accepted that people will follow reduced limits even without strong enforcement. Unlike with some other laws.
True. But, are you seriuosly suggesting drink-drive laws aren't enforced?!
Or, are you suggesting everyone should have their blood tested for alcohol content before being able to drive?!
I can't see how bringing the limit down could do anything other than good.
Statistics indicate lower prosecutions in recent years, this could either be more sensible drivers or less enforcement. When coupled with the fact that the number of police officers have reduced and they appear more reactive to crime, with seemingly little effort at prevention; and existing police advice don't drink anything and drive already. I fail to see how lowering the limit in isolation will have a significant impact.
So you fail to see how it would have an impact, nevertheless, it has: Road deaths in Scotland are down since the introduction. Perhaps most importantly polls taken on attitudes to drink driving have shown a change in attitude. Prosecutions are only marginally down, but when you reckon the bar for those prosecutions is now lower, this is a step forward.
You appear to be suggesting that England should proudly maintain its position of having the highest drink driving limit in Europe.
No, I am purely pointing out that current enforcement is shit. Had a drunk driver on our private driveway damage my car. Police called, as it was a private driveway they couldn't care even though he had to have driven to reach there! How does lowering the limit fix that?
Don't let the politicians off with changes to the law unless it is backed with positive actions to enforce it.
it would help to increase the social unacceptibility of drinking and driving.
I don't know how old you are, but you may not remember the days when it was socially acceptable to drive while pissed out of your skull. I did it myself quite routinely and consider myself very lucky not have been involved in any accidents. I don't think it was enforcement that changed all of that, but all the public awareness campaigns.
Nowadays people I used to get pissed with won't have any alcohol if they're driving. For health reasons I don't drink at all now, and for environmental and waste-of-money reasons I don't have a car, and rarely drive. My younger self would be utterly contemptuous...