mad_rich

From today, the drink-drive limit in Scotland reduces from 80mg/100ml to 50mg. Realistically, that's a pint (and not a strong one) for a typical male adult.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30329743

This leaves the rest of the UK (along with Malta) with by far the highest limit in Europe. The whole continent is 50mg or lower. It begs the question: why on earth aren't we changing too?

stut

A powerful alcohol lobby, and several MPs with links to the industry? Remember what happened with minimum pricing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-industry.html

ppp909

I doubt that 30mg/100ml makes a huge difference to be honest. Tolerance to alcohol does play its part and some people are going to be affected by it more than others.
I'm 39 and of the generation who mostly wouldn't consider drinking and driving. I know I could handle drink a lot more 20 years ago than I can now though.

I expect that those who do consistently drink and drive (who tend to be my parents' generation, backed up unscientifically by many of their friends who consistently do so) aren't going to care less what the actual limit is. They will continue to do so. This change is purely politics, which is backed up by the unanimous vote. Nobody wants to defend drink drivers. Yet in practice, I doubt this will have any impact. As you say, this new limit is lower than a single drink in most cases. Most drunk drivers have no regard for the law (in this instance), or the safety of themselves or others.

Of course, there is the case for those who are perfectly fine to drive, yet have traces of alcohol in their system. That's why the limit can't be zero. The limits have to be set somewhere though, just as the national speed limit is 60mph yet it's way too high for many situations (and too low for others).

mad_rich

I've heard the 'it won't stop the habitual offenders' argument before. I'm sure that's true, to a degree, but that's no reason to give up on the rest, surely. A DfT-commissioned report in 2010 suggests that going from 80mg to 50mg would save between 43 and 303 lives and 280-16,000 serious injuries per year.

IAN-UK

The habitual drinkers argument is a tired one.

The truth is our higher limit sends the message that UK is laxer than other countries in its approach to drink driving.

The current limit is widely interpreted among drivers to mean they'll be OK to have a pint or so. Far better to have a limit that discourages any drinking before driving.

RichardInSF

It's .08 in most of the USA as well, I believe.

UKtravelbear

Is that a Federal limit tied to states getting Federal funding for things like if the states want certain transportation funding they have to follow a Federal 21 year old before you can drink rule?

Mizter T

More immediately, it's the kind of change that UKIP (and UKIP types) would kick up a fuss about as being 'unnecessary nannying of the state' (or similar sentiments), so won't be on the agenda under the current government - not that it's got that long left - and possibly not under a future government of whatever colour (or more likely colours).

RichardInSF

I believe the definition of what is legally drunk is strictly a state decision. Could be wrong however, because I don't know why I think that!

ppp909

And the problem with such reports is that they use statistics to skew the argument. The only stats they can gather are those that are tangible: they will be using results of breath tests where someone involved (presumably found to be at-fault) had between 50 & 80mg of alcohol in their blood. Of course, these will ignore whether that was the actual cause of the accident or not. And there's a huge difference between 280 and 16000, or indeed 43 and 303.

I'm not trying to support it: I've never seen the need to drink and drive and I'd rather see it reduced to a low enough level to suggest that you shouldn't drink at all before driving.

The action as it stands will make little difference and just cause confusion. The message should be simple.

Efrem

Yes, it's a state decision - but, as UKtravelbear posted, the Federal government can (and does) make funding contingent on states deciding in a particular way. It's a pretty big carrot.

GRALISTAIR

I totally agree- have a very low limit by all means but not zero.


Yes.