Will The Times please stop generating ridiculous graphs (see print edition) to exaggerate dubious claims. See here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2007%20February.htm#fear for an excellent explanation about what I mean. Note that the y-axis does not start at zero, and the graph has been made tall and narrow. This gives a false impression. Both Ben Webster and the Editor should be ashamed.

Richard Green, Slough, Berkshire

If one takes the increase in traffic using the roads since 1999 to 2005 , I would be interested to know if it had not increased by way more than 20%....
If this is the case then the percentage of drink related deaths on our roads would not be as is claimed in this article, but actually lower...
A case of stats being bent perhaps?

John Rellie, Bicester, Oxfordshire

Interesting to note that drink driving deaths have increased by 20% over the last seven year - this would correlate to the decrease in traffic cars deployed by police forces and their increasing reliance upon speed camers doing the on the road policing for them. Many police forces have scrapped their traffic patrols entirely, you can drive around all day without seeing a police car these days.

Mark B

Mark Bullen, Kiama, NSW Aus

I don't think this will make a blind bit of difference, the police should be people who appear to be driving dangerously, or without due care - as these are surely more likely to have a crash. Don't we have better uses for limited police resources?

'17% of road deaths occur when someone was driving over the legal limit for alcohol' - of this 17% in what percentage was alcohol the root cause?

I do, however, agree that drink driving is a problem - but moral incentives are needed to curb it - it's a result of peer pressure, not fear of the law.

As an aside, imposing a blood-alcohol limit of zero would be insanity. I'm sure there are ways to introduce blood alcohol besides drinking - and many would be denied a drink in the evening for fear of being caught the following morning.

TOm, Leeds,

Hi
the problem here is that there is yet another reason being proposed for the police to stop law abiding people for no other reason than to check something out.

I dont drink and drive and I have a safe car but its old so I get stopped every time there is a vehicle safety check, I will also now get stopped to check alchohl limits.

I undersand the motivation but there was a time when the police needed a reason to stop people, now they can do it any time they are bored.

Mike Wood, Brimingham,

Thanks Ceri :)

The point of this excellent new rule is to prevent deaths on the roads. It's laughable to think the UK is so far behind the rest of the world for what is essentially a one minute stop on the road, test, and on your way (if under the limit). At present, the only way you're checked for drink driving is if you're obviously driving erratically or you've had an accident. We all know that drink driving is about response times, and it's those who aren't behaving erratically at the wheel who cause the accidents - they seem OK to drive, so they drive. That split second delay in hitting the breaks makes the difference between life and death. Lowering the limit is excellent too. Why does everyone here seem to think it's fine to drink and drive?

Sally, Cambridge, Late of Australia

I believe if you are going to install the device in the car of a convicted drunk driver, then you should put it in every person's car on the road. I have seen after golfing at the 19th hole where five straight vodka's have been consumed and they get in their car. They just have not been caught or had an accident, yet! Some people who make the mistake and have paid for their crime should not always be the one to pay for it all the time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! More people drink and drive and it will never change, unless prohibition comes back and everyone knows what happened then.

Susan Miller, Glastonbury, CT - USA

Apparently, it's being driven ( no pun intended ) by european harmonisation. See eureferendum.blogspot.com

ELF, london, UK

Dear Sally (Cambridge),

I assume you would also be more than happy to do away with search warrants as criminals live in houses.

Feeble minds like yours are the reason civil liberties need to be fought for so vigorously.

Ceri Morriss, Reading, Berkshire

No, no, no, no, no!

Attempting to reduce drink-driving is laudable and I fully support attempts that try to do this.

However, this proposal will erode my freedom to live my life without let or hinderance even further than at present.

Why should a police officer be able to stop me just because he feels like it? Almost daily I see police drivers breaking the law and are they prosecuted? I somehow doubt it.

Brian, Somerset, UK

What about the 83% of road deaths from a plethora of other causes. Regardless, do not punish people for something they have not yet done. If you cause an accident you are responsible be it due to drink, drugs, dangerous driving, mobile phones, make-up application, medical condition etc.... and therefore should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However yet again, the nanny state deems us unable to take responsibility for our actions. Prosecute me for what I have done, not what I might do.

Matt, London, UK

I agree wholeheartedly with you Andy Gale. 1984 might be coming some years late but it's on its way. Make no mistake about that.

Chris Lloyd, Banbury,

Just another example of trying to automate the detection process. What is wrong with proper policing? I am sure the rise is more to do with the reliance on cameras to police our roads.

Alastair Harris`, Derby, UK

I have a relative who was in the planning department of a major UK brewery. For years the only new pubs approved for planning had to have huge car parking areas!? This is a much broader issue than simply drink driving. I too have been pulled over for no obvious reason and subsequently passed a B-test. The extremely disappointed policeman did however mutter something about my being a 'lone male driver, late at night' - that explains it then.
The UK has abysmal public transport that outside of major metropolitan areas simply shuts down at a ludicrously early hour. Add to this the awful standard of driving (not the uninsured lunatics but the insured incompetents) and it begs the question; what's the reason for the other 83% of road deaths?

Graham, Málaga, Spain

This should have been part of the original laws in the first place, how many deaths/ injuries have occured since its inception?

The distress caused by drink drivers cannot be measured where death/injury has resulted.

Whilst no lover of the present Government I believe that this decision is one of their few better ones, my only regret would be that they have not lowered the blood-alchol limit to zero!

J Paine, Eastwood, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire

Brilliant! Just brilliant. It's a national shame that this has taken so long to come into force.

Middle England drivers - take heed. This is not an attack on your snivel liberties. This is about safety - if you've had too much to drink, you shouldn't be driving. Drink driving doesn't discriminate, it kills innocent people for a few selfish drinks. Grow up.

Sally, Cambridge, Late of Australia

We can legislate as much as we like, but as there are ever fewer dedicated traffic police to enforce the laws we already have it's a pointless exercise. It seems every time I get in the car or on my motorcycle in London I see eye-poppingly dangerous driving all around, but a visible police presence is almost non-existent as traffic policing has effectively been handed over to speed camera 'partnerships'.

Matt, London,

We already have this system in Liverpool. I was pulled over while driving into town some weeks ago, and when I told the policeman I wasn't driving fast, he said he knew that, and that it was just a random check to see if drivers had been drinking. I explained that I didn't even like the smell of beer, and he just gave me a receipt to say I had been stopped.

David Conlin, Liverpool, UK

I have no problem with random breath tests, but why the obsession with drink driving? I'd be very surprised if this measure alters the figures very much. The UK's safety record is good, and my impression is that people are driving more safely than ever.

Contrast the effort made on this safety issue with the runaway death toll in hospitals from MRSA and C Difficile. Roughly twice the number dying from avoidable hospital infections, compared to the total killed on the roads in one year. Strenuous efforts should be made on both these issues of course. If the the same determination were shown in expunging infection from the hospitals as has for years been directed onto road safety, many lives would have been saved.

Martin, London,

Once again the government are trying to pass the buck and are trying to blame us for all the deaths on the road and yet the duck their own responsibility for the maintenance of safe roads. At night drive along an A road and see how many catseyes do not work, at the same time notice whether the lines in the centre of the road are sufficiently reflective enough, then check to see whether the lines marking the side of the road are even visible. Then do the same trip when it is wet - lethally dangerous. Our roads are in an appaling state of repair and are certain to be the cause of far more deaths than any marginal improvement stemming from random tests.
Further, and scandalously, more people are killed from hospital acquired infections like MRSA and C-difficile etc than are killed on the road. So why not order the police to test hospital staff for spreading lethal diseases? They are likely to catch more antisocial killers there than ever using random breath tests on the road.

David West, Templecombe, Somerset

Is Mr Lawson a conservative perhaps? A completely random rant in the most inappropriate and unlikely of places, ahh we need people like you Mr Lawson just to make the reswt of us feel sane.

Ryan, Southampton, England

A lowering of the permitted blood alcohol level and the introduction of genuinely random testing in the UK are both well overdue. The huge and unprecedented fall in road deaths in France over the last 4 years is in no small part due to the 17 Million drink-drive tests which are now done each year in France each year, many of which are random. The fall in deaths in France can also be attributed to the extensive, random enforcement of the speed limit by 'low profile' police, rather than the easily-evaded bright yellow boxes favoured in the UK. Much the same situation exists in many other European countries including Germany. Unfortunately the lack of a maximum limit on some German motorways does tend to undermine the good work done in enforcing the limit in a robust manner on other roads. Not surprisingly whilst 5.3% of UK road deaths occur on motorways (limit 70 Mph) and 7.2% of French road deaths occur on motorways (80Mph limit), in Germany 12.1% of road deaths occur on motorways.

Howard Peel, Annecy, France

What right do the police have to stop me and waste my time when I am doing nothing wrong? It's another step towards the orwellian police state.

Andy Gale, Bristol,

I can't see this new announcement making much difference. Giving the police more powers without there being more police patrolling is pointless.

The UK had a good record in tackling drink driving, as well as other traffic safety measures, until the authorities decided to base road safety policy on roadside cameras, with a coincident reduction in trained traffic patrol officers.

A Gatso will never remove a drink driver from our roads, random stop policy or not.

ST 1, Essex,

If it is a criminal offence to be intoxicated whilst driving a vehicle on our roads,why is it not a criminal offence to be intoxicated whilst running our country?
Why don't our politically correct police officers do random drugs tests on our government ministers, M.P.'S and of course our Lordships.
Perhaps the fact that they were drunk at the time could account for the mad policies persued by this evil Labour government.

Peter Lawson, Lancaster, England

just another infringement of liberties by this government and a distraction from their disasters elsewhere. I have lived in New South Wales and the drinking is very heavy. As soon as news goes out that the "Booze Bus" is stopping people everyone changes direction or slows down.
How can they come up with a figure of lives saved how do they know that this number would have died. what nonsense

mike sanders, Hong Kong,

Why oh why does the law need changed. The police can pull you over for any one of a thousand reasons, most linked to statements that can never be proven or not. It is common practise for the police to pull you over for erratic driving and then have a look at you and let you be on your way. Until Britain stops obsessing with pointless rules and gets to the bottom of the matter that it is an individuals responsibility to act with due care and attention, road safety shall never get any better.

John Reekie, Egremont, Cumbria

Another waste of Police resources!

Whilst the Government are always targetting the motorist, the police meanwhile only issue a crime notice in order that the person that has been either robbed in his/her home or have been assulted, may claim upon their respective insurances.

In most instances of robbery, it can take a long wait after the occurrence for the Police to visit the crime scene.

Why has the government a "down" on the motorist; after all, they must know that they will suffer for their anagonisim of the motorist at the next election.

Michael Leigh, Nottingham, uk

I grew up in OZ where the government had/has more courage regarding road safety legislation. They don't feel the need to paint speed cameras bright yellow either. You know the rules, you break the law and get caught, tough. Whe random breath testing was introduced in Victoria, they were setting up roadside booze-buses and pulling over every second car. Why not? One of my friends was killed by a drunk driver. Privacy? Does that mean I can do anything I like within the confines of my car without fear of prosecution?

Paul Scotson, poole, ex of Australia

At the moment it is all stick and no carrot. I suggest that drivers who are breathalised and found to be within the limit should be compensated for their trouble - say with a £20 voucher. This would not hinder the police in targetting dangerous drivers but would encourage a reasonable degree of circumspection.

Tim Jordan, Dinan, France

Wow, i'm surprized this is The Times headline today, the practice being so common here in Australia. I see cars being pulled over for absolutely no reason whatsoever. This has happened to me, and I always curse the waste in time. But if the figures are right, and thousands of lives could so saved in so many years, there's no reason to quibble.

Of course, our police force is obsessed with the practice, also, and so many people are losing their license out of the blue. No one expects to just be pulled over on a sunny afternoon and to test over the limit for alcohol. A lot of what is done down here is revenue raising... the death toll on the roads can only go so far down, but the numbers of ways to get you can only go up up up. Huzzah. :o|

William John, Melbourne, Australia.

the main problem on britains roads is unisured drivers who are more likely drive more erratic and dangerous and uncaring we should make that our priority and make penaltys and enforcement more intensive as i believe these are a bigger problem.

noel, bexley, uk

The police have methods of stopping anyone they like anyway, regardless of the standard of driving being witnessed. I've been stopped late a night a few times, under the pretense of a dodgy rear light. I'm not going to argue with a policeman on the street about a faulty rear light. Of course, once I pulled over I was automatically breathalyzed.

The rear light wasn't faulty. I did not fail the breath test.

Rob, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

Reasons why police need to stop drivers: alcohol is one thing and drugs are another but let's not forget noisy and dangerously modified vehicles which are technically uninsured?

Evan Owen, Harlech, Gwynedd

Give the cops these powers for all the good it will do. let the police waste their own time going after the miniscule number of drunk drivers responsible for road deaths. Out of more than half a million tests a year only 480 are directly related to traffic fatalities. A figure that has risen by eighty in seven years, a time when car usage has soared. So in real terms the alcohol related fatality rate has fallen. In other words a seldge hammer to crack a nut. Yes, Britain has the most stringent penality system for road traffic in Europe. Yet the difference it makes is minimal. Germany has no speed limit and fatal accidents stand at their lowest level for fifty years - so Mr Plod explain that one to me.

John, Bonn, Germany

I'm all for it if it means we'll actually have some police on the roads! It seems lately that policing the roads is down to cameras and speed traps, so anything that gets police officers on the roads and stopping some of the idiotic driving I witness on a daily basis (which cannot be caught by a static camera) can only be a good thing.

Darren, Reading,

Richard has it right; I've breathtested someone after an accident who I thought was sober and they were twice over the limit it emerged. You can't always tell at the roadside if they are intoxicated or not, so the new power would be helpful.

I wonder if the fallingnumber of roadside checks is anything to do with over-reliance on speed cameras instead of real police there at the roadside?

NB - why should anyone regard driving when drunk as a privacy issue? Bizarre.

SimonW, Rossendale,

We have random roadside breath tests in NSW and it works very well. It starts at .05 which is termed low range, then mid range I think is .08 and High range (not sure of what level it cuts in at) At high level you lose your drivers licence on the spot. To get your licence back you must apply for it through the Court system. Random testing can not be set up out side Pubs or Clubs. Testing takes place 24/7 so you can get pulled over on Sunday morning when you are going to buy the newspaper, a few do blow over the limit after a big night out.

Ken, Wollongong, Australia

I've been pulled over many times without any just cause. This is not a new thing & I would imagine many drivers have been convicted without breaking a traffic violation.

bdi boy, cardiff, uk

Usual knee-jerk populist idea from this government. As the article explains, the police already have the scope to stop whomever they want under the myriad legislations now available to them. Notably the anti-terrorist laws. While I support wholeheartedly not drinking and driving, this is yet another example of public money being poured down the drain in seach of a popular headline.

Howard Broadwell, Medellin, Colombia

More Powers for the Police.More Laws. I appreciate the problem, but the Police can actually stop any driver now, on suspicion, if they are driving erratically.

Michael J Rigby, Chorley Lancashire, e

Your article is seriously wrong. A police officer in uniform can stop any vehicle they wish to check documents, drivers details, condition of the vehicle etc. There does not even have to be any suspicion of any wrongdoing. For the officer to require a specimen of breath from the driver however, the driver must have satisfied one of three ctiteria.
1) Have committed a moving traffic offence
2) Been involved in a road traffic collision
3) Be suspected of having alcohol in their body (Smell of alcohol, slurred speech etc.)
Quite different from what your article stated.

Richard Turner, Waterlooville, Hampshire,

Random breath tests and license checks are a major part of general duties policing here in Australia. I have found as a police officer here that motorists rarely complain when pulled over- it's just part of the norm and is expected by the senior ranks and many members of the community to be done. Who wants their family destroyed by a drunk driver?

I'm not sure that it is a good idea to use the roadside result for court purposes as results can be affected by mouth alcohol. It's not uncommon to get a high roadside result and a nil reading at the station. A sophisticated roadside device is unlikely to change that.

Needless to say it doesn't stop that minority of people who think that they are bullet proof and/or the law doesn't apply to them.

Dean , Anon, Australia

.....And slowly but surely,
<***insert play/book/film about oppresive political system here***>
became a reality.....

DPF, London,