Hi,
I don’t have a car its has been stolen but I drink and walk
Regards Dr. Terence Hale

Terence Hale, zandvoort, Holland

These researchers who "find" that they can predict the future with such precision might be better employed by speciulating on the stockmarket or telling us who is going to win next year's Derby. Take what they say with the largest pinch of salt you can lay your hands on.

As for the part of the article I actually found quite cheering (that there are still areas of relative freedom in the UK and the freedom to drive unmolested by the police is one of them) no doubt government, helped by lobbyists and single issue fanatics, will get rid of that cause for optimism some time soon. Why don't those other over-policed European states looking at the UK and wondering how they can get their levels of intrusion down to the UK level? Just never seems to work that way.

Billy Barnett, HK,

I quite often have a pint while I'm out and then drive. If I haven't eaten much that day then I feel a very slight effect, but really not to the point where it affects my driving. To reduce it to such a low amount is in my opinion a bad idea. I find it interesting that so much emphasis is put on new legislation for this sort of thing and yet there are no police actually out on the roads catching people tailgating, undertaking and overtaking on blind bends - offences I see on a daily basis which are just as dangerous.

In no way would I ever condone drinking and driving whilst over the limit, but neither do I want to spend my life worrying that if I go out in my car then the pint I had a few hours hours ago might have disastrous financial consequences for me.

Sam Nicholson, Basingstoke,

Couldn't you provide a reference to this research, or hasn't it been published yet? I'm sceptical about the estimate of 65 deaths saved. Is this the number of people who died because a driver had a reading of between 50 and 80 mg did something he would not do when under the 50mg level, and, under the proposed new law, would stop driving altogether after drinking to over the 50mg level?
What hasn't been pointed out is that many people will be over the limit from drinking at home the night before. They will not alter their habits and the penalty will be regarded as an (unfair)tax, bringing the law into disrepute.

Jonathan Bagley, manchester, uk

Think this is a good step, especially with moderated punishment.

However don't forget that the vast majority of RTA's are caused by sober drivers and those still need tackling, we need;

tougher driving test (how about the advanced test being compulsory?)
far more police patrols (tackle poor driving/unsafe vehicles)
17-20 year olds not being allowed to carry multiple passengers/drive after say 9pm
improvements to dangerous roads/junctions (e.g. A4074 north of Reading with horrible death toll)

etc.


Why doesn't someone take this seriously in government and force some changes?

Colin, Reading,

The "research" indicates that some 65 lives a year could be saved by reducing the drink-driving limit. While acknowleging that every unnecessary death is a tragedy, this pales into insignificance when compared with the 7500 deaths per year(more than twice the total number of road deaths) caused by filthy hospitals. And to deal with the "drink menace", we are happily destroying The British Pub.
My guess is that if you were to list the most likely causes of premature death, "road accident" would be way near the bottom - possibly behind "falling out of bed".
The human beast may be neither stupid nor ignorant (I say
"may be"), but clearly lacks anything resembling a sense of proportion.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

Can anyone explain to me why the Government's answer to the increasing numbers of people being convicted of drink-driving under the existing limits is to lower the limits?

In what way will any of this stop people drinking two or three times the current limit? Or is this just another example of Labour's meddling, over-complicated, token-gesture politics?

John, Bournemouth,

A number of people here miss the point and just jump on their favourite hobby horse, knock the government or the EU.
Drink driving is socially unacceptable, a tolerance of low residual levels has to exsist as there are many ways of getting alcohol into the bloodstream even unwittingly.......grannys trifle. The penalty should be severe and certainly should involve attendance of either accident scenes or awareness classes. Caught between 50 and 80mg would indicate a possible oversight or error of judgement and might be dealt with a short ban, over 80mg a two to five year ban even a life ban after imprisonment should be available to the courts.
The police should be able to undertake random stops. There are devices which the driver just speaks into and it gives an indication of alcohol, those who indicate positively are then tested for actual levels.
A viable sytem needs to be maintained so forget the anti government anti EU bit and support the principles involved.

mike gee, bournemouth, uk

Don't ban drivers for so long but make it more degrading.
Make them drive a Reliant Robin for a month on their first offence increasing in length for subsequent infringements.
This would be a visible penalty and would not affect the ability of the offender to get to their place of work.

GJB, Slough, Berkshire

What the government really wants is to ban alcohol and tobacco altogether but not to lose the tax revenue they provide. Of course, the ban would not apply to politicians...

Martin Mills, Tunbridge Wells,

Although not ideal it is a step closer to the zero limit, which I think most law abiding citizens would agree with. Alcohol impairs driving therefore the limit should be zero simple as that. However anything that gets us a step closer is welcome. However even for low levels of alcohol some sort of ban should be imposed. You need to have a deterrent.

Tony , Midothian, UK

People who are found guilty of drink driving or other eckless driving offences should be made to serve a community sentence working in a home for people injured in car crashes. One of my mates ended up in one of these after being knocked off his motorbike. After seeing him and the other residents I have zero patientce for the iditots on here who think they have a human right to have a few drinks and think their driving will be ok.

Luke, London, UK

More people will drink at home as a result of this propsal, and at home people will drink more than they would at a pub or restaurant because it is cheaper. Alcoholism will worsen. Furthermore there could be an increase in the number of people drinking and driving above the current limit of 80mlg on the basis of 'in for a penny in for a pound'. I see this measure as potentially increasing health costs and numbers of deaths.

Richard G, Bedford, UK

To all those people who think they won't be able to drink in the evening and drive the next morning, I say 'quite right'. Either your driving ability is impaired or it is not, a fact not an opinion. Let's get an independent justification of the 50mg figure. We need a complete change of ethos on this matter, but before even that, the government needs to bite the bullet, upset its prime supporters and crack down on unlicensed/uninsured drivers of whom there are said to be several millions. I know they can't afford the insurance and maybe that is a matter that needs addressing by the government. A serious campaign of car crushing would go a long way to solving this easily-fixed problem and also rid our roads of a lot of unsafe cars. Then we can start on 50mg alcohol levels and how to stop people drinking when driving.

Colin, shrewsbury,

How dare anyone whinge about losing their pleasures when the pleasures kill and injure others! Yes a drink is lovely but not for poor parents in deadened lives after their child is killed as a result.
Or for a young person with life damaged and limited forever by spinal injury, brain damage etc

Clogging up the courts - a lot of police and court time will be saved from dealing with road murder and road assaults.
A lot of NHS money will be saved too.
So fund a few more courts.

I'm no fan of police or government controls/ interference but in this case I welcome it. Let's have spot checks breathalysing.
The fact that we dont have a check for cocaine or other hard drugs that impair driving is no excuse nfor not acting where we can.

We need a strong education campaign about continuing alcohol effects the day after.
All pubs or restaurants or clubs that serve alcohol should HAVE to provide a service of calling a cab - and ensuring it arrives with follow up calls.

Shan Morgain, Newport Wales, UK

I can only speak from experience that I have 1 pint on a weekly basis at my pub quiz from some years now and have never had an accident on my way home , which would point to the chances of having an accident after drinking a pint as less than one in 300. Whereas , my worst accident where I lost control of my car and ended up stoved into a wall at right angles to the road happened after a day at work when I hadn't drunk at all . As someone else pointed out , having passengers in the car is a distraction too , and probably more so - I recall occasions where a disagreement with my wife in the car was definitely a cause of lost concentration.

I would like to at least see a situation where dangerous killer drivers got a 10 plus year sentence , and dangerous driving was more easily definable , before any change is made to the drink drive limit . I will continue to drink my pint .

Ian , Middx, UK

i find it incredible that an argument against zero tolerance is that it would clog up the courts.. so in essence the pratt who said this would prefer to permit criminals go free to re-offend than to process and punish miscreants..ban them..and not just for a short time..a standad ban of 1 year minimum and having been banned if they are caught driving whist banned..jail them. as all drivers who drive without a licence should be jailed - handing out endorsements to licences have proved to be a non deterant..for god sake there are cases where foriegn drivers have had points on their "non existant" licences..

im sick of this namby pamby the criminal is the real victim so we cant punish them bs that seens all pervading in the uk justice system.. it promotes a complete lack of respect of the law.

zugerman, zurich, switzerland

"The only safe limit is ZERO" says Jenny of Kent.

No, Jenny, the only safe limit is to keep your car in the garage.

Once again this control-mad government tightens the screw on us wretches in another show of "caring". The effect, of course, will be to punish the harmless pint-and-a-pie drinker while the real danger, the lagered-up yobs, will continue unchecked.

Labour loves to boast about being a "world leader" in repressing the population, So here's an idea. Before getting behind the wheel, every driver must have a breath test to show zero alcohol (NB avoid eating bread beforehand), a fitness and eyesight test, and a clean fingernails examination.

If passed, they will be permitted to drive but no radio or CD, no smoking or eating boiled sweets, and no talking except to declare loyalty to the Supreme Leader.

You read it here first.

Howard, Cambridge,

I agree, ZERO is easier to measure, and would be fair for all drivers.

Of course as stated, very few people do get tested in the UK, probably due to the partial abolishment of police and their replacement with speed cameras.

As said above, more of the half baked lunacy that we can expect from the party that has done everything to destroy our country.

http://www.timerider.co.uk/petitions

Steve Aynsley, Blyth, Northumberland

Drinking and driving isn't an offence if you're a policeman in Northumbria. In the past 6 years a study found that none of those policemen caught drink driving lost either their jobs or driving licences...

Nationally 40% of those policemen caught drink driving "get off", one rule for them and another for everyone else!

ChasNDave, Cumbria, uk

Could we also have a 50 , or even an 80 mg , ban on Members of Parliament , when proposing , or voting , on legeslation that involves the rest of us ?
So that we do not get so many laws passed that do not
make any sence .

Paul Rose, Coventry, West Midlands

if lowering the limit to 50 mg from 80mg means that you cant
have one beer or one glass of wine , i say leave it at 80mg.
of course your ability to drive is impaired, but by how much ?
i bet no more than lighting a fag, fiddling with the cd player
checking your makup and hair ,.anthing but 100% concertration all the time while driving is going to impair your safety warren wolverhanpton

warren, wolverhampton,

I am against these proposals because once again a law is being imposed on us by our Supreme Government in Brussels - no consultation and no discussion.

Any discussion in the UK is a waste of time as whatever the conclusion, it will change nothing.

A. Osborne, Hastings, England

When will the Times catch up ? These changes are required by EU harmonisation. What any of us think about it, inclusive of the MPs we vote into Westminster, is irrelevant.

Alan, bristol,

Cheshire Police have had 18000 accident since between 2001 and 2007. This is one of the safer Police forces. Why are the Labour so Anti-Motorist?

steve tea, manchester, cheshire

"In 2006, 540 people were killed in drink-drive crashes, up from a low of 460 in 1999".

Presumably all these deaths were caused by drivers who were guilty of drink driving, and thus by definition over the 80 mg limit.

It would be interesting to know how many deaths were caused by drivers who were below the current 80 mg limit but over the proposed 50 mg limit.

Without this information it is impossible to form a view as to whether this is a sensible proposal or yet another example of ill thought out and unnecessary legislation.

David, London,

Why should the police stop people at random to breath test them? it makes no sense

nwa, london,

I do not agree with drinking and driving in any way.
It just seems a pity to me so much attention and effort is placed on potentially saving 65 deaths a year when thousands are already dying in our hospitals because of lack of cleanliness.
Why not focus the effort and money where it gets the biggest result?

Norman, Nottingham, UK

Of course, Barr's lemonade shandy, much loved by children for many years, has an alcohol content of around 2% (according to the tins), and yet is not licensable and can be sold by sweetshops to children. Will the police be hanging around outside sweetshops to breath test children on bicycles now, as just 2 or 3 tins drunk by a child could theoretically push them over this new limit. The whole idea is absurd. Worse, what will the effect be on the already hard pressed pub industry? Leaving the car at home and catching the tube is fine if you live, as most of the government and HM opposition do, in the rural idylls of Notting Hill or Islington, but what about those where the government has already succeeded in driving public transport into non-existence?
And of course, there is the EU dimension, as there is in 84% of the legislation that Westminster 'passes' - like it has an option of not passing it! Is this why we pay our taxes and vote?

Mark Croucher, Dartford, Kent,

I've just realised which bandwaggon all yesteryear's 'hangers and floggers' have climbed on. Clearly, several correspondents do not live in the countryside, where taxis are scarce, buses are few and taxis from towns normally come at an extortionate price. It's all very well saying that a designated driver should transport you; what if you live in an isolated area? The proposed 2-tiered system is already in practice in France and in Greece. I would be very suprised if the zero limit is enforced in Poland; where it exists, eg in the Russian Federation, in Georgia and in parts of the Balkans, no-one takes any notice of it. We have a perfectly sensible current limit, which is not in the least confusing, and which no-one but an irresponsible fool ignores. However, is it really 'unacceptable' to have even one little unit of alcohol before driving? I must move in the wrong company.

George, Montrose, UK

The only place I have been breath tested was just North of Paris turning off the Autoroute. It was in a road block. Thet tested every driver. This was at about 6 in the evening. They also looked at driving licence and asked to see my insurance. If I was a french national they would have looked at the windscreen to see my insurance disc. There is no longer a road fund licence in France.
50 grams is plenty high enough as an accepted blood alcohol level. I live in a country village and if I go in my local I see people from outside the village drinking like fish then getting into cars. It is an English disease. The french will have a drink with a meal but the meal takes 3 or more hours.

Michael Fielding, Nr Lichfield, UK

In real terms the current limit isn't more than 2 drinks but depends on the strenght which could bring it down to just 1 drink. Why confused things any more, I thought the next step from the Goverment is a complete ban now it's in the oppositie direction. If I go out I either drive and don't drink or drink and get a cab...what so hard out it. Its not rocket science why bother trying to estimate how close to the limit one is. In my personal view the limit should be Zero, its clear don't drink & drive.

Mark, Manchester, UK

Zero -limit for drink driving... I was caught D&D.over 20 yearsago I served the ban and paid the fine - I'm ashamed.

When stories like this come out I usually look around to see what the Gov.UK is trying to bury on a bad news day.

Kev Somers, Hertford, Herts UK

I often have ONE drink and then drive home because I live in the countryside. I maintain safety by slowing down and avoiding risks (like overtaking) if I have alcohol. I do the same if I am tired. And yet I should be subject to an automatic ban?

Contrast this with the 3 or 4 people I see on the phone *while manouvering* every week! Usually one handed, fast and out of control too, often in large 4WD vehicles? Their punishment - none. I saw one nearly hit a police car the other day and he looked up, shook his head and drove away.

A driver who negligently kills, or injures should face jail (regardless of low levels of alcohol). A driver who is stopped and banned because his slow careful driving "caused suspicion" should not be banned.

I have been tested 6 times over the last 20 years...never red, never amber. Ban based on risk, not on a knee-jerk reaction. I've lost one friend through alcohol (4 time the limit!) and 3 through stupidity. Keep the existing limits.

Karl, Nottingham, UK

Why not stop any ambiguity over the alcohol limit , as people have said each person has a different absorption level and as such does not know exactly what they can drink and still stay legal- therefore why not change the law so that if you want to drive - you can't drink anything- no ambiguity - no room for mistakes - and you also know if you do drink any alcohol and get stopped by the Police you will be prosecuted.

Chris Courtliff, Wirral,

There's a simple rule to observe. One does not drink and drive. When I go somewhere and have to drive I just do not drink. It's a golden rule that everyone should adhere to. If you want to drink then have lift, go by taxi or bus or train. Then we wouldn't have a problem. Anyone with a certain amount of alcohol in them should be banned for 5 years. If you value your job and need to drive then do not drink and drive. Trouble with this Gov. is that they are not good at making the right decisions when it matters.

John, Pontypridd, Wales. Uk

If you drink any amount no matter how many mg you should be banned.

Bill, Dundee, UK

Everyone seems to have the same view, so why havent the government? As is mentioned above different people react to alcohol in different ways and at different levels - so why dont they be fair to everyone and make the law zero tolerance. If you break the rules you lose your licence - surely this would be a simple rule for everyone to follow? If you want to drive then dont drink, makes sence to me.

Ben Robinson, Paignton, Devon

Britain being soft again!

Lets say that the drink drivers caught do loose their licenses. So what, it would be their own fault and quite deserved, even if they do loose their jobs. They would have known the risks and decided to gamble, they would only have themselves to blame.

The point here is that loosing their jobs doesn't matter to the rest of the country though. Their lost positions would need to be filled and there are plenty of non-drink drivers who are capable of filling their positions and would be happy to do so.

So the end result would be that the convicted drink drivers would loose their jobs and the decent, law abiding 'unemployed' non-drink drivers would suddenly get a job. That can't be a bad thing now can it!

So there is no need for Britain to be soft again and lower the penalties for drink driving, the law should stay as it is, other than one day becoming a zero-tolerance country when it comes to drink driving.

Simon Cullum, Greater London, England

If the real objective is to reduce avoidable fatalities and injuries, then why limit the restriction to alcohol? Using the same logic. driving under the influence of any prescription (or non-prescription) drugs which affect reactions and/or judgement should be banned.

Should it make a difference if you drive knowing that you are under the influence of self-prescribed drugs (inc alcohol) rather than drugs prescribed by a doctor?

Does it make a difference if your loved one is mown down by someone who has had a couple of drinks or is doped up to the eyeballs with (e.g.) valium?

Biggles, Norwich, Norfolk

fascinating ,clearly most of your readers do not realise that almost all of us have small amounts of alcohol in our bodies all the time ,hence the 20 mg limits in Sweden and poland ,they are effectively zero drinking limits.The 50 mg limit is a red herring ,most people caught post accident are well over .As all persons involved in an accident to which the police are called and all moving traffic offenders are automatically breathalysed the current haul of offenders is clearly very low social control stops most of us drink driving and you cannot legislate for a small balance o totally reckless drivers

g.p.edlin, london, uk

those laws were put in place to protect the public. why mess with them. if anything, keep the limits and add 24 months ban. having known 2 convicted driversand the pwenalties the suffered they are not about to reoffend

wp, hangkong,

Send a clear and unequivocal message

If you drink & drive you will be banned. No 80mg limit, no 50mg limit. Zero limit zero tolerance. Clear and unequivocal.

Alternateley no change as the message is already getting across.

Michael, Lincoln,

zero tolerance should be adopted to avoid confusion. No drink at all should be allowed, it doesnt matter what people say because you can feel the effect after having one pint. So why should you be allowed to drive???

dave, manchester, lancashire

Reduce the current limit to 50 mg - a good move in my view. However the mandatory 12 month ban should remain. Drunk drivers are potential killers, and should be erased from the roads.

For a second offence, a lifetime ban should be imposed. For disqualified driving the penalty should be an immediate 5 year custodial sentence. Make this a deterrent.

These morons are playing with our lives when they drive on the roads - get rid of them.

Stan Berry, Hull, England

this govermemnt has lost its marble,s
the quicker we get them out the better

john marley, stockton on tees, cleveland

After all, the Government needs the money these motorists bring in through tax.

Robert, Hull, East Yorkshire

It is quite simple, if you are going to drive, don't drink *at all*. That way there can be no confusion about whether you are under of over the limit.
And as at least one comment suggested, there is no such thing as an "innocent" drink driver,

Martin, Bristol, England

Another nail in the coffin for genuine road safety. Official figures show that drink driving is becoming more, not less, of a problem and has been getting slowly worse since around 2002. The governments obsession with automated speed enforcement has lead to the demise of drink driving enforcement. Drink driving still kills too many people on our roads yet we dont see any initiatives to clear the problem up.

This sort of idiotic policy making exposes the governments total lack of interest in road safety. The message to drivers these days is that you can drive a car with no MOT, bald tyres, worn brakes and 15 year old brake fluid, be drunk and on drugs but as long as you stick within the speed limit you will be fine (the actual chances of getting caught are extremely low)..... of course, stray just 5mph over the speed limit and they will have you! Disgusting!

JD, Bath, BANES

"Under the proposal, the automatic ban for breaching the 80mg level would be maintained but offenders having alcohol levels between 50mg and 80mg would be penalised only with points on their licences and a fine, or possibly be instructed to attend an alcohol awareness course. "

I see.
Probably more fines than points, and then if reoffended another fine along with the loss of licence ?

Just another way for the government to make more cash, maybe double the amount of revenue previously earned..

Driving classes will create more jobs and more money in tax revenue.

At what expense ?..The publics safety.

Drink drivers should be banned, it really is that simple.
They should not be allowed to carry on driving just so the government can make more money.

gene, brighton, east sussex

The problem is, since the amount 1 person can drink and how much it affects them differs from person to person, it's too unclear how little or much people can have.

For example a medium build male, can have 1 pint of beer at lunch time (slowly drinking over a period of for example an hour), get in their car and drive and not feel the effectives of it at all. But they may now be over the limit legally.

On the other hand another male could have the pint and be under the limit.

I honestly don't believe that in the 65 extra lives that could be saved (obviously as an effect of this level of intoxication between 50 -80 mg) were accidents caused because of the drink.

More likely in these scenerios an accident happened (as they do daily) and it just happened to be intoxicated between 50 - 80 mg.

Don't get me wrong, I think having more than 80 mg is wrong and should be enforced, but lowering the amount will just confuse matters further and get more innocent people banned.

Paul, Slough,

Ridiculous.

1 It's the sober people causing accidents now, concentrate on improving the dreadful standard of driving in the UK and make the driving test a PROPER test.
2 Not automatically disqualifying sends a bad message to those few people who do drink and drive.

Ben Robinson, Brighton,

If there are harsh penalties, people will ignore their punishment and drive anyway as many must have a car.

Cancelling their licence will not stop people driving.

richard, bangkok,

In the UK, does a driver physically have the driving licence document taken and held by the Court of the police until it is legal for the driver to drive again? If so, how can those who have been banned go on to the Continent and rent or buy and drive a car again within hours of the ban?
In Spain the actual licence is confiscated until the ban ends.
A well known so-called inflated celebrity was banned and fined Pds 5 000 for drunk driving (again) but two days later, she was renting a car in Ibiza. To rent a car, you have to have a legal driving licence.

B J Deller, Marbella, Spain

The cynic in me tells me that MPs regularly drink over the limit, so this softly softly approach is more about their self-interest! Whether you drink a lot or a little it still impairs to some degree.

Suzzana, High Wycombe,

regardless of lowering limits, increasing minimum drinking age - lets be realistic. death caused by a drunk driver should be punished the same way - with life!

maybe that way people might just think twice about drinking and driving!

nicki, rochdale, lancs

I agree that a tougher approach to driving without insurance, tax, MOT etc needs to be taken, but on the issue of drink-driving, the idea of a zero limit is impractical, unless the Government wishes to introduce a system whereby anyone who drives a car is virtually unable to have an alcoholic drink at any time. I can't see this happening.

If some limit above 0 mg is to be used, the merits of an 80mg limit limit is that anyone who reaches it has deliberately chosen to drink significantly prior to driving. A 50mg limit could be reached after one drink, or by someone who had several drinks many hours previously. A limit of 80mg is a reliable indicator of criminal liability, and a sound foundation for a driving ban which could cost a person his/her job.

Perhaps the Government could also consider lifetime driving bans for persons being convicted of drink driving on a second occasion, or drivers with a higher level (perhaps 150 mg). A driving licence is a privilege, not a right.

Roy Pinney, Weston Super Mare,

29% of people in France breathalised....maybe, bit I have watched police selecting and stopping at least 20 drivers [almost all older women] at 11.00 am! Clearly they had their quota of tests to fill but did not want any paperwork to fill out!!
Figures are not always to be taken at face value!!

T D humphreys, Crewe, UK

Road side ability test should be used as the primary test of a driver observed to be driving unsafely.
If you fail your car gets impounded and you have to take a drug and alcohol test, if you fail that you have to pay a big fine (say £1500 don't get your car back until fine is paid), their licence suspended until the fine is paid and some penalty points (say 6pts) for first time offenders, repeat offenders get their car crushed and lose their license (ban for a year). If they pass the alcohol and drug test, their licence is suspended and they don't get their car back until they pass a medical check up and or retest if applicable to the type of dangerous driving they committed.
This is surely a fairer and less complicated way to making our roads safer, as all drink/drug drivers are not dangerous drivers and all sober drivers are not safe drivers.

Chris Smith, Plymouth,

It's about time the UK Government took the whole issue of road deaths and driver responsibility more seriously. Adopting lower 'European' drink-drive limits - and enforcing them robustly - would be good first step. I doubt very much that the much higher level of drink-drive enforcement in France (16 million tests per year as opposed to 600,000 in the UK) has led to the level of unlicensed/ uninsured driving in France to even approach that of the UK. One reason is that in France those driving without insurance or a licence face 2-3 months in jail and a fine of 1000 euros or more. That unlicensed/ uninsured driving in France is a fraction of that for the UK is highlighted by the very high level of 'hit and run' offences in the UK, especially when a pedestrian or cyclist is the victim, with 18% of such crashes being hit and runs. In France only around 3.5% of crashes are 'hit and runs'. UK roads are also VERY far from being the safest in Europe, especially for vulnerable road users!

Howard, Haute Savoie, France

Here in rural Spain everyone drinks and drives.
Go to the roadside bars and watch Guardia Civil officers sneaking a brandy into their (free, of course) coffee.
The rule is stick to local roads and don't kill anyone

Ashley Meredith, Granada, Spain

so how will they actually catch these drink drivers? Will speed cameras contain X-Rays that scan the blood for alcohol content.
We all know, that theer are no police on the roads, so catching people after the fact is pointless as this does not do prevention. As normal, this government is out of touch with the real world, they drive in chauffeur driven cars and thus have no clue and go back to their country homes.

miguel vargas, london, Uk

What about the 1200 people a year that get injured in the shower, or the 15 people that required costly hospitalisation after an incident involving sticky tape? By systematically trying to remove all risk from everything, we are creating a race of blithering idiots. Take that out the equation and you're left with another money making scheme!

Whilst the rest of europe has a lower level, how come they are all able to enjoy a glass of red with their civilised meal?

The largest factor in road deaths is lack of attention and the largest factor in that is low blood sugar and lack of rest. So skipping lunch is far more likely to kill you than a speeding drunk driver.

Statistics are fun to play with depending on what you are trying to prove. In 2006 in major metropolitan areas in the UK, you were 12% more likely to be killed by a police driver than a speeding motorist. Go figure.

James, Derby, UK

I hope the people calling for a limit of 0 do realise that not drinking and driving 'the same day' means that they are always in the clear.

You really don't have to drink that much to still have enough alcohol in your bloodstream to be over the limit 8 hours later, despite the fact that 8 hours sleep, a coffee and a shower will mean you feel perfectly sober and fine.

There is quite a likelihood that some of them have driven whilst over the new limit (or possibly even the old one) on a Saturday or Sunday morning.

I wonder how many convictions we'd see if the police hung around DIY superstore car parks on Sunday and Saturday mornings randomly testing otherwise apparently 'respectable' people who weren't actually driving dangerously and didn't realise they still had alcohol in their bloodstream under the proposed new limit.

I wonder if we'd hear less of a self-righteous tone then?

Graham, Oxford, UK

Whilst I agree that drink driving should be banned entirely,, I don't fully appreciate why so many people are against this new propsal.

If someone currently drives with 50mg in their blood stream then they will receive NO punishment, because the limit is 80mg. However, if this ruling comes in, those that currently drink and drive over the the 50mg but under the 80mg WILL be be punished.

Can somone explain why this is a bad thing?

Chris, winchester, hants

@Nick Woods: If rural pubs' business would be destroyed by a zero-tolerance approach to drink driving, this suggests that they are operating using a fundamentally flawed business model; any businessperson whose profit relies upon people drinking alcohol before driving, putting innocent people at risk, is no better than the lowest of crack or heroin dealers. The culture of drink driving in rural Britain is frankly shocking. It's not necessarily feasible for us to be able to test for certain prescription/illegal drugs or indeed tiredness, this however does not mean that we shouldn't do everything we can to discourage those who choose to endanger the rest of us so that they may enjoy their selfish pleasures.

Sean, Liverpool,

The government having a good idea. Rather amazing. A sobriety test rather than a number would be the most sensible test as a small person would be more affected by alcohol than a larger individual so a blanket 50mg/100ml is plain daft actually. The slap across the wrist rather than an immediate ban is a good move however.

The usual suspects will bleat on of course, the same ones who will cry against and mention of increasing the speed limits for motorways and dual carriageways, made when vehicles were nowhere near as safe or mechanically advanced as they are now.

Dr Nicholas Ashley, Huntingdon, England

Who are the problem drivers on the roads? It's not those who have between 50-80 mg alcohol. It's those who steal a car, drink with over 80mg, drive unlicensed and uninsured. Then they have a crash killing themselves, their passengers and the driver and passengers of the innocent victims they run into.

Howard, Chester,

What no one seems to consider is that the drunk drivers that cause accidents are not on the current limit of 80mg, but way above that. To reduce the limit will only increase the numbers who get fined without any good reason, and not reduce the accidents caused by the hardened drink drivers who drink well over the limit and who will carry on do in it.

These days you can prove anything with research, just like with statistics. You put some data in a computers and it tells you how many lives and how much money will be saved. How about common sense?

Let as have effective policies not gesture politics. But that is too much to expect from this nanny goverment.

P Hemsley, London,

Utter nonsense where do they get their ridiculous wrong advice?. And then they accept it!!!!!!

Tony, Hatfield Heath, UK

Don't let's send out the wrong message to drinking drivers.
Lower the limit if you must, but maintain the present penalty.

Neil, Liverpool (UK),

There should be no talk of limits it should be ZERO. Different people have different tolerances that is why for the avoidance of any doubt I say ZERO

JS Sierzant, Nelson, England

Cut the limit and come in line with Europe and make it an instance six month ban as we do here,most effective for all but the dedicated drinker who only thinks of self.

Ann Crak , Mugla , Turkey

yet another half baked idea from labour- or is it the home office?

peter codner, devizes, wessex

The roads are awash with untaxed, unlicenced, non-MOT'd cars, and drivers who have no licence themselves. Further, the police have no roadside test for the hundreds of thousands of dopeheads who drive after taking cannabis, cocaine and heroin. There is nothing wrong with trying to remove drink drivers from the roads but how totally dishonest flogging this (now marginal) horse to death whilst studiedly ignoring even greater problems elsewhere. We are saddled with a neo-communist government and a joke 'parade' police force. For EU read USSR!

Ben Carlton, Bristol, England

The only safe lmit is ZERO. It has been proved time and time again how badly even a tiny amount of alcohol affects people's driving abilities. For goodness sake if some people wish to drink then either take a taxi home arrange to be picked up or one person agree in a party agree not to drink - how difficult is that?

Jenny, Kent, UK

Surley if you lose a family member to a drunk driver then no matter what the limit 50 or 80 mg, it's too high.

This is a confusing message to drivers, why not make it simple, DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE, have a zero tolerance approach, that way everyone knows if they drink ANYTHING they will be over the limit.

Dom Gething, Penrith, Cumbria

Will the same apply to those caught behind the wheel under the influence of drugs?

Bill Bird, Wallasey, UK

Total insanity! The government would lay to waste 30+ years of cultural change that makes people who drink and drive pariahs. Anybody under the age of 40 in the UK has spent all of their conscious life with constant reinforcement of the message the drinking (at all) and driving is wrong. The vast majority wouldn't consider even one drink before getting behind the wheel of a car. To now suggest that there might be some level of tolerance is madness. It will send an entirely unacceptable message to those who will soon join the ranks of drivers on Britains roads.

Rob Morgan, Southampton,

The usual mindless aproach by Government.
Research, that shows lowering the limit would save 65 lives a year, would not have produced this number if it was known the number of drink-drive offences was going to increase.
Do the unimaginative dimwits who moot this idea think that those who would consider drinking and driving cannot calculate this new advantage.

robert everitt, wolverhampton,

Included in this total are drunken pedestrians run over fatally by sober drivers,usually around 20% or say 100 deaths..Rural pubs are being put out of business by the current legistlation.Address first the untaxed,uninsured,unqualified driver situation,not to mention the homicidal foreign truck drivers.Prescription drugs,driving while ill or tired are far more serious problems.

Nick Woods, Caterham, Surrey

It is about time that something was done about bad drivers, there are many people killed on the roads by vehicles leaving the road by the driver just losing control, often with no other vehicles involved. Drivers jump traffic lights, cut up on roundabouts change lanes with no signalling and generally do not watch where other vehicles are on the road.
Many people can have a couple of pints and be perfectly safe driving. Again the government are attempting to put on a show that they are inproving road safety. Many people will still die because of poor driving standards.

Roger Squire, Basingstoke, England

As usual, go for the easy way out: life is simply not going to be worth living. This is not the same as dealing with dangerous driving - there are many things that can impair ones ability to drive a car or carry out any other activity.
When you see some cop chases on TV and then the paultry sentences for reckless, uninsured and no driving licence you wonder where the balance is. Let's crack down on the real rogues, but do not ruin the lives of the rest of us.

William, London, England

If more drivers are baned for drink driving all it will do is lead to a rise in driving while disqualified. The chances of being stopped when driving without a licence are virtually nil anyway due to the lack of police patrols. How will the speed cameras pick up disqualified drivers?

David, derby,

Another blow against our freedom and more from the oppressive 'control freaks' Labour!!
I already drive under fear of losing my licence and livelihood on a daily basis due to the proliferation of speed cameras, despite me driving for 31 years.
Losing your licence under 'totting up' is now 6 months which is far too long considering you can be caught on camera for a split second lack of concentration. Speed camras are in fact a road hazard.
As for what you say about two thirds of members of the AA say they are in favour, I do not believe them and anything that this Government 'spews' out as we know from experience!
The simple answer is forget about all these consultations which I believe are nothing more than a 'con' to push through these oppressive laws and lets have a referendum on all these new laws before Labour become totally Communist/neo Nazi if they are not already!

Andy Moore, Solihull, West Midlands

For God's sake can't you just leave us alone!

Richard Philpotts, Stratford-Upon-Avon,

a 50mg limit basically prevents drinking alcohol any evening if you are going to drive the next day...another nail in the coffin of the pubs! better to enforce the limit we have and ban offenders for 5 years and retake test when ban elapses.

phil durrant, york, england

The government must be stupid to reduce the ban to two stikes.

Peter Euler, falkirk, scotland

What a earth shudderingly stupid idea from the government.

People will simply think:

"Well I can get caught once, without losing my car. I'll risk it."

Jamie, Truro,

The origin of this new 'plan' is an 'advisory' bulletin from Bruxelles requesting the UK to adopt the same standards as other EEC states. It was also made clear that if the UK did not adopt the standard, it would become a 'directive'. All this talk about amounts of alcohol/driving fitness etc are irrelevant because the alcohol limits are political. The lower limit was insisted on by France because its road deaths are much higher than the UK. The 'study' by UCL is also fatuous. Britain already has the 2nd lowest rate of fatalities in the world after Sweden. The government is trying to hide its weakness vis-a-vis the EEC. What is going to happen if 200,000 people (voters, taxpayers, heads of family) each year lose their licenses. Not only will you have hundreds of thousands of people driving without any licenses or insurance (as in France), but the government which created the situation may not remain in power. Forget about all this talk about 'limits'. Its all politics.

Bruce, St. Martin, France

With a 50mg limit people will be reduced to drinking in the evening only. But then if they have several glasses of beer or wine in the evening they will be over the limit when they go to work the next morning. This is much more onerous than it sounds. Most people have a drink or two in the evening and think they are pefectly OK to drive the next morning. With a 50mg limit they will probably fail a breath test.

Richard, Henley-on-Thames,

As someone who has attended several accidents as a police reservist and had to tell relatives that their loved one/s were killed last evening and all through drink, the laws need to be enforced. I agree with the three strikes and you are out as long as it is for life, and no moving to the continent and driving there as happens at the moment. This will be stopped within a few years within the EU though. The licence must be destroyed and a new driving test taken before a new one is issued if they have not received the life ban. Drinking & driving is a premeditated offence and can in all cases be avoided with a taxi.
Anyone who is caught should also do service with the ambulance people and actively retrieve the bodies or the injured. Then they must go with the policeman and help tell the relatives.

We keep talking about doing something and meanwhile the criminal acts still happen even with un-licensed drivers.

B J Deller, Marbella, Spain

Another crackpot scheme from this crackpot lot.

Frederick, London, UK

A simple way to get over all the confusion - 0 milligrams of alcohol per 100millilitres of blood, i.e. no drinking.

Daniel, chelmsford,

The 'if it saves just one life' argument is ridiculous. Perhaps one drink does impair driving ability marginally, but then so does being old, being disabled, being poorly co-ordinated, having passengers in the car and so on and so on.

Perhaps we should just ban everyone from driving, which is of course just what these anti-car 'road safety' groups, such as Brake, want.

Luke Stubbs, Portsmouth,

The real reason for this...
"Most countries have adopted 50mg "
Is to make us EU compliant!

Richard , Manchester,

More upside down thinking from our upside down government. I suppose this is "pragmatic" thinking, ehem, as applied to the smoking ban and hunting ban? If D & D really is bad - BAN IT. In my opinion, of all the manageable evils, this is the easiest to manage. Far too simple for our incumbent giddy-headed spinning tops, though.

Mike L, Chippenham, Wilts

David - zero is not a safe limit, as there can be residual alcohol in the blood for a very long time. Had a glass of wine with your meal last night? Sweden and Poland's 20mg limit is effectively zero. They have a very low limit because it was there way to tackle the culture of acceptable drink driving. Britain has been more successful than most countries in tackling this culture.

More research is needed on this as there is some evidence that drinking with 50g is safer than none. The switch to 50mg, if enforced (as it's not in much of Europe) is a big change and should not be undertaken lightly.

Alex, Tunbridge Wells,

When the current level for a ban is safer than driving with the flu or a heavy cold, then to reduce this further is madness.
Is this government really trying to ruin any minute level of fun we can actually have?
When we have foriegn lorry drivers killing with no come back on our roads, would it not be better to concentrate on these people, but oh no, as these people are transporting goods for companies whos directors line politicians pockets then you are hardly going to get any action on that.
Leave the drinking limit where it is, for gods sake let us maintain a few pleasures in life!

Pete, St Albans, England

Personally I think if you are caught over the limit you should get an automatic LIFE ban from driving. Everyone knows the risks. Why only 12 months? Ban them completely - they can't whinge about costs because if they can afford to go out drinking then they can afford a taxi home.

I would also be quite happy to have a zero alcohol limit for driving - I never, ever drive if I have had any alcohol the same day.

Dawn D, Saffron Walden, England

Another pathetic kop-out from the UK government. The lower limit should be introduced and rigidly enforced, as indeed it is in the rest of Europe. We ought to adopt a zero alcohol limit and woe betide anybody that transgresses. Airy fairy maybe's about job losses is irrelevant. Current driving society flouts most driving rules anyway but drink driving is dangerous, not just for the driver but, for innocent law abiding citizens injured and killed as a result of the irresponsibility of those drivers that consume alcohol.

In Portugal, where the legal limit for blood alcohol is much lower, many drivers ignore the limit but when caught driving over the limit losing their licence is mandatory.

It is difficult to introduce change at the best of times but a half hearted approach to the imposition of penalties won't work!

Solution - if you consume any acohol don't get behind the wheel!

David French, Alqueidao da Serra, Portugal

keep your legal drinking age at 18 and the limit at 80mg. if you lower the limit people will risk driving after drinking. DO NOT increase the legal drinking age. such a disaster would end up in an increase in youth binge drinking. the UK's youth would end up abusing alcohol like their American counterparts that have no respect for a broken policy of 21 as the legal drinking age.

Tim , Wilkes-Barre , Pennsylvania

i feel very sorry for the current government.they have lost their way,the penalty should be FIVE year ban for any guilty drink driver, they can always get public transport,and retake the test after ban ends. heres hoping the fools who thought this idea up loose a member of their family just as i did!! the message would soon filter down . sadly yours, a bereaved son.

panto, london, brent, england

The government considers that if people lose their licences they risk losing their jobs? Whatever happened to this government making public transport an alternative to the car? Obviously even they admit they have failed. Again.

John Scott, London,

If driving under the influence of alcohol of is dangerous, then the only safe limit is zero.

Arguments about clogging up the courts, more people driving while disqualified and bringing the law into disrepute are beside the point.

Alcohol mixed with motor vehicles can be lethal. Let's all recognise this and stop pussyfooting around the issue.

David Amies, Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

It sends the wrong message to the public,its says you will get away with it.

People arent heeding the message now, when a ban is virtually guaranteed. Why nanny drivers over losing a job..they know the risks.

Will the police be consulted on this?? its them that have to pick up the pieces...You can see the look on the drink drivers face as he or she is arrested.. I am going to get away with this..

ridiculous,.. it does not protect innocent victims of drink drivers

This is a government in freefall, a nanny state..
Mad.... I dispair

Dave C, Bristol,