I have lived in Spain for several years now, this country has a major cultural problem with drink driving, not just the tourist areas, but nationally.

Firstly, the limit here is 50mg and random testing is common particularly on Friday and Saturday evening. Near popular bars and night clubs frequently you will find exit roads controlled by police who test 100% of drivers. I myself have been tested 6 or 7 times over a period of three/four years. The last time a few weeks ago, after drinking half a bottle of red wine, a small beer and a large gin tonic (a double or treble English) with meal, over maybe 4 hours and I was still significantly under the limit.

Like most European countries Spain operates a driving licence points system, (here you start with 12 points and you lose points when you commit tan offence) drivers just over the limit lose 4 points, while more serious offences will attract more points.

The UK system of 12 driving ban for a minor infringement is much too harsh.

Professional drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers etc have lower limits.

Clive How, Madrid, España

It seems to me just another example of this government picking on soft targets and failing to deal with the real problem such as serial drink drivers who drive whilst well over the limit.

Martin Legg, York, UK

Whilst is easy to adhere to a zero limit by abstaining if you are planning to drive it poses significant problems for those wishing to drink in the evening and drive the following day. How can an individual be sure that they will pass a zero limit test except by total abstiance?

Also do the £119m savings take into account the loss of income from those who will undoubtedly lose their licenses and therefore their jobs?

As with speeding this will penalise the already generally law-abiding public who feel comfortable driving after one glass of wine - whilst leaving serious offenders many times over the limit and often driving whilst banned continuing to offend.

Driving by those between 50mg - 80mg is not a problem when compared to those driving whilst banned, without insurance, whilst impaired by drugs, underage or in stolen and unroadworthy vehicles.

Paul Spendiff, London, UK

The reason that the number of drivers breath-tested has fallen is due to the reduction in police traffic units replaced by speed cameras. Even if you are ten times over the limit driving on the wrong side of the road with no lights on the camera will only catch you if you exceed the speed limit. If the car is stolen,unregeistered or cloned you have nothing to fear.......if however you are the majority that drive safely, but just stray over the (speed) limit you can end up with points and £60 fine.

In England today you are "allowed" to drive your Citroen Saxo around with its sewer pipe size exhaust pipe in a weed filled haze at crazy speeds in built up areas, as long as you know where the cameras are.

Like wise more and more middle aged adults are having that extra `last one for the road' safe in the knowledge that they haven't seen a traffic cop in years and TomTom will tell them where the speed cameras are and when they have `reached their destination'

Philip Jowett, swadlincote, England

If the limit was 0 mg, then you may be over the limit 24 hours after having a few beers or indeed after eating a liquor chocolate, eating a restaurant dessert, using mouthwash or cough medicine. People who suggest 0 mg have not thought this through.

It seems obvious to me if there is evidence that drivers with alcohol levels between 50 to 80 mg are causing accidents or are dangerous then I would wholeheartedly support this move. If there is no evidence to support this then please could anyone explain why it is a good idea?
My belief is that this evidence is not there and once again this is an attempt at "sending a message" that will penalise responsible law-abiding people to attempt to minimise a problem caused by irresponsible, reckless people who drive with levels greater that 80 mg of alcohol.

Iain Martin, Dundee, UK

Neil you can't have a 0mg limit since alcohol is natural in many peoples body for non-booze related issues (there are countries in the world that have policies). The number of lives saved would outweight the unfairities and miscarriages of justice but it wouldn't be as cut and dry as you pretend. Of course all this is only applicable if there are plenty of breath tests which there aren't at the moment. Unfortunately it remains true that unless you are involved in an accident it is extremely unlikely that you'll be breathalised.

Far better to have more drink driving courses, far more gaol terms for repeat offenders and most importantly more tests. North Yorkshire Police this last year had a huge increase in the number of drink drivers they caught. For the first time ever recently I saw two people stopped and breathalised in North Yorkshire and I was amazed. I've frequently seen people stopped to check for insurance but never DUI.

Paul, York,

Before adopting a Omg limit, take a moment to consider that some foods will register on a breath test. Do you want be sued because after leaving your home a perfectly sober guest gets in a wreck and that Creme Broule you served for dessert registers as alcohol consumption? Most empirical studies have shown that the majority of injury accidents are caused by people who are highly, rather than slightly, intoxicated. Drunk driving must be stopped, but arresting people for drinking one beer is not about "public safety" but rather "public control". In the States, Mothers Against Drunk Driving campaigned to set the limit at .08%, which (along with public awareness campaigns) has dramatically reduced DWI fatalities. Now, however, they are pushing a .05 limit in some areas, and it's been proposed to TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS one has ANY alcohol with a child in the car. The neoprohibitionist intend to employ Bolchevist tactics to eliminate the consuption of alcohol, period.

Marco, Miami , FL USA

Although I never drink and drive, I accept that it would be difficult to have a meal and perhaps eat a dessert with alcohol in and then drive without the fear of a possible prosecution. Likewise a morning mouthwash which has been previously mentioned.
I believe that the one drink option would be workable. But as to reasons why the Government are reticent to fall in line with Europe, despite figures showing road deaths caused by excessive alcohol are on the increase in the UK and are declining in th rest of Europe, is easy. Although we are told that "safety" cameras are there to reduce road deaths, the simple fact is that they are easy to operate and thus earn revenue. Relatively, it is harder to detect a drunk driver unless you have more traffic police, which in itself would reduce the need for more cameras, and is infinitely less effective in raising money. So despite the rhetoric about reducing road deaths, it is apparent that that will only be achieved if it is cost effective.

Ken Stratford, Oxted, Surrey

Forget infringement of liberties and nanny state nonsense, of course it makes sense to have no acceptable limit to how many drinks one can consume and still be OK to drive (although I agree a ZERO test limit is not a good idea). If the 50mg limit means only one medium strength drink is that what you want on an evening out? I like a drink myself and if I am out for, say, a meal with friends and obliged to drive, then having only one glass of wine or beer is out of the question; far better, I think, to stay on alcohol free from the start, drive confidently home and, once there, relax with a couple of cognacs or your preferred drink.

Michael Manning, London,

It is not possible to have a 0 figure, as nearly everbody can register something even if they have not had a drink. If everybody driving did not drink, they would normally not register 20mg or higher unless they had a medical condition.

The answer is still don't drink and drive!

Raymond, Haslemere, England

Regardless of whether there is a lower drink-drive limit introduced or not, I think serving measures for wine in particular, need to be seriously looked at. Nowadays, places serve huge 175ml/250ml measures of wine, without a second thought, unless you as the purchaser are quick enough to request a 'small glass of wine'. I'm convinced many people don't realise they are over the limit because of this.

Judi Martin, aberdeenshire, united kingdom

I agree: Once upon a time I would drink 3 or 4 pints at the Rowing Club after a day on the water and drive home: I gave that away after a spectacular crash in which I nearly lost my life: if you drive dont drink it is as simple as that: take a cab and use public transport for the next few days: You owe it to yourself: Dont be Selfish and Stupid

Robert Peterson, Melbourne, Australia

Whatever the merits of the case, I just wish the State would get off our backs. Scarcely a week goes by without our liberties being infringed. The Government seems to have a mission to interfere with our lives to the maximum extent possible. I crave an administration that will allow us to run our own lives without the constant steadying hand of Parliament.

David Barker, Hitchin, Herts.,

A zero limit would be ludicrous, as ripe fruit contains alcohol, as breath fresheners and mouth washes contain alcohol, not to mention rum trifle or wine poured into a dish shortly before serving.

David Harrison, Liverpool,

A zero limit is not a sensible option. That mouth wash you use in the morning? It will get you a ban. The pint you had at 10pm the night before? It will get you a ban. Some medical conditions can produce a positive test result (for alcohol although be it tiny)

That is why ZERO is not a viable option.

However, if we do go to the same limit as the rest of Europe, then we should ALSO have a unified penaly scheme. Ban, two tier system, whatever but it needs to be unified.

The other problem that needs to be addressed is that drinking and driveing in one country does not mean you'll loose your licence if it's not issed by that country.

On the whole the Eurpoean driving system needs to be unified and shaken up at the same time.

Lance, Surrey, UK

I never drink and drive opting for public transport every time. This is a good idea and should reduce the deaths on the road but drugs is the new danger which needs to be addressed soonest.

Bugsy, Burley-in-Wharfedale, England

In an era when the police/government try to penalise us for doing 32mph in a 30mph limit etc,(and thus collecting substantial easy money), if we were to drop to a 0mg limit and say you had been to a restaurant , had no alcohol but had a rum trifle or something with a small trace of alcohol in it. Having then been stopped and checked and found to have say 2mg, would this constitute an offence and a fine?
Whilst I would never drink and drive, it seems an easy way to obtain more revenue and I think the present limit is correct and should stay despite E.U. pressure

Mike Jones, Farnborough, Hampshire

"I agree with Neil. A zero alcohol limit seems the most sensible way to go. I never, ever drive with any alcohol in my system.

If you really have to have alcohol when you go out, get a taxi. After all, if you can afford to drink alcohol, you can afford to get a taxi home."

Ahh...but then you won't be able to drive the next day either. Even if you genuinely feel fine...or the next day after...and probably the day after that...the alcohol in your blood will be down well below any significant concentration...it still wont be zero.

The next thing you know is that you are stopped and prosecuted because you had a few pints 3 days ago.
and lose your job because you can't get there anymore.

Zak Larue-Buckley, Leicester,

Frank, in Birmingham - I'm with you all the way (and if you stand as an Independent the next time we pretend to exercise our democratic rights, see how many others agree).

Mike, Chichester, UK

Zero alcohol in your blood would make it illegal to drink orange juice and drive!

In countries where the limit is 20 mg the polcie are unable to accurately measure the levels - e.g. Norway.

Tom Knight, Basildon, UK

Surely the point is the quality and safety of a person's driving, not the alcohol in their breath? Who is the safer driver: a fit, alert 30 year-old with 80mg or a tired 80 year-old with 50mg?

Breathalysers are not assessing the road-worthiness of drivers, just their alcohol level - which is not the same.

Anyway, I'm sure this will come to pass, another step down the government's path of banning alcohol, in the same way as smoking.

ChrisR, Derby,

If your lifestyle includes consuming alcoholic beverage and driving a motor vehicle, the will be occasions when you are driving when legally intoxicated. Lowing the alcohol-in-blood level will mean that anyone that had a glass or two of wine with dinner at home the previous evening could be legally intoxicated when he/she drives to work the following day. There being perhaps seven hours between the two events. This is simply a tactic to put the motoring segment of the public on the back foot; part of persecution of the motorist strategy. It keeps the population cowed, knowing that if they step out of line, authority can take away their livelihood. Because this is what a driving ban amounts to. It also fits with the police mind-set; namely everybody is guilty of something. Most simply haven't been caught yet.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Nagano

0 limit as in most parts of Eastern Europe i.e. Czech Republic is best. At least you know and can decide whether to drink or drive, there is a choice and it is entirely yours.

Dominique Melville, Paris , France

No point lowering the level if the current limit isn't properly policed .

I live in a small market town where there is a pub that only has on street parking. Because of this it is easy to tell who is in the pub and how long they are there.

There is a large regular group who drive to the pub staying for hours before weaving off at closing time.

It's quite obvious whats happening and yet the police never do anything about it.

JM, Southwell,

0mg?
Good luck to you when you have to get to work in the morning. There's no point being extreme about it. The government isn't even saying that 80mg impairs your ability to drive, simply that with a limit at that level it implies that one, maybe two, drinks are ok. Lower it to 50mg, or even 20mg, and you do away with that misconception. Lower it to 0mg and you find that noone can drive anywhere if they've had a drink the morning before.

cp, scotland,

I am responding to some of the comments made reagarding my earlier post. I admit that with some alcohol containing products, such as mouthwash, a level of 0 mg could be percieved as not very sensible.

It is my fault for not fully explaining what I meant. The actual testing of the alcohol limit will obviously have error parameters (any scientific equipment have a recognised error value, e.g. +/- 5%). So the desired limit should be 0 mg but with an acceptable error limit that would eliminate medical conditions and mouthwashes etc.

I know it is difficult, but setting the level at 0 mg is important from a social point as well. Regarding some comments about how long it takes after a drink for your alcohol level to go below the allowed limit, this is half of the problem. The time needed will vary from person to person. Knowing you can't drink sends an important message.

Finally, drink drivers are real criminals and can kill and cause heartache just like murderers and others.

Neil Pickles, Wirral/Riverside, California, UK/USA

I think we should leave the limit as it is. The rate at which alcohol in the bloodstream decays is very variable - especially for the last traces. So if you ever have a drink it is impossible to know when you become completely free of alcohol. For concentrations over 80mg or so the decay is reasonably linear and you can have some idea of when you fall below this level. For lower concentrations - when you also will feel no obvious effects of the alsohol it is impossible to know when you may be clear. So with a 50 mg limit the problem is not about driving immediately after a drink but knowing how long you need to wait before being allowed back in the car. It is a bad law if there is no reasonable chance of knowing whether or not you are in breach of it.

Also if we have to harmonise with other EU countries' limits we should also harmonise with their lower penalties.

Richard Walton, Worcestershire,

Let's get real. It's not the person who has had two or three drinks who is the problem. It's the person who has had 6 or 8 or 10 drinks and drives who is the problem. And more than that, it is the person who has had 6 drinks and got caught and who then gets released from jail and drinks and drives over and over again. I don't know what it's like in the UK but most fatal drunk driving accidents that I have heard about here have involved alcoholics who have been caught and released for severe violations over and over. What our countries need is not a zero level of blood alcohol, but instead very long prison sentences for the worst offenders. That is for our safety and also so the alcoholics can get some help.

Claudia, Atlanta, USA

In response to Neil Pickles who recommends a limit of 0 mg, if the limit was 0 mg, then you may be over the limit 24 hours after having a few beers or indeed after eating a liquor chocolate, eating a restaurant dessert, using mouthwash or cough medicine. I don't think that you have thought this through.

It seems obvious to me that the no-brainer concept is that if there is evidence that drivers with alcohol levels between 50 - 80 mg are causing accidents or are dangerous then I would wholeheartedly support this move. If there is no evidence to support this then please could anyone explain why it is a good idea?
My belief is that this evidence is not there and once again this is an attempt at "sending a message" that will penalise responsible law-abiding people to attempt to minimise a problem caused by irresponsible, reckless people who drive with levels greater that 80 mg of alcohol.

Iain Martin, Dundee, UK

If the body can metabolize one unit of alcohol each hour, how are our police going to enforce this extremely low limit?

By the time the paperwork is completed, the errant motorist will be at zero alcohol .

Oh the joy of our politically correct police force.

alan bond, lancaster, england

Because alcohol is naturally present in lots of foodstuffs, drinks, toiletries etc. So whilst a 0mg limit would 'remove confusion' about how much to drink before driving it would add considerable confusion as to wherther using mouthwash, breath spray, stale fruit juice etc would land you in a cell with Paris Hilton. What's more it would cause needless inconvenience to thousands of people so the burden of proof should be on the 'safety brigade' to show that Armageddon can be averted if people who have one pint at a county Pub before driving home be criminalised in this way whereas the people who drive actually drunk would benefit from police resources being spread.

Greg, Bedford, UK

I agree we should lower the limit, but we shouldn't go 0mg, we have to allow for people who eat certain foods that contain a small amount of alcohol in them and other instances similar. Maybe 20mg/100ml should be the limit we set. We need to be sensible here.

C Parkes, West Midlands,

This is another example of beaurocratic thinking that making a law more onerous solves a problem. It doesn't.

Why can't these high paid people understand that there is an underlying problem that needs addressing.

richard, London,

Struggling with disruptive children while driving is far more dangerous and happens twice daily.

Ray, Portbail, France

There's typical British hypocrisy over this. We rightly disapprove of drink driving, but then provide many pubs with huge car parks, where parking is invariably free. Whereas if you try to do the right thing and travel by public transport, each member of your party will have to pay a substantial fare unless they're over 60, and the service will probably be poor or non-existent in the evening.

Yet one posting here talks of motorists being "battered" , while another dismisses 560 deaths a year....

Barry, Wallington, UK

A zero mg limit would be impossible to enforce. 1 pint at lunch time; are you safe to drive home 5 hours later? A rinse of mouthwash; a tablespoon of cough medecine. All this would put you over the limit. This is why no country has such a limit.

The somewhat bizarre UK law that prohibits police from carrying out true random breath tests is to blame (they can only breath test you if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you're drunk in the first place); and of course, the lack of traffic police in the first place.

Ian, London, UK

It would not be practical to impose a limit of 0 mg. For instance the effects of the night before would almost always preclude you from driving the next day.

It does however seem sensible to reduce the existing limit which will hopefully have the effect of persuading people not to drink at all when driving.

David Milburn, Burnley, Lancashire

I agree on lowing the limit in line with other european states, I do not feel a 0 limit is right, as some medcines & mouth washes etc contain alcohol & can effect results.In Spain we have lower limits like other E.U countries, however the penalties do vary depending on how much you are over & the event circumstances, its not an automatic ban if you are just a few mg over.
If Britain was to lower the limits, I feel they should also vary the penalty more fairly on circumstance, ie being 5mg over or so should not result in a ban on first offence, but a fine & points, equally if you are double the limit you should have the book thrown at you.
Mind you no doubt I will still have to put my life in my hands driving around here on the costa in summer , when the Brit Tourists are here driving their renta cars about , whi'st totally Plastered !!

Clive Bagshaw, Marbella, Spain

The current levels allow responsible people to jump in the car with the wife and kids on a weekend and drive out to the country to have lunch with a glass of wine in one of the many excellent country pubs this country is famous for.
Reducing the limits effectively puts paid to this pastime and probably drives another nail into the coffin that is the traditional English pub industry.
European countries that have lower levels also have sliding scale punishments, which our transport minister seems to have dismissed out of hand.

keith, Woodley, UK

Just leave things alone. The present drink/drive laws are quite adequate. No more interference. Anyway, it would be impossible to have a 0mpg limit as everyone will have some sort of reading whether they drink alcohol or not

michael pickles, bournemouth, england

A 0mg limit is not a practical idea.

How long do you have to wait for alcohol to be entirely processed by the body after one drink? It is several hours. How can you be sure that no alcohol has been used in some recipe in a restaurant? How much of it is left in your plates?

The last paragraph of the article shows why a 50mg is a sensible proposal.

John, London, UK

Just leave us alone. The present drink/drive laws are quite adequate. No mor interference. Anyway, it would be impossible to have a 0mpg limit as everyone will have some sort of reading whether they drink alcohol or not

michael pickles, bournemouth, england

May we please have the facts? I understand these exist, and it cannot be hard to extract them.

All road fatalities should be classified according to the blood alcohol level of the most inebriated person involved, then segmented into 50 to 80mg/100ml, and above and below this. The value of lowering the limit would then become clear, and the justification - or lack of it! - for this unarguable.

Liberty must not be allowed to degenerate into licence, but neither should it be constrained without sound reason.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

0 mg would not be acceptable as a substancial number of people have a higher level naturally without drinking any alcohol.

Chris, Bovingdon , Herts

If the aim of this lower limit is to harmonise EU regulations, why do you lose your licence in the UK for a minimum of twelve months, whereas other countries (such as Spain) have a points system which works on a sliding scale, depending on the amount of alcohol consumed and previous convictions.

I am against drink driving, but feel that the current limits are sensible enough. Reduce it to zero, and beware of that sherry triffle!

Dino, Alicante, Spain

Agree with others here, 0mg is best.
There are no misunderstandings with "can I have a drink or not thinking." Any drink and your over the limit - it's that simple!

Nathan, Essex,

The simple fact is that having ANY level of alcohol in your system means your not safe to drive. Getting behind the wheel of a car is without a doubt the most dangerous thing we do on a day to day basis - why make it even mor dangerous by putting alcohol into the equation?

I've been driving for about 8 months now, and been 18 for two months. I know that if I go to the pub, there's no way I should drive home. That's the cost of the convenience of driving. If people can't have the self control to not drink when they're driving then they're obviously not mature enough to be doing either.

Mike Blitz, Winchester`, UK

How long after a drink does it take to register 0 ?

Jeremy, Brighton, West Sussex

Someone who is prepared to go over the 80mg limit will obviously be also prepared to go over a 50mg limit. A lower limit will only inconvenience the responsible members of society.

steve, brisbane, australia

Alcohol related road deaths up from 460 in 1999 to 560 in 2005 an increase of 100 over 7 years.

I guess it is far more important to tackle this growing "problem" than address the fact that in March 2005 there were 56,000 HIV positive people in the UK as opposed to 86,000 in March 2007 (50% increase in 2 years). That would be 30,000 extra people on expensive medical treatment, but where is the Government led campaign on HIV/AIDS prevention - a preventable disease?

I'm not condoning drink driving at all, but is 560 deaths in a population of 60 million really a major problem?

George B, Hinckley, UK

Another batter the motorist campaign by the new puritans who are afraid of anyone doing anything they disapprove of.

Plenty of statistics but none of them prove that small amounts of alcohol actually cause any accidents, and in fact the cheating method of claiming any accident is drink related if even a passenger or pedestrian proves to have been drinking shows that if the true facts were presented they would not support the anti-alcohol claims.

Fenris, Birmingham,

I think that a reduced alcohol permissable level is a sound idea but I have concerns over the ability of the police to enforce it. Seeing, as I do every day, drivers on mobile phones with one or no hands on the wheel says to me that if the police cannot stamp out a crime that is clearly obvioous, how can they enforce compliance with a rule that is less clear to detect - unless a serious accident occurs.

Eric Goulding, FARNHAM, SURREY, UK

Pickles,

The body can create alcohol as a by-product of medical conditions. It's not enough to cause a problem, but it's still more than 0mg.

A figure of 20mg would ensure anyone who actually had a drink would be caught, while leaving thos with a medical condition alone.

Ottorino, Wiltshire,

The increasing reliance on roadside cameras is to blame for the increase, since they can't tell if a motorist, speeding or otherwise, is over the limit. Until we get more traffic police who can spot those not fully in control of their vehicles, whether through drink or drugs, this problem is going to get worse rather than better, regardless of the legal limit...

Jim, Leeds, UK

I agree with Neil. A zero alcohol limit seems the most sensible way to go. I never, ever drive with any alcohol in my system.

If you really have to have alcohol when you go out, get a taxi. After all, if you can afford to drink alcohol, you can afford to get a taxi home.

Dawn Dorrington, Saffron Walden, England

I don't understand this.

The Limit for alcohol should be 0mg.

But the real problem is actually that so many drivers are full of drugs!

But as always nothing is happening until it is to late.

Khalid, London, United Kingdom

You're amazed but not surprised? Maybe you've been drinking too much alcohol?

I do agree a 0 mg limit would be best, though.

Andy, Brighton,

More typical nannying!!! this country is going down the pan!!!

Wasting money employing police to look for mobile phones on drivers, telling people when to smoke, randomly breathalizing people , banning people for next to nothing and just generally harassing the public.

Why don't the government, FOR ONCE , concentrate on REAL issues, i.e. do their job and go look for the rapist, murders and pedophiles running around on the street instead of telling us how to run our lives.

Next they'll be telling us, "No one's allowed outside after 10pm"

Remember this when it's election time!

Frank, Birmingham,

This country rely on Speed Camera's too much and those cannot detect if you are over the drink drive limit.

Gary Watson, bradford,

Going after those that drink and drive is laudable and saves lives. However, surely the Road Safety Minister and Mr Hughes should also be concentrating on those drivers who take drugs (as opposed to prescribed medication) and drive. These are the drivers who are more dangerous on the roads than the driver who has one drink with a substantial lunch.

That having been said, as a driver myself, there is no excuse for drinking and driving.

Steve Turner, Manchester,

Why not make it much simpler and make the limit 0 mg? The knowledge that no alcohol is allowed would remove any confusions about the alcohol levels of different beverages.

It would be simple to understand and would not allow for any excuses. Furthermore, it would send an important message that any level of drinking impairs driving performance.

As someone drives and who drinks alcohol (obviously not together) this seems such an obvious idea that I am amazed, but not surprised that they have not yet done this.

Neil Pickles, Wirral/Riverside, California, UK/USA

So in the eyes of the law it will be OK to drive a vehicle on four hours sleep, though not Ok to drive after a glass of wine with Sunday lunch. Readers will note that failing a breathalyser test in other EU countries does not automatically result in a long driving ban and consequent loss of livelihood. Generally the result is a fine. A one year ban, I would suggest, is hardly equitable for an inadvertant 50mg. Beware the fruit trifle at the vicar's garden party, you may not be able to drive for a week.

Chas, Thetford, UK

Fine. Great idea. Now can anyone tell us how they intend to enforce this when most cops spend their days shining a seat with their backsides in comfy offices, thus avoiding the need to prevent, deftect and deal with crime?

And if they DO take that brave step of venturing out of their offices, are they going to start getting tough on all the other road offenders out there - people without tax, insurance, licences, banned drivers etc etc etc? No of course not - why bother with all that when a knee-kerk reaction to a serious but relatively small scale crime will do instead?

Steve Lee, Gillingham, England

Many Brits get caught out here in Spain where the limit is 50mg. But I think that there should be a no alcohol at all standard. in 2006 here in Spain, 30% of the drivers killed in road accidents were drunk. It is a serious problem for other road users who often end up as the victims and Spain is now proposing up to 6 years (yes, real years) in jail for offenders.

As a police reservist some years ago who had on eight occasions to tell relatives that their husband etc., was killed in a car accident the night before, and drink was this problem can affect your life.
Drunk in charge of a M/V: banned for five years.

B J Deller, Marbella, Spain

Why oh why are we still messing around with this issue? isnt it so much simpler to have a zero limit? No confusion, no arguments about how much alcohol a person can abosrb etc etc???

Mark, Warsaw, Poland

It is difficult to get a 'camera' to adminster abreath test....well for the time being that is......

mike, oxford, england

While i dont condone drink driving there is a lot of spin in the figures quoted, the people that drink drive and kill people are always "Way" over the limit.

Setting the limits to 50mg or 80mg will not stop that and its "That" which is the serious problem, i say leave things alone as they work just fine and introduce a stage penalty system. ie twice over the limit = 12 month ban, three times over the limit = 24 month ban, 4 times over the limit = 6 months in jail.

As it is now the penalty for having a glass of wine and an extra wine gum is the same as driving paralletic

Peter, Aldershot, UK

Isn't it about time we stopped playing silly beggars and made it illegal to drink and drive, then there would be no ambiguity, no making excuses etc. All this flabby liberalism makes us a laughing stock. It is time we hard and fast rules (laws), a police force that has the will to enforce them and a judiciary that is not afraid to sentence to the utmost.

P.Bates, Aviemore, U.K.

Why oh why are we still messing around with this issue? isnt it so much simpler to have a zero limit? No confusion, no arguments about how much alcohol a person can abosrb etc etc???

Mark, Warsaw, Poland