We need a 'zero limit' on busybodies.

Drink-drive limit 'must be cut to zero' to cut the number of deaths
Great. Another interfering busybody wants to bring in draconian legislation in order to curb a non problem. This latest bout of righteousness is coming from a senior police officer who obviously wants her name in the papers.

You can tell the Daily Mail are behind it too. Look at the picture they published.

An old photograph, posed by a model, of a young girl drinking a bottle of Smirnoff Ice behind the wheel. If it's got that bad well, something must be done. It hasn't though. has it.

Drivers should be banned from drinking any alcohol at all before getting behind the wheel, a top police officer said last night.
Deputy Chief Constable Suzette Davenport, who is responsible for policing the roads of England and Wales, called for the drink-drive limit to be reset to zero.
She said the controversial change would drastically reduce the number killed and seriously injured on our roads each year.

But is it necessary to introduce a blanket ban on alcohol when driving to 'drastically reduce' accidents on our roads? No it isn't. In 2010, deaths caused by drink driving fell by 38% to 250. That's a fall of 38% with no further restrictions and no extra legislation. Whatever is currently being done, is obviously working

And 250 people out of a country of 60 million is not a great deal. It certainly doesn't warrant the heavy handedness being suggested by Ms Davenport.

And please don't suggest I would change my mind if my child/mother/friend/dentists flatmates dog was killed by a drunk driver. Risk is something we face in our daily lives. Mitigating that risk must be done in a sensible and measured manner. We can reduce risk by common sense actions but we can never eradicate it altogether.

Reducing the alcohjol limit to zero would do more harm than good. The arguement, "But if it saves just one life...", is not valid.

Last year more than 170,000 drivers were tested during the month-long campaign, with 6,662 arrests made, about 4 per cent of those stopped.

So 163,338 innocent drivers were stopped by police and forced to take a breath test, just to catch 6662 people who had broken the law. If we stopped 160k pedestrians and checked them for concealed weapons or drugs there would be uproar.

A review of the drink-drive laws by legal expert Sir Peter North concluded that the alcohol limit should be cut from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg.
The new limit would have put Britain in line with many other European countries but questions remain over whether strict punishments would remain in place.
Government ministers were not convinced that the change would save many lives and were fearful it could devastate the fragile rural economy.
It would also criminalise those in country areas who drink in moderation but have to drive to get to their local.

The potential for harm to the economy, criminalising more people and forcing innocent people to prove they haven't been naughty, far outwieghs any negligable benefit.

People who drink and drive do it because they don't care about the law or don't think they will get caught. Reducing the limit to zero won't stop these people, it will only criminalise those sensible drinkers whe drive to the pub and have the one. It will create another group of people who no longer bother going to the pub. Just what the industry needs right now.

Alcohol is linked to 17 per cent of road deaths in the UK. In France, where the drink-drive limit is 50mg, the proportion of fatalities involving alcohol is far higher.

So France has a lower alcohol limit but more road deaths caused by drunk drivers?
But these figures; actual statistical evidence, is not good enough for the righteous busybodies who want to control our lives. They come up with a solution, look for a problem and demand legislation.

Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said lowering the drink-drive limit would save lives.
He said: ‘Lowering the limit would back up road safety messages about how and why driving under the influence of alcohol is dangerous and would help to encourage people not to drink any alcohol before driving.’

It wouldn't 'help encourage' people not to drink. It would frighten people into abstinance because of the consequences of the law. That's not helping, it's bullying.

Road deaths due to alcohol are decreasing. Drinking and driving is viewed as socially unnacceptable. The system is working.

The police should stick to policing rather than lobbying for policy. They're better at it (A bit).