Northern Ireland's environment minister has outlined his proposals to change the drink-driving laws.
Alex Attwood says he wants to cut the blood alcohol limit from the current level of 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml. There would be another, lower, limit of 20mg/100ml for young drivers and people who earn their living from driving. Mr Attwood also wants to give police powers to randomly stop drivers without the need for reasonable suspicion. He also proposes, in certain circumstances, removing drivers' right to opt for a blood or urine sample instead of a breath test. Other plans include:
- A new graduated penalty regime that will allow for fixed penalties for first offences at lower limits and court prosecution for high level first offences or any second or subsequent offences
- Automatic referral of offenders to an approved drink-drive rehabilitation scheme.
He also said "I would like to see a 20mg limit across the UK
The minister said that while much progress had been made towards eliminating a drink-drive culture, more work needed to be done. He said that over the past five years, 75 people had been killed and 463 seriously injured by drivers impaired on drink or drugs. "This is totally unacceptable and I am determined to do what I can to tackle this issue once and for all," Mr Attwood added.
Having read his speech it contains a number of assumptions, half-truths and miss-use of statistics. he also shows disregard for the decisions of the government.
Firstly, where is the evidence that drivers support a lowering of the drink -drive limit? I've never met anyone who's mooted this idea.
Why remove the right to a urine or blood test? The breathalyser is notoriously innacurate.
"I've listened to the public on this." The public may quite rightly want to see drink drivers caught, but that doesn't mean they want to criminalise many thousands more drivers.
"Over the past five years 75 people had been killed and 463 seriously injured by drivers impaired on drink or drugs. Note my highlighting. I'm not by any means saying that deaths on the roads are anything but a tragedy. But from the figures some of the deaths were due to drug use and he doesn't say how many of the deaths were casued my drivers with between less than the existing 80mg but more than the proposed 50mg limit in their blood if indeed such statistics exist. Also, some of the deaths may have had nothing to do with drink and were caused by bad drivers who are a menace sober or drunk.
"I would like to see a 20mg limit across the
Of course. once this law takes hold in Northern Ireland, the pressure will be on for rest of the U.K. to follow and there will be thousands of innocent and safe drinkers prosecuted because they had a few drinks the night before and the current rate of pub closures will become a landslide.
Just to conclude I am firmy against drink driving and always walk or use public transport when drinking. But this development really threatens all responsible drinkers and would be a further nail in the pub trade.
Well, absolutely, even if they never touch a drop immediately before driving, a 20mg limit would impose a kind of quasi-Prohibition on anyone with a driving licence. Which of course is why they're so keen on it...
ReplyDeleteThis suggestion does nothing to deal with the morons who will go out and drink 10 or 15 pints, or half a bottle of vodka and a few lagers, and then get behind the wheel. Although they are the real menace, they usually only get caught when they've had an accident.
ReplyDeleteIf such morons kill themselves, that's good news for the gene pool, but it's when they kill or maim others that it becomes a criminal tragedy. Let's get all those who break the current limit and then assess whether we need to lower it further. I suspect we wouldn't have to.
"he doesn't say how many of the deaths were caused my drivers with between less than the existing 80mg but more than the proposed 50mg limit in their blood if indeed such statistics exist."
ReplyDeleteIndeed that's the key to it. It is a load of old half truths. If he had said x no of deaths were directly - that is found by a process of law - to have been caused by people between 50 and 80 mg then we might have a case to argue.
This is just dangerous kite flying and like a lot of this sort of stuff, it is rarely challenged.
I think I'll write to my local papers about this. Why not do the same?
ReplyDelete