DRINK DRIVING LIMIT AND LAWS UNDER REVIEW

Convicted Driver Insurance

Drinkdriving.org

Staff member
The Government are reviewing the legal drink driving limit, laws and legal framework concerning drink and drug driving. A special report commissioned by The Department of Transport recommends several changes which include:

  1. Lowering the legal drink driving limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood
  2. Introducing portable/handheld evidential breathalysers that can be used at the road side no later than the end of 2011
  3. Giving police the power to legally require anyone driving a vehicle on the roads at any time and without reason to comply with a preliminary breath test
  4. The possibility of banning repeat drink drive offenders from driving for life
  5. Removing the 'statutory option' which allows drivers with low BAC (blood alcohol content) levels to opt to provide a blood or urine sample instead of a breath sample
  6. Closing a loophole that allows high risk offenders to drive, once their driving ban has expired and before they have been classed as fit to drive by a DVLA approved doctor
These are only several of the recommendations. More information and a link to the full report can be found here.

If all recommendations were implemented Great Britain would have the toughest penalty regime of any country within the EU that has a 50mg limit.

Do you support these changes? Do you think the drink driving laws are already too severe? Perhaps you think they are too lenient? What would you suggest?
 
Number 5 is a definate no go. The breath alcohol/blood alcohol relationship is validated with an alpha of .05 and 90% confidence intervals - meaning that at least 95 times out of 100, if the breath test comes in at 40 ug/ml the actual blood alcohol concentration lies somewhere between ~.074 - .088% (.08% is the legal limit which equates to ~ 38ug/ml in breath). The implication of this is that we cannot be certain that someone blowing 40, or even 49 ug/ml in breath is truly over the prescribed limit. So if the police were to charge someone without the option of a blood or urine test there would be 'reasonable doubt' that they were not really over the prescribed limit.

This law is not in place to give the driver another chance, or to afford the police some discretion - it exists because it is necessary in order for the prosectution to prove that the offence of being above the prescribed limit has been committed.
 
Number 3 is also a definite no go. Just as we have seen with the right to 'stop and search without reasonable suspicio under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, it's use will be contrary to human rights - not to mention the Peelian principles under which the work our police do (for the 30 mins a day when they are not having a cup of tea in Mcdonalds car park) is supposedly bound.

The rest I agree with.
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top